I did several dozens, perhaps roughly one hundred, aurochs reconstructions since I got into this topic in 2011. Some of them I nowadays consider outdated or not sufficient because in the early days I was not that experienced in drawing bovines. But also my recent reconstructions do have some flaws sometimes. I am still trying to accomplish the “one perfect aurochs reconstruction”, which is probably impossible to achieve (or maybe I am overcomplicating this issue). Anyway, I always appreciate constructive criticism, also because I am never 100% confident that the respective reconstruction shows what the aurochs really looked like. Most of my aurochs reconstructions are floating around on the web, often in places I don’t know, which makes it impossible for me to put a disclaimer on those that have apparent flaws. That is why I decided to make a post summarizing common flaws and inaccuracies that may happen to my reconstructions. If you have any flaws to add to this list, be it in general or to a particular reconstruction, please tell me, it is highly appreciated.
-) Exaggerating the morphology/the hump
Since I copy the proportions directly from photos of the skeleton in profile, and for head reconstructions I track out the skull, the proportions themselves should be alright in most of my reconstructions. However, I think I have a tendency to show certain aspects of the morphology in a too pronounced fashion, often due to a fear that the result looks too domestic. It is like I subconsciously think “I’ll do an anti-domestic cattle to be on the safe side”. But taking it to the other extreme is not good either.
In some of my reconstructions, the hump and the Musculus trapezius are very pronounced. That has two reasons: some aurochs skeletons, such as the Prejlerup bull, have rather tall spines that are not much shorter than in the wisent and I am not sure how pronounced it would be in the living animal. Some Lidia bulls, mostly those I consider less-derived, have very pronounced humps with well-developed trapezius muscles. In others it is less developed. Looking at the skeleton of a Heck bull (go here), it seems that its shoulder spines are not much shorter than in the Store-damme bull skeleton, and Steinberg/Wörth bulls do have a hump but not nearly as developed as in my reconstructions. Most contemporaneous depictions do show a hump, but not as super pronounced as in bison for example. If it was a very prominent trait in the living animal, it probably would show in the cave paintings/engravings.
I also tend to reconstruct the waist too slim because I often have used young Lidia bulls as an analogue. Looking at most wild bovines (fully grown ones) as much as ancient aurochs depictions, this might be inaccurate. Surely, the aurochs’ waist was most likely not barrel-shaped as in domestic cattle, therefore “more hump, less rump” should be the guideline but sometimes I exaggerate it. But I think it got better in my recent reconstructions.
-) Underestimating the bulk of the animal aka “shrink-wrapping”
This is a pitfall that happened in my 2023 sculptures. I noticed it and paid attention not to repeat that mistake in my more recent sculptures, but it also happened in some of my drawings. This is ironic, because I opposed “shrink-wrapping” in paleoart as early as 2008, when the term was not even invented yet. Looking at the bones too much makes one forget the bulk of soft tissue that surrounded them in life.
But the problem also is that I am completely uncertain how bulky the trunk of the aurochs was exactly. This differs among extant wild bovines and also changes with the individual age. But in general, most of my reconstructions are too light-weight compared to other wild bovines and archaeological aurochs depictions. It got better in my recent reconstructions, but I am still trying to figure out the accurate extent of soft tissue around the bones.
-) Ribcage not deep enough
The deep ribcage is an aurochs trait that is often overlooked, also in “breeding-back”. Most domestic cattle have a ribcage that is not nearly as deep as in the aurochs. I noticed that detail only a few years ago, hence some of my earlier reconstructions, and also some of the more recent ones, are incorrect in this respect.
-) Legs far too thin
This is related to “shrink-wrapping”, but sometimes it happens that the legs of my reconstructions are so thin that not even the bones would fit into them. This is the case in my recent reconstruction of the Cambridge skeleton (go here). I have to pay more attention to that.
-) Underestimating the size of the horn sheaths
To be fair, there is no rule for how much keratin to add to a bovine horn. The solid part of preserved aurochs horn sheaths varies from 5 cm to 33 cm. So there is some room for artistic license. But in my older reconstructions I definitely underestimated the length that the sheath adds, and sometimes the horns I reconstruct might still be a bit too thin.
-) Ears too small
The skeleton provides no clues as to how large the ears were in life. Maybe the ears of the aurochs were as large relatively as in domestic cattle, although cave paintings show rather small ears. If domestic cattle are the standard, often the ears of my reconstructions are too small.
One reconstruction (or more accurately, an illustration, I did not track out the original bones for this one) that is devoid of these mistakes might be this one I did of the Önnarp aurochs:
Part of the reasons why these inaccuracies happen to my reconstructions is that not every aspect of the aurochs’ life appearance is known with certainty. Part of it consists of guesswork, but some guesses are better than others. But for the sake of completeness, here are some of the unknown/uncertain aspects of the life appearance of the bovine:
-) S-shaped spine or straight lumbar spine?
Looking at living wild bovines, I tend to assume that the lumbar spine of the aurochs was straight and horizontal. However, all ancient aurochs depictions show an S-curved back. I have been reconstructing aurochs with a straight lumbar spine for a decade now, but I think I’ll go with the S-curved back for the next couple of reconstructions because that trait is so consistent in ancient depictions.
-) How long was the dewlap?
European aurochs seem to have had a short dewlap, unlike indicine cattle or the kouprey. However, how short was it exactly? Some less-derived taurine cattle breeds have a very short dewlap with almost none in the throat area, and this kind of dewlap is depicted in ancient artistic depictions, so I go with that.
-) How bulky was the trunk at which stage of life?
This is very tricky to me as the skeleton does not really provide a clue on that. Wild bovines do vary greatly regarding the correlation of the depth of the ribcage and the bulk of the trunk in life – wisents have a deep ribcage but often a slender waist, as one would expect from the skeleton, but gaurs are much bulkier, particularly the bulls, while their ribcage is surprisingly not very deep. Domestic cattle are not a reliable analogue either, because domestication affected their morphology greatly. Ancient depictions suggest a bulkier trunk, with the exception of the bull depiction at Siga Verde, which shows a rather slim waist.
-) How prominent was the hump?
The answer to this question depends on how much the surrounding soft tissue obscured the hump and how developed the M. trapezius was. Regarding this muscle, there is quite some variation among domestic cattle, even within Lidia. Banteng and gaurs are not a good analogue for this question, as their trapezius is less developed because combat behaviour is not as common in these species as in Bos taurus.
-) Was the aurochs shredded like the gaur and some Lidia?
Gaurs do look like bovine bodybuilders. Their muscles are well-developed and defined. Some Lidia bulls come close to this. In most wild bovine species, however, this is not the case. But the bones of the aurochs suggest that it was quite muscular because the muscle scars and attachments are very pronounced.
These are all of the most important flaws and inaccuracies in my aurochs reconstructions I can think of at the moment. If you know some that have not been mentioned here, feel free to point me to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment