Apocalypticism seems to have become increasingly fashionable in the last decade. One reason is, that the idea of the End of the World has once again been fed to foster a political movement fuelled by the angry disenfranchised and seemingly oppressed people of the rural heartlands – the farmers, the males, the uneducated, and the other hopeless, fat trash and rabble circulating on the peripheries of the cities and their privileged meritocracies. As many have noted, this is a powder keg skilfully manipulated by modern despots and wannabee dictators like Putin, Orban and Trump. Apocalypses appear among the oppressed and are harnessed by the oppressors.

Unfortunately, disregard for the concerns of ordinary people among the elite tends to be the order of the day, leaving the little people with the choice of opting for either tragedy: passivism or dictatorial prevention. From this point of perspective, freedom and liberation form a phantasmagoria or utopia, while mushroom clouds and flooded landscapes invade our dreamscapes.

Positive Apocalypticism

Most political scientists and meritocrats will claim that the best way forward is to disregard the apocalypses floating around. By continuing to micromanage the system, we shall overcome the resistance and the uproar, they claim.

However, modern politicians who disregard this apocalyptic thinking are in danger of missing out on the point of the profound fright voiced by the people on the periphery. The question is not so much whether apocalypses are floating around and how to dispel them, but rather, which kinds of apocalypses (or concerns) are being floated. This is not the right way forward, argues Joe P. L. Davidson in a new article published in the American Political Science Review.

He claims that studies of various apocalypses – or worldquakes – are important to carry out. Concrete apocalyptic thinking offers valuable insights. He writes: “First, the end of the world is a means of interpreting the historical situation of oppression. It demonstrates the limitations on possibilities within the contours of current society, highlighting the fact that oppression is bound up with the social order in its totality… Secondly, the apocalypse from below functions as a “possibility-disclosing practice” aimed at keeping “the possibility of a different future open, resisting resignation and accommodation to what is”.

He argues that a scrutiny of the apocalypses floated from below – but not those from above – will reveal in what manner the present system oppresses the disenfranchised by identifying the hidden structure of the oppression. Unfortunately, he does not present examples of how this has been done in the past or present. By not supplying such examples, he miscalculates the need to analyse both types of apocalypses – those presented from below and those presented from above. One example may suffice.

The Sixth Extinction

One of the current apocalypses floating around is “The Sixth Extinction”, summarised as the imminent breakdown of our nature caused by the rapidly accelerating extinction of species of flora and fauna. Often claimed to be more threatening than the climate crisis, this particular apocalypse has its own circle of UN CUPs with appended herds of educated masses of NGOs, green politicians and business entrepreneurs vying for the development of the new market opportunities invoked by nature restoration, rewilding and the invocation of sustainable practices.

As with the climate crisis, this has created a widespread uproar among “little people”. Balancing between denial and anger, they lobby for their continued right to harvest and hunt, to uphold their free right of ways, and to inhabit nature with everything from musical festivals to huge sports events. In the bleak future where 30% of the globe is set aside for nature, they imagine being players in a kind of hunger games where only the well-situated, clever, and skilled people will survive – eating their pounder-burgers on the way – while the rest are left behind. As such they instinctively seem to know that there is a fundamental difference between the apocalypses imagined by the oppressed and the oppressors. For the former, they have already happened, while for the latter, they present a potentiality. While the former doom scroll, the latter prep themselves to weather the storm – or, alternatively, colonize Mars.

In this situation, the right wing of “Trumpist” European leaders have formulated a response to the ramifications of this particular apocalypse by voicing their fear for the future lack of food in a world where eight billion will grow to ten within the next 25 years. Currently, in Europe, political right-wing leaders have used the EU Nature Restoration Law to recruit European farmers to rebel in the streets of Brussels. Of course, this recruitment has been staged by the multi-corporal companies currently owning huge tracts of farms in Europe and living well off the subsidies paid out by the EU. As an example, the land in the former DDR Mecklenburg was farmed by cooperatives. After 1989, the workers on these cooperative farms were offered the opportunity to buy the land. Unfortunately, lacking funds, the land was taken over by large Western landowners. Today, 75% of the land is farmed in a highly industrialised fashion with a marginal rent per hectare but not per capital investment. This is a big business which would suffer significantly if the EU cut their CAP (the annual subsidies).

A careful examination of the challenges, however, shows that the future solution to this impending apocalypse – officially floated by the right-wing faction in the EU parliament – has already arrived. By harnessing futuristic tech – from vertical farming to stem cells, the technologies are already there. Yes, it demands a lot of clean energy and as yet a substantial technical innovative effort. Nevertheless, the possibility is there to free up significant tranches of land in Europe – and at the same time secure food for all. For instance, in Denmark, 15% of the land is farmed to produce fodder for cattle delivering milk to the dairy industry. This is more than 3000 times the amount of land needed to set up factories delivering the same amount of milk protein produced by yeast cells.

