Random thoughts on Davenport breeding in the USA (part 3)
The third lesson I took from my observation of Davenport breeding in the USA over the last ten years or so is the openness and transparency of the research on these horses.
Research — both scientific and historical — is an essential element of preservationist and conservationist organizations. Most preservationist organizations in the USA are lucky to be endowed with word-class researchers, and the Davenport researchers, such as Charles and Jeanne Craver, Carol Lyons, R.J. Cadranell, and others, are certainly in good company: people like Michael Bowling for CMK, Joe Ferriss with Straight Egyptians and beyond, the group of researchers affiliated with the Heirloom Old Egyptians, or the Blue Catalog’s Jane Ott, who is the godmother of the Arabian horse preservation movement, to name a few. What all these people have in common, other than their credentials, is that they are not afraid of the results of their research, even as it takes them in unforeseen directions.
Take the Schilla story. Sometime in the 1990s, Michael and Ann Bowling did research that showed with a reasonable amount of certainty that the Davenport Arabians thought to trace in tail female from the foundation mare *Urfa, imported by Homer Davenport from the Northern Arabian desert in 1906, did not actually go back to Urfa, but rather to the mare Galfia, a desert-bred Hamdaniyah Simriyah imported by the Ottomans’ Hamidie Society to the Chicago World Fair in 1893. Had the results of this research not been managed the way they have been, and had the communication (and the ensuing education) about these results not been so candid and transparent, the results would have been potentially devastating for the Davenport community, as about a third of Davenport Arabians were concerned by this probable change of pedigree, one consequence of which was the loss of the Saqlawi al-‘Abd *Urfa tail female in Davenport breeding.
By contrast, when the same Bowlings showed, with even more certainty and about the same time, that the horses tracing to Prince Mohammed Ali Tewfik’s Bint Yemama actually traced to the Saqlawiyah Jadraniyah mare Ghazieh (a strain already well represented in Egyptian breeding through the Blunt’s Bint Helwa), as opposed to the legendary Jellabiet Feysul of the rare and coveted Kuhaylan Jellabi strain, nobody within the Straight Egyptian community thought to disseminate this information within that community, and even less to educate Straight Egyptian breeders about the far-reaching consequences of that change in pedigrees, one of which was the loss of the Kuhaylan Jellabi tail female in Egyptian breeding. The Pyramid Society even ran its own mtDNA test to verify the results of the Bowling research, and it took some time before a noted authority on the breed essentially wrote that breeders had to make their own decision on the subject. The result of this lack of communication about such an important finding is that many Straight Egyptian breeders still believe they are breeding the Kuhaylan Jellabi strain, because they like that idea, even if it is false.
Today research on the antecedents of many Straight Egyptian horses is not progressing as fast as it should, because some people are wary of the unforeseen results of such research. Arabians like the Bisharat horses, some Inshass horses like El Samraa, El Shahbaa, El Deree, some of the horses of the Khedive Abbas Hilmi II (Halabia, Nader El Kebir, etc) would no doubt gain from much more intensive and concerted research efforts, such as that currently going on with *Exochorda, but few people want to rock the boat. Again, I am by no means implying that these horses are not asil, I am only saying that we know too little about them, relatively to what we ought to know, given their influence, and people generally seem to be just happy with the current conservative stage of knowledge on these horses: “Why bother with El Samraa being recorded as having two distinct strains — Kuhaylan and Saqlawi? She is included in all preservation rosters, isn’t she, so why should we care to learn more? Who cares if Halabia is mentioned by Lady Anne Blunt as being “uproven”? Why should anyone worry about that burden of proof?” and so on.
To me, the key to the success of Davenport breeding lies in the eagerness of the Davenport breeders’ community at large to want to learn ever more about the background of their horses, and in the trust-based, open, and transparent channels of communication between the Davenport researchers and the community of Davenport breeders at large.
Edouard, Your thoughts are right, and as a breeder of Egyptians I want to know more of those root horses You mentioned. We should go beyond the arguments of trusting in the breeders of old days and try to find out what we can. Some have tried already, just to name Hansi heck Melnyck. Also with some success, like in the case of El Deree. But we have to continue!
The “new” information on El Deree is problematic.
