56 MOSTLY MAMMALS 
known. It has been well remarked that even these sculp- 
tures afford evidence that the horse was a comparatively 
new animal to the Assyrians—that is to say, these warriors 
were not such splendid riders as were the Parthians at 
a later date, and as are the Turkomans now. If any of 
my readers will visit the British Museum and inspect the 
Assyrian sculptures, he will scarcely fail to notice that, 
whereas those mounted warriors who are armed with the 
spear manage their own horses, such as carry a bow have 
their horses led by a comrade. Manifestly, the Assyrian 
warrior was incapable of managing his steed when both 
his hands were occupied with his weapon; and he was 
thus a far less accomplished horseman than the Parthian 
or the Turkoman. 
Although the evidence is not decisive, the probability is 
that the horse was first introduced into Assyria from Persia. 
The ancient records of India indicate that horses were by 
no means common there, while such as there were excelled 
neither in strength, speed, nor beauty. The Indian climate 
is, indeed, unsuited to the animal; and there is no doubt 
that it was originally introduced from the north. But the 
original horse must have come from somewhere, and the 
probability is that the nomad Mongols in the east and 
the Turkomans in the west—still some of the most splendid 
horsemen the world has ever seen—were the first Asiatic 
tribes to subdue the noblest of man’s servants. This being 
so, and Turkestan and Mongolia being the home of the 
tarpan and other wild horses, it follows not only that 
the latter are really wild, but that the thoroughbred of 
the East has the same ancestry as the underbred animal 
of the West, and consequently that “blood” is merely a 
matter of careful selection and breeding for countless 
centuries, and is not due to inherent superiority of origin. 
