No, that's not my argument and you keep mentioning zebras when we have just established the difference between a zebra, a horse and a donkey. There is a difference of intelligence. To advocate that this is what was used and regarded enough to breed when other similar creatures were around is to acknowledge that they knew the difference. To know the difference means they are more than capable of considering and attempting to put someone on top of a horse, baring anything else. If you imported those creatures then the people before realised this and so on.

The size of the horse (unless it's massively smaller) is irrelevant, children were sent to work not so long ago.

You're are caught on your argument rather than considering the argument against it. People are people.

We're talking about a civilisation that made gigantic structures in an unknown way, that as best as we can sumise used pulleys to move extremely heavy items. You don't think animals would be involved in that in some way, you don't don't think that someone at something in those thousands of years would wonder about about riding them? People ride elephants that can crush them in seconds, they keep monkeys that could rip their faces off as pets. Enki is oftern depicted with a tame lion. In a traditional hunter gatherer sense you would want to understand animal behaviour. As we've discussed, this carries on to other things. It's difficult to imagine going that far with an animal such as a horse but ignoring something like riding it when it has been drawn on so many times throughout history. Everything is always improved on, but it always starts with the basics. It's very rare to overlook the fundamentals of these advancements because they have even around so long. Horses were and are used for many things.

The zebra part is interesting but again it plays into the view that these people knew what they were doing. Zebras are perceived as more equal to donkeys. As such, it's likely that in times past people realised this and so prioritised horses.

If technology and advances are exponential then does it not stand to reason that horse riding would have developed far earlier?

That's all I was getting at. Stereotype me all you want if it helps you.

OK. Then what about someone who isn't an adult?

You're missing my point entirely. My argument isn't so much about technology. It's about the length of time.

I'm not arguing that they should have advanced as much but merely that they should have advanced. People would have made discoveries, practices and methods would have changed. To my knowledge the human brain hasn't changed that much. People would still be inquisitive.

The presentation we are given with articles such as this only feeds the impression that people were basic and that they did not think in the way we do. In basic terms they weren't that advanced. That doesn't really follow through.

Does that not follow though? I mean, you would expect it to be exponential. My point is more that there is still a huge amount of time in between now and then. That's without getting to the 'how did they do all these things and what's their purpose' bit.

It seems logical that there would be more advances even back then.

The sumarians who came before the Egyptians were also quite advanced, and again you're talking about 1000s of years between the two civilisations.

It just seems strange to me.

The whole timeline seems off to me. Think of how many things that have been invented in the last 100 years and then then 100 before that.

It seems crazy to me that these guys were around supposedly just 5000 years ago and that they didn't have the same graduations in learning and technology.

Riding a horse seems pretty basic, especially given that people back then are perceived as being closer to nature.

I think they could. From what I've seen it's the same thing but with a VR headset - the headset doing all the work.

Second Life looks the same and works the same. You can even buy property. Metaverse just feels like a rip off to me and it gets my back up a bit given facebook and Zuckerbergs story. It's all hype and no substance.

Virtual reality is just hardware. You can use it on anything.

Metaverse is a complete rip off of second life. Second life has been around for over a decade. The metaverse is not new or original in any way.

I'd be amazed if they don't sue.