|
| |
| The
origins of the Dogs |
The scientist C. Keller, derived the Saint
Bernard Dog from the Roman "Molossian,", a dog supposedly
descended from the Tibetan Mastiff. Marco Polo (1290) described the
Tibetan Mastiff: "as large as a donkey" Surely, the breed was
never quite that large. From the Tibetan highlands, the dog is said to
have found it's way to Nepal and India and from there, into Babylonian
and Assyrian cultures. Supposedly, Alexander the Great brought the
Tibetan Mastiff to Greece, where it served as found ation stock for the
Molossians.
Between 1200 and 1100 BC, the Phoenicians advanced from Cyprus, toward
the west and established colonies in Sicily, Spain, France and England.
In a fascinating and sharp-witted treatise, Tschudy proposed the theory
that the descendants of the old Assyrian dogs existed along the old
commercial roads of the Phoenicians. Tschudy suggested that the Assyrian
dogs, brought to Europe by the Phoenicians, were the ancestors of the
Pyrenean Mountain Dog in Spain, the Dogue de Bordeaux in France, the
Mastiff in Engla nd and the Saint Bernard Dog in Switzerland.
Strebel pursued this question about the Molossians very thoroughly.
After having consulted all known historical sources he came to the
following conclusion: Next to the large and mostly dark colored dogs
belonging to the Assyrians and Babylonians there existed a brighter and
lighter dog used as a cattle dog and for hunting purposes. This breed,
he concluded, must be called the Molossian.
All known Greek and Roman illustrations show the Molossian as a large,
well muscled dog with erect ears, a lean head and a mane. The
characteristic curled tail and darker color of the Assyrian dogs is
never pictured or described by either the Greeks or the Romans. A direct
relation between the Tibetan Mastiff and the Molossian is therefore very
unlikely.
Even though many authors (Keller, Krämer, Tschudy, Heim and others)
tried to trace the origin of the Saint Bernard Dog and the other Swiss
cattle dogs to the Tibetan Mastiff via the Molossians there are
absolutely no scientific facts to support this thesis; No written
documents, no pictures and no osteological proof could be found to
endorse these views!
Prof. Th. Studer devoted his scientific work to the exploration of the
origin of the domestic dog and published many papers on prehistoric
dogs. He maintained that as early as the bronze age (Hallstatt period a
& b, 1200 - 800 B.C.) there existed a Mastiff-like dog breed of
medium size (65 - 70 cm at the withers). It is likely that this breed
lived in Central Europe and thus can be placed in the region now called
Switzerland at a date long before the arrival of the Romans.
Studer came to this conclusion after studying many ancient dog skulls
and specifically, a Bronze Age skull from Karlstein. He mentions the
"Kollektivrasse der grossen Alpenhunde" (collective breed of
large alpine dogs), from which all modern breeds could easily be traced.
Hauck, an expert on canine history, came to a similar verdict. He wrote:
"I cannot agree with ancient tales about the transplanting of large
Mastiffs from Asia towards Europe. There are no osteological and no
pictorial representations to allow an unambiguous proof."
Both Studer and Hauck came to the conclusion that all European Mastiff
types evolved locally from Neolithic dogs at different times and at
different locations. Prehistoric trade between East and West was not a
prerequisite to the existence of similar dog breeds in different
locations.Further, the capacity to rear different breeds from local
stock was present everywhere.
We cannot deny that, during Roman times, some Roman dogs did mix with
local dog populations. However these dogs were by no means huge and did
not immediatly affect size within local populations.
Gradually, functional divisions resulted in phenotypic differences
between watch dogs, hunting dogs and herding dogs. Later, lap dogs and
companion animals were developed. It should be noted that the
all-purpose or mixed-breed has probably always outnumbered the
specialized or purebred dog.
Thus the direct ancestors of our Swiss dog breeds, which were entered in
the first stud books at the end of the last century, were by no means of
pure breed. They were dogs suited for specific tasks. Breeders chose
certain styles according to their idealistic notions of structure as it
enhanced "function." The fact that many dogs exhibited similar
morphology, cannot be used as proof for the existence of (genetically)
purebred dogs.
|
|
