Horses may have been domesticated twice(sciencenews.org)
sciencenews.org
Horses may have been domesticated twice
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/horses-domesticated-mobility-timing
149 comments
The first domestication was fire. That made the others easier. Also, humans used to cooperate
And even then I think it’s more a case that cats domesticated people
Humans have co-domesticated along side everything else. We are less scary now as well.
Are we? We kill billions/trillions of other beings per year, far more per person than we did 300 ka ago when we came onto the scene.
Another Science News article(1), linked from TFA IIRC, says we are: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gene-facial-development-...
___
(1) Plus another one linked from that: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-humans-maybe-domesti...
___
(1) Plus another one linked from that: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-humans-maybe-domesti...
The powerhungry warmongers are certainly scary, but think of the average contemporary westerner and then imagine the average Spartan..
We are fat, with hunched backs, stiff necks and wearing glasses.
We are fat, with hunched backs, stiff necks and wearing glasses.
Horses used to be smaller.
Przewalski's horse, the closest thing to a pre-domesticated horse, is about 660lb. A modern draft horse is over 2000lb.
50 mya, Eohippus was around 20lb - the size of a fox.
Przewalski's horse, the closest thing to a pre-domesticated horse, is about 660lb. A modern draft horse is over 2000lb.
50 mya, Eohippus was around 20lb - the size of a fox.
There is a great book called "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language" by David Anthony, and in Chapter 10 he goes into some depth about horse domestication.
https://archive.org/details/horsewheelandlanguage/page/192/m...
I suppose as it relates to this article, the author points out that:
1) "Earliest evidence for possible horse domestication...appeared after 4800 BCE". This evidence comes mostly from cultural artifacts representing the horse, I believe.
2) Looking for physical evidence of domestication is very difficult, but two methods of debatable applicability to horses - size variability and age at death - seems to indicate 2800 BCE and more recent than 3000 BCE, respectively.
3) Evidence of bit wear in teeth provides evidence of horse-riding, which is assumed to post-date horse domestication. Bit wear is evident in teeth whether hard (metal) or soft (leather, hair) bits are used. That evidence pretty conclusively indicates that horse-riding goes back at least until 3700-3500BCE. Domestication of horses (herding) is presumed to predate this by at least another 500 years.
4) To the topic of riding coming after domestication: "What was the incentive to tame wild horses if people already had cattle and sheep? Was it for transportation? Almost certainly not. Horses were large, powerful, aggressive animals, more inclined to flee or fight than to carry a human. Riding probably developed only after horses were already familiar as domesticated animals that could be controlled. The initial incentive probably was the desire for a cheap source of winter meat." The author points out that unlike cattle, horses are able to forage in the winter on their own, making them extremely valuable as livestock for primary and secondary products.
Point 4 is in opposition to this article, and demonstrates the idea championed by the article (horses domesticated for speedy human transport) is not new, per se, but since this article post-dates the book, it should be read as perhaps bringing new evidence to the table for that theory.
https://archive.org/details/horsewheelandlanguage/page/192/m...
I suppose as it relates to this article, the author points out that:
1) "Earliest evidence for possible horse domestication...appeared after 4800 BCE". This evidence comes mostly from cultural artifacts representing the horse, I believe.
2) Looking for physical evidence of domestication is very difficult, but two methods of debatable applicability to horses - size variability and age at death - seems to indicate 2800 BCE and more recent than 3000 BCE, respectively.
3) Evidence of bit wear in teeth provides evidence of horse-riding, which is assumed to post-date horse domestication. Bit wear is evident in teeth whether hard (metal) or soft (leather, hair) bits are used. That evidence pretty conclusively indicates that horse-riding goes back at least until 3700-3500BCE. Domestication of horses (herding) is presumed to predate this by at least another 500 years.
4) To the topic of riding coming after domestication: "What was the incentive to tame wild horses if people already had cattle and sheep? Was it for transportation? Almost certainly not. Horses were large, powerful, aggressive animals, more inclined to flee or fight than to carry a human. Riding probably developed only after horses were already familiar as domesticated animals that could be controlled. The initial incentive probably was the desire for a cheap source of winter meat." The author points out that unlike cattle, horses are able to forage in the winter on their own, making them extremely valuable as livestock for primary and secondary products.
Point 4 is in opposition to this article, and demonstrates the idea championed by the article (horses domesticated for speedy human transport) is not new, per se, but since this article post-dates the book, it should be read as perhaps bringing new evidence to the table for that theory.
Another interesting tidbit, cows may have domesticated themselves. We can see here in Europe where the wulfes are returning a phenomenon, were deer starts to hug civilization, to have one predator (us) scare away another. Deer self domesticated long enough may as we'll be called cows.
I believe the prevailing theory is that dogs are self-domesticated as well.
I've heard cats couldn't be bothered so they made humans serve them instead /s
Cats are credited with domesticating humans.
The rapid expansion of the Yamnaya across much of the Eurasian continent in the millennia leading up to the historic era is still not fully understood, or has at least not reached consensus. If horses were not the reason, what then? The reasons are probably several, but the evidence is mounting that the causes were primarily cultural: a warring people with conquest engrained in their cultural DNA, a glimpse of which we still have in the cultural practices and documented beliefs of the Vikings, among other Indo-European peoples. Incidentally, they were largely the "race" that the Nazis identified with as the "master race" which has probably complicated this type of research to some extent.
It's all of them - horse, war chariot, aggression, lactose tolerance.
Even the oldest books of Rigveda [1] mention "Two bay steeds of Indra". That would be 3500 years old - and they had crossed the Indus by then (if steppe theory is to be believed).
Even the oldest books of Rigveda [1] mention "Two bay steeds of Indra". That would be 3500 years old - and they had crossed the Indus by then (if steppe theory is to be believed).
> conquest engrained in their cultural DNA
Perhaps nuance, but I believe the PIE people are presumed to have developed a cattle-raiding culture, which is just a raiding culture in general regardless of the wealth at hand (slaves, goods, food, etc). As an aside, I'm always fascinated by Ibn Fadlan's observation (877 AD) when going up the Volga that there was a "slaving season". That probably goes back millennia.
