HISTORY OF DOG BREEDING IN SOUTHWESTERN ASIA

Investigation and preservation of genetic biodiversity of animals should certainly include both wild animals and breeds of domesticated animals. The latter ones are particularly endangered. For saving wild animals, it is often enough just to leave them alone, while preservation of breeds is impossible without direct intervention of qualified specialists. As we actually see, at certain stages of societal development, in governmental programs, preservation of breeds of domesticated animals is not among first priorities. This makes extinction of domesticated animal breeds very likely. For preservation of wild animals, we set aside lands protected by law and put together lists of endangered species, but we leave absolutely without a protection breeds of domesticated animals, which are entirely depended on humans. Breeds considered valuable, because of their importance for human consumption, are in somewhat better position, but survival of so-called “non productive” breeds is jeopardized the most. Among all breeds, aboriginal ones are most interesting, because, unlike purebreds, they have been developed by force of artificial and natural selection for centuries. Historically, they could remain in possession of people, who created them, or become transferred from one ethnic group to another being “inherited”. They may occur in a very small geographic region or be wide distributed; they can remain unchanged for a long time, or be changed by specific selection by humans or by natural selection specific to local physiographic conditions (Plakhov and Shelestova, 1999).

In this article, we attempt to trace formation of dog breeds and development of the dog breeding in the relatively poorly, cynologically investigated regions of contemporary Kazakhstan, Kirhizstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and the Sinczyan-Uigur Autonomous region of China. Still recently, it was called Middle Asia and Eastern Turkestan. Now, not quite correctly, it is called Central Asia. This region has produced relatively few dog breeds surviving until present. However, a considerably greater number of them became extinct, on some occasions without leaving a trace. In cynological world, by some reasons, this part of Asia is considered less interesting. Some exception is made only for Turkmenistan. In part, this is associated with poorly known history of this region, particularly of Kazakhstan, as a part of the world inhabited by nomads, who did not produce culturally much for the rest of the world. Some other cynologists believe that it was only Islam, which brought some signs of civilization here. This is not true. Even a short reference to historical data shows that history of breeds of domesticated animals is inseparable from history of humankind. Depending on changes in the process formation of ethnic groups of this region, breed composition and their use also changed. We distinguish five large periods of ethnic history of Cenral Asia (Polyakov, 1980): Golden necklace. Kurgan "Tolstaya Mogila"; IV Century, BC. From: I. I. Artemenko, : Investigations of archeologists of Ukraine. In book "Through Centuries". Towards sources of culture of peoples of USSR, [In Russian] Vol. 1, Znanie, Moscow, 1986: 107-124.

I. Paleolithic, Neolithic, Bronze and early Iron age. It ends in the first 1/3 of first millennia B. C.

II. VII Century –VI Century B. C. It is subdivided into three parts:

1. VII-IV Centuries B.C. (Akhemenides); 
2. III –IV Centuries B. C. (Kushan); 
3. IV-VI Centuries A. D. (Euthalic).

III. VI-XII Centuries A.D. This period is subdivided into three parts: 

1. VI-VII Centuries (Turkish); 
2. VII-IX Centuries (Post Arabic); 
3. X-XII (Pre Mongolian).

IV. XIII-XV Centuries (Mongolian);

V. XVI-XIX Centuries (Uzbek).

Thorough archeological studies conducted during recent 30 years produced amazing results for the science. Here is one example: L. L. Galkin, a Chief of Volga-Uralian Archaeological Expedition, 1990, wrote about results of their investigations in this region covering area equal to a half of Europe: “ …In historical and archaeological literature of recent 50 years, Northeastern Caspian Sea region is seen as a country of nomads void of ancient communities and cities with culture. On all maps of Kazakhstan published, until now, the country looks like a huge white spot with sparsely scattered dots marking accidentally discovered ancient sites of hunters and herdsmen”. In Usturt and Mangyshlak Peninsula, Volga-Uralian Expedition discovered and investigated ruins of 19 ancient cities. One of them, Sher-Kala castle, had the shape of a rectangle with walls 200 by 400 meters long. The same expedition discovered complexes of monuments of Scythian culture:…”Numbers of sculptures were astounding… They were approximately as many as total number of Scythian stone stellas found in steppes near Black Sea during over a 100 years period…” (Galkin, 1988). In the process of archaeological investigations in Karakalpakian part of Usturt, they discovered over 50 sites belonging to Neolithic time, many of which were seven – eight thousands years old (Bizhanov, 1978)

