AHC large domestic animals in Americas?

I've read both yours and DValdron's timelines! Yours is what convinced me to make an account here and Ice and Mice is what fired up my imagination.

I probably should find those books...they really do make bison seem pretty naive and pseudo-tame. This isn't evidence, but I personally haven't seen aggression from a bison that couldn't have been done worse by bull cattle. On that note, we have pretty much zero record of actual aurochs behavior, so who knows what they were like ;).

We actually do have record of aurochs behavior because they actually lived up until the seventeenth century. Most accounts agree that they were very fast and aggressive when provoked.
 
As for Aurochs, there's a recent thread on 'Nazi Super Cattle' if you want to look it up. Essentially, the animals in question represented an effort to back breed to Aurochs. Fearsomely aggressive.

Bison... I don't have a lot of direct experience with Bison, but there are a few Bison farms in Manitoba, and I knew a guy who did a television commercial shoot. Mondo dangerous.

This generally tracks with my (admittedly limited) knowledge of bison-wrangling. 75% of the time, they're as easy -- if not easier -- to handle than cattle. The problem is that other 25% of time, when they don't have ten thousand years of selective breeding normalizing its behavior and you are left dealing with something ferociously strong and equally unpredictable. And woe be upon you if you don't treat that 25% with the respect it deserves.

We actually do have record of aurochs behavior because they actually lived up until the seventeenth century. Most accounts agree that they were very fast and aggressive when provoked.

There had been a local Bison farm a few miles away, and I knew the owner enough to converse with him. His corrals for the Bison were 5' high hog wire mesh anchored to railroad tie fence posts. He told me that generally the Bison were pretty easy to work with, but they are very big, very strong, and unpredictable. If he needed to work inside the corral he always used the pickup or the (big) tractor and kept the vehicle between him and the Bison. If the Bison appeared to be coming around by him, he always quickly got in the truck or up in the tractor cab. Most of the bulls were castrated when calves to make them more docile. He did keep a bull on site. Onetime one of the bulls shivered a railroad tie fence post with his head. The mesh kept the Bison from completely going through the fence. The farmer did not say what happened to the bull. FWIW, those Bison were only a generation or two removed from wild stock though.

While Bison farms are rare in my neck of the woods, they do occur. Those farms raise the animals for meat. Personally, I think the meat is excellent tasting, similar to beef. It apparently is usually lower in fat and LDL cholesterol, and higher in Omega-3, than comparable beef cuts, so it's a healthy source of protein.

So what I'm getting from this and from research I've done myself in the past two days is that bison and aurochs are pretty dang similar, both physically and behaviorally, if not bison being slightly more tractable. And, it seems, that the domestication of the aurochs was nothing short of an incredible feat, due to its aggression, speed and immense strength.

Keeping the ill-temperedness and power of the aurochs in mind, and the extreme prevalence of bison in a number of domestic situations, it should stand to reason that given the right husbandry methods (and the right chronological ingredients, but seeing as we're in an AH forum that's only stating the obvious) a primitive culture or group could have produced a domestic variety of bison at least as feasibly as Neolithic cultures tamed the aurochs.

As far as fences are concerned, they can be psychological barriers just as much as physical, and strong metal fences might not be all that necessary -- I myself have been up close to a small bison enclosure where the only thing standing between me and the massive bovids was a 5 foot barbed wire fence with wooden posts. They could probably jump that if they thought they could and should, but animals (especially big, heavy ones) typically don't jump fences unless there is a reason to do so. That said, when you're considering a primitive culture on a path to domesticating an animal, there would be no concept of the fence whatsoever (If there ever was, there doesn't seem to be any evidence for it in the days of domestication). Ignoring the question of how they acquired aurochs in the first place, the herders would probably let their cows roam free, and use behavioural and psychological rather than physical methods to keep them close. The Fulani of northern Africa, the largest group of nomadic cattle herders in the world, do just this, moving with their herd and guiding them to other sources of food or water. Most other animal herding cultures do this too; many of these animals will associate the human camp with safety, or even their fellow herd members.

A minor note: One trait I've noticed that aurochs and bison have in common that domestic cattle lack is a very bulky, muscular, strong neck. Many cattle breeds have a somewhat reduced neck, even bulls.

Those books I keep mentioning -- I didn't really quite find what I'm looking for, but I did manage to find excerpts of interest from various books:

History of the American Bison: Bison Americanus said:
No attempt that I know of was ever made by the inhabitants to tame a buffalo of full growth. But calves were occasionally caught by the dogs and brought alive into the settlements. A bull thus raised was for a number of years owned in my immediate vicinity by a farmer living on the Monongahela, adjoining Mason and Dixon's line. He was permitted to roam at large, and was no more dangerous to man than any bull of the common species. But to them he was formidable, and would not sufter any to approach within two or three miles of his own range. Most of the cows I knew were descended from him. (p. 583)

From what is already known of the behavior of the buffalo under domestication, it seems altogether tractable and docile. A letter written by Mr. P. B. Thompson, sr., to Professor Shaler, respecting the domestication of the buffalo in Kentucky, bears further on this point. Mr. Thompson says (under date of " Harrodsburgh,Ky., October 30, 1875"): ''In reply to your inquiry relative to the buffaloes formerly owned by Col. George 0. Thompson, of Shawnee Springs, Mercer County, permit me to say that my remembrance of them runs back at least fifty years. My first recollection is that there was a bull and three cows. They were kept in a park of about sixty acres of blue-grass. In the same park were about fifty deer, and from seven to twelve elk. The animals in the park were fed but little, and given the same food as other cattle. The elk and deer were but slightly domesticated, but the buffaloes became as gentle as any other cattle that were not constantly handled. I have been often within a few feet of them, and have no doubt that they could have been used as beasts of labor, or that the females would have submitted to milking.

"During the whole time I do not think they ever broke a fence, or went beyond the limits of the park unless driven. Other cattle were put in the park, and it was used at times for a calf lot. They were not vicious to either cattle, horses, hogs, or sheep. The two last left were cows, who survived the bull at least fifteen years. They were calved in the park, and, as I have said before, were docile and harmless." (p. 586)
The Journal of Science said:
Further, why was the American bison (erroneously called buffalo) never brought into subjection by the Red Indians? It would have been of great service to them as a beast of burden as well as for food. It is unquestionably a member of the Ungulata, a ruminant animal, and thus belongs to the above-mentioned "rasorial" type. Mr. Swainson, who always can find a way of escape, says :—" Let us first look to that (the genus) of Bos, where we have the ox and the bison actually following each other in close affinity, and yet no two animals in their moral character can be more opposite: the one is the most useful, docile, and tameable of the brute creation, the other wild, revengeful, and showing an innate detestation of man. The ox is the typical example of the genus, the bison is the sub-typical." Hence we are to believe that the Red Indians did not tame the bison because he is untameable.
Mr. Swainson is here, as not unfrequently, at issue with facts. The bison, even when wild, shows no disposition to attack man unless molested. He is, indeed, far less dangerous than the half-wild cattle of Texas, of the Andean Paramos, or of the Falkland Islands. The "docility" of Bos taunts is, indeed, confined to the female sex. To an unarmed man in an open country there are few animals more dangerous than the common bull; and if he is above four years of age, he is exceedingly given to indulge in unprovoked attacks.*

But to complete Mr. Swainson's discomfiture, the bison has been found and reported by the most eminent authorities in America to be readily susceptible of domestication.* There is little inducement to multiply the tame breed on the large scale as the cows are not good milkers. But in the absence of ordinary cattle they would be of great value. It must, therefore, remain a problem why the Red Indians did not have herds of tame bison just as the Tartars of the Asiatic steppes have their oxen. The fault evidently lay with them rather than with the bison.
On the Domesticated Animals of the British Islands said:

None of these are the book(s) I remember exactly, but they are rather close. Knowing my luck I'll find the right book when I get back to studying those elk rumors. If nothing else, they are interesting. I'm sorry this post is so big, I wish there were spoiler tags in this forum.

Speaking of interesting, searching for reading material I found this link: http://io9.com/5897169/dna-reveals-that-cows-were-almost-impossible-to-domesticate

It would seem that the aurochs had a good deal of possibility to have never been domesticated...a scary prospect, as I happen to like hamburgers. But it lends hope to the possibility that bison also could have been naturally domesticated, given the right conditions. I think, in my opinion, that one must first try to figure out the conditions, events and methods from the initial domestication of the aurochs in order to write a believable enough alternate history that includes the domestication of the bison.
 
Around 8th century AD, hairless dogs appeared in Peru for the first time. They had been present for centuries in Mexico.
Also around 8th century AD, copper metallurgy appeared in Western Mexico. It had been present for centuries in Peru.
Neither copper metallurgy nor hairless dogs appeared in Central American jungles.
Sounds like overseas contact, probably on Mochica ships.

What if the Mochica also carry llamas over Pacific to Western Mexico?

There is a difference between transition and staying there. Probably hairless dogs and coppery were transported through Central America, but they did not stay there just because there was any important civilization at that moment there to make them stay. However, they thrived on destination (South America).

Problem with guanacos (llamas) is that the mere transition is complicated.

So what was the mechanism of Auroch domestication?

Regarding the aurochs debate, one important thing: it is highly suspected that cattle formed from the mostly unknown Indian subspecies of the aurochs, which was presumably more tameable than the European one. Unfortunately, wild Indian aurochs vanished much earlier (before Alexander the Great era) and they are only known by their subfossils.
 
(I have had this reply page open for about 4 days, slowly gathering research...I was stupid enough to hit the preview button without copying all of my reply, where my session timed out and Chrome won't let me confirm form resubmission; I have lost the original cache files. I am going to cry. But not until I try to write from memory what I lost)

So what was the mechanism of Auroch domestication?
No clue. All I know so far are mostly facts from this article (which is the source of the link I posted earlier): that all non-zebu cattle today descend from a herd of 80 aurochs cows in the Near East approximately 10.5k years ago, and that this herd was augmented by several wild bull 'visits' over the course of early domestication. The authors also note that the earliest confirmed sites of cattle domestication are at settlements ~250 km apart (About a week's travel on foot), and they suggest that the domestication effort was started by sedentary people (not to say the animals were necessarily kept near the village -- the herd(s) would have likely been managed by a few people from the villages with the villages themselves as a base, as in a lot of modern instances) and that the proximity of the villages would serve to share herding information, making husbandry more efficient. This link also seems to give some insight on early techniques (scroll to (c) Cattle domestication) but still does not give us any idea on what first inspired people to keep aurochs.

Leaving aside the successful herd of 80 for a moment, a clue might be found in the Nabta Playa, a depression south of the Nile which people first seemed to inhabit around 10-8,000 years ago, the settlements indicating they were seasonally inhabited. It's been suggested by some (source for the next couple of sentences) that the climatic conditions, though wetter, couldn't have supported large game without some form of human control, yet there are cattle bones scattered about (which are all morphologically wild). This view has been considered inaccurate as a biome that can support small African game can typically support large African game as well, and the faunal records of Nabta are rather incomplete. If you keep scrolling down, the 'third way' suggested by the author is interesting; as the land got drier, it would have been necessary to manually select the aurochs herd(s) they depended on for the survival of both the herd and the tribe, practicing loose herd management techniques. The increasing aridity might have caused these people scattered about to band together and share information. A few millenia later, there are clear signs of transhumance and seasonal pastoralism (at that time the Mesopotamian livestock package arrived too, with their cattle). This book also seems to say something similar.

Well, the Nabta Playa might turn out to be a red herring for me (sigh) but I still gleaned some pretty useful information and insight.

We can also look at some semi-domesticated animals, such as reindeer and gayal. Most reindeer herders simply follow their herd to new pasture, and loose selection is employed. The reindeer associate the human camps with safety and extra care. Obviously the ones that weren't keen on this would leave the herd or become selected through other means. Many gayal herds are largely left to tend to themselves most of the day, and return to the villages to be fed and cared for. Both of these animals are not aurochsen but we can still attempt to apply some of their data on them.

