STRAINS : as names

thoughts and expressions made by Edouard Salim Aldahdah
through forum correspondence
Correspondence is complete with only personality's names removed.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Bedouins ever bred according to strain theory. This is a myth. They most cetainly never did it intentionally during the 20th century and the Abbas Pacha Manuscript is here at last to tell us it never happened in the 19th century.

There are definitely many different types, distinctive and special. The greatest contribution of North American breeders of Arabians to the breed (a contribution at least equal that of the Bedouins in preserving the purity of the blood from immemorial times) is that they have emphasized and developed these types. However it is my opinion that the mistake of these breeders was to confuse strains and types. They are not to be associated together.

Strains are just equivalents of family names for humans. Humans transmit family names from father to son, in horses family names (strains) are transmitted from mother to daughter, simply because Bedouins thought it was more convenient, for several reasons (I'll expand on this later).

You have tall humans and short humans; and you have humans from the Smith family and other from the Doe family. By assocaiting strains to types, people are basically saying the equivalent of the following: "the Does are tall, the Smiths generally short, they are more so if Does only marry Does and Smiths only marry Smiths, and don't let Smiths marry Does because you will have mixed results and will lose the types." This is incorrect.

Keeping on with the somewhat corny analogy, it is my opinion that you have short Does and tall Does, short Smiths and tall Smiths. To preserve types, say 'the short type' for the sake of argument, Short Mr. Smith should marry Short Ms. Doe. As simple as that.

Back to horses. Kuhaylans can be masculine or feminine. Saglawis can be masculine or feminine. It has nothing to do with strains. Nothing. If you like 'feminine type', then cross any 'feminine' looking stallion to any feminine looking mare, whether this mare is Kuhaylan or Sagalwi does not matter. You will have a feminine looking colt.

Call your types whatever you want, but don't call them Kuhaylan type or Saglawi type. Call them 'masculine type', 'feminine type' or type A and type B. But don't associate types with strains.

The strain theory is a theory suggested by Raswan from what he THOUGHT was happening. Prince Fawaz al-Shaalan of the Ruwalah did not think much of Raswan's theory.

I am reluctant to give examples from the horses I know in the Middle East. People here find it hard to believe. It is not easy to believe someone you know (and a foreigner too). Let me only tell you that I have owned several Managhi mares that were more feminine and delicate than gazelles, several Saglawi mares that were more masculine in type than lions, and Kuhaylans that were more angular than the keyboard on which I am typing.

You'll probably tell me that these angular Kuhylans have lots of Managhi blood in them. Well no. One mare I am now now thinking of were a Kuhayla ibn Mizher (some rare strain) that was by a Saglawi (himself by Obayyan out of a mare sired by a Hamdani) out of a Kuhayla Ibn Mizher by a Hamdani, and she was owned by the 2nd degree cousin of the current sheykh of Tayy. The mare was a purebred known in all the tribe. She was angular yet no evidence of Managhi in her pedigree.

An example from the US: For fifty-five years (enough horse generations to fix a certain type), the Cravers have thought their Saglawis were Saglawis and they bred some of them pure in the strain (Saglawi to Saglawi) to fix the Saglawi type. Recently research has proven that these horses were Hamdani (people call that Kuhaylan-related, so another 'type' than what is called Saglawi type).

The Cravers were very succesful at fixing a certain type, and you can pick the mares from that family one by one in their pastures. [This demonstrates that breeding according to types is a success]. Yet their horses, previously-thought-to-be-heavy-in-blood-Saglawis' are now heavily-Hamdanis.

So what happened? did type change overnight? No, the mares did not change, they did not grow more bones. Only the name changed from Saglawi to Hamdani. That means the name was never relevant, that it does not mean anything physically, that it never interfered with type and that it never had anything to do with it.

Raswan, like all great minds, was courageous enough to suggest a theory. His theory is controversial, but his legacy is not. He remains a master and a spiritual father for me, but a master is above all a source of inspiration, an initiator of vocations, not just a dictionary one follows blindly.

03 August 2001

We keep our horses in a place 30 miles east of Aleppo, on the fringes of the Syrian desert. That is where the horses come from, often from their Bedouin owners, mostly Fedaan and Shammar Bedouins. We could stay at my mother's village, it is in the mountains on the edge of the desert. I plan to be there next year for foaling season, because this year, one of my mares foaled while I was here in the US and she stepped on her foal and crushed him.