A few years ago, another ancient city was discovered near contemporary Shymkent; in interim investigation, its age was determined as over 2,000 years old. Shortly, history of this region is a history of continuous migrations of different tribes and peoples, which arrived and departed completely, from settled people to those who were migrating over long distances. There are many special studies and publications dedicated to this poorly known region. L. Gumilev described this process in greatest detail. In conclusion, I would like to offer another citation describing this very important historical period: “… Inclusion of agricultural oases in Arabian Khalifat of VII-IX Century did not result in their conversion into Arabian culture, like occurred, for example, in North Africa. Cultural traditions of peoples of Central Asia appeared to be stronger than Islam, but borders of the Khalifat split Central Asia into two separate cultural worlds for several centuries, the nomadic and the settled oases… We should not over exaggerate the influence of Arabian rule on development of social order among the peoples of Central Asia. Destruction of the economy of countries of Central Asia …caused a delay of their social development… Arabian conquerors, by the time of their arrival in Central Asia, were less advanced culturally, than Central Asian peoples… Arabian rule caused a heavy blow to local cultural life. Imposing of Muslim religion by fire and sword led to destruction of pre-Islamic cultural values” (Polyakov, 1980). Discoveries of ancient cities and irrigation systems, rock paintings of chariots, clay sculpture, pottery and goldsmith artifacts several thousands years old confirm the statement above.

According to data obtained by professor S. N. Bogolyubsky (1940, 1959), the process of domestication of dog began 10,000-12,000 years ago. He distinguished two major centers of domestication: Sino-Malayan center (southern groups of dogs originated from forms transitional between wolves and jackals) and Indian center (northern groups of dogs originated from northern wolves). All discovered remains associated with that time period indicate only “wolf-like” types of dogs. Possibly, this original “material” was the so-called “Volga wolf” discovered and described by M. V. Pavlova in 1930-1931 (Catalogue of Mammals of USSR, 1981). During recent time, in foreign literature, there are new materials telling us that domestication of dogs took place in Asia at a much earlier time, about 15,000 years ago and its ancestor was one species, the wolf. Differences in contemporary views about domestication of dog indicate that some of the researchers, after Darwin, consider several geographic centers of domestication of dog, while others believe that there was only one center of the dog’s origin. There is one opinion that during Neolithic Period (8-3 millenia B.C.), in the territory of former USSR, there were at least three breed groups of dogs (Gorodtsov, 1940). These breed groups were hunting dogs, guarding dogs and at a later time, herding and toy breeds. Unfortunately, there is very little evidence about actual breeds of those dogs. Many drawings, rock paintings and written documents were destroyed during the spread of Islam. Archaeological descriptions often did not mention dogs as “non productive” animals or referred to them simply as, “dog”. P. I. Marikovsky (1975, 1981, and 1996) investigated ancient rock paintings occurring in the mountains of Southern Kazakhstan. He wrote that among them, dogs share a considerable responsibility. A major use is in hunting hoofed animals, mainly mountain goats (teke). By their appearance, these dogs resemble Australian dingoes.