By literally looking at ONLY the apocalyptic discourse from below – and not how the professional doomsayers join up with the malcontents – we may miss the practical solutions to the fear and anger voiced by the people who seem to imagine the possibilities from a peasant perspective – framing their world as an “image of the limited good”, where the answer becomes one of providing more equity, more balance, and more respect through land-sharing. However, this will – emphatically – not solve the challenge of the impending and very real apocalypse called the Sixth Extinction. Looking at technical solutions, instead, it becomes possible to free up to 15-30% of land for nature restoration and rewilding while at the same time cleaning up the unhealthy system of subsidising a small handful of huge agricultural businesses. Suddenly a viable future of both restored ecosystems and room for other nature pursuits becomes possible.

However, this point of perspective does not surface without looking at the structure of the apocalypses wielded from both above and below. The trick is, as Davidson rightly writes, to unveil or reveal what apocalypses are about. However, we need to study the apocalypses voiced from both above and below to envision real solutions in a post-apocalyptic world. Neither, however, are defensible in their own right. The future calls for practical solutions to surmountable challenges. Not doom scrolling nor prepping.

Karen Schousboe

FEATURED PHOTO:

The Hunger Games is a series of young adult dystopian novels written by American author Suzanne Collins. The first three novels are part of a trilogy following teenage protagonist Katniss Everdeen, and the fourth book is a prequel set 64 years before the original.
The novels in the trilogy are titled The Hunger Games (2008), Catching Fire (2009), and Mockingjay (2010). Each was adapted for film, establishing The Hunger Games film series, with the film adaptation of Mockingjay split into two feature-length motion pictures. The first two books in the series were both New York Times best sellers, and Mockingjay topped all US bestseller lists upon its release. By the time the film adaptation of The Hunger Games was released in 2012, the publisher had reported over 26 million Hunger Games trilogy books in print, including movie tie-in books. © Murray Close

NOTES:

In anthropology, “limited good” is the theory commonly held in traditional societies that there is a limited amount of “good” to go around. In other words, the amount of land, money, etc. available is held to be finite, so every time one person profits, another loses.
Societies that subscribe to this philosophy tend to display strong levels of equality among members and to be strongly resistant to social change. The term was coined by George M. Foster in his 1965 article, Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good. Foster, George M. (1965) Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good, American Anthropologist New Series, Vol. 67, No. 2, Apr., pp. 293–315

SOURCE:

The Apocalypse from Below: The Dangerous Idea of the End of the World, the Politics of the Oppressed, and Anti-Anti-Apocalypticism
By Joe P. L. Davidson, University of Warwick, United Kingdom
In: Americal Political Science Review (2024) p. 1 – 13

Abstract

The apocalypse is frequently deployed by political movements, especially contemporary climate activists, to advance their causes. This article develops a framework for defending such invocations of the end of the world. With many other political theorists, I suggest that the apocalypse is a dangerous concept, not least because of its association with authoritarian accounts of history. However, we should not reject the apocalypse. I argue for a form of anti-anti-apocalypticism, using the criticisms directed against the concept as a launchpad to rethink it in viable terms. While acknowledging the value of different ways of defending the apocalypse, I highlight the importance of the causes of apocalyptic movements. Simply put, apocalypses from below are defensible because they have the capacity to clarify the political position of the oppressed and open new political possibilities for the group. By contrast, apocalypses from above, because they fail to fulfill these functions, are not.

The post Doom Scrolling and Apocalypticism appeared first on Wilder Europe.

In a recent article, the position is outlined that rewilding is closely related to traditional nature restoration and, hence, just another form of human domination of nature. An anthropological analysis of this thinking shows how it is fundamentally mistaken.

In the 1920s and 1930s, an attempt was made to resurrect the aurochs (Bos primigenius primigenius), the extinct wild ancestor of contemporary domestic cattle. The back-bred species produced was called the ‘Heck Cattle, named after the two brothers who carried out the project.

Since the aurochs at that point had been considered extinct since the 17th century and modern genetics science had not yet appeared on the scene, the animals were recreated by a clumsy and, in fact, just aesthetically inspired form of backbreeding involving Spanish Fighter bulls. Most of the animals died during the war. However, after WW2, the work continued to breed on a few remaining animals in München, and today Heck Cattle are used as part of eco-restoration projects in numerous places in Europe. Over 2000 animals live in Europe, of which 600 roam the infamous Oostvaardersplassen.

In a new article, the philosopher Eric Katz argues that the attempt to create the Heck cattle as a form of resurrected aurochs and their subsequent use in rewilding projects (as in the Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands) is a prime example of the ongoing human project of the domination of nature characterising the Anthropocene.

The Heck Cattle as Nazi Symbol

Eric Katz is known for his arduous fight for the natural world to be respected in its right. However, he is perhaps better known for his work to uncover the character of the first national environmental preservation policies in the 20th century forged in the crucible of the fascist and genocidal regime of Nazi Germany. Therin, the backbred aurochs came to play a symbolic role. Although the project began in the 20s and reflected the standard search for “national” cattle and “horses” in the romantic quest for the “homeland”, it was heavily promoted as part of the resurrection of the Early Medieval Germanic Empire. The dream was to fill the extensive “primaeval” forests of Eastern Germany with megafauna enacting, playing the role of prey in reenacting the glorious past of the German race and its future supremacy.

Undoubtedly, the German preoccupation with racial thinking played a part in this preoccupation with the eugenic endeavour to backbreed the Aurochs. Also, the idea that nature might be cleansed of its later impurities by returning to a more pristine and purer state of affairs does act like a vivid and dire remembrance of the Holocaust.

According to Eric Katz, however, the story of the Heck Cattle has a wider resonance in the Nazi form of landscape planning, which they sought to “Germanize”. In this project, the architect Alwin Seifert and the railway engineer Fritz Todt led the way to resurrect the “Heimat”, a somewhat untranslatable word with its very material and tangential connotations referring to the German peasant, his family, his farm, his village and his landscape – in short, his “Lebensraum”. In this crucible, the idea of history, geography, and ethnicity blended with the concept of the healthy and balanced life of the proper German. Thus, the idea was not just to restore the native flora and fauna but also remove the “degenerate” – we would say “invasive” – species. The result was the idea of a “Racialised Landscape” as opposed to the “Romantic Landscape” of the 19th century. In this racialised landscape, the Nazis dreamt of dark forests once again teeming with aurochs, bison, wolves and eagles, all animals which were recruited to enact the myth in the best manner of Roland Barthes.

The Oostvaardersplassen and Rewilding

Based on this idea of the “Racialised Landscape” filled with “potent and wild symbols”, Eric Katz uses the history of the first European rewilding project of the “The Oostvaardersplassen” to argue his point. The Dutch biologist Franz Vera’s creation was set at 60km2 or 6000 ha; the aim was to recreate an independent and autonomous ecosystem by releasing wild horses, wild cattle, and red deer into the nature reserve and leaving it to its own devices. As is well known, the project has been a success insofar as it did succeed in creating a biodiverse and lively nature reserve of marshland and grassland. However, the initial cruelty involved in fencing the area and letting the megafauna die of “natural” starvation and illnesses without letting the animals leave the reservation turned the place into a political, ethical, and social battleground. The early photos still reverberate on the internet and gave “rewilding” a seriously bad press. Due to the presence of the Heck Cattle and its ignominious connotations as “Nazi Cattle”, the Oostvaardersplassen has occasionally been likened to a Concentration Camp on Facebook.

The point Katz wishes to make, however, reaches further. In short, He claims that “Rewilding projects do not so much re-create a ‘wild’ nature free from human intervention and activity”. Rewilding is just another form of the human management of natural processes to achieve anthropocentric goals, he writes. He argues “that policies of rewilding have historical antecedents (and parallels in philosophical meaning) to the Nazi plans for re-creating an authentic Aryan landscape in the lands of Eastern Europe. The case history of the Heck cattle projects illustrates the danger of pursuing radical forms of management of the natural world.”

But does this argument hold, we may ask? Is it fair to judge a Dutch nature restoration scheme, which has served as a pilot project for the rewilding movement, just because it chose to use Heck cattle instead of the belted Galloways, which are now the primary breed used in extensive grazing and rewilding projects?

Does the use of Heck Cattle at Oostvaarder necessarily have to taint the general idea of rewilding as it is practised with joy, pleasure, and love elsewhere?

Rewilding? What is it?

To answer this question, Katz recounts the outline of the debate between different leading scientists and practitioners on how to understand rewilding, where the main element is forsaking (traditional) ecological restoration to further self-sustaining ecosystems devoid of human interference of any sort. Thus, the main difference is lodged in a different set of values considering the role of human management – on one hand, painstaking caring and, on the other hand, turning our backs to the rewilded enclave. However, Katz chooses to see these two positions as orientation points on a continuum where total abandonment is impossible. He rejects this distinction between the two approaches to nature, pointing out that none takes out “the imposition of human intentionality on natural ecosystems”. Both approaches are “infused with human purpose”.

