Content uploaded by Markku Niskanen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Markku Niskanen on May 15, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Body size, conformation, athletic ability and
temperament of horses have likely affected
the human –horse relationship over time
Markku Niskanen
Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities
P.O. Box 1000
FIN-90014 UNIVERSITY OF OULU
Markku.Niskanen@oulu.fi
SAP 2022
Thème 1 : The diversity of human-animal relationships
1
The domestication of the modern domestic (DOM2) horse on the
Pontic-Caspian Steppe had massive consequences & horseback
riding had a central role
•Modern domestic DOM2 horses emerged through
selection for rideability:
•Temperaments & backs became more tolerant of riding.
•Horseback riding:
•Revolutionized mobility & warfare, which changed:
•Economic systems
•Socio-political systems
•Ideologies
•Human gene pools & linguistic distributions.
•Resulted in exceptional relationship between predators
(humans) & prey (horses) including:
•Ability to read emotions aiding communication
•Mutual trust
•Companionship
Focus of this presentation:
•The beginning of horseback riding
•Size, conformation & athletic ability of past
horses
•The human-horse relationship
Methods to estimate size, conformation & athletic ability are reviewed at the end
Warning!
I am a rider and thus
prone to emphasize
horseback riding
2
Horseback riding was ”destined” to commence but evidence for the
earliest riding is elusive
“Destined” because we ride all domestic
animals & many wild animals that can be
ridden:
•donkey,
•cattle,
•water buffalo,
•camels,
•reindeer,
•elephant,
•Przewalski’s horse,
•zebra,
•moose (Alces alces),
•bison (Bos bison)!
Photo: Lilja Niskanen
The earliest horseback riding predates the
earliest “hard” evidence:
•No bit wear if hackamores instead of bits.
•No vertebral pathology until riding was common.
•No riding tack if only perishable material used.
3
Horseback riding must have commenced before 2200 BC when it
was already spreading from the Pontic-Caspian steppe
A detail from an Akkadian seal
impression from Kish (2350-2150
BC) exhibits horseback or
”donkeyback” riding.
A detail from an Ur III period seal
impression of Abbakalla dated to
2037-2029 BC exhibits horseback
riding (right).
Horseback riding in the Near East ~2200 BC requires much earlier
riding on the steppe for selection to produce rideable horses.
Horseback riding requires
captive horses
&
Captive breeding likely made
riding necessary!
4
The origin of captive horses on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe
An important game animal for hunter-
gatherers during Pleistocene & Holocene Livestock was adapted 5000-4500 BC, but:
•Horse meat more important than beef and
mutton until ~3300 BC
•Symbolic value of the horse increased (Anthony & Brown
2011).
Orphan foals taken as pets just like Native Americans took
bison (Bos bison) and moose (Alces alces) pets?
Did horse bones in Eneolithic graves derive
from hunted or captive horses?
5
Milking horses indicates captive breeding and thus
domestication on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe
•Horses milked in the Don River basin by ~3200 BC.
•Milking required:
•Captive breeding because foaling needed
•Docile horses
•Closer human-horse relationship
Was horseback riding involved in management of ancestral DOM2 horses in the Don
River basin at that time?
A calculus sample from a human individual dated
to 3345-3093 BC (Wilkin et al. 2021)
6
Picketing, hobbling & corralling cannot entirely replace
mounted herding on the steppe especially if many horses
Corralled horses require forage gathered for them
A stampede results in injuries
and/or fatalities in addition to
runaways
Individual horses or small groups can be picketed and/or hobbled for
grazing but “supervision” & frequent relocation is needed
7
Managing captive horses on an open steppe eventually
demanded horseback riding
Horses are much faster than other livestock
&
”…A stampede of…horses is a
frightening thing. The cattle stampede is
a tame affair in comparison…”
(Dobie et al. 2000. Mustangs and Cow Horses, p.17).
Was temperament, size and conformation of ancestral DOM2 horses
suitable for riding?
The earliest mounted
herders rode to keep up
with the herd exercising
limited control on horses
they rode?
8
Ancestral DOM2 horses were likely good “runners” but equally
unsuitable for riding as historic wild horses
Natural selection favored fast, agile & enduring
horses with strong flight-to-fight reactions,
intolerance for being restrained, etc.
