I love donkeys too, without them the Southwest US would not be what it is today, they will attack predators, used in mines to pull carts, was used in the trenches of the first world war. They are an honorable beast, the problem is they are not as cold friendly as horses are. Horses are much more adaptable then both reindeer and donkeys and camels sadly.Donkeys good. Donkeys win.
Prehistoric WI Eurasian steppe horses hunted to extinction instead of domesticated?
- Thread starter Salvador79
- Start date
Thanks for your input, @wtw !
As others have pointed out, I think it is safe to assume that there won`t be any Christianity or Islam in this world, and neither will there be Buddhism.
Some of what is under the umbrella of Hinduism might exist and become more prominent, though, while other stuff certainly won`t.
Since I take a minimal butterfly approach, too, I would think that at least some type of Israelites would emerge, since their revolt / exodus occurred early enough for no-horse-effects to be still limited in Northern Africa. OK, Moses as a person may be butterflied, or he might just be a guy with a different name, living under a different pharaoh, but the conflicts and tensions between civilizations like the Egyptian and the herding periphery, and the racism with which Egyptian Kingdoms treat the Habiru / Apiru living in their realm might not go away. So some sort of liberation movement might occur nonetheless, an alt-Moses.
But such an alt-Judaism won`t be anything like OTL´s Judaism: no horses mean no Neo-Assyrian Empire = no Babylonian exile, so they can`t come into contact with Zoroastrian ideas which tipped the balance in favour of monotheism among the Israelites. BTW, no horses = no Iranians in Iran = no Zoroaster, either. Also, the Canaan they might invade (if they choose to go in that direction at all) would look different since this is a world without a Hittite Empire, without Hyksos, and maybe with a completely different end to the Bronze Age instead of OTL´s collapse.
Christianity, on the other hand, requires Hellenism and the Roman Empire, neither of which will exist. (Which of course also means no Byzantium. Not even a Persia, btw.) Islam requires Christianity and a lot more which won`t exist. And Buddhism requires Vedic religion, which won`t exist, either, without an Indo-Aryan takeover of Northern India.
So, the religions I´m left with are those of Egypt and the Fertile Crescent, of the Bantu and other indigenous African groups, the Australian and Oceanian aborigines, and of course of the pre-Columbian Americas. Also, some hints from Dravidian and Chinese folk religion.
But I suppose this won`t have to be it. There will be new developments from the 2nd millennium BCE onwards in this timeline, too. Alt-India may be a good place for that, or some other land on the periphery of the Middle Eastern civilizations. I just don`t have an idea what such a founder of a very different religion might preach...
No need for Cro-Magnon involvement here. In the 5th millennium BCE, horses were extinct in many places where they had previously lived, including such places as Japan. The only (major?) populace lived in the Eurasian steppes. That is when and where I set my PoD. Granted, it is a big habitat. But so was the population pressure at the end of the Atlantic period / beginning of the Subboreal.
I´m not sure if there were a few wild horses of a different breed still living somewhere in Mongolia or Siberia. Thing is, the Mongolian horse culture of OTL was brought in by horse-domesticators from the West, from where I posit the extinction. Without such an influence, Mongolian or Siberian horses, if they still existed, i.e. if the Mongolian horses aren`t descendants of reimports, may have survived a while longer among hunter-gatherer cultures. Would they, or the agricultural civilizations of the Yellow River, have domesticated such horses on their own? That is another open question in my view. If they aren`t, or if there weren`t any horses in these quarters left anyway, then what we`ve discussed so far still holds.
If, on the other hand, we posit that 1) horses had survived in East Asia and 2) there`s going to be a domestication of the horse in East Asia at some later moment (late 3rd / 2nd millennium BCE or even later?), then things are going to be really different of course.
Last edited:
This sound intriguing. You mention the late predynastic and early dynastic period, i.e. Egyptian era datings. Was there such cattle cult in Egypt, too, before Egyptian religion took a somewhat different turn? So, do you mean a spread via Egypt (i.e. with an unrecognisable Egyptian religion) or a spread at the same time but not involving Egypt? (E.g. across the Sinai, or across the straits and then Northwards from Iberia?)