Yes, open, but can cause a lot of confusion? The DNA is
without a doubt the strongest research today. The Davenport-Bradley Imports were well known and the information surrounding them was and still is well known.
The DNA has changed one parent and brought question on another. Both the Tail female lines, Galifa and Reshan are change. Galifa as not being part of the importation and Reshan as to her possible strain.
What does this mean, not anything to the horses themselves only to the words surrounding them. Openness
is, yes, there. I agree, however translation of the pedigree’s, recording, etc., has now been done. DNA is
now providing facts differing.
Al Khamsa is questioning strains as well with opinions
as to possible types. Type related to strain type, yes or no.
Past opinion is being proven in error, as this is all
clearly illustrated with DNA. I hear all kinds of comments, yet my horses still stay the same. Thank goodness. Bedouin Bred lines only.
Blue Star Horses have gone through many changes as to opinion. Now questions about the Egyptian Breedings. I still believe Michael has done a great service to the breed, yet, can we as breeders face the now present
research and realize the gift DNA presents. Problems on opinion and paper only, Craver Farms, a family united in one direction, the positive support of Charles. He
created the ability of survival for the Davenport-Bradley
breedings.
What is open, an attitude, difficult, yes. Yet, research
has been the hall mark of Charles and Jeanne, printed and open for all to read and learn. Does not matter what the
breeders of Egyptian’s want to control, they can not. Where question are, so are the eventual answers. Al Khamsa is a living ongoing research. (as is now this blog)
Yes, so much is happening with the Davenports, yet, so is
all that falls within the research of Al Khamsa.
A small world, yes! getting even smaller. Perhaps in a very good way, at least always interesting. Like Mrs.Ott
a whole lot of interesting writing, yet, today what is written is less interesting on a personal level, yet, of great interest on open DNA research.
Jackson-Bedouin Arabians
What´s Your opinion to El Deree, Edouard? This information of Heck Melnyck does not fit the older ones. Maybe we can discuss this under the missing links?
Nobody was expecting the *Urfah mtDNA results. It just turned out that the *Saleefy descendants did not match the descendants of *Urfah’s other two daughters, Rhua and Sheria.
With the Kehilan Jellabi horses, the mtDNA experiment was set up to resolve an issue that was already in question, ever since the publication of Lady Anne Blunt’s Journals and Correspondence in the 1980s. Lady Anne Blunt’s journal entries, on multiple occasions, mention seeing a “Bint Yemama” at the stud of Prince Mohammed Ali on the island of Roda in the Nile circa 1910. As expected given the mare’s reputation, Lady Anne referred to her as one of the Prince’s best mares. But Lady Anne described the mare not as a Kehilan Jellabi but as a Seglawieh and half-sister to Lady Anne’s own stallion Mesaoud. What’s more, Lady Anne made no mention of seeing any Kehilan Jellabi horses at the Prince’s stud, even though by our time that is the strain the Prince was most famous for having bred. So the experiment was set up to see whether the Bint Yemama descendants matched the descendants of the Ali Pasha Sherif mare Makbula (a Kehileh Jellabieh) or the descendants of the Ali Pasha Sherif mare Bint Helwa (a Seglawieh from the same substrain as Mesaoud). And they matched Bint Helwa, not Makbula, confirming the pedigrees that Lady Anne gave for these horses.
As for *Reshan, I don’t see how the mtDNA results call her strain into question. The *Reshan mtDNA is a match with the Basilisk mtDNA. So what? Rodania and *Wadduda have the same mtDNA. *Hadba has the same mtDNA as Dajania. We know that strain names don’t seem to go back more than several hundred years, but domestication of the horse was much earlier. Any particular original wild mare probably had several descendants on hand by the time strain names started to be given out.
RJ
I take your points that the two mtDNA studies for *Urfa and Bint Yemama were done for different reasons. Still, the point that the results were dealt with differently in each group of horses’ respective community of breeder is significant.
IMO, RJ’s explanation actually strengthens your point, Edouard.
It *should* be more difficult to accept findings that are completely unexpected, than those which have the weight of a recognized historical authority behind them.