Anyway, in turn, some of those bands - much like the much later viking gangs - probably decided to "stay" at the places they raided, which looks a lot like conquest. Anyway, not taking away from your point, just some color. :)
Perhaps nuance, but I believe the PIE people are presumed to have developed a cattle-raiding culture, which is just a raiding culture in general regardless of the wealth at hand (slaves, goods, food, etc). As an aside, I'm always fascinated by Ibn Fadlan's observation (877 AD) when going up the Volga that there was a "slaving season". That probably goes back millennia.
Anyway, in turn, some of those bands - much like the much later viking gangs - probably decided to "stay" at the places they raided, which looks a lot like conquest. Anyway, not taking away from your point, just some color. :)
> If horses were not the reason, what then?
They spread what, 5000 km in a couple centuries? You can walk that in a few months, no horses necessary.
They spread what, 5000 km in a couple centuries? You can walk that in a few months, no horses necessary.
I believe the logic was this: with horses, they would have had the upper hand in warfare against the Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers that they encountered. It's not the speed of transport per se.
You can walk that much if you are healthy, have roads, have enough food and water, good clothing and shoes, there are no dangers that must be avoided and if you know what your destination is. If you have to stop daily to get food (hunting or gathering fruit), avoid or fight dangerous people and animals, figure out best ways to get along while carying whaterver possesions they had, shelter from bad weather, prospect for places to settle permanently or temporarily then it's a completely different story. It's also not like they had a deadline or something.
Centuries is a lot of time, you can do 1km a day looking for food and in 5000 days (~14y) you're there.
Or you can go forward 10km, go back 5km every once in a while and it will still take you less than 200 years to do that.
If then you add multiple generations, you can absolutely do it.
If then you add multiple generations, you can absolutely do it.
bull carts
[deleted]
I wonder what alternative history paths were there if the Clovis people figured out how to domesticate the horse in North America. Too bad they had other plans.
Nothing to domesticate in that period.
Horses were introduced to North America by the Cortez expedition of 1519.
The pedigrees of those horses are known. The Cortez expedition was launched by a government and the paperwork still exists. They were good Andalusians. So North American wild horses were descended from good lines of riding animals. They didn't start out feral.
The pedigrees of those horses are known. The Cortez expedition was launched by a government and the paperwork still exists. They were good Andalusians. So North American wild horses were descended from good lines of riding animals. They didn't start out feral.
Horses evolved in North America, and disappear from the fossil record along with other megafauna about 10,000 years ago.
Clovis people almost certainly interacted with horses, but likely as food.
Clovis people almost certainly interacted with horses, but likely as food.
Equines roamed North America for millions of years before Cortez and were extinct ~10k years ago, most likely by human hunting, together with the mammoth and other species.
"Multiple factors including hunting by early Natives, climate change, and disease are thought to have helped contribute to their demise. They disappeared around the same time as other large mammals like Wooly Mammoths."
https://web.archive.org/web/20140819083344/http://www.canadi...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140819083344/http://www.canadi...
The whole genus is supposed to have evolved in North America. Horses or very closely related species went extinct in NA somewhere between 6000-10000 BC and definitely existed alongside humans. It would not be at all surprising if human hunting contributed to their extinction.
[deleted]
Agriculture is almost certainly a prerequisite to domesticating horses (as they must be selectively bred in captivity), so hunter-gatherer tribes like the Clovis never had a chance to do so.
Pickets and hobbles are things; they don't require settlements.
EDIT: I'm an idiot, there are two even simpler things:
Shish kebab is a thing; it doesn't require settlements. When it comes time to sacrifice, are you more likely to eat the individual who's easy too get along with, or the ornery one?
Rocky Mountain Oysters are things; they don't require settlements. Hence the tripartite nature of Indo-European gender: Bull/Cow/Ox, Stallion/Mare/Gelding, Ram/Ewe/Wether, etc.
EDIT: I'm an idiot, there are two even simpler things:
Shish kebab is a thing; it doesn't require settlements. When it comes time to sacrifice, are you more likely to eat the individual who's easy too get along with, or the ornery one?
Rocky Mountain Oysters are things; they don't require settlements. Hence the tripartite nature of Indo-European gender: Bull/Cow/Ox, Stallion/Mare/Gelding, Ram/Ewe/Wether, etc.
Is it? There were plenty of nomadic tribes dealing with various livestock, horses included, without agriculture.
They got those domesticated breeds from agricultural societies. The only example of an animal domesticated by hunter-gatherers is the dog.
Sorry, I don't think you can say nomads or semi-nomad got any of their five snout from agricultural societies, there is no proof of that.
Especially since most of those agricultural society got their law and political organizations from nomads (Turkish 'torük', ancestral law, while influenced by Islam, is definitely from Gotürks' 'türük' which was at the time likely already thousand of years old). Rus political system was also heavily influenced, if not copied from the horde (or rather, the 'ordo', since our vision of what is a horde is now so wrong it isn't funny).
You have to know that the political organization of central Asia nomads stayed stable from before the Xiongnu until the 19ty century, and their administration was as good, if not better than the Ottoman one until cheaper method of making paper was found in the 15th century.
Especially since most of those agricultural society got their law and political organizations from nomads (Turkish 'torük', ancestral law, while influenced by Islam, is definitely from Gotürks' 'türük' which was at the time likely already thousand of years old). Rus political system was also heavily influenced, if not copied from the horde (or rather, the 'ordo', since our vision of what is a horde is now so wrong it isn't funny).
You have to know that the political organization of central Asia nomads stayed stable from before the Xiongnu until the 19ty century, and their administration was as good, if not better than the Ottoman one until cheaper method of making paper was found in the 15th century.
Domestic reindeer (which, in Europe, is all of them - except for a small non-domesticated group in the southern mountains of Norway, and the Svalbard reindeer).
Domestic reindeer were domesticated by a nomadic people, or at least not an agricultural one. When that's said, they don't look "tame" like cows or sheep, but on the other hand anyone who's been involved with bringing in sheep which have spent the whole summer by themselves in the mountains will want to discuss how "tame" sheep can be.. (source: Myself, as a child I joined in the "hunt" every September for many years to help collect my grandfather's sheep)
Domestic reindeer were domesticated by a nomadic people, or at least not an agricultural one. When that's said, they don't look "tame" like cows or sheep, but on the other hand anyone who's been involved with bringing in sheep which have spent the whole summer by themselves in the mountains will want to discuss how "tame" sheep can be.. (source: Myself, as a child I joined in the "hunt" every September for many years to help collect my grandfather's sheep)
Not necessarily true. The jury is out on that.
Now one could ask question is that process itself a form of agriculture? And that in these cases agriculture and domestication happened together.
I think it's the other way, right? ..That farming/agr and livestock are both examples of domestication (of plants and animals). The root of the word "agriculture" is specific to plants (ager, agr = fields).
You're replying to an article about the Botai, whose sites lack evidence for domesticated crops like other early horse cultures.
Horses were domesticated thousands of years prior to the development of agriculture.
Other way around. Horse domestication was around 5000 years ago. Agriculture started around 12000 years ago and by around 8000 years ago had spread pretty widely.
I know nothing about horses, but I have always wondered how domesticated they are. It seems they are quite happy to live in the wild and require a fair bit of breaking in.
Compared to sheep, cattle and dogs, they seem more on the wild side of spectrum than other domestic animals.
Compared to sheep, cattle and dogs, they seem more on the wild side of spectrum than other domestic animals.
Domestication is pretty poorly defined, but IMO it's more about a capacity rather than necessity. A domesticated dog isn't just instantly domesticated and raised outside of humans would still be wild and quite dangerous, but with training and the right environment can be just another family member.
By contrast cats are not really domesticated and cannot be, no matter how you treat them. This is why you'll still have things like a cat just randomly attack you in weird circumstances and ways, but because they're tiny and relatively harmless it just makes them hilarious and weird. But it's also why people who miss out on this final nuance, and pick up lynx and similar animals as pets, often end up in the hospital.
By contrast cats are not really domesticated and cannot be, no matter how you treat them. This is why you'll still have things like a cat just randomly attack you in weird circumstances and ways, but because they're tiny and relatively harmless it just makes them hilarious and weird. But it's also why people who miss out on this final nuance, and pick up lynx and similar animals as pets, often end up in the hospital.
"By contrast cats are not really domesticated and cannot be, no matter how you treat them"
Of course you can. A small tiger won't sleep on your couch and remembers not to make a mess in the house. And when a small tiger attacks you, it can still be dangerous. There are still wild cats around here (in europe) - and they would not get that tame so easily.
(Also you can teach cats some commands, it is just way more work and the commands won't work all the time)
Of course you can. A small tiger won't sleep on your couch and remembers not to make a mess in the house. And when a small tiger attacks you, it can still be dangerous. There are still wild cats around here (in europe) - and they would not get that tame so easily.
(Also you can teach cats some commands, it is just way more work and the commands won't work all the time)
I have a random stray living in my yard, in a major metropolitan city here in central Europe, who regularly displays immense affection for me (of course, I feed her) and is playful and engaged and interacts with me in what would be perceived, by humans, in a loving manner.
However, she has her limits, and will often give me a hefty bite if I do something she considers unacceptable, such as stop scratching her ears and instead try to pet her fur or clear it of nestles, which she seems to love collecting.
It is me, being domesticated. I wait for my ears to flop.
However, she has her limits, and will often give me a hefty bite if I do something she considers unacceptable, such as stop scratching her ears and instead try to pet her fur or clear it of nestles, which she seems to love collecting.
It is me, being domesticated. I wait for my ears to flop.
Isn't it the scientific consensus that humans also show signs of domestication?
The article in the post includes a link to exactly that. The hypothesis is that groups of humans one way or another weeded out the too aggressive ones, and thereby made it possible to actually create groups (where "aggressive" here means to automatically "bare their teeth and hiss" to newcomers, like undomesticated animals often do).
Some more than others according to my observations :\
It may well be, but the authority in my garden has demonstrated to me time and again that my claims of science are entirely irrelevant if the dindins aren't deposited in a timely manner, in which case, its war and thus bitey bitey time .. she does get pretty familiar with the scientific method, howevever, when the time comes to chase away the bugs and deposit certain necessary fluids in the neighbors rose bed, whatever their religion has to say on the subject ...
I'd love to be domesticated
Pet tigers are actually a thing. Like cats they sometimes attack their owner. Unlike cats, the amount of force they can use can easily kill a human, even when playing.
I would argue, with tigers they wanted to kill, when they did.
Humans don't die so easily.
Cats can in general play without (seriously) hurting one another or a human.
On the other hand, even a small cat could kill a human by going to the throat, which they could. But they don't. The house cat evolved to manipulate us instead to get what they want, instead of eating and killing us. Those cats that tried that, like tigers, got allmost extinct. And from what I know, there are bigger limits to what a tiger will do, instead of a house cat. And yes, they are bigger and any bad mood of them allways very dangerous.
Humans don't die so easily.
Cats can in general play without (seriously) hurting one another or a human.
On the other hand, even a small cat could kill a human by going to the throat, which they could. But they don't. The house cat evolved to manipulate us instead to get what they want, instead of eating and killing us. Those cats that tried that, like tigers, got allmost extinct. And from what I know, there are bigger limits to what a tiger will do, instead of a house cat. And yes, they are bigger and any bad mood of them allways very dangerous.
I wouldn't anthropomorphize wild animals kept as pets. Such animals aren't thinking about killing, per se, nor are they attacking things because they're in a bad mood. They're driven by instincts and those instincts, which are generally involve killing anything they can, sometimes just inappropriately click on.
For instance we were introducing one of our cats to a new stray kitten we found. We've done this plenty of times before and are used to the process including having them play footsie under the door for weeks, reading positive body language (tail posture, etc) and so on. It was all positive. So we let them see each other. Everything was going really well until the kitten decided to boldly just march up to the cat.
Something just clicked in her at that point. The cat, the most docile and friendly cat imaginable, just pounced and decided she was going to wreck the kitten. After separating her we assumed it was her way of trying to roughly assert dominance, reminding the kitten she was being a bit too familiar. That was until we were treating the kitten and saw the bite marks were in the throat area - she would have 100% killed the kitten if we had acted half a second more slowly.
After that she was all back to being nice and friendly outside the door, but we decided to find the kitten a new home instead of risking being a bit too slow the second time.
For instance we were introducing one of our cats to a new stray kitten we found. We've done this plenty of times before and are used to the process including having them play footsie under the door for weeks, reading positive body language (tail posture, etc) and so on. It was all positive. So we let them see each other. Everything was going really well until the kitten decided to boldly just march up to the cat.
