So I was reading the latest OSC review, where he says
quote:early American horses were hunted or competed to extinction not that long before Europeans brought their much larger versions of the same species
which suprised me, as I was under the impression that it was uncontroversially accepted that the latest horses were in North America was at least 8000 years ago. I looked it up online and I can't find any references that disagreed with my view. Have there been new findings recently that suggest much later extinction?
If so, considering that I was really impressed by Guns, Germs, and Steel, I think it'd be interesting if we could determine why the horses were not adopted as beasts of burden.
Of course, it could be possible that OSC considers 8,000 years not that long ago. Does anyone know more about this?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I just took him to mean that ~8000 years ago wasn't that long ago. I often slip into a perspective from which 8000 years doesn't seem like all that long of a time.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Noemon, how old ARE you?
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
From an evolutionary and/or geographical standpoint 8,000 years isn't that long. I would guess that's what OSC meant.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I agree that from an evolutionary or geographical standpoint, 8,000 years isn't long at all.
But, in the context he was talking about - the clash between European and American Indian civilizations - I don't see 8000 years as "not that long ago". That'd put it at a time when not even the antecedents to either set of civilizations existed. I don't know, to me, using that in this context would put it in hundreds, not thousands of years. But you all are probably right.
---
To put this in context, I was really impressed by GG&S but felt that Diamond neglected cultural/mythological factors (of course covering them would take a whole book or quite probably a whole series of books by itself). I'm interested in seeing he or people in that vein take on situations where one culture had the potential for developmental advantages he touts, but didn't use them effectively due to cultural factors.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm interested in seeing he or people in that vein take on situations where one culture had the potential for developmental advantages he touts
Have you read Collapse?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nope. That's on my to read list, but it's a long list, and I've been pretty darn busy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He does his best to answer the question there.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't know of any strong evidence for recent (post 8000 years ago) pre-Columbian horses. However, the Book of Mormon mentions horses and I've read BoM apologetic literature that theorizes that the horses mentioned in the BoM might have been hunted to exinction or eaten in time of famine. As further support for their existence is the existence of certain wheeled horse-ish sculptures found in pre-Columbian ruins. Unless there has been something found more recently (this literature was from the mid '80s), I don't think most anthropologist or archaeologists believe there were horses here any more recently than 8000 years or so ago until the Europeans brought them over.
I'd be interested to know, though.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I think he must be going with 8000 years not being that long. But I had never read that they were hunted to extinction at that point. The horse who had been in the US then, Eohippus , is approximently the same as the horse that was in Northern Africa at the same time, and evolved to create the Arabian and Caspian. The Arabian was bred with horses closer to the Forrest horse of Northern Europe to create the Andalusian, Barb, and a few other breeds the Spanish owned, though they probably didn't look like the Andalusian of today, they were probably closer to the Abaco Barb a rare breed in the Carribean. I can go on and on about horse breeds if you'd like, where each breed evolved from, what they're good for.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The Book of Mormon covers the period from 600 BC - 400 AD (approx.). I think he's probably thinking a bit more recently than 8000 years ago.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I suppose it's out of the question to ask him? He could be referring to either. Which one we decide he means says more about us than him.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: I think it'd be interesting if we could determine why the horses were not adopted as beasts of burden.
Was the Eohippus a large enough animal at the time to be considered for use as a beast of burden?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky, it's my understanding that there haven't been any cultures throughout human history that lacked the advantages he touted, but didn't. Or did, but was conquered or overshadowed by a culture who had them in greater abundance.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, Jewish culture rejected the domesticaton and exploitation of the pig, but they had enough access to other domesticated or domesticatable animals that this didn't put them at any terrible disadvantage.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
There's no actual evidence that Eohippus was a horse.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Is that sort of like how a polar bear is actually a mink or do you actually have a good reason to say that this is true, Lisa? Because, the sources I've read seem to have no trouble calling Eohippus a horse. Based on your past history, I'm going to need more than just your say so on that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Whether it was a horse or not is almost entirely semantic. The contention is that it is a fairly close ancestor of modern horses.