Ktz wishes to make the point that we cannot escape the mortal sin of intervention, inscribed in our genes as human beings. “Thus, the fundamental philosophical issue in an understanding of rewilding is the role of this human management and control, for it is an ever-present reality in the re-created”, he writes. Whether we wish for it or not, the result is hybrid landscapes. Following this, Katz points out (quoting Drenthen 2018) that “There is no escaping from history: all rewilding landscapes are layered cultural landscapes”.

A cultural and political question?

This leads to Katz’s conclusion, which claims that any “rewilding” project represents a form of “cultural politics” just as classical well-ordered restoration policies do. And in the end, any light-handed management of a particular human intervention might lead to a situation that limits the autonomy of the people who formerly lived on and off the land. Even if the wish to culturally dominate both animals, landscapes, and human races might hopefully never again reach the apogee of Nazi thinking, it does harbour the germs and spores. “But affirming the obvious fact that contemporary rewilding projects are not based on Nazi ideology or anti-Semitism does not remove rewilding in general from the overall process of human management, control and domination of nature”, Katz writes and concludes: “Rewilding is a policy that seeks the conscious transformation of the natural world into a human and culturally determined landscape. Rewilding does not restore nature or re-create a wild and spontaneous natural system. Rather, the acceptance of rewilding as a valid environmental policy acknowledges that nature and natural landscapes no longer exist and that the entire world is an artefact produced by human management and control”.

How to counter this argument?

How should we engage with Katz’s arguments? One way is to do a “cultural” and “anthropological” analysis of the formulation in this final conclusion. The point becomes to review Katz’s and others’ position on rewilding as an expression of a cultural stance rather than a philosophical set of arguments.

“No longer exist”, he writes, positing the idea that once upon a time, authentic nature and natural landscapes did, in fact, exist, whether in Paradise or the Pleistocene. Thus, whichever way he looks, he seems unable to escape the idea that once we did not exist as human beings but were just animals incapable of reflection and narration. At some point, however, we metaphorically speaking “ate from the apple” and were kicked out of this pulsating and perfect ecosystem to try and come to terms with our potential to interfere. Which he correctly points out, we have been doing ever since we shed the ape skin of our forefathers.

The interesting point to make here, however, is that Katz’s form of thinking, as viewed by anthropologists, may be considered just one of four different cultural or political takes on how to deal with nature, which, from an anthropological point of perspective, may be considered of as “Thought Styles” (presented best in Douglas 1995). Originally, these “Thought Styles”, as argued by Douglas, were characterised structurally through the organisation of their corresponding social landscapes. However, later anthropological thinking (Schousboe 1990) demonstrated the advantage of looking upon them as not just thought styles organising sociality but also thought styles structured temporally – with the position of Katz’s representing the narrative nostalgia of the ultimate modern “restorer” as opposed to the future-oriented constant moving and pulsating post-modern “creator” busy recruiting co-creators – in the rewilding connection the countless myriad living beings inhabiting nature.

In this sense, rewilding represents not just a method of nature restoration representing the usual interventionist activities of the social engineer dreaming of the authentic past lost forever, but rather the fun and play involved in letting loose to see what happens in the time to come.

Granted, from a formal philosophical point of view, both positions (indeed all four) may be deemed interventionists. However, to judge them ethically, we need to see them as differentiated as to their outcome. What type of nature view is best to preserve Gaia for future generations, is the question we might ask? As opposed to the alternative: Which nature view allows for the free flourishing of people and peoples to the detriment of the wilder world?

While one (Katz’s) is hopelessly caught up in the traumatic loss of the aurochs and the nostalgia for the time before 1627, when the last living specimen was allegedly lost, the rewilding position notices the fact that studies of aDNA unambiguously show that aurochs and domesticated cattle mixed and matched up through history. And yes, backbreeding by the Heck-brothers was part of a deplorable fascist enterprise creating a more pure and “Germanic” world. However, the modern-day Tauros project supported by Rewilding Europe is part of quite another venture focusing on releasing the joy of playing around by reimagining a more pulsating, vibrant world filled with the ongoing creation of the future.

Karen Schousboe

SOURCES:

What the Heck Cattle Have to Do with Environmentalism: Rewilding and the Continuous Project of the Human Management of Nature
Eric Katz
In: Ethics, Policy & Environment
Online 13 June 2023

Rewilding in layered landscapes as a challenge to place identity.
By M Drenthen
Environmental Values (2018) Vol 27 No 4, pp 405–425.

Thought Styles: Critical Essays on Good Taste 
by Mary Douglas (Author)
Sage 1995

Slangen i paradiset : unges holdninger til fremtiden
By Karen Schousboe
Undervisningsministeriet 1990

READ MORE:

Return of the Mighty Beast, the Aurochs

The post Is Rewilding just Another Form of Domination of Nature? appeared first on Wilder Europe.

In the 18th century, the aurochs – the wild cousins of our domesticated cattle – still roamed Moldavia. Never more than variety, they were just the wild version of the common species, the Bos Taurus. To claim that the last aurochs died out in 1627 in Mazovia in Poland is to insist that the species – the Bos or the common cattle – became extinct at that point.

Instead, as with wild horses, we might consider the different animals as belonging to one species comprising different varieties – from feral and semi-feral animals (such as the Exmoor pony) to full-blooded domesticated race-horses worth tens of millions of dollars.

What we should not subscribe to is the idea that they belong to different “races” or “breeds” – being the classification system, which only applies to domesticated breeds.

Nevertheless, a dedicated project aiming at “backbreeding” the Aurochs – the so-called Tauros Project – has worked on the presupposition that it is possible to “reconstruct” the B Bos primigenius, also known as the Aurochs. Recently, the release of a herd of these animals has been received with enthusiasm by people working in the rewilding movement. The question is, how should we understand this project?

The Tauros Project

Just as feral and semiferal varieties of horses are highly prized, and several projects work to back-breed the different varieties with the intact capabilities to live in the wild, the Dutch Tauros project (Stichting Tauros) has worked since 2009 to “backbreed” a modern-day version of the aurochs based on identifying the common “aurochs-genes” in the primitive European breeds still roaming wilder Europe.

The backbone of the projects consists of thirty ancient and more “primitive” breeds of the ordinary Bos Taurus, initially sequenced. In 2015, these results were compared to the successful sequencing of the first complete sequenced genome from a humerus bone from a British Aurochs, predating the first neolithic peasants. All-in-all, 38 breeds have now contributed to the project.

From this comparison, the scientists were able to identify seven Iberian breeds to be closest. Using those breeds and a few others, the scientists in the project worked to backbreed a type of cattle which phenotypically aligned with the extinct aurochs – primarily size, colour and the curvatures of the horns. The aim is 2030 to create a series of herds consisting of at least 150 animals, each living free and wild in rewilding areas all over Europe.

A flock of these backbred animals were recently released into the Greater Côa Valley in Portugal for the first time. More precisely, three Tauros bulls and 12 cows, four of which are pregnant, arrived in Portugal following their transportation from the Netherlands by Stichting Tauros (the Tauros Foundation). The animals were released into an enclosed paddock so that they could acclimate to their new environment, whilst the team monitored their health and behaviour for a couple of weeks before release. A few days ago, the animals were finally released into the free in a valley once home to the ancestor of the Tauros, the aurochs. Traces of the ancient bovine can still be found as part of prehistoric rock engravings within the Côa Valley, paying tribute to a long-standing cultural relationship with these animals.

Ecological role

As a result of their grazing and browsing habits, the newly released herd will contribute directly to creating varied and biodiverse habitats whilst removing dense vegetation and reducing the risk of devastating wildfires, which will allow native woodland to regenerate. With bulls weighing more than a ton, the animals will be able to set their mark seriously.

They also play a crucial role in the trophic food chain. The Côa Valley is already home to Iberian wolves and vultures, both of which will significantly benefit from the return of a large bovine. Whilst lesser-known scavenging invertebrates, birds and small mammals will also thrive due to their presence.

Restoring open plains grazing

Like much of Europe, Portugal has been experiencing the depopulation of rural communities for decades. People moved away from working the land, and vast numbers of grazing livestock were lost. Once open landscapes are now being covered by dense scrub vegetation or vast swathes of young forest, both poor in biodiversity and susceptible to wildfire.

“Large herbivores play an essential role in consuming biomass and creating more resilient landscapes to protect against wildfire,” explains Rewilding Portugal’s Head of Conservation, Sara Aliácar. “They will also be excellent at spreading seeds to help restore the habitats that have already been lost to fires, improving spaces for wildlife.”

The long-horned Tauros are entirely self-sufficient, requiring no further supplementation post-release. As they free-roam, they can also innately defend themselves from predation. As the animals restore the landscape, opportunities for local people will increase too.

Every summer, fires threaten Portugal’s forested areas. Grazing and trampling remove excess combustible material and lowers the risk of wildfires. Also, the large grazers will contribute to the future carbon sequestration needed to fulfil the climate goal of the Paris Convention.

The Tauros are not alone in their restorative role. They will join some of the 25 native-breed Sorraia horses Rewilding Portugal and partners have already released. A herd of 13 horses free-roam the northern part of the Ermo das Águias region, whilst the Tauros have been released in the south. The team look forward to the two species meeting and grazing the land together, just as their wild ancestors would have done.

