New Views over Megalithia

Current topics

Re: New Views over Megalithia

Postby Mick Harper » 12:21 pm

Yes. for the dear lady to say
Fierce and unbiddable creatures, Hazel suggested that the aurochs may have been imported to breed particular characteristics into domestic herds.

is cretinous on two levels: 1) that it is impossible to import such animals in small boats and then keep them on a small island and b) the aurochs is clearly so different from domestic cattle that breeding between them is is almost certainly a biological impossibity. The aurochs would therefore itself appear to be a domesticate, Which means this statement
The oldest aurochs remains have been dated to about 2 million years ago, in India.

is highly suspect. It may be, as in the case of the bison, that palaeontologists are taking their cue from archaeologists and are carefully ignoring a difference between two types of aurochs or the two million years is itself dreamland. The phrase 'dated to about 2 million years' usually denotes a lack of scientific rigour.
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 929
Joined: 10:28 am

Re: New Views over Megalithia

Postby Mick Harper » 12:28 pm

Though it has to be said that if they could interbreed then it might be worth going to all the bother of catching a live wild aurochs, hobbling it, crating it, and taking it over to a small island. Why? Because thereby a domestic cow on this same island couldn't escape his attentions.
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 929
Joined: 10:28 am

Re: New Views over Megalithia

Postby TisILeclerc » 12:37 pm

It's funny how all our food comes from abroad.

What were our ancestors doing for all those thousands of years? Sitting around for the middle east farmers to come across with domesticated animals and wheat?

But if these causeway thingies were holding pens or breeding pens for downsizing big things on four legs it could explain the long tradition of droving from the north. They've still got lots of deer up in the mountains which apparently are a problem. The answer according to the clever people is to put wolves on the mountains. The next thing will be to reintroduce lions no doubt.

They could say 'let's shoot them and sell them at the butchers'. But no, they'd rather sit in their London offices and think of nonsensical solutions to problems that don't exist.

The lads round here have a solution to their lack of money problem and the rabbit problem. The local butcher profits from the transaction.

And, it would also explain the Yorkshire werewolf found at Stonehenge recently. Tourists with big doggies? More like aurochs drovers.
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 790
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: New Views over Megalithia

Postby Boreades » 12:37 pm

The interbreeding doesn't worry me. They are closely-enough related species for it to be genetically no-problem. Some might say it might be a bio-mechanical problem, but given the amazing variety of cross-bred dogs (from one large and one small) I've known of, I don't really think that's a problem either. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Boreades
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: New Views over Megalithia

Postby Mick Harper » 12:47 pm

Not if, as the experts say, there is two million years of genetic distance between them.
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 929
Joined: 10:28 am

Re: New Views over Megalithia

Postby Boreades » 1:51 pm

Mick Harper wrote:Not if, as the experts say, there is two million years of genetic distance between them.


Well, as we've often found, put 10 so-called experts in a room together, and we'll get 20 contrary views.

This
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... ed_animals
says cattle were bred from the wild, c.8000BC ~ 10,000 BC

They say:
Most modern breeds of cattle are taurine cattle. Genetic research suggests the entire modern stock of taurine cattle may have arisen from as few as 80 aurochs tamed in the upper reaches of Mesopotamia about 10,500 years ago near the villages of Çayönü in southeastern Turkey and Dja'de el Mughara in northern Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurine_cattle


Not long at all in genetic distance?
Boreades
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: New Views over Megalithia

Postby Mick Harper » 2:14 pm

Depends what you mean. If the fossil auroch is two million years old and is the same species as the 10,500 year old Mesopotamian aurochs of which you speak, and which is presumably the same species that Wiki reports was still surviving in the Polish forests in the seventeenth century (AD) then we will have had two remarkably different beasts wandering the earth for ten thousand years, able to interbreed but apparently declining to do so since we do not have a third beast, an aurochs/cow hybrid wandering the earth. I think somebody's got their gene pool in a twist.
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 929
Joined: 10:28 am

Re: New Views over Megalithia

Postby TisILeclerc » 6:50 pm

A new Stonehenge theory suggests that the ancient ruins may have been a hunting site. The new theory comes after archaeologists discovered a site with evidence dating roughly 5,000 years before the structure was built.

The site, which was occupied continuously for more than 3,000 years, also had evidence of burning, thousands of flint tool fragments, and the bones of wild aurochs.

Together, the data suggests that the area around Stonehenge could have been an auroch migration route. The site could have been for feasting in ancient times, with the migration route drawing different cultures in the region together for the purpose of hunting the extinct giant cows.

Lead researcher David Jacques of the Open University in the United Kingdom, stated, “We may have found the cradle of Stonehenge, the reason why it is here.”


http://www.inquisitr.com/634075/new-sto ... ting-site/

I'd be doubtful about the ability of fossils to breed as well.

But according to this site the aurochs were still alive in the Netherlands till quite late. And we know that the Romans spoke about them as well.

Archaeological researchers 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.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 081544.htm

A research team from the University of Basel made a surprising find in a Neolithic settlement at the boarders of Lake Biel in Switzerland: The DNA of a cattle bone shows genetic traces of the European aurochs and thus adds a further facet to the history of cattle domestication. The journal Scientific Reports has published the results.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 073638.htm


To build a clearer picture of the ancestry of European cattle breeds, scientists from University College Dublin extracted genetic material from a bone of a 6,750 year old wild British aurochs discovered in a cave in Derbyshire, England. They then sequenced its complete genome -- its genetic blueprint -- and compared it with the genomes of 81 domesticated B. taurus and B. indicus animals, and DNA marker information from more than 1,200 modern cows.

