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 ...
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.
You seem quite well-versed in all this. Are you an archaeological researcher?
Grew up on a farm. ;’)
What did you expect: Ewes Can't Rollerskate in an Aurochs Herd?
Grumble! Stick in a stinking tag, and lose all the other formatting...GRUMP!
A big bantang is nice but, all in all, I’d rather have a little poontang.
I saw this bull at a livestock show in Louisville back in '80 or '81. I'm 5'11" tall, and this bull was as tall at the shoulder as I am. It was a big, big animal...
They are big, but not spry — bred for meat.
If you look at an auroch (or African cattle or long horns) -— you see relatively long legs of an animal that is both big and fast.
Back-breeding is, IMHO, possible, but not with the euro-centric approach of the the Heck brothers (who were doing it for Nazi propaganda — big Aryan cattle).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.