This site requires the Adobe Flash Player.
straightegyptians

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Blue Star,blue List, Sub Groups, Ms Ott's catalogue
HLM
post Mar 18 2012, 01:37 PM
Post #1


Advanced Senior Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1275
Joined: 21-March 03
Member No.: 192



Hi all

I have always been wondering how for instance "Blue Star" definition came about, meaning NO MU'NIQI BLOOD.
How certain can one be about "Blue-List" horses. Sub-categories such as "Basilisk"
Bashir/Badria/Ward, El Nasser, Karima etc.-would she have included these under what categories, Blue Star or Blue List?

There are numerous ancestors in our pedigrees which do not tell us anything about theirs. Syria has quite a bit of Mu'niqi blood and many ancestors came from there.
Therefore, how did Ms Ott arrive at her conclusion?

It is always sad when an author passes away before completing their work.

Hansi

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caryn Rogosky
post Mar 18 2012, 01:46 PM
Post #2


Micky
******

Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 11-August 04
Member No.: 1584



QUOTE (HLM @ Mar 18 2012, 03:37 PM) *
Hi all

I have always been wondering how for instance "Blue Star" definition came about, meaning NO MU'NIQI BLOOD.
How certain can one be about "Blue-List" horses. Sub-categories such as "Basilisk"
Bashir/Badria/Ward, El Nasser, Karima etc.-would she have included these under what categories, Blue Star or Blue List?

There are numerous ancestors in our pedigrees which do not tell us anything about theirs. Syria has quite a bit of Mu'niqi blood and many ancestors came from there.
Therefore, how did Ms Ott arrive at her conclusion?

It is always sad when an author passes away before completing their work.

Hansi

The above is a misstatement of the definition of Blue Star. "NO MU'NIQI BLOOD" is not the criteria -- it is no RECORDED Mu'niqi blood. The Otts did very deep researching, and while no one could/can be absolutely certain of pedigrees prior to Bloodtyping and DNA testing, they took their studies to the greatest extent possible through very reliable sources.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHuprich
post Mar 18 2012, 02:51 PM
Post #3


Senior Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 488
Joined: 19-April 03
From: Georgia, USA
Member No.: 338



We cannot be sure of any of the ancestors or strains or country of origin of ANY horses prior to the point where it was tracked, either verbally or in writing. Anything prior to that is only supposition or wishful thinking.

However, to address this particular topic with Otts' work, they documented based on the known information at the time, which is all anyone can ever do, ie go back to the earliest history whether it be verbal or in writing. They defined the terms Blue List and Blue Star and own all rights to the term. Any decisions on what horses are included, or not included, belong solely to them.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caryn Rogosky
post Mar 18 2012, 02:57 PM
Post #4


Micky
******

Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 11-August 04
Member No.: 1584



QUOTE (HLM @ Mar 18 2012, 03:37 PM) *
It is always sad when an author passes away before completing their work.

Hansi


Miss Ott (Jane Ott), who is the author of the Blue Catalog, didn't pass away before completing her work --- she is still living. If she wished to add or subtract or change anything in the Blue Catalog I would think she has had plenty of time and opportunity to do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HLM
post Mar 18 2012, 03:42 PM
Post #5


Advanced Senior Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1275
Joined: 21-March 03
Member No.: 192



QUOTE (HLM @ Mar 18 2012, 02:37 PM) *
Hi all

I have always been wondering how for instance "Blue Star" definition came about, meaning NO MU'NIQI BLOOD.
How certain can one be about "Blue-List" horses. Sub-categories such as "Basilisk"
Bashir/Badria/Ward, El Nasser, Karima etc.-would she have included these under what categories, Blue Star or Blue List?

There are numerous ancestors in our pedigrees which do not tell us anything about theirs. Syria has quite a bit of Mu'niqi blood and many ancestors came from there.
Therefore, how did Ms Ott arrive at her conclusion?

It is always sad when an author passes away before completing their work.

Hansi



I need to ad.

I talked numerous times to "Mrs" Ott and I felt that she was the one make the decisions.
If someone gives it a particular definition, it has a reason at such time. In most cases more data was not available.
Therefor I feel it was an assumption, which of course is the author's perogative.
The Yemens also claim that the Arabian desertbred started at their country of which I have no evidence so far.

What I found is that the Syrian bloodlines go deeply into the Mu'nique blood, many decades back, and that many a strain is named after the "Breeder" as it is with other countries, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, etc. Until some time ago I had no idea that that many strains exist.

I feel that authorities on the subject "Strain" would be Basil Jadaan, Syria and Edouard Al Dahdah and his father Gen. Salim Al Dahdah, having close contact to the Bedu tribes, as have their elders.. While Raswan did his very best,
also he had close contact to some.