These Bedouins (now sedentarized of course, but the older ones were born nomads and most are semi-nomads) often come to spend their evenings, and I'll be happy to translate what they have to say about strain theory..

They'll most probably say that every breeder is free to breed the way he/she wants, but that they will take their mares to the best stallion around, no matter the strain of the mare with respect to the strain of the stallion.

We could visit with the sons of Fanghash al-Nowag. They are the Bedouins (from Sbaa) after whom the strain of Kuhaylan Nowag (Nowak) was named. They are the owners of the strain. They'll tell you all about how strains are born and what they represent. After hearing them, you'll make up your mind on your own.

Of course, most Bedouins have preference for particular strains, but these are matter of taste, not type. Stallions are chosen from a few strains which have been in the tribe for a long time, and ave 'proven themselves' in the old times, in raids and tribal wars.

For Shammar, it is Hamdani Ibn Ghurab, Obayyan Seheili, Saglawi Marzakani, Saglawi Ibn Amud, Kuhaylan Krush, Dahman Amir and Managhi Hedruj Ibn Ufaytan. Any Bedouin will bring any mare of ANY strain to the best horse available from these strains.

For Fedaan, it's Kuhaylan Hayfi, Kuhaylan Nowak, Kuhaylan Musinn, Managhi Abu Sayfayn, Kuhaylan Khdili (and a few minor others)

Bedouins usually have one mare, their riding mare, and not everyone can afford to keep a stallion. Often, the tribe (or sub-tribe) has a herd stallion, sometimes two or three. Everyone uses these stallions.

Edouard
04 August 2001

Strains are family names to identify horses in the desert, like our family names identify us in society.

For example, an imaginary case: a tribe raids another, say Sbaa raids Rwallah, and seizes two mares and a prisoner. The prisoner is asked to give the identity of the two mares. He says: "The first is Kuhaylah Ajuz of the stud of Ibn Rodan (abbreviated Kuhaylah Rodaniyah) and the second is Saglawiyah of the stud of Ibn Sudan (abbreviated Saglawiyah Sudaniyah)."

In doing so, he disclosed the full identity of the mares, by giving the strain of the mare, which is a generic name, and a substrain, usually formed by the name of the owner. He did not say anything about type. Type is absolutely irrelevant in such situations as in many others.

In a place with no ID passports for horses, no registration numbers, no bloodtyping, this is the most convenient way to identify a horse.

Another reason why it is convenient is that Ibn Rodan is not likely to have 40 mares from this family, but rather 3 or 4, that can be differentiated by color or markings. So you the prisoner does not really need to specify which one of the 3 or 4 the Kuhaylah is, also because it is most likely a descendant of the original mare of Ibn Rodan.

A third reason is that most bedouins call their mares either Nura or Jauza, or Noma or Farha or Saada or Tarfa or Yamamah and a handful other names. (Their stallions are almost always called Masud, Marzuq, Mahruss, Farhan, Mesrur, and a few other names). If the prisoner identifies the mares as Nura and Farha it really means nothing because maybe 200 other mares in the desert have the same name, and often the Bedouins will call a daughter, or a niece, or a granddaughter, or a sister, of their Nura Nura as well.

My father is not a Bedouin but a Christian townsman of Lebanon, yet he has the bad habit of calling all his mares from the same female line by the same name, so before we get WAHO to accept the Lebanese studbook in 1992, it was a real mess and a challenge to remember whether some colt born in the 80's was a son of Zenobia (II) or Zenobia (III) or Fayruza (I) or Fayruza (II)...

Back to the prisoner. If the mares were not identified, then they are worth nothing, because those who took them cannot know whether they are pure or not. These mares, now worthless, remain in the tribe but their sons are not allowed to serve mares of known backgrounds. [This is the origin of the concept of "Shubby", that is, "worthy to be mated". Some strains are not "Shubby" within a tribe because this tribe did not have enough information on these horses at the time it took them in war. This is also why some strains are to be mated in one tribe and not to be mated in another. It does not mean they are impure, not at all. Just unlucky. But that is another issue. More on that later.]

The tribe who took the mares is now able to determine whether they are pure or not, that is to determine their rank in the horse population of the desert. The prisoner will have to identify himself too, in much the same way as he identified his horses. He will give the name of his tribe (equivalent of the prisoner's 'strain', in this case Ruwalah) and his clan (equivalent of the substrain, say Ibn Shaalan).

