Evidence of Horse Riding

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/20/2001 1:34:26 AM, JoatSimeon at aol.com writes:
<< -- this is ridiculous.   Apart from the fact that radiocarbon data from the
Dereivka horse (the skull, specifically) dates to around 3000 BCE,... >>

As I pointed out, it appears the famous Dereivka skull (originally dated as
early as 3300BC) is now being dated to the first century BC.  I gave you a
citation that was sent to me which you have chosen to ignore:
"Actually you gotta throw the Derevika horse [bit evidence] out.  Anthony and
Brown (2000) Eneolithic horse exploitation in the Eurasian steppes,
ANTIQUITY, 75-86, has C14 dates from it...  The most recent dates on it put
it up around the 1st century BC.  As they note, it looks like it was a pit
deposit that had nothing to do with the Neolithic levels of the site."

<<Again, why keep trying to torture the evidence this way?>>

Respectfully, I believe you - if I am allowed to return the personal remark -
are the one disregarding the evidence.  If you note all my references were to
evidence of HORSE-RIDING in Europe and not horses.  The original post I was
responding to referred to HORSE-RIDING.

It has often been repeated that evidence of HORSE-RIDING has been shown in
bit-wear marks.  Mallory has often cited the Derevika skull and bit-wear as
his main evidence.  We on the other hand know that some "Corded Ware" folk
ate horses, and there is some evidence that they dealt in their skins and
horse-hair.  There is no evidence that they rode them or knew how to ride
them or could ride them at that stage of domestication.  Wild equines are
generally not easy to tame and difficult to ride, even when tame.

If you bother to read my original post with any care, you'll see that I
agreed with you that there is plenty of evidence of the horse in Europe, even
in Neolithic times around the Danube.  The problem is there is no evidence of
bit wear marks anywhere in Europe before @1500BC.  There IS evidence of bit
wear in Kazakhstan around 3000BC.  But, though there are a fair number of
horse skulls and teeth from Europe throughout the next millennium and a half,
none that I know of have ever shown bit wear marks.

The above cited report from Anthony-- which apparently says the Derevika
horse should be thrown out -- comes from the very person who first found the
bit wear evidence and the Kazakhstan evidence.  If you find it ridiculous,
you might want to express your disapproval to him.

Once one admits what the actual evidence is, there is no need to torture it.
It confesses to the truth of its own accord.

Regards,
Steve Long