Natural selection did NOT concern with ability to
carry weight & tolerate human-induced stress
“…extremely agile runners able
to run twice as far as the best
domestic horses…” (Gmelin 1770: 46)
Wild horses outran riders on good horses
“…weaker backs, and therefore not
suitable for use …could not be tamed…”
(Stella 1518: 21)
https://upload.wikim
edia.org/wikipedia/co
mmons/c/cf/Equus_f
erus_przewalskii_2.jp
g
”Vaska”, a
Przewalski
stallion in 1904
“…absolutely useless for riding being only able to run
very hard next to another horse…” (Gmelin 1770: 47)
“…always die of ennui in a short time, if they do not break their own necks in
resisting the will of man…” (Smith 1866: 165)
Artificial selection had to modify temperaments & make backs more durable 9
Artificial selection modified temperaments to make horses
less panicky & more tolerant of humans
Natural selection favored
aggressiveness & dominance Artificial selection has favored docility &
submissiveness
Implication for the human-horse relationship because a good relationship requires
mutual toleration, trust & effective means of communication
Horses became able to read human emotions making human-horse
teams more effective in riding and other joint activities 10
The rider size - horse size relationship unquestionably
affects riding
Many assume that early domestic horses were too small for proper riding
Small horse with 170 cm rider:
•Leg aids “suffer” from too long legs
•The horse is “overloaded” by rider weight
Ability of ancestral DOM2 horses &
early DOM2 horses to carry riders is
addressed next
11
Ancestral DOM2 horses:
•Height ~138 cm
•Body mass ~406 kg
•Maximum rider weight ~106 kg
Yamnaya:
•Height ~175 cm
•Body mass ~72 kg
Were their backs unsuitable for riding if genetically more
predisposed to develop back problems than DOM2 horses?
Ancestral DOM2 horses & early DOM2 horses were big & strong
enough for basic riding based on limb bone dimensions
Limb bones “claim” they carried adult riders as
well as later horses
12
Selection reduced genetic predisposition for disc degeneration and other
back problems but were there anatomical changes in the spine?
Lengthening of spinous processes at withers made
back stronger but other vertebral changes are
unknown
Elimination of bucking horses likely
aided in elimination of horses with
“bad backs” because back pain induces
bucking
Horseback riding has ill effects on horses if dorsal
ligaments & abdominal muscles fail to prevent midback
from dropping
13
Inherently collaborative DOM2 horses made mounted
warfare possible
•Mounted raiding only needed horses suitable for basic riding (i.e.
allow riders to determine direction & speed)
•Doubled raiders’ traveling speed or range.
•Mounted combat requires obedient horses because greater
control than “normal” riding needed, but NOT necessarily metal
bits, spurs, etc:
•A rope in the jaw plus weight & leg aids suffice with collaborative horses.
•Horsemanship & collaborative horses are more critical than
technology in riding.
•Most pre-DOM2 horses were perhaps inherently too
uncollaborative for mounted combat.
Good relationship including trust, communication, etc. with
the horse facilitates good riding, which is needed in mounted
combat!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CM_Russell_When
_Blackfoot_And_Sioux_Meet.jpeg 14
Traction likely postdates riding because it
requires more docile horses & more technology
The Plains Indians selected mature mares with
gentle and trainable disposition previously ridden
to be trained to pull travois to avoid “drama” (Ewers
1955: 64-65).
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%92_%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%B5_-
_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B5_
%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC.jpg
Chariotry is impossible without special
technology & very obedient as well as trained
horses
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Cheyenne_using_travois.jpg
Horses of the Sintashta culture
(2050–1900 BC) were clearly suitable
for chariotry
15
DOM2 horses diversified into ”ecotypes” & ”culture types” after
their dispersal from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe
Some early ”eco-culture”types:
•Central & Western Europe
•Iberia & NW Africa
•Northern Steppe
•Southern Steppe & semidesert
•SW Asia & NE Africa
Natural selection adapted to local
environment especially in open-range
management systems
Cultural differences in artificial selection &
other management practices resulted in
different types of horses
16
Size variation of horses of La Tène culture (450-50 BC) of ancient
Gaul implies differentiated use and thus selection
•Mostly too small (av. ~122 cm & 254 kg) & weak (av. max. rider wt. ~80 kg) for “proper”
riding but not for packhorses and chariot horses.
•Were few horses suitable for mounted combat (>130 cm & max. rider wt. > 90 kg)
regarded more valuable than other horses?
Average (122 cm) and big (140 cm) La Tène horses with
175 cm tall riders.