Conclusion: The prisoner is from Ruwalah, from Ibn Shaalan, the 1st mare is Kuhaylah, from Ibn Rodan, the second is Saglawiyah, from Ibn Sudan, also from Ruwalah. The three are identified, their value is now known and the matter is solved. That was the purpose, origin and function of strains. As you can see this is not of much relevance in America today, so strains are here just for their sentimental value, for the folklore, because it is sad to throw this culture away.

Types are an altogether different story. Within a strain, you can have many types. A decisive proof is in the Abbas Pasha Manuscript, with Faysal al-Shaalan of Ruwalah (supreme Bedouin authority on horses at the time of Abbas Pasha) classifying the Saglawi Marighi mares of Muhammad al-Marighi in three different types, according to the way they looked. Look it up!

In America, although many people generally follow Raswan and mix strains and types, they have UNCONSCIOUSLY identified types regardless of strains.

So all of us, (just look at the last few emails) speak of Pritzlaff horses. Most of us are able to recognize a Pritzlaff horse when they see one, regardless of whether the horse is Dahman or Saglawi. (and if you can't identify a Pritzlaff horse, then the skull-measuring tools of Charles Craver will help you do so!). Well, lets face it, Pritzlaff horses are all one type, REGARDLESS of strains. It is a very uniform herd, after 40 years of breeding.

Then lets cite some of the types of today in the US:

1. Pritzlaff type, with Pritzlaff/Rabanna as a subtype, and Pritzlaff/Fakhr el Din as another.

2. Babson type, with Babson non-Maaroufa as a subtype. Same recognizable type whether Saglawi or Dahman. And maybe many other subtypes too. Maybe the line of Faarecho. Maybe those who have Saafaddan..

3. Fadl-Turfa-Sirecho-Muhaira type, whether tail female Turafa or Muhaira. F-T-S-M with added blood of Al-Hamdaniyah as a subtype. (similar looking but bigger horses)

4. Davenports. All characterized by same height (14.2 to 14.3), huge eyes, very deep jowls,huge distance between jowls, bigger brain skulls, and also exact same size of cannon bones, again whether Kuhaylan Haifi or the other line (call it whatever you want). Non-Tripoli is a subtype, non-Fasal is a subtype, Dharebah-Dharanah is a subtype, etc.

5. Joe Ferriss spoke of an Ibn Rabdan type in the past, and of a Prince Muhammad Ali type too. How he has identified these too is fascinating.

6. Ansata type, they all bear what has been dubbed the 'Ansata look" which is a separate type. Nile family as a subtype.

7. Serenity type, regardless of strain. I cannot tell which one of Hansi's horses is Kuhaylan or Hadban, but all have the Serenity brand.

8. Babson-Turfa, or Turfa type, different from the Sirecho-Turfa type. A Babson Dahman from Bint-Bint Sabbah does not look like a Babson-Turfa Dahman also from Bint Bint Sabbah. Why not, despite the fact that they are both from the same tail female? etc. etc. Outside AK, there is a Raffles type, a Khemosabi type, etc. etc.

The wonderful thing is that, just like any famous Bedouin program ended in the 'creation' (the naming) of a strain after the owner or a famous horse from that strain, here too, each successful breeding program, if carried long enough (30 to 40 years) results in the creation of a distint. So each and every one of us, can, and does have a type, sub-type, or sub-sub-type in his/her won herd. Whether we want to admit it is another question.

Edouard
06 August 2001

Let people who believe in strain theory stick to it. I am just saying that this is not a Bedouin thing.

Bedouins (all Bedouins) are very simple and practical people, or were so before becoming modernized. They don't elaborate theories and breeding philosophies.

THREE MORE ARGUMENTS AGAINST STRAIN THEORY HAVING NEVER EXISTED AMONG BEDOUINS

First, breeding decisions are dictated by SURVIVAL of the nomads and other practical decisions. Think of it a little bit: It is total folly for any Bedouin to breed his Hamdaniah mare to a Hamdani stallion just for the sake of strain breeding when there is a Saglawi stallion out there whose daughters and sons are fast, enduring and powerful horses.

The survival of the raider depends on this. If he does not chose the swiftest, sturdiest, toughest stallion to breed his mare to, (and this horse might or might not be of the same strain as his mare) then chances are that the resulting foal would not be as fast and sturdy as it should be (ie, no improvement) and that it would carry him home in the next raid.