Something just clicked in her at that point. The cat, the most docile and friendly cat imaginable, just pounced and decided she was going to wreck the kitten. After separating her we assumed it was her way of trying to roughly assert dominance, reminding the kitten she was being a bit too familiar. That was until we were treating the kitten and saw the bite marks were in the throat area - she would have 100% killed the kitten if we had acted half a second more slowly.
After that she was all back to being nice and friendly outside the door, but we decided to find the kitten a new home instead of risking being a bit too slow the second time.
We shouldn't generalize from house cats to tigers either. A tiger's brain is a lot bigger than a cat's, and there may be more space for deliberate actions in it.
I've just figured out that cats are Semi-Domesticated
You are mixing up two concepts here, that of the domesticated species and the domesticated individual animal. The article talks about the former. The latter means taming an individual of a species. Dogs are by definition domesticated wolves and depend on humans for survival in general.
>Horses may have been domesticated twice
When I read the title, I was thinking I like a horse that's been domesticated the whole time :)
Former or latter, I don't want to actually participate in the full rodeo experience.
When I read the title, I was thinking I like a horse that's been domesticated the whole time :)
Former or latter, I don't want to actually participate in the full rodeo experience.
Plenty of dogs live wild mostly off the waste stream of humans, but they are not domesticated. Lets call them coyotes.
Let’s not. A feral dog is behaviorally very different than a coyote or a wolf.
A wolf pup raised by humans won’t be anything like a tame dog.
People whose animal experiences are limited to pets and zoos have many wrong ideas about how real wild animals are.
A wolf pup raised by humans won’t be anything like a tame dog.
People whose animal experiences are limited to pets and zoos have many wrong ideas about how real wild animals are.
What about dingoes? The best guess is they were domesticated and then went feral some 5-8k years ago. These days, in places like Fraser island in Australia, you have big fences for campers to not get eaten by packs of those and you need to drive everywhere, they would not hesitate for a second if given a chance.
The aborigines (till they themself were domisticated) had dingos as dogs and my interactions with them on Fraser Island were in a way like with wild dogs who wanted to get BBQ.
So definitely dangerous, but not in a Wolf way.
So definitely dangerous, but not in a Wolf way.
Wouldn’t wolves generally be significantly less dangerous because they are generally more skittish and avoid being near humans?
One of the main issues with feral/wild dogs (or wolf hybrids) is that they are much less afraid of humans and therefore are more likely to attack livestock, pets or even actual people when given the opportunity. Under normal circumstances actual wolf attacks are (and probably were historically) and feral/hybrid dogs are just attributed to them.
One of the main issues with feral/wild dogs (or wolf hybrids) is that they are much less afraid of humans and therefore are more likely to attack livestock, pets or even actual people when given the opportunity. Under normal circumstances actual wolf attacks are (and probably were historically) and feral/hybrid dogs are just attributed to them.
Hmmm.
There used to be a huge population of stray dogs in Balkan cities after 1990. (Contraception and culling reduced the numbers quite a bit since then.)
Most of the time, they just went out of people's way, individually or in loose packs. Attacks on humans did happen, but weren't a daily occurrence.
That said, a stray dog in a big city will always find food, so they weren't hungry.
There used to be a huge population of stray dogs in Balkan cities after 1990. (Contraception and culling reduced the numbers quite a bit since then.)
Most of the time, they just went out of people's way, individually or in loose packs. Attacks on humans did happen, but weren't a daily occurrence.
That said, a stray dog in a big city will always find food, so they weren't hungry.
In general yes. I meant when a wolf attacks, he will not toy around and show himself before the attack, like the dingos did.
Behaviorally very different. In other words, in just a few generations the distinctions we make ("dogs" "coyotes") are irrelevant.
> People whose animal experiences are limited to pets and zoos have many wrong ideas about how real wild animals are.
How are they? Really shy and prefer cermonial fights?
I would guess a stray dog is a bigger threat than a wild wolf that have not got its instincts breed away to have the fur in a special way.
(Note, I don't mean I'd rather be in room with a wolf than a stray dog. But that the wolf would bail 1 mile away from me.)
How are they? Really shy and prefer cermonial fights?
I would guess a stray dog is a bigger threat than a wild wolf that have not got its instincts breed away to have the fur in a special way.
(Note, I don't mean I'd rather be in room with a wolf than a stray dog. But that the wolf would bail 1 mile away from me.)
It's really interesting topic to discuss
I pay attention to my cats. They don't bite me without me knowing in advance. Even people who've had cats for decades get bit more than I do. I don't understand why people don't pay that much attention to other people or pets. There's a lot going on that you can be aware of if you make an effort.
I find it easier to read cats than people most of the time. Cats are obvious. But I think a lot of people get surprises simply because they don't care about whether an animal consents to their treatment or not, and a cat has a short fuse if you overstep.
The countless people that have been mauled and killed by their pet chimps, big cats, and so on also felt the exact same, or obviously they would not have had those sorts of animals as pets.
"people must have ... or else they would have" isn't usually an attempt at a statement of fact. It might be better to paraphrase to make your point. It's possible to know a lot in many situations, be fooled or harmed much less than others, be right most of the time, and still be fooled or harmed. Animals that can be dangerous to humans are a safety issue, not a statistics or awareness issues—you can only be badly wrong once to suffer serious harm.
It literally is a statement of fact, because it's directly causal logic. You don't pick up animals which are literally capable of killing/maiming you, unless you think you know better and are fully capable of, in your words, you "knowing in advance" or "being aware of" when they're going to attack. The only assumption I am making is that people don't want to be maimed or killed, which I think is reasonable.
The whole risk and point of undomesticated animals is that you literally cannot know when they will strike. There are countless examples of people having raised all sorts of wild animals for many years with no incident, and then one day the animal simply kills them, or somebody else, for no reason.
The whole risk and point of undomesticated animals is that you literally cannot know when they will strike. There are countless examples of people having raised all sorts of wild animals for many years with no incident, and then one day the animal simply kills them, or somebody else, for no reason.
Dogs can not be trusted : never leave an infant/toddler alone with them.
If you read this and think "would be fine with my dog", I say the same, but remember the kid can mess with the dog and the dog will defend itself. Do you know for sure what the dog will do if the kid pokes it in the eye? The dangerous part is more what the kid will do.
From what I understood the dog can go beserk like elephants do, no need to blame it on the victim. I mean, what can an infant do except make noise?
Infant scratches you. Sometimes in the eyes. Most animals seem to understand they are infants and not fighting, like puppets biting, but some dogs just have their head messed up.