As I recall Basilisk and Reshan came from the same area, and are very close to same time frame? I can reason your point of view. But, it was Michael that said in a letter on this blog concerning Monsoon that Reshan could be a possible Saqlawi. (implied)
RJ go back and argue this point with Michael. This is some of the confusion I mentioned. Not a problem as far as I am concern, it is just that you have said that strains are not really what makes type as to strain type. I think it was you who stated that Tripoli could be recreated without his tail female line no longer available. Even so, the same influence in my opinion would be different, then Tripoli.
Oh well, opinions are just that……………
Jackson
Remember, there is no “area” as far as desert-bred Arabians are concerned, other than Arabia Deserta at large. These horses were following migrating tribes, who would roam hundreds of miles within Arabia Deserta. Two horses who might have been purchased east of Aleppo in the summer, when ‘Anazah Bedouin tribes converge there, might be hundreds of miles away in the following winter, and not in the same area anymore.
“I think it was you who stated that Tripoli could be recreated without his tail female line no longer available.”
Jackson, my point was not that Tripoli himself could be exactly re-created, but that horses showing Tripoli’s unmistakable stamp — what might be called the Tripoli or Poka type — appear among his descendants, even though they do not share his tail-female line. Among them are Moth, Trill, Regatta CF, Dawn Patrol, Propriety, Miss Manners UF, and Leafs Barkentine.
Also, horses showing the unmistakable Antez stamp appear among his descendants, even though they do not share his tail-female line: Antan, Aramis, Plantagenet, Personic LF, and Cobalt KH, for example.
Many Davenports show the unmistakable Letan stamp, even though they do not spring from his tail-female line. These include Sir, Lysander, Javera Thadrian, Periwinkle CF, and Peridot UF.
And not to be left out, many Davenport horses bear a remarkable resemblance to their ancestor Hanad, even though they do not share his tail-female line: Sir Marchen, Monsoon, Atticus, Cathay, and Attabi CF, for example.
I have never heard of any confusion about *Reshan’s strain history. Her hujjah is quite clear.
I agree with Edouard re: the failure of the straight Egyptian community to acknowledge the clarification provided by the mtDNA study. However, I must say that straight Egyptian breeders have been VERY helpful in providing mane hair samples for the mtDNA work that the Institute is currently doing on the remaining SE lines that were not done by the Bowlings in the 1990s. As Michael and I collaborate on that research (and evaluate preliminary results), we know there will be more anomalies that will require some breeders to take a few deep breaths. Nevertheless, folks have told me “let’s get the results out and deal with it.” Frankly, I’ve used the Davenport example to demonstrate that the world does not end when an anomaly is found.
Anita
We so look forward to the results of that study. I can’t wait for you to discuss them.
Jeanne: there is no confusion about Reshan’s strain, but some folks are still confused by the fact that historic, documented strain, and tail female lines as demonstrated by mtDNA, do not correspond on a one-to-one basis.
POLISH Mares mtDNA research.
As I’m completly ignorant in this field I found this study interesting.
please find below some glances of this study the full study could be found on
http://www.gse-journal.org
Department of Genetics and Cytology, University of Gdansk, K?adki 24,
80-822 Gdansk, Poland
Polish Academy of Sciences Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Jastrzebiec,
05-552 Wólka Kosowska, Poland
(Received 5 December 2006; accepted 9 March 2007)
http://www.gse-journal.org
DOI: 10.1051/gse:2007025
. Our study revealed that representatives of different lines shared the same haplotypes. We also noted a genetic identity between some
lines founded by Polish mares of unknown origin and lines established by desert-bred mares.
The third aim of the work was to evaluate the genetic similarity between
the founders of the oldest Polish lines, the ancestors of which are unknown,
and the founders purchased in the Near East and admitted as purebred Arabian
mares.
Haplotypes identical to those found in American Arabian horses analysed
by Bowling et al. were present in eight lines (Fig. 1). Particular attention was
given to the genetic identity between the line founded by Szamrajówka, a mare
of unknown origin born about 1810, and the line of Balkis, a desert-bred (d.b.)
mare imported to France in 1880. The genetic identity between the largest
Polish line of Gazella d.b. and the line of Murana I d.b., imported in 1816 to
the Weil stud (Würtenberg, Germany) is also worth noting.