Second, there is limited number of horses of the same strain within the same tribe, confederation or area. Breeding continuously to horses of the same strain in a limited horse population would result in degenerated individuals, and ABOVE ALL, it would NOT produce the best horse, simply for lack of choice. So strain breeding is not likely to improve the breed as it is claimed but to reduce its prepotency by reducing the supply of good horses available (same reason why the best horses in America were those combined source).

In a tribal environment which only maintains the strict minimum number of stallions (becasue they are just more mouths to feed and we're in the desert not in a lush prairie) to ensure the reproduction of the species (and does away with surplus colts by selling to racetracks, etc.), it is also unthinkable to reduce the choice even more.

Third, just read the Abbas Pacha Manuscript. I read again and again looking for evidence of strain breeding (ie, proof that the strains are Breeds as claimed) and found none, only inbreeding and rarely (father to daughter, brother to sister). It gets is sometimes tedious, but it is worth reading. The period the Manuscript was written is considered the zenith of Bedouin horsebreeding...

Also, when Lady Anne Blunt was herself a "newby", she thought that strains were breeds (and you can find it in 'Bedouin tribes of the Euphrates, written in 1878). Later, as she grew older and more experienced, she was to write, in 1917 or 1916, towards the end of her life:

"Mutlak (ie Mutlak Battal of Muteyr, her bedouin manager) is never tired of telling me: All are Kehilan, all are the same."

Quote from Lady Wentworth's Authentic Arabian Horse: "When asked about a certain strain, Lady Anne replied: "Kuhylan Haifi is a good strain, but not better than any other. It got a certain reputation when Turki Ibn Meheyd was killed by the Ruwalah while riding a Kuhayla Haifi mare. The Ruwalah captured the mares."

So according to Lady Anne, strains are about reputation, ie subjective tastes.

There is one breed of Arabian horses. It is the Equus Caballus Ardens. This is its name in taxonomy, the scientific classification of living creatures. (Now that's not a Bedouin discovery, but science). The inventors of strain theory were neither Bedouins nor scientists.

Also, ... Concerning the Managhis, I believe they are like all other strains. Not better not worse. There were good classic looking horses among Managhis just like there were good horses among all other strains. And bad horses too. Simply. Raswan based his Managhi theory on horses that were not even Managhis, (but just plain horses from Kehilan or unknown strains): Kismet (Kuhaylan from Muntafiq) , Maidan (unknown strain), Yataghan (K. Jereyban). The source is Perter Upton's "The Arab Horse". Another good book.

Edouard
10 August 2001

the strain theory, please explain the following questions:

1. How come the Doyles, bred (and inbred) heavily for over 5 generations in the Saglawi strain don't have what is the 'Saglawi type' ?

2.How come Hallany Mistanny, thought to represent ideal Kuhaylan Type (See Forbis, Authentic Arabian bloodstock) has been proved by genetic reasearch and other reserach (see Bowling on Arabian Visions website) not to be Kuhaylan but Saglawi Jedran by a Saglawi Jidran?

3. How come the Cravers' thought-to-be-Saglawis and thought to represent ideal Saglawi type (See Craver brochure Arabian Horse World, legend of the mare Trill (Tripoli/Moth)) are now Hamdani (thought-to-be-more-than-masculine type) but also pure in the strain hamdanis?

4. How come the SE Dahmans from El Dahma don't look like the SE Dahmans from Bint EL Bahreyn (see Forbis, same reference as above, on the Dahman strain) ?

5. How come the Kuhaylan Hayfis of the Cravers don't look like the Kuhaylan Rodan SE? Is there also a substrain theory?

6. How come the-thought-to be Kuhaylan Jellabis (and now proven by MtDNA to be Saglawi Jidrans from Bint Yemama, sister of Mesaoud at P.Moh. ALi's) don't look like the Saglawi Jedran's also tracing to Ghazieh of Radia and Serra?

7. How come the Blue Star horses going back to *Halwaaji, Hamdania Semri (Saud) don't look like the horse going back to *Al Hamdaniyah, also Hamdani Semri from Saud/Jiluwi?

Not before I get convincing answers to all 7 of these questions would I be logically able to go back to where I come from and tell these guys I
cited or their sons (most fathers are dead now) that that I got from them is a lie.

There are obviously two opposite views here, I respect the view which is not mine, as well as those who defend it, but I NEED to know, not only examples of strain theory working but ALSO COUNTER EXAMPLES OF WHEN AND WHY IT DID NOT WORK WHEN IT WAS SUPPOSED TO.

Edouard

Reprinted with permission

BACK