The benefits of introducing semi-wild herbivores to these regions are already apparent. Wilder, naturally-grazed landscapes are now showing the early signs of becoming a nature-rich mosaic of biodiverse habitats.

“This is the first release in Portugal, and we plan to introduce Tauros to more areas within the Greater Côa Valley as we continue to improve connectivity,” says Deli Saavedra, Head of Landscapes for Rewilding Europe.

The releases will help to realise the rewilding vision for the area, with the Rewilding Portugal team and local partners now working to strengthen an important 120,000-hectare ecological corridor between the Douro region in the north and the Malcata region in the south. Their efforts are supported by a grant from the Endangered Landscapes Programme.

The Ancient Animal – the Bos Primigenius

So, what is the modern-day Taurus? To answer, we have to uncover the story of the wild aurochs, which roamed unhindered from China to the British Isles for several millions of years until 14.000 years ago. During this period, the great Eurasian Steppe was covered in temperate open forests alternating with steppe landscapes. The natural range would have shifted with the climate between glacial and interglacial periods.

The earliest archaeological evidence for the domestication of the aurochs dates back to the Middle East ca. 9000 BC. At the same time, the first domesticated cattle in Europe were archaeologically documented in the seventh millennium BC in Spain. This domesticated bovid was, perhaps, imported via the Donau and the Mediterranean. The Balkan Buša breed may genetically represent this early cattle, while the semi-feral Maremma in Tuscany may have Etruscan and earlier roots.

Until recently, scientists believed that the aurochs mainly lived in forests with closed canopies preferring riverine landscapes. New evidence suggests that the animals were always grass-eating animals moving effortlessly through the more or less open forested landscapes covering the Eurasian steppes. Ultimately, this preference for open forests and grassland led to a conflicted situation or “end-game” between the early Neolithic peasants and their domestic flocks.

A study from the submerged site at Neustadt in the Bay of Lübeck tells part of the story. The site was excavated in 2000-2006, and thousands of shards, faunal remains, plant and macrofossil remains, and flint artefacts were uncovered. Also, analysis of lipid residue of charred food crusts in Ertebølle pointed-based and Funnel Beaker pottery was studied to determine the shift from late foragers to early farmers in the settlement. The site was settled for over 600 years between 4400 and 3800 BC and fell within the transition phase.

The faunal remains comprised 12,693 bones, with a third identified at the species level. Of the 26 species in the material, the harp seal was the most common (14%), followed by wild boars (11%) and aurochs (10%). Red and rode deer, harbour porpoises and water voles played minor roles. The percentages are based on MNI – the minimal number of individuals.

Interestingly, domesticated cattle and sheep or goats comprised only 2% of the assemblage. Radiocarbon dates of the domestic cattle – identified with aDNA – dates it to ca. 3950 BC (4226-3705), the timespan generally accepted as the period when the early Funnel Beaker People migrated to Europe (c. 4300) to emerge in modern-day Northern Germany c. 4100-3950 BC. The study, however, shows that domesticated cattle played an insignificant role during the transition period compared to the continued hunting for large mammals, including the aurochs in the oak-dominated forests and open grasslands of the period.

In terms of size, the Aurochs differed from cattle. The bull might weigh over a tonne and feature shorter trunks and longer legs. Elongated heads and impressive horns might reach 120 cm in length and were black, while cows were smaller and had reddish brown coats. Descriptions indicate the animal was swift and agile. In terms of temperament, it could become hot-tempered and aggressive when confronted.

Interbreeding

One of the challenges identifying aurochs and domesticated cattle in archaeological assemblages is the wide variety of sizes among individuals of the two biological varieties. Due to an overlap of sizes, a clear distinction is not often possible. Although part of the domestication process was breeding smaller dairy cattle, the Aurochs cow might be just as small as a domestic bull, making the identification complicated without aDNA. Also, during the transition period (c. 4100 – 3900 BC), climatic and geological shifts caused a significant rise in sea levels producing the archipelago in the Baltic and Kattegat creating genetically isolated populations of Aurochs, perhaps causing a series of phenotypical changes in terms of size.

Part of the domestication process in Europe was the breeding of more miniature cattle. Scientists have suggested that the smaller sizes reflected poorer diets offered to animals, which were kept close to the peasant farm for reasons of their manure. However, studies of the bone- assemblages in Northern Europe show another trend. Here, domesticated cattle appeared in the early phase to increase body size. This fits well with the conclusion that occasionally – and perhaps intentionally – interbreeding (introgression) took place.