The proposed Cattle Cult is the basis of religious social organization in the second phase of the Neolithic Subpluvial found throughout the sites of Libya and Egypt including Nabta Playa.
Latter.
Is there any link to the cultic practice described in Exodus as the worshipping of the Golden Calf?
Possibly but sacred cattle and cattle themed gods were very common throughout the near east. There are probably any number of sacred bull traditions that the Golden Calf could have been drawn from and connecting it directly to a neolithic practice is likely impossible due to missing evidence. People really like cows so who knows, it may have risen independently.
It's also possible that the Golden Calf referenced in the Bible is somehow related to Marduk, the patron god of Babylon who would have been rising in popularity during the supposed time period of the Exodus and who's name is thought to have been derived from amar-Utu or "bull calf of the sun god Utu".
The golden calf was most probably a figure of Hathor (animal form, so just a cow/calf) in her shrine at Timna Valley. The shrine was dated to 14th century BC.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Timna_Valley
Also want to state that my disinterest in Donkey as horse replacement comes from historical precendents of Donkey as a gender neutral animal men and women utilized in Cattle herding societies.
If you have the Donkey as premier mount then the side effect is stripping women from utilizing them through cultural norms and taboo.
If anyone is interested Google "gender agriculture Donkey".
If you have the Donkey as premier mount then the side effect is stripping women from utilizing them through cultural norms and taboo.
If anyone is interested Google "gender agriculture Donkey".
That is a frankly ridiculous reason to have a "Disintrest" in donkeys replacing horses.
If you wanted to keep donkeys as a women's thing you could have the "standard" donkeys be associated with women and/or poor farmers while the larger "war donkeys" are associated with men and/or warriors.
I think because I put so much time and effort in understanding the lives of people and cultures in TLs I think of the small things that lead to economic growth and autonomy within and outside sexed realms of trade.
But if you aren't into that and don't care about it or the relationship of Donkey and women in pastoralist societies like actual anthropologists I can see why you'd think it's ridiculous. Most people on here don't care about details like that.
Doesn't work like that, but I appreciate it. Tbh my ATL is just removing Donkey out of the equation mostly by shifting cattle inheritance through matrilineal familial lines.
To me it just seems like a personal issue you have, that it is merely your preference for a situation where donkeys maintain the role they did otl because of an area of study you have done and to me that's ridiculous
I mean not knowing me you can assume what ever you want. But I think most people who have seen my posting or my research can tell you it's the economic relationships and dynamics of people/animals/plants that drives me to veer away from Donkey.
If you want to make it something else so be it, I for one however have little desire to talk to people who scoff at or ignore real data.
So deuces
What real Data am I scoffing at? And more importantly does it even apply to a world without horses?
This is literally what I mean about people not taking time to research before critiquing me and my views. Especially when my Google suggestion would link you to the data I mentioned above.
You're very reactive and defensive for someone who doesn't understand non-horse economies already existing and thus using them as templates in understanding 1. The use of cattle and other animals as beast of burden and riding animals and 2. Contextualizing ATL narrative in economies of present day and past.
I'd also say your ignorance runs clear when understanding the domestication of Donkey stems from African Pastoralism rooted in male ownership of cattle and the later intergration of Donkey into pastoralist subsistence providing gender neutral status and use amongst herding people.
The transition of elite varieties of Donkey wouldn't be coming out of cattle centric peoples or at the very least they wouldn't come from men.
The prestige of cattle amongst cattle herders is at the deficit of other livestock. Bigger or stronger breeds of Donkey would only develop in tantrum with the needs of herders, herder economies and the need of pack animals in trade/farming.
You really shouldn't be so reactive on topics you clearly don't know jack about.
1. This is an awfully reactionary and defensive reply for someone who is complaining about someone else being reactive and defensive
2. You haven't considered the possibility of maybe someone thinking of using donkeys differently or do you presume that humans are prone to stagnation? Even isolated peoples eventually innovate and change how they do things. why do you assume that just because that's how those people used them that means no one else will ever consider using them differently?