You don't have to take my word for it, just read this through.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_Unite...
No need to blame the victims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_Unite...
No need to blame the victims.
It’s still extremely unlikely under normal circumstances. Serious attacks by non feral/mistreated dogs are still a freak incident. You’re about as likely to be killed by a lightning.
Under normal circumstances, infants spend essentially all of their time under the moderate supervision of an adult.
Which brings us back to the start of this sub-thread: "Never leave an infant/toddler alone with [dogs]."
(So this whole discussion just went round in a circle.)
(So this whole discussion just went round in a circle.)
Some dogs might, others are not necessarily much more likely to behave that way than some humans.
Nobody is blaming the victim, perhaps read again. I am in fact reinforcing your point. A baby can't be blamed for poking an animal, they are a baby. But it can (and often is) the reason for the attacks. Blame is different from cause and effect. I don't blame gravity for dropping my stuff, but it is responsible.
It's the same as saying humans can't be trusted. Of course you can trust some humans, and of course you can trust some dogs. Just first make sure... my dog took so much "torture" from my kids, and yet they were inseparable. Would I trust some random dog on the street? Of course not...
I got bit by a dog a few years ago and it was a real wake up call. It wasn't that I wasn't aware that a dog will bite under the right circumstances - I knew that.
I had believed that I understood when a dog was unhappy. The dog that bit me gave zero indication that I could see. I walked past it and it attacked. I have no doubt that someone very perceptive might have seen it coming but my policy now is to treat all dogs as if they're unhappy until I get super clear sense that that's not the case.
I had believed that I understood when a dog was unhappy. The dog that bit me gave zero indication that I could see. I walked past it and it attacked. I have no doubt that someone very perceptive might have seen it coming but my policy now is to treat all dogs as if they're unhappy until I get super clear sense that that's not the case.
To be fair, the same thing can be said about humans. Sometimes one will attack a person for no apparent reason and with no warning.
Dogs have instincts, and that's the problem. Apparently you can trigger one of those by approaching a dog from behind and put your hand on the dog's shoulder. At least that's the explanation I've seen for when a kind dog out of the blue attack a child reflexively. Obviously this is not something I'm willing to try out myself.
From my other comment, quotes from Wikipedia :
A dog killed an infant as it slept in bed with its parents. The baby's father awoke during the attack, saw the injuries to the child, and immediately killed the dog.
The family dog killed two-month-old Julius who was in her infant bouncer while her father was sleeping. Julius was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead
An eight-month-old girl in a bouncy chair was attacked by the family pet while in the care of her grandmother. Fire and rescue declared her dead at the scene.
A dog killed an infant as it slept in bed with its parents. The baby's father awoke during the attack, saw the injuries to the child, and immediately killed the dog.
The family dog killed two-month-old Julius who was in her infant bouncer while her father was sleeping. Julius was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead
An eight-month-old girl in a bouncy chair was attacked by the family pet while in the care of her grandmother. Fire and rescue declared her dead at the scene.
That doesn’t mean that the overwhelming majority of well-trained dogs belonging to non-aggressive breeds are not almost entirely trustworthy under most circumstances.
Of course unnecessarily risking the life of your child is still a horrible idea (especially considering that a dog might still hurt it entirely unintentionally).
Of course unnecessarily risking the life of your child is still a horrible idea (especially considering that a dog might still hurt it entirely unintentionally).
I really wonder people who say these things ever owned a cat. I cannot see how cats are "less capable of living with humans albeit they're less dangerous". My anecdotes show:
* Cats absolutely can be obedient with training. I've been clicker training my cat for years and he can do any trick a dog can do. He also understands his name. I tested this many many times by yelling random words, seeing him continue sleeping, then yelling his name, causing him to jump and run towards me.
* Cats can be trained not to attack at hands like dogs. This is called "cat inhibition" and it's standard practice for cat owners, all good cat owners must know and practice inhibition training.
* Cats clearly prefer sitting next to humans and sleep close to them. If you never experienced this you never lived with a cat long term. It's actually fascinating, when a cat is "sleeping" they're actually not sleeping in a human sense, it's a particularly light sleep. They're still ready to hunt. What most cat owners will see is that when your cat is sleeping next to you, and you suddenly change the room to clean dishes or use the bathroom, your cat will get up and sleep somewhere close to you. Although a human interprets this as cat being lazy, they're exhibiting hypersocial behavior for their species.
* Cats are not weak. Have you ever fought a cat? I did. I'm a full sized human male who weight trains regularly and my cat can barely overpower me if he puts all his power. Go watch some feral cat vet videos, you'll see cats require a strongman sized vet to be fully seized (and rarely some still get away). An adult cat will have no problem overpowering a human female. If you think "cats are attacking their owners" you seriously have no idea how incredibly powerful these creatures are. When a cat slaps you or whatever they're merely warning you in a "polite" way (and, as explained before this is a sort of behavior that can usually be curbed with training)
* Cats absolutely can be obedient with training. I've been clicker training my cat for years and he can do any trick a dog can do. He also understands his name. I tested this many many times by yelling random words, seeing him continue sleeping, then yelling his name, causing him to jump and run towards me.
* Cats can be trained not to attack at hands like dogs. This is called "cat inhibition" and it's standard practice for cat owners, all good cat owners must know and practice inhibition training.
* Cats clearly prefer sitting next to humans and sleep close to them. If you never experienced this you never lived with a cat long term. It's actually fascinating, when a cat is "sleeping" they're actually not sleeping in a human sense, it's a particularly light sleep. They're still ready to hunt. What most cat owners will see is that when your cat is sleeping next to you, and you suddenly change the room to clean dishes or use the bathroom, your cat will get up and sleep somewhere close to you. Although a human interprets this as cat being lazy, they're exhibiting hypersocial behavior for their species.
* Cats are not weak. Have you ever fought a cat? I did. I'm a full sized human male who weight trains regularly and my cat can barely overpower me if he puts all his power. Go watch some feral cat vet videos, you'll see cats require a strongman sized vet to be fully seized (and rarely some still get away). An adult cat will have no problem overpowering a human female. If you think "cats are attacking their owners" you seriously have no idea how incredibly powerful these creatures are. When a cat slaps you or whatever they're merely warning you in a "polite" way (and, as explained before this is a sort of behavior that can usually be curbed with training)
individual members of a species are individuals, that you can have individual cats that are aggressive does no invalidate the domestication of the entire species.
also attacking in play is different than attacking, so that should be considered.
also attacking in play is different than attacking, so that should be considered.