Genetically, ancient cattle all over Europe have been shown to carry mitochondrial DNA from both the Middle Eastern pool and the Aurochs, indicating that introgression from wild aurochs into domestic flocks took place and was probably more widespread and frequent than hitherto expected. It appears purposeful restocking with wild aurochs was relatively common among herders in peripheries such as Northern Europe, Switzerland, and perhaps Spain.

Thus, casual interbreeding between aurochs and domesticated cattle continued in Antiquity in the same way as interbreeding of feral, semi-feral and domestic horses was common. This might occur as a happenstance when wild stallions or bulls recruited domesticated mares or cows to join their flocks. But it was definitely also intentionally practised, as witnessed by the famous cups from the 6th century BC Vafio in Greece, which show us in great detail how a capture might be organised – mildly by luring the bull to discover a willing cow. Or more wildly, by capturing the ferocious bulls with nets. This evidence aligns with the famous description of the Aurochs by Caesar:

“There is a third kind, consisting of animals called URI. These are a little below the elephant’s in size and have the appearance, colour, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied. With much effort, the Germans hound them into pits and kill them. The young men harden themselves with this exercise and practice this kind of hunting. Those who have slain the greatest number of them and can produce their horns publicly to serve as evidence receive great praise. But not even when taken very young can the animals be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, to bind the tips with silver that they may be used as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.”
From: Caesar De Bello Gallico, chapter XXVIII

Inbreeding or backbreeding?

Scientific studies and historical sources thus document that both interbreeding and inbreeding continued to take place up until the extinction of the last herd at Jaktorow in 1627. We may therefore ask whether the backbreeding of the Tauros makes sense. Might we not be just as satisfied with the present-day descendants devolved through interbreeding programmes of all sorts? And – cutting to the chase – is this what the backbreeding programme of the Tauros and other similar programmes consist of?

Granted, the auroch was a larger and perhaps more ferocious animal with a different appearance and colour than the domesticated ox. However, wilder and more primitive breeds continue to live as descendants of animals intermixing in medieval and premodern landscapes. And yes, we do need megafauna to help the ecological restitution of our landscapes. But do we need animals created as part of an intentional backbreeding programme?

We may well ask: Does the modern backbreeding of the Stichting Tauros make more sense than the programme the zoo directors Heinz and Lutz Heck instigated in the 30s? A backbreeding programme, which in the best Nazi tradition of racial thinking, aimed to recreate the “Ur Tiere” of the Germanic youngsters hunting for horns in Caesar’s vignette. An endeavour which resulted in the Heck cattle and, ultimately, should not be mistaken for the Tauros backboned by the Stichtung.

Further, what will happen if any of these carefully bred new/old varieties are let loose for real in wilder Europe and begin to create an admixture with local cattle or even the European bison or visits? The latter animals are already genetically documented to be mixed with cattle, likely reflecting the Aurochs and Bison intermingling in the large great East European wildernesses in Late Medieval Europe. Currently, the wilderness at Bornholm housing a celebrated herd of European bison has been obliged not to include wild or semi-feral cattle in the planned National Nature Park there, as “they might mingle”.

Also, the backbreeders of the Tauros programme seem not to have gone the whole way, discarding some of the more likely candidates for breeding, the temperamental fighting bulls from Spain. This restraint has been called for to initally avoid a popular revolt when letting the new Tauros loose. As opposed to this, the descendants of the Heck cattle (curiously know as the Taurus) are known to be less “friendly”. Thus, a few years ago, these considerations led the managers at Lille Vildmose to move their Heck Cattle from a small forest close to the beach, where people walkws by, and further inland to a rather dreary enclosure. Another argument was the cost.

To some extent, the question of backbreeding has to be debated in the same manner as reenactments and archaeological reconstructions. Indeed, we might gain substantial new knowledge about the wild ancestors of our domesticated subspecies by tweaking the genes of their descendants. On the other hand, if trophic rewilding ultimately means letting nature run its course while building robust ecosystems, we need megafauna to ambush our well-ordered mindsets and traditional rules for nature planning. Thus, we might just let loose the more primitive descendants of the Bos Primigenius and the Bos Taurus to mingle as evolution would dictate.

The situation resembles the challenge posed to curators left with a crumbling medieval ruin on the brink of falling apart due to wind and weather. Do we rebuild the ruin, creating a pastiche? Or do we try to protect the ruined sites from our imagination and phantasies?

Karen Schousboe

FEATURED PHOTO:

Tauros set free in the Coa Valley © Rewilding Portugal and Claudio Noy 2023

NOTE:

The spelling of Tauros of Taurus is not used interchangeably here. The Greek spelling refers to the modern Dutch project of resurrecting the aurochs, while the Latin refers to the old project, also known as the Heck Cattle project.

