Horse shoes? Tied on not nailed?

[Eleatic Guest]

To revive the intriguing debate, an excerpt from Lynn White's seminal Medieval Technology and Social Change, a bit dated now (1962), but still an expert treatment of the subject:

There is no present firm evidence of the nailed horseshoe before the end of the ninth century...There is no literary evidence that the Greeks, Romans, or Franks had the horseshoe: the closest they came were hipposandals and soleae attached with thongs or wires either for ornamentation or to help the healing of a broken hoof. Since the veterinary care of horses was of much concern to military writers, their failure to mention the shoe has more force than have most arguments from silence. Likewise there is no ancient or early medieval representation of horseshoes...

The earliest unambiguous excavated evidence of horseshoes comes from nomadic rider-graves of the Yenisei region in Siberia in the ninth to tenth centuries. Simultaneously, nailed horseshoes are mentioned in the Byzantine Tactica of the Emperor Leo VI,6 who reigned from 886 to 9II. And in the West we probably hear the first sound of shod hooves in the last decade of the ninth century when Ekkehard's Waltharius says 'ferrata sonum daret ungula equorum'.

In 973 Gerhard's Miracula Sancti Oudalrici speaks of nailed shoes as being habitual for those going on journeys. In 1038 Boniface of Tuscany was exhibiting his status by using silver nails in his horse's shoes. By the later eleventh century they must have been very common, for under Edward the Confessor (d. 1066) six smiths at Hereford annually each produced 120 shoes from the king's iron as part of their taxes.

SOURCE: Lynn White: Medieval Technology and Social Change, Oxford 1962, pp.57-59

So the late ninth century AD is the terminus ante quem for the appearance of the horseshoe and the earliest evidence is from far far away in eastern Siberia. Can we beat that?