The K haplotype was found in the Rodania and Cherifa lines.
There is no reason to question the pedigree data of both lines. The occurrence
of this haplotype in different lines was also confirmed by a study of American
Arabs [4]. Haplotype A1, the 397 nucleotide-long fragment of the K haplo-
type, was noted in the Rodania, Wadduda, Urfah, and Noura lines. The same
haplotype occurring in five lines may be recognised as evidence of their com-
mon origin
The presence of identical haplotypes in lines established by mares recog-
nised as desert-bred Arabs and in those of unknown origin may be admitted as
evidence of the Arabian origin of the latter.
End of quote.
confused? Not really, DNA says certain lines match up as to tail female. How many strains are going through the same tail female? And does this mean one tail female can have many strains? Amber you are saying ” do not correspond on a one to one basis.” Sure, I guess one can in research have it many ways? Understanding has many degrees of reasoning.
So now as I have read over these past months, tail females cross over and around as to strains? I am no longer talking about type, just tail females. Confusing, yes, I know people are always changing names. I guess
The Bedouin change names of tail female also to sire lines or what ever. Yes, I have been reading this also.
As to your, R.J., examples this here too, is only opinion, what I have found over the years, opinion changes, facts change also as facts are added. (such as DNA)
One can breed tail female to same tail female and build
a consistent type, yes? Charles certainly did! I know I have, plus the higher level of quality. Then, here again
is opinion. Over all quality does not gain speed, only the energy of the individual, so breeding of the Bedouin is for inner energy.
Stains are given for qualities. So tail females are the same with differing names. Yet there are many differing tail females, right. Creating many more variables.
R.J. we disagree very little except in words.
Yet, we all hear each other so different.
I often will say something for reaction, sometimes it happens, sometimes not. Just I needing to know who I am
talking with. I must admit this blog is difficult at times. Because every one is always correct, we all seek
some form of understanding where the next is coming from.
Yet, as I said prior DNA is eye opening in the realities
of what once was and now is.
Jackson
Hello Joe, That is very interesting , at the moment I can’t find the full paper… do you have the title/ authors’ names?
Thanks
Lisa
Not really, DNA says certain lines match up as to tail female. How many strains are going through the same tail female? And does this mean one tail female can have many strains?
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. One strain may have members of different mtDNA types, and a single mtDNA type may have horses which represent different strains. If previously we imagined that one mtDNA type would map to one and only one strain, we were wrong. 🙂
This means our understanding of strains, their meaning, source and origin, needs to broaden in order to accommodate the physical facts. (What *Reshan’s hujjah contains is a physical fact; what mtDNA type her tail-female descendants present is also a physical fact.)
A new view on dam lines in Polish Arabian horses based on mtDNA …
by I G?a?ewska – 2007 – Cited by 1 – Related articles
EDP Sciences Journals List … DOI, 10.1051/gse:2007025. Published online …
http://www.gse-journal.org/articles/gse/abs/2007/05/g06109/g06109.html
Wow, I have been away from blogs for about 3 weeks now and there is so much to catch up on and I have yet to do it. First Edouard, thanks for all of your recent posts on the Davenports. I will save and read these and cherish them.
I can only offer one thought here for now. It is my opinion that many Egyptian breeders DO want to know more about the background of their horses, particularly newer people. The growing thirst for this knowledge is what also keeps my curiosity alive.
However it is somewhat inaccurate to compare the Davenport model to the Egyptian model of knowledge search. The Davenport foundation horses all arrived at one point in time [1906] from essentially a single effort, and obtained in the homeland of the breed’s creation along with hujaj for most all of them.
The Egyptian foundation horses come to us over nearly a century from many different people and many different circumstances, so the work of finding more information is extremely challenging. I am always optimistic though. The recent work on the Tahawi has been enlightening. Halabia is another matter. She is now deep in Egypt’s past. It will be a challenge to add more but one never knows what can still be found.
Al Khamsa also has other foundation horses which do not carry the comfort level of the Davenport importation and we would always like to know more, but with reasonable assumptions we move forward.
Hmm. Maybe the perceived differences have more to do with the “leadership” within each community?
Thankyou very much Joe.
Because the Egyptian community is so vast and so internationally public, (compared to the size of the Davenport community) I think there is a tendency to overlook the sentiments and interests of the many smaller less public breeders and riders involved with Egyptian horses. Because I have traveled in so many different horse breeding environments I have had the luxury of seeing the details and points in common between these two communities so I am not as effected by the larger public image that normally comes with notoriety. Many smaller breeders and newer people are very much like the people that began with Al Khamsa in the 70s. I think as you search and compare the many different blogs this becomes evident. This is something that I particularly enjoy when I am giving a presentation to newcomers. There is clearly an enthusiasm for the heritage of their horses. Perhaps from this environment will come tomorrow’s “History Detectives.”
I agree with you on this, Joe
Ambar,
DNA say Fadl is no longer the strain that Babson was given. Kuhaylan Jallabi
He is now Ghazieh through Yemamah, a Saqlawiah
Double standard: Basilisk Reshan
What at least Michael said or intimated
the DNA of these horses, they, may actually line up in the same strains? At least the same tail-female.
As to the tail female having many strains. I personally think this is possible. Yet, there is Fadl and his sister. The Egyptian group may disagree, why not? Double standards always lead to resistance.
When all of this is publish, I hope, only this;
“What Is” is given and the opinions are simple left aside.
Jackson:
The difference is that the attribution of strain in *Fadl’s case is using mtDNA to support historic data from Lady Anne Blunt’s writings, which predate Prince Mohammad Ali’s statements as to his horses’ strain. It is not using mtDNA to reassign strain in defiance of all existing documentation, as reassigning *Reshan would be. See:
http://cmkarabians.com/articles/MBWhatsInAName.html
By your own explanation, the early writing above. The earlier remarks of Lady Anne Blunt have bearing over the statements of Prince Mohammad Ali’s as to his horses strains. Right or wrong, your statement shows double standards. I certainly do not wish to over rule Reshan and her Past! Yet, Michael begged the question that there is no proof of strain, only tail female. Since then you as others say it is possible for tail female DNA to have multi stains. This I believe is true! Yet, then we also must factor the DNA positive tail female for time back.
If I can see a double standard, then whose opinion is
correct in looking at DNA? For research to become believable there is a duel obligation of not presenting
opinion of real and unreal, but simply presenting facts.
Yes, I personally think that the corrections of Fadl are valid. Yes, I think Reshan, as – Daverport was given, was valid. Yet, there is a question as in other situations
DNA has begged a greater question more. These problems will need direction as DNA proceeds! The actual reality is where does fact and opinion begin and end. Perhaps never, as facts are updated, past facts as known become opinion.
What now is submitted as fact by any one, especially me, is the possible of tomorrows opinion.
I do not disagree with you per-say on your opinions, I do disagree that opinions should remain as such. DNA as I know it and have been told is simply fact! How we chose to use that fact become opinion.
Jackson
But let us not forget that strains themselves are forged in opinion. Some strain names are rooted in legendary stories such as the story of the Kroush, a story which has been told several different ways. Another strain name once was a Muniqi and then later became a Rabda because of a particular Muniqi mare’s white marking on her forehead shaped like an ostrich feather, and that mare distinguished herself in battle. Her family name is a name based on the opinions and beliefs of that particular clan of that tribe. Bedouins are the first namers of the strains and they have the right to change them over time as suits their needs or their evolving situations. All of these are quite understandable because strains are first and foremost a cultural entity. The identifying of a particular female line by DNa and discovering that another female line has the same DNa just explains root female relationships but does not tell the story for each line developed culturally. I still see them as separate subjects.
Joe,
I can agree with you, as to what you said.
It is what is not being said, where clarity is needed. When DNA is use one way for information, and then another way two sentences later, I question. (Trying to have it both ways, is a double standard.)
Jeanne in the last Al Khamsa, really did a great job, in the separation of the two realities, research and the Bedouin.
She also was factual as to what is now known. Presenting all views, past and present. I think she did a great job sorting everything. Fact and opinion. Would I have done every thing the same, no, as I am not capable of this activity.
My words are not critically imposed, I have tried to form them as caution. I have tried to form them as to Michael’s lead, with what he has responded too, on this and other blogs.
Jackson