BASED ON:

press release from Rewilding Europe: First Tauros release in the Greater Côa Valley will boost natural grazing
Rewilding Europe 2023

Stichting Taurus: Aurochs Genetics: A Cornerstone of biodiversity.
Rewilding Europe 2015.

SOURCES:

On the Origin of Cattle: How Aurochs Became Cattle and Colonized the World
By Paolo Ajmone-Marsan, José Fernando Garcia, Johannes A. Lenstra and the Globaldiv Consortium.
In: Evolutionary Anthropology (2010) vol 19 pp 148-157

Genome sequencing of the extinct Eurasian wild aurochs, Bos primigenius, illuminates the phylogeography and evolution of cattle
By Stephen D E Park, David A. Magee, Paul A. McGettigan, Matthew D. Teasdale, Ceiridwen J. Edwards, Amanda J. Lohan, Alison Murphy, Martin Braud, Mark T. Donoghue, Yuan Liu, Andrew T. Chamberlain, Kévin Rue-Albrecht, Steven Schroeder, Charles Spillane, Shuaishuai Tai, Daniel G. Bradley, Tad S. Sonstegard, Brendan J. Loftus & David E. MacHugh
In: Genome Biology 82015) Vol 16 mo 234

Cattle husbandry and aurochs hunting in the Neolithic of northern Central Europe and southern Scandinavia. A statistical approach to distinguish between domestic and wild forms
By Ulrich Schmölcke, Daniel Groß
In International Journal of Osteoarchaeology (2021) vol 31 no 1,

Transitions During Neolithisation Processes in Southern Scandinavia. New Insights from Faunal Remains and Pottery from the Site Neustadt LA 156 in Northern Germany.
By Aikaterini Glykou
In: Past Societies. Human Development in Landscapes. Ed by Johannes Müller and Andrea Ricci.
Sidestone Press 2020.

The history of the European aurochs (Bos primigenius) from the Middle Pleistocene to its extinction: an archaeological investigation of its evolution, morphological variability and response to human exploitation
By Elizabeth Wright
PhD, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield. 2013

Investigating cattle husbandry in the Swiss Late Neolithic using different scales of temporal precision: potential early evidence for deliberate livestock “improvement” in Europe
By Elizabeth Wright
In: Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2021) volume 13, Article number: 36

Ancient DNA analysis of Scandinavian medieval drinking horns and the horn of the last aurochs bull. 2018
Maiken Hemme Bro-Jørgensen, Christian Carøe, Filipe G. Vieira, Sofia Nestor, Ann Hallström, Kristian M. Gregersen, Vivian Etting, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, Mikkel-Holger S. Sinding,
In: Journal of Archaeological Science (2018) Vol 99, pp 47-54

READ ALSO:

The post Return of the Mighty Beast, the Aurochs appeared first on Wilder Europe.

The Saale-Unstrut region lies in between the confluence of the rivers Saale and Unstrut in a hilly and steep countryside with a thousand-year-old tradition for winegrowing. This made it until recently, the northern-most winegrowing region in Germany.

Vineyards

Though it is believed wine was grown from the 7th century, the earliest exploitation of the steep hillsides for viticulture is documented for the 10^thcentury. More precisely, a donation from )98 to the monastery in Memleben lists seven locations where vineyards were cultivated. Unfortunately, the hillsides with their terraces are not workable with heavy machinery, and in recent years the landscape is marred by abandoned vineyards and loss of biodiversity. Also, the traditional dry walls bordering the terraces have been left crumbling.

Although some sites – e. g. the Kathert Vineyard in Karsdorf – have been preserved as part of the regions cultural heritage, much has been lost. The traditional wine cabins, which housed the vineyard guards when the grapes were ripe, have also been lost.

Castles and Monasteries

Another natural feature, the abundant limestones and red sandstone provided building material for the Romanesque architecture, which continue to plays such a visible role in the landscape of the region.

SOURCE:

The Saale-Unstrut cultural landscape corridor
By M. Hoppert, B. Bahn, E. Bergmeier, M. Deutsch, K. Epperlein, C. Hallmann, A. Müller, T. V. Platz, T. Reeh, H. Stück, W. Wedekind. Siegesmund
In: Environmental Earth Sciences, February 2018, 77:58

READ MORE:

Natur Stein Kultur Wein: Zwischen Saale und Unstrut
By Siegfried Siegesmund Michael Hoppert and Klaus Epperlein (Ed).
Mitteldeutscher Verlag 2014

https://youtu.be/plNo1XSRE8U

The post The Winegrowing Region of Saale-Unstrut in the Middle Ages appeared first on Wilder Europe.