New (and slightly controversial) poll..
I thought I’d throw this question at you, before embarking on a discussing of the strain of *Turfa.. a delicate question here in the USA.
A blog on desert arabian horses, past, present and future
I thought I’d throw this question at you, before embarking on a discussing of the strain of *Turfa.. a delicate question here in the USA.
It seems in this situation MtDNA would not likely answer the question on Turfa’s strain even though we still have tail female Turfa horses. For Turfa it could very well be similar to the situation for the [Mahroussa] Kuhaylan Jellabi, i.e. a record which gives one strain and then a postulation that it was mistaken for another. [in the Mahroussa/Bint Yamama case MtDNA assists sorting this out.] In Turfa’s case Raswan suggests the English record was a confusion of the Arabic and gives Abayyan Al Hurma as a kind of correction. Unfortunately now we cannot interview him on this information. I think in these situations people still make their own choice. After all people still have to make a choice for the El Samraa line which is recorded as both Kuhaylan and Saqlawi in different places of the Egyptian records.
The problem is that there is no such strain as Ubayyat al-Hurma, but ‘Ubayyat al-Hamra does exist.
It still represents a confusion of Arabic names which could only be clarified by interviewing Raswan to understand what he was actually trying to say. Raswan’s writing can be confusing. I say this because I saw a lot of Raswan’s personal correspondence visiting Richard Pritzlaff and also in conversations with Richard Lodwick about Raswan’s visits there. In the ideal world, considering Raswan’s complexity he would need to be asked for clarification some times because his writing can be confusing. It seems to me like it takes a lot of study and research on some points to figure out what Raswan was writing or to figure out the context.