Wikipedia: Aurochs/Talk

I think we can assume a Wisent is a Bison? sjc

Actually, it might be that bison that still lives in the Polish hunting reserve...JHK

we are on the right track here, a Wisent is Bison bonasus... sjc

It is spelled Aurochs in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition. (German Auerochs, Old High German O.H.G. urohso ur- )

Yahoo powered by google shows : Auroch= appr 1700 x Aurochs= appr 3600x Auerochs , the German spelling shows = website zoologie, tu (University) Munich forrest [[1]] This site states that the last on lived in Masuren Masuria ,not Poland . H. Jonat

Helga, you are correct that it is aurochs, both singular and plural . I will move this now. By the way, the link you have above does not work for me. --Paul Drye

Further detail on the Auroch or Aurochs thing -- the "S" on the end is an artifact. "Ochs" as in "Ox" not "more than one Och". It's an "Aur Ox", to use modern spelling. Though, no, the plural is not "Aur Oxen" :) -- Paul Drye

I think the etymology of the name and relation to the modern word "Ox" is interesting enough to go into the body of the article. --Alan Millar

Ok -- I think it has been mentioned above that Aurochs might be the correct name. BUT DAMMIT, DON'T EVEN START WITH THE MASURIA IS PRUSSIA STUFF. IN 1627 IT WAS BLOODY POLAND, ALL RIGHT??? I ACTUALLY READ THE STUFF ON THREE WEBSITES. THE SOURCE IS FROM MASURIA, BUT THE AUTHOR IS A MEMBER OF THE POLISH COURT, TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN POLAND. THE KING OF POLAND RESERVED THE RIGHT TO BE SOLE HUNTER OF THE AUROCHS. THE AUROCHS ONLY LIVED IN THE POLISH ROYAL FOREST. IT WAS NOT IN PRUSSIA AT THE TIME THE LAST AUROCHS WAS KILLED, NOR FOR AT LEAST A COUPLE OF CENTURIES BEFORE. Please, for my sanity, stop trying to assert that all of northern central Europe is, was, and always has been Prussia. It isn't, wasn't, and has at times been. That's the best you can prove. Boundaries change. JHK

You did not read it all. When you do, you can ask the tu , Munich, I stated what they have stated Masuren , and not Masovia or Masovien. That is why I asked the question on /talk. H. Jonat

I think you missed the point... sjc

Gee, I dunno, Helga. Maybe because the whole bloody article is written in German? In English it is always written Masovia. In 1627, Masovia or Masuren or whatever it is in whatever language you like, WAS IN POLAND. The Aurochs died in the Polish King's private hunting grounds -- were they in Prussia? I think not.JHK

Time for a cup of tea, JHK? Or something a little stronger? :-) sjc

Sorry , Masuren or Masurenland , Masurische Seen Platte (English Masovia) always has been and is in southern part of Prussia, to the north of Masovia. H. Jonat

I do not believe it! Victor Meldrew

Let me get this straight, Helga...you are saying here, absolutely, in front of God (or gods or any other appropriate NPOV deity or lack thereof) and all your fellow Wikipedians, that Masovia or, in German Masuren, has NEVER been within the official borders of the Kingdom (or any other type of government in its history) of Poland? Think carefully -- what credibility you have left depends upon your answer...JHK

Alan -- All of the websites I checked pretty uniformly said the Aurochs looked like the Lascaux cave paintings. The modern re-creation also looks like that. I think the picture from the 1911 source might be wrong -- it looks more like pictures of the Wisent to me. Would it be ok to remove it? JHK

Yes, the picture I found is not Bos primigenius, it is Bison bonasus.

Unfortunately, Webster's 1911 referred to Bison bonasus as the aurochs. It looks like the more up-to-date usage is that aurochs is Bos primigenius, and wisent is Bison bonasus. Does that sound right? --Alan Millar

That's what I found...JHK

JHK , you do not show that you have contacted the website to clear if they meant Masovia, while they state Masuren . H. Jonat

The link is wrong. The hunting reserve where the last aurochs was killed was just outside Warsaw. The royal forest of Jaktorów to be precise. Very much in Masovia. -- Paul Drye

To Paul Drye If it was just outside of Warsaw, it is correct to say Masovia. Where did you read this ? Please let me know. Thank you H. Jonat

I found it in a few places on the web. For some reason most of them are in French, but an English one is:

http://www.aristotle.net/~swarmack/aurohist.html

If you can read French, one of the better ones is:

http://www.gramat-parc-animalier.com/fiches/domestique/aurochs.htm

--Paul Drye

Thanks,Paul, I just found it on aristotle. It says that the last aurochs died of natural cause H. Jonat

: Yes, there seems to be a split of opinion as to whether the last one was shot or just died. I tend to believe the paper on Aristotle, as it seems quite well researched, but I'm trying to find a few more sources in the hopes of clearing it up. -- Paul Drye

Remember... when all seems bad, remember that everything2's primary writeup on Aurochs ( http://www.everything2.com/?node=aurochs ) is about [[Magic: The Gathering]]! But it's interesting to note that Webster 1913 seemed to believe Aurochs were ' nearly exinct'...

Thank you, both of you , I had heard about the 're-creation' (early zoology) and continuation of the Aurochs. I am glad that you pointed me to the everything2 site, especially that my best search engine sofar http://www.webtop.com just went down the drain. H. Jonat

Small clarification here, and an apology for yelling. When I revised the Auroch entry, I revised it after reading that the last Aurochs was killed in Masovia. Didn't even notice that the original entry had the wrong place altogether. It didn't occur to me at the time that the usual "it was in Prussia" discussion had been sidetracked by the misinformation that this happened in an entirely different province -- one that is in Prussia -- than the one I was talking about, which is in Poland. Apologies to Sensible Wikipedians like Paul Drye for jumping at shadows...JHK

Ancient cave dwellings show rock paintings and carvings of magical strength connected with the aurochs.

I happen to agree with this. However, I can't figure out how we "paint or carve magical strength". We need to rephrase this and put it back. Thanks.

: It sounds like a right load of old Aurochs to me too. I will see whether we can't paint or carve this magically into shape... sjc

In these and many other early art-works, the aurochs are attributed with possessing magical qualities.

How the heck are we supposed to infer this from cave paintings? Maybe the artists meant to attribute the aurochs with being very organized, or attractively shaped, or well worth the effort of barbecuing.

They are certainly not worth barbecuing: they have been in the freezer far too long. Frankly, my take is this: they are painted ergo they are worthy of representation. If they are merely attributed (etc), this covers most of the bases since we don't need to get into long and tedious discussions about the role of the palaeolithic hunter/magician nor the converse view that the paintings were nothing to do with magic whatsoever but were in fact the palaeolithic equivalent of car mags, depicting things that men like looking at in their spare time. sjc

: Well, long, but not everyone would find them "tedious", though I don't mean to have the conversation here. It's just that people can be pretty blithe about saying what art from other cultures means, with paleolithic art a great example of this. Have a good one!