Breaking-in is the traditional approach. Horse whisperer style is more effective and takes better advantage of the horses domestic nature.
It’s a spectrum, some cattle breeds are pretty wild. Dogs are special.
One good measure of domestication would be to compare with zebras which are considered relatively untamable - as in unlike horses they’ll always maintain a violent streak. Ponies tend to be more violent than horses.
It’s a spectrum, some cattle breeds are pretty wild. Dogs are special.
One good measure of domestication would be to compare with zebras which are considered relatively untamable - as in unlike horses they’ll always maintain a violent streak. Ponies tend to be more violent than horses.
Zebras have a tendency to bite the face and not let go. Definitely not ideal for domestication.
And wolves are ideal?
This isn't dead reckoning: there have been multiple attempts to domesticate zebras and dogs, and it's worked twice with dogs and zero times with zebras, thus, yes, one can say that wolves are approximately ideal. It just turns out that what we think of as necessary qualities are potentially wrong. There have been lots of attempts to domesticate zebras because they're so similar to horses and donkeys.
I wonder if it could be something like horses being willing to trade their freedom for hay in the harsh winter, whereas zebras can just hang out on the grasslands year round.
Wolves are much more social than zebras, which is advantageous in domestication. Zebras live in herds but it's much more free for all than a wolf pack.
Yes, wolves are pretty intelligent and social compared to zebras.
They understood the core concept of ‘do not bite the hand that feeds you’ instinctively.
They understood the core concept of ‘do not bite the hand that feeds you’ instinctively.
Zebras understood the concept that "this guy can out-think you. If you behave predictably, you'll regret it. If you behave unpredictably, he may regret it too."
There's this theory that's why there are so few domesticable animals in Africa: that they co-evolved with humans, and the ones who behaved predictably and weren't willing to randomly hurt you for no apparent reason at their own expense, were eaten by our ancestors.
There's this theory that's why there are so few domesticable animals in Africa: that they co-evolved with humans, and the ones who behaved predictably and weren't willing to randomly hurt you for no apparent reason at their own expense, were eaten by our ancestors.
There's generally a lot more large wild animals in Africa than anywhere else in the world.
It's essentially the same theory: The large animals in Africa coevolved with humans, and so developed the ability to survive in their presence.
Half a million years ago, there were large animals pretty much everywhere else on Earth too. They very consistently disappeared right around when humans showed up.
Half a million years ago, there were large animals pretty much everywhere else on Earth too. They very consistently disappeared right around when humans showed up.
That actually brings up an interesting topic: are they (still) there because human populations are comparatively lower?
Africa has some very fertile regions but except for some like the Nile Valley most of them couldn't really compete well with the Yellow River Valley, the Ganges Valley, etc.
Just for comparison, the population of Africa around 1900 was around 100 million, out of which Egypt had 10 million, Ethiopia 10 million, Nigeria 30 million, and 1-2 other population centers around 10 million each. So 70 out 100 million people were bunched up in maybe 5% of the territory.
In the meantime, just India had about 300 million people in 1900 :-) India within from 1500 to 1900 probably had more humans living in it than Africa from the beginning of mankind to 1900.
Africa has some very fertile regions but except for some like the Nile Valley most of them couldn't really compete well with the Yellow River Valley, the Ganges Valley, etc.
Just for comparison, the population of Africa around 1900 was around 100 million, out of which Egypt had 10 million, Ethiopia 10 million, Nigeria 30 million, and 1-2 other population centers around 10 million each. So 70 out 100 million people were bunched up in maybe 5% of the territory.
In the meantime, just India had about 300 million people in 1900 :-) India within from 1500 to 1900 probably had more humans living in it than Africa from the beginning of mankind to 1900.
To be fair the slave trade (both Arabic and Atlantic) exerted (possibly) very significant downwards pressure on population growth in Africa during multiple centuries prior to 1900.
True, but based on the limited info we have, Africa had a much lower population than either India or China even 1000 years prior to that.
Just sheer fertility of regions, navigability of rivers, etc, as a Civilization of EU4 player would put it, meant a "better starting position" for some :-p
Just sheer fertility of regions, navigability of rivers, etc, as a Civilization of EU4 player would put it, meant a "better starting position" for some :-p
Or was/is slavery enabled by excess population relative to resources (no matter time and place)? When life becomes very cheap, etc.? I'm not proposing it is, just wondering about how it looks economically.
> the ones who behaved predictably and weren't willing to randomly hurt you for no apparent reason at their own expense, were eaten by our ancestors.
This doesn't make sense to me. Sure, an an animal that is generally a belligerent asshole will discourage humans from trying to tame it, but why would it discourage hunting? If anything, it would encourage hunting the bad animal to extinction, no? Humans successfully hunted Mammoths and other large game even in the stone age, so I don't see how having a bad temper would help.
This doesn't make sense to me. Sure, an an animal that is generally a belligerent asshole will discourage humans from trying to tame it, but why would it discourage hunting? If anything, it would encourage hunting the bad animal to extinction, no? Humans successfully hunted Mammoths and other large game even in the stone age, so I don't see how having a bad temper would help.
My guess is that while humans are great hunters, apes aren't, and that our distant ancestors would be a lot more dependent on prey behaving as expected and not, say, suddenly charge at you suicidally.
Chimpanzees are decent hunters.
Wolves are more aggressive than dogs, but can be successfully domesticated and kept as pets... can actually be quite friendly with humans, especially female wolfs as they're a lot less competitive/aggressive than males.
There is more than one breed of dog/wolf (just like there are horses). And I think the evidence is pretty clear that, yes, they are ideal.
Weird comment.
Weird comment.
On that note, 17th century Sweden can report that moose make for very poor cavalry steeds.
As a counter argument, every mammal born outside of a domesticated setting/structure is quite wild. Horses may seem wild because they are fast movers.
Sheep and Cows will also act wild if not domesticated; they are just not fast by nature.
Even humans can be on the extreme wild spectrum if not domesticated. There is plenty of evidence even to this day.
Sheep and Cows will also act wild if not domesticated; they are just not fast by nature.
Even humans can be on the extreme wild spectrum if not domesticated. There is plenty of evidence even to this day.
> Sheep and Cows will also act wild if not domesticated; they are just not fast by nature.