They have erect ears, a long tail and relatively short legs. Among the paintings, dogs of other types are very rare. According to data presented by V. A. Novozhenov (2002), among animals depicted in petroglyphs in Central Kazakhstan, dated as late second or early third millennia B.C., frequency of appearance of horses is first, at (21.2%), then come camels (20.8%) and then bulls (4.4%). The dog’s frequency is only about 0.5%. Those were mid-size dogs, with square body format, erect ears and saber shaped tails carried low similar to dogs described by P. I. Marikovsky. There were images of bigger dogs with massive heads, erect ears and saber shaped tail, which probably belonged to the herding type, and there were dogs of a sight hound type, which were also had erect ears and curving over the back tail similar to the Tezem of Egyptian Pharaohs. Analysis of petroglyphs of Southern Kazakhstan dated late third-early second millennia B.C. indicated that, besides the types of dogs listed above, there were short-legged dachshund type dogs with erect ears (Medoev, 1979). Thus, rock paintings from different parts of Kazakhstan, belonging to the first chronological period of history of Central Asia, contain pictures of dogs of different types: spitz-like dogs, dachshund-like dogs, sight hounds, sheep herding dogs and hunting big game dogs.

There is less data about dogs of the Scythian tribes of the second chronological period. L. P. Sabaneev (cited from edition of 1987) mentions, “Herodotus, describing the way of life of peoples [Scythians] living in SE Europe at about 500 B.C., wrote that they all were involved in hunting, which was done as follows: a hunter would stalk animals from up in the tree tops; he threw his spear first, then, chased the injured animal with the assistance of his dogs. Perhaps those were not sight hounds, but hunting dogs….”. Their images occur among golden artifacts of the Scythian animalistic style and primarily among group of domesticated animals on the famous pectoral from “Tolstaya Mogila” Hill (IV Century B.C.) made by Greek artists. This is of a dog that looks like a lightly built scent hound with pendulous ears chasing a hare. In the first book of Avesta (book of ancient Iranian religion Zoroastrianism emerged in II-I millennia B. C.) named Vendidad, two chapters are dedicated to dogs, which were a Travels of Plano Carpini and William Rubruck. In: Travels of Plano Carpini and William Rubruck in Eastern Countries. [In Russian]. Gylym, Almaty, 1993, 248 pp. well-respected kind of animal among Zoroastrians. Besides instructions on how to care for dogs, it sets the punishment for the cruel treatment of dogs: “Dog is your guardian and friend given to you…He does not ask for clothing or shoes. He helps you to catch game, guards your property and he entertains you, when you are resting. Woe to one, who abuses dog or grudge giving him a healthy food. Soul of such a man, after his death, will wander eternally lonely: even a dog would not meet him”. According to Avesta, punishment was more severe for killing a dog than for killing a human. Excavations of burial sites of Andronov’s Culture of Southern Preuralye and Southwestern Siberia indicated that people of those tribes kept relatively few, small flock herding dogs (Tsalkin, 1972). Images of sight hounds belonging to this time period (Maksimova et all. 1985) were found among numerous rock paintings of the famous Tamgaly site, Almaty Province. One of them is the image of a dog similar to the Tezem, with erect ears and curving tail.

The dog is holding of argali. This picture can be interpreted in different ways. One possibility is, as L. P. Sabaneev wrote, that such dogs were used for catching game and this is what was shown on the picture. Another possibility is that the picture is telling a brag story like “look, what kind of a dog I have, he can pull down argali”; this seems particularly likely, because on the picture, the bull is only slightly bigger than the dog. Another rock painting shows a large dog with coarse body structure catching a wild boar. The third chronological period is characterized by a wide distribution of Tazy-like dogs. Rock paintings, belonging to Turkish Kaganat time, show different scenes of hunting with the Tazy. On the images, the dogs clearly have pendulous ears and saber shaped tails curling into a ring at the end. An interesting finding was made in Eastern Kazakhstan. In one burial site, there were bones of a man and a youth of a Turkish tribe and bones of three horses and one dog identified as Tazy. Artifacts, such as an ornate saber, a bow, a quiver and arrows, etc. indicated that the buried people were high status warriors of VII-VIII Centuries (Arslanova, 1966). Among investigated burials of Northwestern Kazakhstan, Aktyubinsk Province, belonging to V-IV Centuries B.C. (Gutsalov, 2001) and XII-XIV Centuries A. D. (Bisembaev, 2001), there were no burials of humans with dogs found. One picture of a Chinese painter Li Di (1197) shows that a Tazy-like dog was probably known among the Chinese by that time

