I am a Sagittarius I am

[Francko]

if you paid a bit more attention to this sort of stuff, you would do a lot better at any quizzes you might find yourself involved in

Exactly, and increase the chances to score with that fit bird at your table. These people.... never learn...

[BrowneIssue]

Really, does anyone really give a toss about this sort of archaeology?

If that is a serious question, listen to Science in Action on the BBC World Service - they cover it in a little more detail.

Horses are significant because of: mobility; the plough; cavalry.

This research uses some quite clever techniques (isotope analysis to determine which fats were being consumed) to show horses were being domesticated - that technique itself is useful in all sorts of analysis. As a technique, it is confirmed by other forms of analysis (bone structures, teeth and jaw distortions, burial trophies) and that in itself is significant.

This research shows domestication of horses now occurred about the same time as dogs, not much later ... what might be the significance of that?

The increased mobility would affect trade and migration - what does that tell us about the distribution of finds for that era?

If we missed this domestication, is that in itself significant?

A number of people had suspected this result would be found because of other data; the methods used to create those suspicions now have greater validity and so can be used for other subjects.

That is some of the reasons why this is interesting - the consequences.

Does that help?

[TykeMerc]

I found it interesting, but I'm a sad git who's interested in history and archeology as a hobby.

[EternalOptimist]

Really, does anyone really give a toss about this sort of archaeology?

Apart from to some crusty old codger in a room in the outer spiral arm of some faceless University somewhere this information is pretty much useless.

Did horses exist a long time ago? Yes.
Did man exist a long time ago? Yes.
Chances of horse riding man a long time ago? Er....
Chances of man riding horse a long time ago? Quite high.

Move on.

if you paid a bit more attention to this sort of stuff, you would do a lot better at any quizzes you might find yourself involved in

[Svalbaard]

Really, does anyone really give a toss about this sort of archaeology?

Apart from to some crusty old codger in a room in the outer spiral arm of some faceless University somewhere this information is pretty much useless.

Did horses exist a long time ago? Yes.
Did man exist a long time ago? Yes.
Chances of horse riding man a long time ago? Er....
Chances of man riding horse a long time ago? Quite high.

Move on.

[EternalOptimist]

Half horse , thats me.


I thought this was very interesting


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7926235.stm