Estimated from metacarpal dimensions provided in Gaunitz et al. 2018. Science 360, 111-114 (Suppl. Table 10) 17
Medieval West European horses varied in size and thus in use
Height range 108-163 cm with ~130-132 cm & ~300-325 kg average.
↓
Destriers (the ”Great Horses”) were highly valued because selectively bred, highly trained & able to
cope with rider weight of 165 kg (weight of rider + full armor)
Was a sturdy 150 cm weighing 500 kg ”adequate” for a destrier?
Sir John Hawkwood’s
destrier was 160-165
cm if Sir John was 170
cm.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paolo_Uccello_044.jpg Ameen et al. (2021); Clark (2004). The Medieval Horse…
Sir John riding 130 cm & 150 cm horses
Aristocratic & common men averaged
~175 cm & ~168 cm, respectively
↘
18
Destriers of High & Late Medieval periods were likely bigger
& stronger than Early Medieval warhorses
Merovingian warhorse with 175 cm rider
Merovingian warhorses from Childeric’s tomb
(Tournai, Belgium) dated to 481/482 AD:
Height ~140 cm
Body mass ~418 kg
Max. rider wt. ~103 kg
Merovingian warhorses were unlikely able to carry 165 kg
in combat
Destriers were comparable with current
warmbloods in strength?
19
Considerable diversification of size, conformation & athletic ability
during the last few hundred years
A broad range of uses & thus many breeds and/or types:
•Cosmopolitan racehorses for riding & harness racing
•Sport horses for Olympic Equestrian riding events
•Saddle breeds including gaited breeds
•Draft & cart breeds
•Miniature (toy) ponies
•Landraces with or without studbook
Industrial societies relied heavily on horses still in the early 1900s
Horses still remain important in many societies
Corresponding variation in the
horse-human relationship
20
Warmblood sporthorses competing in showjumping, dressage &
eventing are becoming specialized and cosmopolitan
•Size is optimized for sport performance:
•Height ~165-172 cm
•Body mass ~550-650 kg
•Conformation according to event:
•Show jumpers –jumper conformation
•Dressage horses –dressage conformation
•Eventers –galloper & jumper conformation
•Cosmopolitan breeding:
•Many stallions in more than one studbook Quillan KS, Finnish warmblood (FWB)
stallion, carries Selle Français (SF) ancestry
Horse height 166 cm
Rider height 180 cm
21
Useability of sport horses for general riding may be
declining because selection focuses on sport performance
•Panicky, excessively reactive, etc.
•E-Type (daughter of Esprina) fears snowflakes although born & raised in Finland!
E-type exiting a horse transport full of monsters Esprina fears monster pears (photo: Lilja Niskanen)
22
Landraces must be
preserved & studied!
Kvist, L. & Niskanen, M. (2021)
Modern Northern Domestic Horses Carry Mitochondrial
DNA Similar to Przewalski’s Horse.
J Mammal Evol 28:371-376
Highly valuable “gene-bank” horses!
•Genetically adapted to their environment:
•“Easy keepers”
•Temperamentally sound (not like sport horses!)
•Useable for rewilding
•May carry ancestry from pre-DOM2 horses:
•For example, Przewalski’s horse mtDNA in Finnhorse
23
Methods
Estimation of size, conformation & athletic abilities
Esprina (left) & Lauretta (right) directed my horse research
Methods for horses need to be developed since lack considerably behind those
applied on humans!
24
Osteometric measurements from ”skeletal” horses &
zoometric measurements from living horses were used
Source
Sample
sizes
Skeletal
horses
Eisenmann
(http://www.vera-eisenmann.com/)
871
Gaunitz et al. (2018) Science 360:111
-114 (SI)
376
Binde
(2020) Apport des changements enthésiques á
l’identification
des fonctions équines passées…(Doctoral
dissertation, Université Bordeaux)
75
Ameen et al. (2021) Int. J.
Osteoarchaeol. 31:1247-1257.
852
Niskanen (unpublished data) (N = 20)
20
Living horses
Mean values from 34 publications
Thousands
Finnhorse
stallions (Sukuposti: http://www.sukuposti.net
)
2480
Finnish warmblood stallions
(
https://heppa.hippos.fi/jalostus/stallions)
153
Niskanen (unpublished data)
75
Living & skeletal measurements from 20 horses were
used in establishing living dimension –skeletal
dimension relationships
25
Measurement protocols used
Osteometric measurement protocols
•Vera Eisenmann (http://www.vera-eisenmann.com/)
•Von den Driesch, A. (1976). A Guide to the
Measurement of animal bones from Archaeological
Sites.
