Hard Evidence of Ancient American Horses
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 1:30 pm
Mormon apologist Daniel Johnson's article
https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/hard ... an-horses/
BMAF Conference 2012 Daniel Johnson "Hard Evidence of Horses in America"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cHUxwDCq3g
Daniel's claims are flawed for a very simple reason - he used the book The Indian and the Horse, by Frank Gilbert Roe. And Roe left out a very imortant paper by Francis Haines. Haines did two papers, Roe only used the first one, which concluded that the evidence was against the spread of horses from the Coronado and DeSoto expeditions. So Daniel Johnson used that book and builds his ideas from that conclusion.
What is missing is Haines second paper, which explains how the horse spread. It isn't in Roe's book, it isn't in Johnson's writing.
Haines, Francis. “The Northward Spread of Horses among the Plains Indians.” American Anthropologist, vol. 40, no. 3, 1938, pp. 429–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/662040.
Since 1938, it has been firmly established that the horse spread from stock raising areas of New Mexico. Haines did an exhaustive job of showing when and how. And this paper of Haines makes the claims of Mormon apologists irrelevant.
The other problem with Daniel Johnson's claim is with the Pinto. He insist that the Pinto could not possibly have come from Spanish horses. But that is a false claim.
See this writing, from Dr. Philip Sponenberg:
NORTH AMERICAN COLONIAL SPANISH HORSE UPDATE, July 2011
D. Phillip Sponenberg, DVM, PhD
https://www.centerforamericasfirsthorse ... horse.html
In particular, "The original horses brought to America from Spain were relatively unselected. The horses first came to the Caribbean islands, where populations were increased before export to the mainland. In the case of North America the most common source of horses was Mexico as even the populations in the southeastern USA were imported from Mexico rather than more directly from the Caribbean. The North American horses ultimately came from this somewhat nonselected base from the early-importations. South American horses, in contrast, tended to originally derive about half from the Caribbean horses and half from direct imports of highly selected horses from Spain. These later imports changed the average type of the horses in South America and this fact accounts for the differences in modern remnants of Colonial Spanish Horses as they are encountered in North and South America."
The Mormon apologists claims are quite flawed.
https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/hard ... an-horses/
BMAF Conference 2012 Daniel Johnson "Hard Evidence of Horses in America"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cHUxwDCq3g
Daniel's claims are flawed for a very simple reason - he used the book The Indian and the Horse, by Frank Gilbert Roe. And Roe left out a very imortant paper by Francis Haines. Haines did two papers, Roe only used the first one, which concluded that the evidence was against the spread of horses from the Coronado and DeSoto expeditions. So Daniel Johnson used that book and builds his ideas from that conclusion.
What is missing is Haines second paper, which explains how the horse spread. It isn't in Roe's book, it isn't in Johnson's writing.
Haines, Francis. “The Northward Spread of Horses among the Plains Indians.” American Anthropologist, vol. 40, no. 3, 1938, pp. 429–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/662040.
Since 1938, it has been firmly established that the horse spread from stock raising areas of New Mexico. Haines did an exhaustive job of showing when and how. And this paper of Haines makes the claims of Mormon apologists irrelevant.
The other problem with Daniel Johnson's claim is with the Pinto. He insist that the Pinto could not possibly have come from Spanish horses. But that is a false claim.
See this writing, from Dr. Philip Sponenberg:
NORTH AMERICAN COLONIAL SPANISH HORSE UPDATE, July 2011
D. Phillip Sponenberg, DVM, PhD
https://www.centerforamericasfirsthorse ... horse.html
In particular, "The original horses brought to America from Spain were relatively unselected. The horses first came to the Caribbean islands, where populations were increased before export to the mainland. In the case of North America the most common source of horses was Mexico as even the populations in the southeastern USA were imported from Mexico rather than more directly from the Caribbean. The North American horses ultimately came from this somewhat nonselected base from the early-importations. South American horses, in contrast, tended to originally derive about half from the Caribbean horses and half from direct imports of highly selected horses from Spain. These later imports changed the average type of the horses in South America and this fact accounts for the differences in modern remnants of Colonial Spanish Horses as they are encountered in North and South America."
The Mormon apologists claims are quite flawed.