It is up to anybody to classify their horses as they like but from the scyntific point of view one needs to take
a lot more into account. Personally I refuse to believe the first person stating that the world is "flat". I would be foregoing, overlooking or even deny any consequent research.


My opinion
Hansi
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHuprich
post Mar 18 2012, 04:01 PM
Post #6


Senior Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 488
Joined: 19-April 03
From: Georgia, USA
Member No.: 338



QUOTE (HLM @ Mar 18 2012, 09:37 AM) *
Hi all

I have always been wondering how for instance "Blue Star" definition came about, meaning NO MU'NIQI BLOOD.
...
Hansi


But if you've always been wondering this, why didn't you ask Mrs. Ott this very question on one of the many times you talked with her on the phone? Especially if you thought she was the one to make decisions, not her daughter Miss Ott.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caryn Rogosky
post Mar 18 2012, 04:42 PM
Post #7


Micky
******

Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 11-August 04
Member No.: 1584



QUOTE (HLM @ Mar 18 2012, 04:42 PM) *
I need to ad.

I talked numerous times to "Mrs" Ott and I felt that she was the one make the decisions.
If someone gives it a particular definition, it has a reason at such time. In most cases more data was not available.
Therefor I feel it was an assumption, which of course is the author's perogative.
The Yemens also claim that the Arabian desertbred started at their country of which I have no evidence so far.

What I found is that the Syrian bloodlines go deeply into the Mu'nique blood, many decades back, and that many a strain is named after the "Breeder" as it is with other countries, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, etc. Until some time ago I had no idea that that many strains exist.

I feel that authorities on the subject "Strain" would be Basil Jadaan, Syria and Edouard Al Dahdah and his father Gen. Salim Al Dahdah, having close contact to the Bedu tribes, as have their elders.. While Raswan did his very best,
also he had close contact to some.

It is up to anybody to classify their horses as they like but from the scyntific point of view one needs to take
a lot more into account. Personally I refuse to believe the first person stating that the world is "flat". I would be foregoing, overlooking or even deny any consequent research.


My opinion
Hansi


Most certainly the inclusion of "Recorded" (or known) in the definition was done for a reason...because it WAS an assumption, and to me it shows that Miss Ott had the insight, awareness, and honesty to stipulate that -- just as Al Khamsa has done with their definition. It was, however, a reasonable assumption, because it was based upon the fact that there was no known recorded Mu'niqi blood in those individuals designated as Blue Stars.

What science has shown us in recent years is that the entire strain issue is a matter of reasonable assumption, because strain has far less to do with science than it has to do with tradition, culture and practicality. In fact, the entire matter of "data" for the early ancestors of SE/AK horses (any horses who were pre-bloodtype/DNA testing) also falls under the umbrella of "reasonable assumption" -- and therefore data alone cannot be relied upon as absolute proof of anything -- it is a tool, but not proof. To me, it is a combination of what is recorded in terms of genetic descent, combined with observation of descendants over many generations that lends the most proof of lineage...but even that is subjective and not absolute proof.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2mntn
post Mar 18 2012, 04:50 PM
Post #8


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3789
Joined: 11-January 07
From: Two Mountain Ranch, Nampa, Idaho USA
Member No.: 4862



Hi Hansi,

I think it is clear from some of the articles written by Mrs. Ott, and her daughter Jane, that the "need" to create a Blue List (Muniqi) within the Blue Catalog was based upon information about the Muniqi strain which came to them from Raswan. I get the impression that the Blue Catalog started out as a single catalog of horses which could be authenticated (as much as was possible) as tracing entirely to desert-breds. Along comes Raswan with this theory that the Muniqi strain had been "contaminated" by Turcoman blood, perhaps some 300 years earlier. Once the Ott's became aware of this "contamination", they had no choice (due to their integrity) but to note that information. Absent Raswan, I doubt if the Ott's would have created a dual list of Blue Star and Blue List within the Blue Catalog.