What does that mean? Do you mean feral animals? Non-domesticated cows went extinct hundreds of years ago [1]
> Even humans can be on the extreme wild spectrum if not domesticated. There is plenty of evidence even to this day.
What evidence? What is a non-domesticated human?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs#Extinction
What does that mean? Do you mean feral animals? Non-domesticated cows went extinct hundreds of years ago [1]
> Even humans can be on the extreme wild spectrum if not domesticated. There is plenty of evidence even to this day.
What evidence? What is a non-domesticated human?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs#Extinction
If domesticated breeds of cattle live in feral herds they will act like similar wild animals. I have seen a wild herd myself once, and people familiar with them said they were dangerous.
> What evidence? What is a non-domesticated human?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child
> The term is used to refer to children who have suffered severe abuse or trauma before being abandoned or running away.
For completeness, this is the beginning of the article:
> A feral child (also called wild child) is a young individual who has lived isolated from human contact from a very young age, with little or no experience of human care, social behavior, or language. Such children lack the basics of primary and secondary socialization. The term is used to refer to children who have suffered severe abuse or trauma before being abandoned or running away.
My impression was that it could be written as, "The term is _also_ used to refer to ...", but I'm not sure.
> A feral child (also called wild child) is a young individual who has lived isolated from human contact from a very young age, with little or no experience of human care, social behavior, or language. Such children lack the basics of primary and secondary socialization. The term is used to refer to children who have suffered severe abuse or trauma before being abandoned or running away.
My impression was that it could be written as, "The term is _also_ used to refer to ...", but I'm not sure.
If you want an idea of what undomesticated cattle look like head over to the American midwest and observe the Buffalo. Or go to Africa and check out the Sanga.
You can tell by their pointed ears. Further domestication might make their ears floppy.
Here’s a nice article about the biological basis of domestication:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096361/
Here’s a nice article about the biological basis of domestication:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096361/
I'm not very educated on the topic, but my understanding is that many domesticated animals possessed traits in their natural state that lent to living in a domesticated setting, like having a natural herding instinct. The animals that didn't have said traits were simply never integrated into human agriculture, and thus never came to be considered "domesticated".
But that doesn't address your point about horses seeming to be happy to live in the wild, which would indicate that horses have seen less change from their pre-domestication state than other domestic animals have.
Maybe their role in human societies, as transportation and draft animals, didn't require them to lose as many of the traits of their wild ancestors, as other domestic animals did?
But that doesn't address your point about horses seeming to be happy to live in the wild, which would indicate that horses have seen less change from their pre-domestication state than other domestic animals have.
Maybe their role in human societies, as transportation and draft animals, didn't require them to lose as many of the traits of their wild ancestors, as other domestic animals did?
If you ever wrangle camels (or, for that matter, even shetties!) you may start to appreciate how domesticated horses are.
Well no one ever organized a horse fights, but bull fights were quite popular through-out the Europe. And even goats are far from friendly, unless they're accustomed to having a lot of people around. Pretty much any farm animal that's used to being handled by one or two people max, will be very shy and sometimes aggressive (especially when they have babies) about any new face. Smaller animals reaction will be to run away form you, but large ones will stand and fight. And when a cow lowers its head to show you the horns, it can get pretty tense, believe me :)
Your comment made me wonder if anyone did actually organize a horse fight, and it turns out that the answer is yes - in Iceland during the Viking Age[1]. Thankfully, people seem to have found more wholesome activities to do with their horses now, including teaching them to type[2].
[1]: https://www.medievalists.net/2016/08/horse-fights-the-brutal...
[2]: https://www.visiticeland.com/outhorse-your-email/
[1]: https://www.medievalists.net/2016/08/horse-fights-the-brutal...
[2]: https://www.visiticeland.com/outhorse-your-email/
Thank you for this, had no idea :)
I know very little about horses, but find myself surrounded by them thanks to my wife’s interests.
We have a horse who is quiet natured and well behaved.
But, the fight or flight instinct wakes up very quickly and he’s 600kg.
>For instance, ancient people from southwest Asia known as the Yamnaya...
They really hate saying it, don't they.
They really hate saying it, don't they.
we can't technically call them that. Some of their successors, sure.
The domestication of horses was not a single event, but a long, drawn-out process that took place over several thousand years. According to Occam's razor, it is very unlikely that it happened twice in history. I do not question the stated DNA method, but I do question the conclusion drawn here. There might be a link between the two domestications (if two or more have actually occurred) that hasn't been discovered yet.
A pet peeve of mine, but this is a misapplication of Occam's razor.
Occam's razor is not to be used to say "this explanation sounds complex, there must be a simpler explanation."
Rather, the point of Occam's razor is to say "here I have two competing explanations, and they both amount to the same thing, and we don't have any evidence of one over the other, so let's just pick the simpler one because it doesn't make a difference."
So, for example, if we had absolutely zero evidence as to the domestication of horses, and one person said "they were domesticated once" and another person said "they were domesticated twice", then it all amounts to the same thing (horses were domesticated) and we have no evidence either way, so we would use Occam's razor to favor the first explanation.
But in this case, it appears we do have evidence, so rather than relying on Occam's razor, we should just argue about the evidence instead.
Occam's razor is not to be used to say "this explanation sounds complex, there must be a simpler explanation."
Rather, the point of Occam's razor is to say "here I have two competing explanations, and they both amount to the same thing, and we don't have any evidence of one over the other, so let's just pick the simpler one because it doesn't make a difference."
So, for example, if we had absolutely zero evidence as to the domestication of horses, and one person said "they were domesticated once" and another person said "they were domesticated twice", then it all amounts to the same thing (horses were domesticated) and we have no evidence either way, so we would use Occam's razor to favor the first explanation.
But in this case, it appears we do have evidence, so rather than relying on Occam's razor, we should just argue about the evidence instead.
From Wikipedia "This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both theories have equal explanatory power one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions"
Both hypotheses make the same prediction and have equal explanatory power. I think just one article where they say "may have been" in the title is not enough evidence to overrule occams principle in this case.
Both hypotheses make the same prediction and have equal explanatory power. I think just one article where they say "may have been" in the title is not enough evidence to overrule occams principle in this case.
I don't believe that. How hard is it to capture baby horses, it would happen naturally hunting their parents. Horses bond decently with people and if captured and socialized heavily by the tribe from a young age I have no doubt first generation wild horses would be rideable and could be bred.