Now to hopefully answer your quote, and taking all these facts into mind, if I had to guess, this might be similar to what happened:

  • A culture grows increasingly reliant on aurochs.
  • A change in environment or something similar presents a risk to the access of aurochs -or- aurochs need to be hunted with greater efficiency (or both). The concept of making sure the aurochs have access to the proper sustenance may be present as well.
  • A very loose manner of herd management is practiced along with hunting, clearing fields for grazing and driving herds to those locations with burning. Access to water may also be considered.
  • As desertification increases, or through other methods, tribes may tend to group together, sharing information.
  • Simple herd management may lend itself to a sort of semi-pastoralism, following the herds as they migrate in addition to using 'controlled' burns to drive them from pasture to pasture. Perhaps also the herds would become slightly more accustomed to human encampments. Alternatively, sedentary or semi-sedentary villages could coax herds close like the gayal, providing them with a source of water or food.
  • Eventually, the traditional methods prove to still be quite difficult, and it doesn't help that people are needing convenient access to a source of fat -- aurochs. The bulls, though easy hunting targets, are a serious problem. Some way or another, a group of likely sedentary people wind up procuring a founder population of somewhere around 80 cows, and tend to them closely. The lack of bulls would make tending slightly easier, and if they are young, growing up with humans will make them a bit less flighty. Land is still burned and the herds are still driven to new pasture when need be. To make sure the small and slowly growing herd is fed, fodder is collected and heaped near the herder's camp (or near the village), and water is also provided in the form of rivers and watering holes close by human habitation. Wild bulls occasionally come by and mate with the herd, adding genetic diversity. Aggressive bulls and troublesome animals are culled from the herd.
I don't think that's how that happened exactly, but at least it's put in a semi-feasible sounding hypothesis. What I do know for certain though, and what has been established by science is that it was difficult. Likely much moreso than any other domestic animal. It still baffles me as to how people obtained 80 head of aurochs cows. Did they get them from proto-herders? Were they originally part of a small herd themselves that got coaxed in by a village? Was this a stroke of ingenuity and each individual cow captured from the rest of their herd? There's still so much I don't know at this point, and it seems that archaeoanthropology hasn't collected a lot of data either. I wish there was someone qualified enough in this forum to answer these questions for us. I think if we have to go further on this I'm going to have to start a new thread.

One thing is for certain -- the very fact that mankind managed to tame the aurochs into the cattle today can likely be considered the eighth wonder of the world.

Back on the subject of American bison, if we assume a dependence > wild herd management > semi-wild pastoralism > domestication attempts strategy with aurochs, then there might already be some interesting and viable starting material already for alternate histories: Plains Indians and some other culture groups already continually burned the land to allow for grass and similar forage to grow to provide food for bison, the herd migrations were already followed and bison were already driven around, often times into corrals called buffalo pounds where they were trapped and easier to kill. Only thing is OTL bison were just so dang numerous back then, and the system probably seemed good enough so didn't go further than that, though it doesn't in any way rule out ATLs with bison domestication. I could probably even see one with a gaur/gayal-like approach, coaxing a herd with food and taming them to use for sacrifice and later as a beast of burden.
Regarding the aurochs debate, one important thing: it is highly suspected that cattle formed from the mostly unknown Indian subspecies of the aurochs, which was presumably more tameable than the European one. Unfortunately, wild Indian aurochs vanished much earlier (before Alexander the Great era) and they are only known by their subfossils.

You're probably thinking of B. p. indicus, the Indian aurochs, which is the progenitor of Indian zebu cattle or brahman. The other cattle however, the kind popular outside of south and southeast Asia, are descended from 80 B. p. primigenius cows from the Fertile Crescent, which, as they expanded elsewhere, bred with wild (non-captive) B. p. primigenius bulls.


Wellp, it's 5:59 AM and I think I've finally finished this dang post. I waive all responsibility for paragraphs that do not make sense...o_O
(Man, I wish you could save drafts on this site...)
 
Top