What is not clear to me is why Raswan would have concluded that the entire population of Muniqi-strain horses would have been "contaminated" by one instance of a Turkish horse used with that strain. Crossing of domestics (for whatever region you want to think about) with any and/or all of the Al Khamsa strains was a fact of life. Horsemen wanted to improve what they had and Arabians were used to make those improvements. When the market for Arabian horses became a "hot commodity", beginning in the late 1700's, the horse dealers of the region began to meet the demand with a supply of whatever horses they could come up with. Crosses were expected, and even sought after, as they were good horses. Pure, "noble" horses of the Nejd brought up to 10 times as much money, so unscrupulous dealers represented non-asil and others as pure. They were selling "knock-offs" (means counterfeit or imitation) as the real thing. Back to the point of all this, horse breeders and dealers of the late 1700's through today were not using ONLY the Muniqi-strain to produce these "knock-offs", so it would make more sense to me if Raswan had "suspected" all the strains - UNLESS they came directly from one of the Bedouin tribes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HLM
post Mar 18 2012, 05:13 PM
Post #9


Advanced Senior Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1275
Joined: 21-March 03
Member No.: 192



QUOTE (2mntn @ Mar 18 2012, 06:50 PM) *
Hi Hansi,

I think it is clear from some of the articles written by Mrs. Ott, and her daughter Jane, that the "need" to create a Blue List (Muniqi) within the Blue Catalog was based upon information about the Muniqi strain which came to them from Raswan. I get the impression that the Blue Catalog started out as a single catalog of horses which could be authenticated (as much as was possible) as tracing entirely to desert-breds. Along comes Raswan with this theory that the Muniqi strain had been "contaminated" by Turcoman blood, perhaps some 300 years earlier. Once the Ott's became aware of this "contamination", they had no choice (due to their integrity) but to note that information. Absent Raswan, I doubt if the Ott's would have created a dual list of Blue Star and Blue List within the Blue Catalog.

What is not clear to me is why Raswan would have concluded that the entire population of Muniqi-strain horses would have been "contaminated" by one instance of a Turkish horse used with that strain. Crossing of domestics (for whatever region you want to think about) with any and/or all of the Al Khamsa strains was a fact of life. Horsemen wanted to improve what they had and Arabians were used to make those improvements. When the market for Arabian horses became a "hot commodity", beginning in the late 1700's, the horse dealers of the region began to meet the demand with a supply of whatever horses they could come up with. Crosses were expected, and even sought after, as they were good horses. Pure, "noble" horses of the Nejd brought up to 10 times as much money, so unscrupulous dealers represented non-asil and others as pure. They were selling "knock-offs" (means counterfeit or imitation) as the real thing. Back to the point of all this, horse breeders and dealers of the late 1700's through today were not using ONLY the Muniqi-strain to produce these "knock-offs", so it would make more sense to me if Raswan had "suspected" all the strains - UNLESS they came directly from one of the Bedouin tribes.


Hi Ray
I talked to an elder in Syria, who calimed his family bred Hamdani Simries for 300 years. When I talked to Mrs Ott it was in 1967 to 1973 or further. I even gave her in 1973 a copy of the Inshass Herdbook to finish some of entries.
Also, at that time I did not have the knowledge I have now.

Raswan gave us his index without which it would have been most difficult to do any tracing, as he gave us "names".
He was human, and all humans make mistakes. I admire his work, respect it and draw from there.
Had he been alive, just like Pearson, both would have made corrections and or additions.

However, reseach etc makes some of us rethink matters, correct matters and take it from there.
Until WAHO (Jay Stream) opened the borders for us to Desert Countries, we did not even know what kind and how many horses they had. It produced stud book from which I learn daily.I have horses in my database from some of these countries, which are not in their stud books, lived long before that.

As a researcher I can not possibly work by assumptions, wishful thinking and the like, but must try to get to the bottom of each case. Some take years.

As I said before, I am not sure about the horses declared as "Blue Star" and I doubt if others do as we basically would have to have data going back centuries, which we dont.

My opinion
Hansi
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nadj al Nur
post Mar 18 2012, 05:18 PM
Post #10


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 5019
Joined: 2-January 06
From: Prince George, B.C. Canada
Member No.: 3074



QUOTE (HLM @ Mar 18 2012, 10:13 AM) *
As I said before, I am not sure about the horses declared as "Blue Star" and I doubt if others do as we basically would have to have data going back centuries, which we dont.

Hansi

True.....we don't have all that data, and we likely never will. That is why it says, "no "RECORDED muniqui"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHuprich
post Mar 18 2012, 05:26 PM
Post #11


Senior Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 488
Joined: 19-April 03
From: Georgia, USA
Member No.: 338



QUOTE (HLM @ Mar 18 2012, 01:13 PM) *
...can not possibly work by assumptions, wishful thinking and the like, but must try to get to the bottom of each case. Some take years.

As I said before, I am not sure about the horses declared as "Blue Star" and I doubt if others do as we basically would have to have data going back centuries, which we dont.