Yes, but the ability to bond decently with people may be a trait that was bred into them during the early domestication process.
Wild horses run in herds, I think they're naturally social. If anything, it takes less work now - ranchers can ride horses that get very limited human contact, but the I image first generation tamed horses must have required a lot of socialization.
I'm fairly sure that not only are they social, their society is hierarchical, which would make it easier for them to accept humans as "top horses".
Feral horses run in herds. They are descended from animals that were already bred for domestication. You are confusing cause and effect.
Wild horses are extinct.
Wild horses are extinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przewalski's_horse
Social structure just like feral horses. Maybe do some research before you tell people they're confused.
Social structure just like feral horses. Maybe do some research before you tell people they're confused.
The post I was responding to was clearly talking about ranchers training feral horses.
Przewalski's isn't relevant.
Przewalski's isn't relevant.
> According to Occam's razor, it is very unlikely that it happened twice in history
Is it? Sure, if you start with "we have domesticated horses, how did we get here" then "one event happened" are less assumptions than "two events happened". But if you start the other way around with "humans lived in vicinity of a species that lends itself to domestication" then "they only domesticated it once" sounds like the wild speculation.
Even if you assume exchange between the two civilizations, spreading the idea that horses can be domesticated is much easier and lower friction than spreading actual domesticated horses. Especially with a mountain range involved and early generations of barely-domesticated horses.
Is it? Sure, if you start with "we have domesticated horses, how did we get here" then "one event happened" are less assumptions than "two events happened". But if you start the other way around with "humans lived in vicinity of a species that lends itself to domestication" then "they only domesticated it once" sounds like the wild speculation.
Even if you assume exchange between the two civilizations, spreading the idea that horses can be domesticated is much easier and lower friction than spreading actual domesticated horses. Especially with a mountain range involved and early generations of barely-domesticated horses.
I think think the statement "humans lived in vicinity of a species that lends itself to domestication" is wrong. Horses do not lend itself to domestication, as stated earlier this process took thousands of years. No one would say, oh it just took humans a couple of thousands years todo X, well that was quiet easy.
> as stated earlier this process took thousands of years.
Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true.[1] Do you have any actual support for your clam that it took thousands of years?
___
[1]: Except for the Goebbelian definition of "true".
Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true.[1] Do you have any actual support for your clam that it took thousands of years?
___
[1]: Except for the Goebbelian definition of "true".
There was a russian scientist that did research on domestication of fox's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_K._Belyaev
He found that by breeding and selecting for the more human friendly animals they became tamer and tamer. Now they are to the point of domestication. True domestication as I have heard from some means that the animal cannot thrive in the wild as its wild counter part can. This is a technical labeling issue as in some dogs have reversed domestication on some islands etc.
The fox story in russia is interesting since they found that there was a reduction in adrenaline in the fox's as they became tamer and tamer. The reduction caused them to adopt traits similar to domesticated dogs: wagging tails, floppy ears, coat color change. They did embronic transplants and found wild mothers with tame embryo's raised tame offspring and the opposite was also true. So it was a genetic change that resulted in this taming. It only took 50 generations to result in the change.
It would not be that far off to think that humans gave food to cooperative animals and killed the aggressive ones.
Under labor conditions I would say at least 50 generations. But without these perfect conditions it is easy to imagine that it takes longer.
He found that by breeding and selecting for the more human friendly animals they became tamer and tamer. Now they are to the point of domestication. True domestication as I have heard from some means that the animal cannot thrive in the wild as its wild counter part can. This is a technical labeling issue as in some dogs have reversed domestication on some islands etc.
The fox story in russia is interesting since they found that there was a reduction in adrenaline in the fox's as they became tamer and tamer. The reduction caused them to adopt traits similar to domesticated dogs: wagging tails, floppy ears, coat color change. They did embronic transplants and found wild mothers with tame embryo's raised tame offspring and the opposite was also true. So it was a genetic change that resulted in this taming. It only took 50 generations to result in the change.
It would not be that far off to think that humans gave food to cooperative animals and killed the aggressive ones.
Under labor conditions I would say at least 50 generations. But without these perfect conditions it is easy to imagine that it takes longer.
1) “Easy to imagine”? Idunno... What with the WP article showing how one guy got most of the way there in a single human lifetime (considerably less, actually, since he didn't start the project at birth), isn't it much easier to imagine that it would take just a few human lifespans?
2) Foxes. The plural is “foxes”. “Fox's” is the singular possessive, as in “Wow, look at that fox's beautiful pelt!”.
2) Foxes. The plural is “foxes”. “Fox's” is the singular possessive, as in “Wow, look at that fox's beautiful pelt!”.
Fifty horse generations would span about 500 years. You can imagine that this would correspond to a few human lifespans, which could also fall in the range of 500 years, depending on the exact number of few. I think this is a reasonable lower bound.
> Fifty horse generations would span about 500 years.
No, seems fifty horse generations would span about 100-150 years: https://thehorse.com/16463/when-are-fillies-fertile/
No, seems fifty horse generations would span about 100-150 years: https://thehorse.com/16463/when-are-fillies-fertile/
> Horses typically have an average lifespan of between 25-30 years, but some can live much longer or shorter than this. Some breeds have been known to live up to 40 years or even longer in captivity depending on the breed, management practices, and overall care. Others, as a result of breeding and selection may live much shorter lives.
Source: https://animalcorner.org/blog/horse-lifespan/
In the longest case, we could assume 50 x 30 = 1500 years. If you say that every generation came to live after 5 years, then 50 x 5 = 250 years. Again, you want to pick the absolute lowest bound (lowest number of generations) of the lowest bound (shortest years of generations) under labor conditions, which did not happen in reality. But if you think it took only 100-150 years to domesticate horses, then fine. I cannot provide a definite proof that you are wrong.
Source: https://animalcorner.org/blog/horse-lifespan/
In the longest case, we could assume 50 x 30 = 1500 years. If you say that every generation came to live after 5 years, then 50 x 5 = 250 years. Again, you want to pick the absolute lowest bound (lowest number of generations) of the lowest bound (shortest years of generations) under labor conditions, which did not happen in reality. But if you think it took only 100-150 years to domesticate horses, then fine. I cannot provide a definite proof that you are wrong.
I’m guessing it was the second attempt that really stuck.
The only instance of donestication I really get are cats.