The team of researchers discovered clear evidence of breeding between wild British aurochs and early domesticated cattle.

David MacHugh, senior author on the study from the School of Agriculture and Food Science at University College Dublin, said: "Our results show the ancestors of modern British and Irish breeds share more genetic similarities with this ancient specimen than other European cattle. This suggests that early British farmers may have restocked their domesticated herds with wild aurochs."


What now emerges from high-resolution studies of the nuclear genome is a more nuanced picture of crossbreeding and gene flow between domestic cattle and wild aurochs as early European farmers moved into new habitats such as Britain during the Neolithic."


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 092912.htm

It would appear therefore that modern cattle do have traces of the dna of aurochs. According to the studies this was deliberate interference by humans. We still do it today to try and 'improve' breeds as far as muscle, fat content etc is concerned.

Today it all comes in bottles but even three hundred years ago farmers were messing about with the breeds and were very proud of their efforts.

The problem of course is how do you introduce Mr Aurochs and Ms Cow? How about a nice maze built into a hillside with a bull in the middle dreaming about romance? And the lucky lady can only go one way until they meet in the middle?

Not so much the Troy Game but the Torroy Game methinks.
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 790
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: New Views over Megalithia

Postby Boreades » 8:43 pm

TisILeclerc wrote:
Together, the data suggests that the area around Stonehenge could have been an auroch migration route.


Sounds promising. I wonder if these were natural migration routes? Or did humans lend a hand and help as Drovers, encouraging the aurochs to move between summer and winter pastures? Given how much of Britain has ancient droving trails that still cross that part of Britain...

TisILeclerc wrote:The team of researchers discovered clear evidence of breeding between wild British aurochs and early domesticated cattle ... It would appear therefore that modern cattle do have traces of the dna of aurochs. According to the studies this was deliberate interference by humans. We still do it today to try and 'improve' breeds as far as muscle, fat content etc is concerned. Today it all comes in bottles but even three hundred years ago farmers were messing about with the breeds and were very proud of their efforts.

The problem of course is how do you introduce Mr Aurochs and Ms Cow?


Presumably the aurochs tended to move around more than the early domesticated cattle? Perhaps Mr Aurochs did the introductions themselves as they migrated from the north, heading darn sarf for the summer, taking a fancy to the pretty little Ms Cow?
Boreades
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: New Views over Megalithia

Postby TisILeclerc » 4:46 pm

For some reason I assumed that aurochs was a Latin word. But, like everything else, the Latins stole it from somewhere else. In this case from northern Europe and Germanic speakers.

The word urus (/ˈjʊərəs/; plural uri)[7][8] is a Latin word, but was borrowed into Latin from Germanic (cf. Old English/Old High German ūr, Old Norse úr).[7] In German, OHG ūr was compounded with ohso "ox", giving ūrohso, which became early modern Aurochs. The modern form is Auerochs


Apparently these animals increased in size due to the extensive grasslands and the opportunity for grazing on large grassy plains. Conversely some of them shrunk in size when they were trapped on small islands like Sicily.

Aurochs were found to have lived on the island of Sicily, having migrated via a land bridge from Italy. After the disappearance of the land bridge, Sicilian aurochs evolved to be 20% smaller than their mainland relatives due to insular dwarfism


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

If we look at the British isles we find many examples of smaller size animals related to islands. Eriskay ponies, Shetland ponies and sheepdogs for example although small versions of these animals are found all over Britain and elsewhere where they are needed.

What drives difference in size is due to a variety of circumstances. A bigger animal is more likely to be able to defend itself effectively. It is more likely to find a mate or mates and reproduce. We see this in the rutting season among the deer herds. The little ones may be nice but they do not get the ladies without a fight. We can observe this kind of behaviour on a Saturday night in most town centres.

But there are circumstances where small is better for survival.

Aurochs were found to have lived on the island of Sicily, having migrated via a land bridge from Italy. After the disappearance of the land bridge, Sicilian aurochs evolved to be 20% smaller than their mainland relatives due to insular dwarfism


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

This process, and other "island genetics" artifacts, can occur not only on traditional islands, but also in other situations where an ecosystem is isolated from external resources and breeding. This can include caves, desert oases, isolated valleys and isolated mountains ("sky islands").

There are several proposed explanations for the mechanism which produces such dwarfism.
One is a selective process where only smaller animals trapped on the island survive, as food periodically declines to a borderline level. The smaller animals need fewer resources and smaller territories, and so are more likely to get past the break-point where population decline allows food sources to replenish enough for the survivors to flourish. Smaller size is also advantageous from a reproductive standpoint, as it entails shorter gestation periods and generation times.


Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism

The hunter gatherers had no choice but to hunt these animals. But a larger more sophisticated and settled society could invest time and resources into bringing these animals 'into the fold' and taming them. That saves the bother of hunting with all its risks.

What better than to create artificial 'islands' where the large beasts could be kept captive. Over a few generations they would decrease in size naturally. And if not the smaller ones could be selected to be bred while the larger ones would be dinner for a few weeks.
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 790
Joined: 11:40 am

PreviousNext

Return to Index

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests