Archaeologica.org

British archaeologist finds cave paintings at 100 new African sites

UK scientist unearths 5,000-year-old rock art, including drawing of a mounted hunter, in Somaliland



Dr Sada Mire of University College London with some of the ancient art finds at Dhambalin, Somaliland. She headed a local team that discovered almost 100 rock art sites. Photograph: Sada Mire.

Striking prehistoric rock art created up to 5,000 years ago has been discovered at almost 100 sites in Somaliland on the Gulf of Aden in eastern Africa.

A local team headed by Dr Sada Mire – of the Institute of Archaeology at University College London (UCL) – made the finds which included a man on horseback, painted around 4,000 years ago – one of the earliest known depictions of a mounted hunter. [...]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/se ... somaliland

So if there were mounted hunters in Somaliland 5KYA I must assume that mounted transport was a known quantity in ancient Egypt at around the same time, the time of the first dynasty. So why did it take until the Hyksos incursions, a good millennium later, before horses became an integral part of ancient Egyptian society? Along with the wheel?

A horse needs 2 pounds of food per 100 pounds of body weight per day. Plus, a lot of water. Thus they would not survive well in the desert which means, in Egypt, only the cultivated areas would do the job. Perhaps the Egyptians were not willing to make the investment?

Even in the New Kingdom the bulk of the military was infantry.

Minimalist wrote:A horse needs 2 pounds of food per 100 pounds of body weight per day. Plus, a lot of water. Thus they would not survive well in the desert which means, in Egypt, only the cultivated areas would do the job. Perhaps the Egyptians were not willing to make the investment?

Well, the ancient Egyptians had the Nile, a great and steady supply of fresh water, enough to support a whole civilisation. But not horses?
Strange...
It gets stranger:
The Somalis did not have a Nile. Yet they could support horses.
Find the flaws in that picture.

Even in the New Kingdom the bulk of the military was infantry.

It still is today, in modern armies. It's never been any different throughout history with the possible exception of the Mongol hordes.

I repeat.

Perhaps the Egyptians were not willing to make the investment?

Somalia was not always desert. The Sahara was once a lush savannah. We've been over this ground before.

It still is today, in modern armies

I don't know about over there. Over here, we have no "leg infantry." No one would volunteer for that.

It doesn't say how the paintings were dated. I think that they probably were nis-dted nd are actually from after 1500 BC.

The matter of feeding the horses is not n issue. Somaliland has areas that are well watered. At present Somaliland is a major exporter of livestock, and you can't do much of that witout plenty of water.

I agree Min, apart from any military usage, what would the horse have gained the Egyptians over and above the Donkey which will happily exist on much less and poorer feed?
The Donkey is still the preferred beast of burden in the area.

Roy.

Again, we have lots of tomb art from ancient Egypt and it is not until the New Kingdom and not even at the beginning of the New Kingdom that horses begin to make a significant appearance. The reason for this may be political.

Fragment from tomb of Sebekhotep, assistant to the Pharaoh, Thebes. Depicts Syrians bringing horses as tribute to the Egyptians. British Museum, London, U.K.

Thutmoses III extended Egyptian conquests into Syria where it seems that horses were raised. The cause and effect seems fairly obvious.

Much of the art that I have seen Min shows seens of everyday life, the desired intent after death, but I have never seen horses depicted as working animals as far as I can recall.

Roy.

The article doesn’t say what they were “mounted” on.
It may have been ostriches!

Horses were far too valuable to be used as farm animals.

But while you may see a pharaoh in a chariot you never see one mounted on a horse. "Cavalry" in that sense, seems to have been unknown.

Even among the Romans a thousand years later the Equites were a class of men who were wealthy enough to own a horse. The Equestrian order arose from that distinction which was based purely on personal wealth.

kbs2244 wrote:The article doesn’t say what they were “mounted” on.
It may have been ostriches!

Minimalist wrote:

It still is today, in modern armies

I don't know about over there. Over here, we have no "leg infantry." No one would volunteer for that.

True. No Navy SEAL or Army Ranger can be expected to trek 5 miles carrying 70 lbs. of equipment and subsequently mount an effective attack of course. They have to be delivered on target. Preferably by Blackhawk. Or airconditioned Hummer.
Unlike for instance the British SAS company that traversed 30 miles of bog, a.k.a. swamp, on foot, with over a 100 lbs. of equipment on their backs, and their personal weapon, and therefore could take the defended capital of the Falklands Islands by surprise, and thus decided the war. With just one enemy casualty from that attack, as I seem to recall.

That's Special Forces infantry worthy of that moniker.

Minimalist wrote:Over here, we have no "leg infantry."

The guys doing the house-to-house stuff, including Marines, are infantry.
Even if they have airconditioned Bradley taxis to deliver them around the corner from the target address.
They're still infantry.

These days, the Cavalry rides attack helicopters, like Apaches, and gunships, like Warthogs. And less and less armoured tracked tanks, like Shermans and Abrams. Even less horses. Now they fly.
They're still the Cavalry.

Oh, and the Artillery these days shoots ballistic missiles and 'Stalin organs'. Not bows and arrows, slingshots, or catapults anymore.
They're still the Artillery.