Skip to comments.Predecessor of Cows, The Aurochs, Were Still Living In The Netherlands Around AD 600
Posted on 12/21/2008 10:02:49 AM PST by SunkenCiv
Archaeological researchers at the University of Groningen have discovered that the aurochs, the predecessor of our present-day cow, lived in the Netherlands for longer than originally assumed. Remains of bones recently retrieved from a horn core found in Holwerd (Friesland, Netherlands), show that the aurochs became extinct in around AD 600 and not in the fourth century. The last aurochs died in Poland in 1627... The aurochs was much larger than the common cows we know today, with aurochs bulls measuring between 160 and 180 cm at the withers, and aurochs cows between 140 and 150 cm. The cattle bred on the Frisian mounds around AD 600 measured between 90 and 120 cm and their horn cores were 25 cm long at the most. Hunters and the first Dutch farmers hunted the aurochs. The species eventually became extinct in the Netherlands, not only because it was hunted, but also because more and more land was being used for agriculture and the human population was increasing. Aurochs bones dating back to Roman times have previously been found at various sites in the Dutch river regions. They have also been unearthed in the terps and mounds of Friesland and Groningen. An almost complete skeleton of an aurochs was found in a terp in Britsum (Friesland), 15 km from Holwerd. It dates back to between AD 257 and 421. It was long thought that this was the most recent evidence of the aurochs that would be found, and that the aurochs had therefore become extinct in the Netherlands sometime in the fourth century AD. However, the horn core from Holwerd shows that the aurochs must have been grazing the Frisian meadows for at least another 150 to 250 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/617325/posts — The last progenitor of the modern North American cow was an auroch that died in the forests of Poland in 1627. Aurochs stood nearly two metres tall and had a wide sweep of horns not unlike long-horned Texas cattle, but were unproductive when it came to milk. It is estimated that they produced something like 500 litres a year.
Neanderthals At Mealtime: Pass The Meat
Discovery News | 4-23-2008 | Jennifer Viegas
Posted on 04/25/2008 6:58:54 PM PDT by blam
“Given a choice, bison and aurochs would have been more difficult for a hyena to hunt compared to a reindeer, but apparently this was not true for Neanderthals.”
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
“I am thinking of aurochs and angels...” — last line in Lolita.
“WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO WITH YOUR LIFE??!”
“I want auroch.”
Bring back the Bison...and these too...
Doesn’t look likw a “predecessor” to me. Looks like a plain ol’ big bull. A cross between a Longhorn and a Black Angus or something?
I think it is a Heck Auruch, a german attempt circa Hitler. (Getting back to things old “German,” and all that.)
But, I’ve seen modern Aurochs that are the same size and even have the stripes down the back for males and red for females (as lives on in Jereseys).
Opinions differ, but domestic cattle as we know them are probably 3/4 middle eastern domestic 1/4 European auroch.
The current-day African cattle remain very similiar in pigment & horns to the European auruch(albeit thinner and attempted to drought/heat vs. cold).
The modern re-creation took African, Jersey, and Angus until they got back to auruchs.
Mean and big. I see why we killed them off.
Aurochs is good eatin'.
Thanks for this, learned a great new word and some forgotten history - “terp.”
So that’s what an Auroch looks like. No damned wonder they went extinct.
hummmm I wonder if he would buck?
Wow, that’s just mean. ;’)
Remains of bones recently retrieved from a horn core found in Holwerd (Friesland, Netherlands), show that the aurochs became extinct in around AD 600 and not in the fourth century. The last aurochs died in Poland in 1627...So the last auroch died a thousand years after they went extinct.
Who writes this garbage?
We’re eatin’ ‘em right now. These days they’re called cattle. :’)
Hey, be nice to the good Captain. Use Baghdad Bob instead.
Aurochs went extinct in the Netherlands at least as late as the 7th century, and went extinct altogether in the 17th.
I’m an avid animal lover.
I love them fried, grilled, broiled, smoked and well seasoned.
Great, now I’m hungry...
I think they went extinct because of the burgermeisters.
I want auroch!
LOL. Good one.
Those were Daedelus’ last words to Icarus.
I had always thought that the Bantang of Southeast Asia was about the some thing as an Auroch. Not so says the article although a common ancestor in India is likely. Domesticated Bantang has tough meat though. A nice Angus steak for me, if you will.
:’) No need for me to mailorder it:
I just wanted to make sure everyone had herd that news. The lasso thing I’d want is for anyone to miss it.
Aurochs is singular.
I prefer “rustler”.
Do we really say that a species went extinct in a certain place as small as the Netherlands when they’re still alive in other places not that far away?
I can understand saying that a species went extinct in the Old World, even though they were still surviving in the New, for example, or to say that they went extinct in South America even though some continued to exist in Australia... but to say they went “extinct” in the Netherlands when they still lived elsewhere in Europe... seems to me that’s using the word “extinct” pretty loosely.
When my cat dies, do we say cats have “gone extinct in my home”?
The word “extinct” means “no longer existing” and really, in my opinion, shouldn’t be used if there are any surviving members anywhere. True? Not true? If I’m wrong, I’m willing to learn the error of my ways. But as BOR says, “tell me where I’m wrong”.
Kinda harsh about your cat. ;’) I take your point, but didn’t write the article either. :’)
I know. I’m not arguing with you. I’m just sort of ranting on this subject. You were kind enough to make clear what the author was too inept to do. And I thanks you for that. Ignore my rant. I’ll get over it. :)
The author probably should have made it clear that the range of the auroch got reduced over those centuries, or that, at the very least, little evidence remains. I think one reason for that (besides the rarity of finding leftover parts of dead critters from long ago, except in the case of large death assemblages) in the case of the auroch, is that it was basically a kept animal for lots of generation, and during its last 1500-2000 years in Europe, probably wasn’t just wandering around wild, or at least, not for long. :’)
No wonder we killed them off.