George P. Tabet’s “Arabian Horse Lineages” booklet
Georges Philippe Tabet’s short booklet “Arabian Horse Lineages” (Ansaab al-Khayl al-Arabiyah, Dar al-Ahad, Beirut, June 1937, 56 pages in both Arabic and French) features a long list of Arabian horse strains. This is the “yellow booklet” I mentioned in an earlier entry.
The list is different from lists of Western travelers — Blunt, Upton, Raswan, etc — I have seen before. It is also different from Ali al-Barazi’s equally comprehensive list. They would benefit from a thorough comparison with each other. Tabet mentions the Bedouins as the source of his information in the introduction to the book. He wrote:
Faced with this state of ignorance, I decided to turn to the source of the breeding of the Arab horse — the people of the Badia — until after much effort, I was able to know the reasons for these terms [the strains] and what differentiates them from each other.
The list has minor errors, which I will be noting in the comments sections over the coming days. Most errors are of two sorts: spelling errors resulting from differences between how Bedouins and settled people pronounce some Arabic letters, and the attribution of the wrong tribal affiliations to some strain owners, especially those from the distant tribes in Najd.
The list is heavily tilted towards the ‘Anazah in general. Sba’ah ‘Anazah strains are the most represented. The information on strains with the Gmassah and ‘Abdah sections of the Sba’ah is particularly accurate. The summer pastures of these tribes were in the outskirts of Hama and Homs, where Tabet had his estate. Strains from the Fad’aan ‘Anazah are also well represented, followed by those from the ‘Amarat and the Ruwallah.
On the other hand, strains from the Shammar, which is the other large other North Arabian tribe are under-represented. There is good representation of Mawali strains. Strains from tribes in Central and Eastern Arabia are virtually missing. Most of Tabet’s informants seem to have hailed from the Sba’ah, or from Hamawi and Homsi experts who interacted with them.
Kahaayil to be mated:
Kuhaylan al-‘Ajuz, with Ibn Dabsi of the Fad’aan
K. al-Suwayti, with Wuld Sulayman of the Fad’aan
K. al-Hayfi, with Ibn Hubayshan of the Fad’aan
K. al-Kharas, with Bani al-Fnayss of al-Rhamah of the Gmassah, and with Ibn Hamdan and Ibn Tamran of the ‘Amaraat
K. al-Tamri, with al-Muharwal of the Gmassah, and Ibn Rushud of the Gmassah
K. Abu Janub, with Abu Janab of the Bani Sakhr, and from him to Ibn Daghman of the ‘Arafah and Waddass al-Misrab of the Gmassah
K. al-Mimrah, with al-Maryuf of the Arabs of al-Dhafir, and from him to al-Mimrah of the Gmassah, and from him to Ibn Haash then to Ibn ‘Udaynan of the Gmassah and to al-Drayb of the Gmassah
K. al-Jrayshi or al-Wati, with Rushayd ibn Jarshan of al-Mutayr in ‘Iraq then to al-Wati of al-‘Abdah of the Gmassah
K. al-Nawwaq, with al-Nawwaq of al-Rasaalin of al-Gasim of the Gmassah
K. Abu Krush, she came from al-Manaakid of the Ruwalah to Sabkhah al-Sani’ of the Fad’aan and to Ibn Sarada of al-Juffal of the Fad’aan
K. Abu Surayr, with Abu Hadbaat of the ‘Amaraat
K. al-Musinn, with Ibn ‘Amaayir of the Fad’aan
K. al-Ghazalah, with Ibn ‘Ashwan of the Dhafir, then to al-Zalhubi of al-Sahim of the Gmassah and from him to Shtaawi of the Gmassah
K. Abu ‘Arqub al-Hadb, with al-Hadb of the Huwaytaat
K. Abu ‘Arqub Shuwayhah, from al-Hadb to al-Shu’aili of al-Dawam of the Sba’ah
K. al-Khdili, from al-Khrisah of the Fad’aan to Ibn Munayhah and Ibn ‘Ajlan of the Fad’aan
K. al-Dunaysi, with Ibn Dakhiin of the Gmassah and Ibn Hindi of al-Dawaam of the Sba’ah
K. al-Nkhayshi, from al-Murabbat of al-Masaaribah of the Gmassah
K. Tuwaisaan ‘Alkami, from the Ruwalah
Kahaayil not to be mated:
K. al-Jawharah, with the Ruwalah
K. Abu ‘Arqub Wushitshi, with the Ruwalah
K. al-Nkayshi, that specific to Ibn Rumman of al-Masaaribah of the Gmassah
K. al-Shnaynan, with al-Duhayri of al-Masaalikh and from him to Ibn Mirshid of the Gmassah
K. ‘Anz al-Dawish, with Shammar
K. Abu ‘Irf [Edouard note: i.e., Abu Ma’arif]
K. Rawdan, with the Ruwalah [Edouard: i.e., Rodan]
K. al-Shaykhan, with Ibn Duwayhi of the Fad’aan
K. al-Mandil
K. al-Jrayban, with al-Ja’ri of al-Mawaayigah of al-‘Abdah of the Sba’ah
K. al-Tkhayran, with Ibn Fnaytiil of al-Rasalin of al-Gmassah
K. al-Na’aam
K. al-Mash-hur
K. al-Sharif or al-Sbayli, with al-Nawwaq of al-Gasim of the Gmassah
K. al-Mukhalladi, with al-Qadi of Bani Khalid
K. Ras al-Fdawi, with the Ruwalah
K. al-Hazaqan, with al-Hazqawi of al-Masaaribah of the Gmassah
Shuwaymaat to be mated:
Shuwayman Sabbah, with Ibn Nabuwwah of the Gmassah
Shuwaymaat not to be mated:
Shuwayman Wudaytish, with Ibn Rakyan of the ‘Amaraat
Ma’aniq to be mated:
Ma’naqi Hadraji, with Ibn Mu’tish of the ‘Amaraat
Ma’naqi Sbayli, from the Hadrajiyat to Ibn Sbayyil of al-‘Ajlan of al-Rasaalin of the Sba’ah
Ma’naqi Abu Kudlah, with Abu Kudlah of the Gmassah
Ma’naqi al-Damnaan, with Ibn Damnaan of al-Mawaahib of the Gmassah
[In the French version of the list]: The Ma’naqi Sbayli, the Ma’naqi Abu Kudlah, and the Ma’naqi al-Damnaan are all derived from the Hadraji
Ma’aniq not to be mated:
Ma’naqi Shlaji
Ma’naqi al-Aqraa, with the Shawayah and the Fad’aan
Ma’naqi Al-Baraahiim, with the Na’im
Ma’naqi al-Arnab, with the ‘Amaraat
Jilaf to be mated:
Jilfan al-Dhawah, with the Fad’aan
Jilfan Sattaam al-Bulad, the ‘Amaraat and the Fad’aan
‘Ubayyaat to be mated:
‘Ubayyan Sharraq, with the Dhafir in Najd [in the French version: and from him to Ibn Samdan of the Gmassah]
‘Ubayyan Ibn Samdan, with Ibn Samdan (the Gmassah)
‘Ubayyan al-‘Awbali or al-Hunaydiis, with the ‘Amaraat and al-Mawaayigah of the Sba’ah
‘Ubayyan al-Suhayli, with Shammar and al-Rasaalin of the Sba’ah
‘Ubayyan al-Huwaynah, with Ibn ‘Alyan of the Gmassah. Her origin is from Bani Sakhr [in the French version: from the Bani Sakhr and from them to Ibn ‘Alyane from the Gmassah]
‘Ubayyan Abu Jurayss, with al-Mir’ib of the Rwallah
‘Ubayyan Fadayhah/Fahiihah, with Fudayhah of the Fad’aan
‘Ubayyan Hummarah, with Salamah al-Nu’aymi of al-Mawaayigah of the Sba’ah
‘Ubayyan al-Khraish, with Ibn Marzuq of the Amaraat
‘Ubayyaat not to be mated:
‘Ubayyan al-Shuhaym, with the Shawaya
‘Ubayyan Libdah, with al-Mawaahib of the Sb’aah
‘Ubayyan al-Duray’i, with the Jayss
‘Ubayyan al-Khudr, with Ramadaan al-Fguigui
‘Ubayyan Kharma, with the Hssinah
‘Ubayyan Daan al-Dib, with al-Jamajimi of the Mawali
‘Ubayyah Munayhiizh, with Ibn Shibib of the Gmassah
Hudb to be mated
Hadban Inzahi with Ibn ‘Ammar of the Sba’ah
Hadbdan Mushaytib, with al-‘Uwayr of the Gmassah
Hudb not to ne mated
Hadban al-Fard, with ‘Ulwah of the Sba’ah
Hadban al-Fawa’irah, with al-Fawa’irah
Saqlawiyaat to be mated:
Saqlawi Jadran, with Ibn Jadran of the Ruwalah
S. Sh’ayfi, with Ibn ‘Amud of the Shammar
S. Zubayni, with Sahij ibn Zubaynah of the Fad’aan
S. al-‘Abd, with Abu Na’ l of the Frijah of the Ruwalah
S. al-‘Ajrafi/’Ujrufi/’Ejrefi, goes back to Saqlawi al-‘Abd [in the French version: with Turki Ibn Najriss of the ‘Aqaydat]
S. Wubayri, with the Ruwalah
S. Najmat al-Subh, with the ‘Amaraat
S. al-Habtari, with Ibn ‘Ulwah of al-Mawaayigah of the Sba’ah
Saqlawiyaat not to be mated:
S. Rujaymi, with the ‘Amaraat
S. al-Buwayri, with the Ruwalah
S. al-Habtari, with the clan of Banat al-Furrah of the Sba’ah [in the French version: Banat al-Ghurrah]
Dahmaat to be mated:
Dahman Shahwan, with Ibn Hayaazi’ of the ‘Amaaraat
D. ‘Amir, from Ibn Himsi and from to Ibn Tuwayrish of the Gmassah
D. Ma’ajil, with Ibn Ma’ajil of the Gmassah
Rishaat to be mated:
Rishan Shar’abi, with al-Shar’abi of al-Hujjaj of Bani Sakhr
Rishaat not to be mated:
Rishan ‘Ajarrashi
Rishan Jarbu’i
Rishan ‘Alkami [missing from the French version]
Rishan Jnah al-Tair
Samhaat to be mated:
Samhan Qumay’i, with Ibn Fayiz of Bani Sakhr
Samhaat not to be mated:
Samhan Shufay’i with Ibn Mukhayt of the Gmassah
Hamdaniyaat to be mated:
Hamdani Simri, with Ibn Ghurab of Shammar and with Hasan Shaykho of al-Jayss
Hamdani ‘Efri, with Ibn al-‘Ifri of the ‘Amaraat
Hamdaniyaat not to be mated:
Hamdani al-Garn, with Shammar
Hamdani al-Kuway’i, with Ibn Qunayfid of the Fad’aan [in the French version: al-Kuwati]
Kbayshaat to be mated:
Kbayshaan Zafifi, with Ibn al-Su’ud and the ‘Amaraat
Kbayshaat not to be mated:
Kbayshaan Mashlah/Mushallah, with the Mawali
Kbayshaan Jaqmah, with the Huwaitaat
Kbayshaan ‘Amaami
Sa’d not to be mated
Sa’dan Tuqan, with the Mawali
Sa’dan al-Hassun, with the Mawali
Sa’dan al-Najr, with the Mawali
Rubd to be mated
Rabdan Khushaybi from Najd
Rubd not to be mated
Rabdan al-Razni from Najd
Not to be mated:
Wudayhan al-Khawaawir
Frayjan, with the Frijah of the Ruwalah
Khallawiyaat to be mated
Khallawiyaat of the Ruwalah
Khallawiyaat not to be mated
Khallawiyaat al-Niswaan with the Mawali
Mlayhaat to be mated
Mlayhaan Shahm al-Raass, with Shammar and the Mawali
Ju’aytiniyaat to be mated:
Ju’aytini, with al-Fliti, the Shaykh of al-Frijah of the Ruwalah
Zanda’iyaaat, not to be mated
Zanda’i, with Muhammad al-Kahil of the ‘Umur
Bu’ayraat, not to be mated
Bu’ayri
Would some of those strains classed here as ghayr hedud be considered hedud by, say, Shammar informants, or would many of them be universally ghayr hedud? I confess to being very surprised to see the Kuhaylan Rodan listed among the strains not to be mated!
You are correct. The hedud/non hedud in this list is from the perspective of the Sba’ah.
This is a very valuable resource, and you are right, of course, in that the various lists need to be compiled in a chart, with notations for how the various tribes regarded each other’s horses.
Could we assume that they are more likely to recognize each other’s horses today?
Very very VERY interesting.
K. Rawdan, with the Ruwalah [Edouard: i.e., Rodan] — in the ghayr hedud section. That would have precluded for them Rodania (BLT), who is probably representative in thousands of horses in Al Khamsa alone!
K. al-Mash-hur — my brain associated this with *Al-Mashoor. Obviously, that’s not his strain, as his hujjah lists him as a Hamdani Simri. But I’ve oft wondered how he got his name…
Regarding K. Rodan, I wonder if there is any information on what strains the Ruwallah used as stallions, since it is a Ruwallah strain and not a Sba’ah or Fad’aan strain.
The date of the information would also be important I suppose as the consideration might change over time.
I only found 8 strains among the Ruwallah were on the list above as to be mated by the people Tabet was speaking with. I suspect among the Ruwallah there was likely more than than.
Mash-hur is a person’s name and means famous. Rodan was not to be mated from a Sba’ah perspective. That said, there are no K. rodan stallions in any of the accounts in the Abbas Pasha Manuscript.
There’s is also another reason for a strain to not be Hadud, but not sure if this was considered in this list. Some strains were not used because the stallions of that section where known of passing certain undesirable genetic characteristics to their progeny while the mares didn’t.
it is not mentioned.
Out of idle curiosity, I took a quick look at what the Blunts did with colts produced by Rodania and her daughters and granddaughters. They sold most of them (Ras El Ain, Robia, Rejeb, Redif, Rafyk), but used some of them sparingly (and often sold the offspring, e.g. Roala’s daughters Jamila and Debora, Rijm’s daughters Fejr and Belka and his son Crabbet, Rejeb’s sons Durraj and Khalikan and his daughters Jiwa and Narda). Of the Kuhaylan Rodan stallions that they used, none of Harb’s offspring produced anything for Crabbet; Rodan and Razzia feature in pedigrees today because they were amongst Spencer Borden’s imports. Harb was used at Crabbet from 1906; Rijm was used at Crabbet from 1908; both were sired by the Blunts’ Egyptian imports, Mesaoud and Mahruss II, respectively. I kind of want to say the rise in Kuhaylan al-Rodan stallions being used coincides with the partition of the stud, when Wilfrid and Lady Anne separated, buuuut that is a bit of a stretch right now.
This is actually turning out to be sufficiently interesting that I’m going to sit down and look at this in more detail. I doubt it will show anything one way or the other, but I am certainly going to spend a few hours engrossed in this.
Re: al-mash-hur — thank you for clarifying that, Edouard.
This is really such an neat secondary source of the concept of shubuw at play.
Yasser, do you have an specific examples of such sex-linked issues/characteristics that might have been passed on? That’s a really interesting point there.
Ok, well, having started to organise the data, I think the Blunts either were unaware of a prohibition against using Kuhaylan Rodan stallions, or didn’t care about it. They used Rodania’s son Roala, though they did sell him in 1888, when he was four; they also don’t seem to have kept any of his offspring, and his line peters out with his daughter Jamila’s foals. Rodania’s other son Rehoboam was sold the same year, when he was a yearling.
As for her grandsons, the Blunts used Rijm and Rejeb. Harb, pardon me, is not related to Rodania; that’s what I get for using ABP instead of the AK roster. Rejeb was used prior to the partition, Rijm after it.
Does this mean anything? Is this any different from the way the Blunts handled their other horses? Considering that they sold horses quite frequently and sometimes regretted it (Pharaoh, for instance), I don’t really know that Rodania’s sons not leaving descent at Crabbet really matters, especially considering the extensive use of her grandson Rijm.
For K. Rodan, I now notice that it never appeared in the Tahawi pedigrees with the tens of strains involved since the middle of the 19th century. We extensively used the related K. Tamri strain which also belonged to Al-Sha’alan clan of Ruela. But I must say we were more connected too to SB’aa and Al-Brazi family than the other branches of Anazah. I am not raising any doubts about the strain and I think it is just a matter of tribal perspectives, but only stating a little observation that we too didn’t use the strain in the past.
I have always wondered why the Blunts never documented a sire for Rodania, or even mentioned it. They made such a thing about the sire of Basilisk.
Because she came from Ibn Rodan the owner of the original marbat. That’s the point where one stops asking questions. As to Basilisk, her dam was stolen from the original owner of the marbat (or to be precise, from the man to whom the original owner of the marbat had given the dam on shares), so the question arose of whether the original owner of the marbat or his partner — same thing — had bred Basilisk, or whether Basilik’s breeder was the thief. The latter would have been a problem, because the thief would be expected to be less careful about breeding than the original owner of the marbat, or his partner.
Thanks. It has just always bothered me, like an itch that can’t be scratched!