My opinion
Hansi


The definition and terms (both Blue List and Blue Star) belong to the Otts, not anyone else. You don't have to agree with it but there is no need to cast aspersions on a program and definition created by others. The horses listed by the Otts as Blue List and Blue Star met their definition.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caryn Rogosky
post Mar 18 2012, 05:36 PM
Post #12


Micky
******

Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 11-August 04
Member No.: 1584



QUOTE (HLM @ Mar 18 2012, 07:13 PM) *
As a researcher I can not possibly work by assumptions, wishful thinking and the like, but must try to get to the bottom of each case. Some take years.

As I said before, I am not sure about the horses declared as "Blue Star" and I doubt if others do as we basically would have to have data going back centuries, which we dont.

My opinion
Hansi



But haven't you contradicted your own statement, and in essence, answered your own question? If, as a researcher you claim that you must "get to the bottom" of each case, but also say that you cannot rely upon assumptions -- then one could spend many lifetimes on reasearch and STILL not be able to get to the bottom of each case. This is impossible for the reasons already mentioned -- data is non-existent for the majority of early Asil ancestors, and even what data exists is very possibly flawed. That leaves only one possible logical resolution...reasonable assumption or presumption. All roads, studbooks, records, etc. lead to the same point eventually.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caryn Rogosky
post Mar 18 2012, 05:37 PM
Post #13


Micky
******

Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 11-August 04
Member No.: 1584



QUOTE (MHuprich @ Mar 18 2012, 07:26 PM) *
The definition and terms (both Blue List and Blue Star) belong to the Otts, not anyone else. You don't have to agree with it but there is no need to cast aspersions on a program and definition created by others. The horses listed by the Otts as Blue List and Blue Star met their definition.


Absolutely true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2mntn
post Mar 18 2012, 10:07 PM
Post #14


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3789
Joined: 11-January 07
From: Two Mountain Ranch, Nampa, Idaho USA
Member No.: 4862



QUOTE (Caryn Rogosky @ Mar 18 2012, 10:37 AM) *
Absolutely true.


Actually, it is absolute bullcrap. Why? Because the statement about Ott's "ownership" and "casting aspersions" is totally extraneous, useless and negative drivel. Any critical look at the "blue" program will reveal the faults therein, based upon knowledge we have now. Perhaps the "blue" program was worth their million-dollar investment, but I have my doubts. The lines that "blue" sought to protect are the lines which have been the most underappreciated, undervalued, underused and mistreated of all Arabian lines.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caryn Rogosky
post Mar 18 2012, 10:41 PM
Post #15


Micky
******

Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 11-August 04
Member No.: 1584



QUOTE (2mntn @ Mar 19 2012, 12:07 AM) *
Actually, it is absolute bullcrap. Why? Because the statement about Ott's "ownership" and "casting aspersions" is totally extraneous, useless and negative drivel. Any critical look at the "blue" program will reveal the faults therein, based upon knowledge we have now. Perhaps the "blue" program was worth their million-dollar investment, but I have my doubts. The lines that "blue" sought to protect are the lines which have been the most underappreciated, undervalued, underused and mistreated of all Arabian lines.


You're entitled to your opinion about the value of the Blue program, but the fact that the program is copyrighted and owned by Miss Ott is a fact. Anyone who doesn't agree with the program doesn't have to follow it, but no one can change it but Miss Ott. I don't follow the Blue program because I disagree with the sublisting of Basilisk, who was not sublisted because of evidence of impurity or of any known Mu'niqi blood, but because the Otts felt that Basilisk was too large and had too much bone to meet their concept of refined desert type. I have not found that she was any more "off type" than many of the other desertbreds of her time, and I trust that Lady Anne Blunt was scrupulous about her authenticity -- therefore I consider the sublisting to be simply a subjective opinion -- their program, their right.

My own program featured a double Tuhotmos son whose tail female was Basilisk, an Ansata Ibn Halima son who was out of an El HIlal daughter (El Hilal was tail female to Basilisk) and an El Hilal daughter. All three of these horses were of refined bone and of moderate size. I bred them back and forth between each other and the results were even more refined infividuals. So, while my own eye and preferences took precedence over the Ott's opinion on Basilisk, and thus precluded my participation in a Blue program, this does not change the degree of respect and appreciation I have for what they did for preservation in this country. I have not, and would not, try to change the criteria of the program or to minimize its importance because I chose not to follow it. I don't doubt that the Otts and the Blue program were/are imperfect (what people or organizations are?), -- but the Otts were completely honest and forthright about what they were doing and why. That they acknowledged the fact that what we know of the heritage of the early desertbreds is limited by what was passed on and recorded -- is a testament to their insight and integrity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st July 2014 - 11:28
This site requires the Adobe Flash Player.