Comparing an aurochs skeleton to a domestic bull

When comparing aurochs and cattle, we usually compare aurochs bone material to living cattle, what is basically comparing apples to bananas and bears the danger of wrong conclusions. Comparing bones to bones would be the most precise way to discern the differences between aurochs and cattle and to draw conclusions about the aurochs’ life appearance. 

There are plenty of mounted aurochs skeletons available on the web, but not so many of domestic cattle. I found a photo of a Holstein bull skeleton and will compare it to the Kopenhagen bull in this post. It is important to compare individuals of the same sex in order to eradicate the factor of sexual dimorphism. 

Photo © Markus Bühler

The Holstein bull skeleton I took for comparison can be found here. 

What is the most interesting difference between both skeletons to me are not the different proportions (the fact that aurochs and cattle differ quite drastically in proportions should be widely known by now) but the anatomy of the bones themselves. The aurochs’ skeleton is much more robust and the areas for muscle attachment are way more pronounced. The fact that the aurochs’ skeleton is more robust has also been noticed in the literature (see Frisch 2010). You see that very clearly in the neck and lumbar spine, the humerus and the head of the ulna. This means that the aurochs was more muscular and stronger than this domestic bull. The limb bones appear to be thicker and also the processes of the shoulder spines are more robust and also longer. It is not surprising that the neck, trunk and forelegs were stronger in the aurochs as these body parts are involved the most during intraspecific fights and fighting off predators. Thus, you see in the skeleton that the aurochs was like that of other wild bovines concerning muscling. Gaurs, for example, look like bodybuilders compared to domestic cattle. 

However, comparing only two individuals is not enough for a solid conclusion. A number of aurochs specimen and domestic specimen would have to be compared in order to rule out individual variation. Furthermore, it would be interesting to compare several breeds. Lidia might be closer to the aurochs in these respects than Holstein, as Lidia is a breed that is bred for fighting and has a less domestic physique. A true osteologic/osteometric study would be very interesting. It could be that there were also differences in the relative length of the leg elements. I have the suspicion that the humerus is slightly longer in the aurochs, which would allow larger muscles to attach. I did measurements using photos of the Holstein bull as well as the Kopenhagen, Lund and Braunschweig specimen. In the Holstein bull, the radius is 90% the length of the humerus, while in the aurochs specimen it was about 75% on average. So the aurochs’ humerus might be larger in relation. I have the same suspicion of the scapula. This would mean that the whole shoulder and upper arm region was more developed in the aurochs, what makes functionally sense and thus is plausible. However, I do not have the possibility to confirm this suspicion as I don’t have access to the specimen to measure them directly, only photos. 

A life reconstruction of the Kopenhagen bull is about to come.