•My own set of measurements from carpal & tarsal
regions used for biomechanical reconstructions.
Zoometric measurement protocol
•A set of 48 measurements including:
•Commonly taken measurements of horses, for example, in
studbook examinations.
•Specific measurements for conversions between living &
skeletal measurements.
Reconstructions of physical performances are
based on biomechanical computations
26
Heights of horses can be reasonably accurately estimated
from complete skeletons with anatomical reconstructions
Bone lengths are converted to ”living” segment heights,
which sums represent skeletal heights:
•Scapular caudal angle height
•Hip joint height
Skeletal heights are converted to total heights:
Withers ht. /
Sca.caudal angle
ht.
Croup ht
. / Hip
joint ht.
Warmblood
1.125 1.190
Generic
horse 1.122 1.200
Przewalski’s
1.109 1.200
Other
Equus 1.107 1.200
27
Height estimation from lengths of single bones is less accurate but
can be improved by taking bone shape into account
Metacarpal example
Relatively stout metapodials tend to be short for total height and vice versa
Estimation from metacarpal length requires
separate equations for species & horse
type/breeds
A generic equation is sufficient if using metacarpal length and
metacarpal distal articular breadth / metacarpal length ratio
28
Cannon girths, body lengths & chest girths of
skeletal horses can be estimated
Cannon girth from metacarpal
midshaft size.
Body length & chest girth from
measured or estimated withers
height & cannon girth
Body length = 0.6243 × withers ht. + 2.496 × cannon g. + 115.683
(r = 0.982, N = 63 midsex means)
Chest girth = 0.5178 × withers ht. + 4.554 × cannon g. + 126.486
(r = 0.954, N = 63 midsex means)
29
Body mass estimation is less accurate than height estimation
but rough estimation is possible, for example, by scaling skeletal
dimensions with body mass
Scaling values are based on:
•Skeletal equids with known live body mass (N = 24)
•Mean values for various horse breeds (N = 36)
•Finnhorse stallions with known body mass (N = 2480)
This data reveals that:
Joint areas scale as body mass0.769
Reversely
Body mass scales as joint areas1.150
Coefficient of proportionality values are used to convert
scaled values to corresponding body masses.
These dimensions are MT11 and MT13
in the case of metatarsals
30
Muscle force estimation is inaccurate but not
impossible based on known scaling of muscle force
Entheseal areas provide the most accurate estimates followed by joint
areas and body mass
Entheseal areas1.000
For example, calcanean tuber breadth squared Distal metapodial joint areas0.925
For example, MC11 x MC13
Muscle force scales as body mass0.667
31
Weight carrying ability can be estimated from skeletal
size and proportions
Estimating maximum rider weight from metacarpal size & proportions
The longer the distal segments
(e.g. metapodials) relative to
muscle moment arms & weight
carried, the harder the flexor
muscles work to prevent
overextension.
Max. rider wt. (kg)
= [(Horse body weight0.667 × MC13) / MC2] × 15.175
or
= [(MC11xMC13 × MC13) / MC2] × 0.480
32
Calibration based on
the late 19th century
cavalry horses
Relatively short backs are better weight-
carriers than relatively long ones
Biomechanically more efficient:
Each centimeter of back length
equals about one kg of rider weight
Supports heavier loads:
Each centimeter of back length equals 1.27 kg
of rider weight if all other factors are constant
33
A horse ”courbette jumping” shows that it is possible to estimate jumping
ability and locomotion velocity if estimate of muscle force is available
Body mass: 550 kg
Angle of “launch”: 35O
Jumping distance: 2.5 m
Velocity: 5.1083 m/s
Acceleration distance: 0.77 m
Force output = [MarmL ×Muscle force × sin(60O)] / LarmL
Force output (9319.5447) = [0.0912 ×50325.275 × 0.86603] / 0.4265
Force output needed: 9319.5447 N
MarmL: 0.0912 m
LarmL: 0.4265 m
Angle of muscle pull: 60O
Muscle force needed:
50325.275 N
34
Estimated & observed galloping velocities correlate
positively
More experimentation is needed in this area!
35
Thank you for your attention!
Esprina (left) & Lauretta (right) provided inspiration, advice, information, friendship,
understanding, great rides, riding injuries, etc. for many years 36