A relatively short list of breed groupings of dogs in Central Asia has changed considerably during the fourth chronological period, after the great migration of peoples. Travelers of XIII Century, Plano Carpini, Gilliam Rubruck and Marko Polo confirmed this fact. Most widely distributed dogs became Eastern sight hounds and Masiff-like large sheep hearding dogs. In 1245, by the order of the Pope of Rome Innokenty IV, am expedition under Plano Carpini was sent to visit the residence of Guyuk Khan. The expedition had reconnaissance and missionary goals. The trip took over two years. The route went via the residence of Batu Khan on the Volga River, then to Khoresm, Semirechye and Tarbagatai and then to Shara-Orda. Plano Carpini described the customs of the people which he visited, but never mentioned using of sight hounds. He described a myth about fighting dogs (Travel to Eastern Countries of Plano Carpini and Gilliam Rubruk, 1993, Russian Edition). The travels of Gilliam Rubruk, 1253-1255, are more interesting. He traveled for eight years after Plano Carpini. Gilliam Rubruk, with a team of people started on land from Sudak along the coast of the Black Sea, then they arrived in Ukek, not too far from where Saratov is today. From there, they proceeded to Kenjek in the Talass River valley and Kailak, which is not far from modern Kopal, and then to Travels of Polo family. In: Book of Marko Polo about diversity of world recorded by Pisan Rusticano in 1298. [In Russian] Karakorum, which was the final destination of the trip. On the way back, they choose a route further to the north (cited from Russian edition “Travel of Plano Karpini and Gilliam Rubruk into Eastern Countries, 1993). He reported about hunting dogs of “Albania” country situated north of Caspian Lake and described the customs of visited people in great detail. Particularly, the hunting with birds of prey. The principles of which, had also been described in Yasa by Chighiz Khan. In Karakorum, he saw sight hounds: “ I saw also ambassadors of Sultan of India, which brought eight leopards (probably cheetahs) and ten sight hounds taught to sit on the back of the horse, like cheetahs do…”

Travels of the famous family of Polo were described in “Book of Marko Polo about Diversity of the World…” (Cited from Russian edition of 1990); they became most widely known and famous. The first trip of brothers Polo took place from 1253 (54) to 1269. They started from Venice. In 1260, they visited Constantinople, then proceeded to Saldadia, to middle parts of the Volga River (Berke and Uvek), Plateau Usturt, to Urgench, Zeravahan Velley, to Bukhara, Samarkand, Otrar, the Ili River Valley, mountain foothills of Eastern Tyan Shan Mountains, Shajou Oasis and further to Khanbalyk (Peking), the capital of the Great Khan. Their second trip took place in 1271-1295. They started from Palestine to Armenia, then, proceeded to the south via Baghdad and Basra to Ormuz, further to Balakh, Kashgar and Hsajou to Khanbalyk. After they had lived for several years at the residence of Khan Khubilai. From China, they returned to Basra and Venice by sea. Marko Polo described different hunting customs of the people, which he visited. This was mainly a “roundup style” of hunting, popular among people of high social status. Additional to the “roundup style” hunting, Khan Khubilai used hunting animals and dogs. Marko Polo listed three kinds of dogs: scent hounds, sight hounds and Medelyan hunting dogs (p. 266, Russian edition, 1990). Further, Marko Polo wrote: “Great Khan has two princes, who are two brothers… Each of them has ten thousand subordinates; ten thousand of them are wearing red garments and another ten thousand of them are wearing blue garments. Among each of the twenty thousand men, two thousand have one, two or more dogs… When the Great Khan is heading to hunt, on one side of him, one of the brothers rides with his ten thousand servants and five thousand dogs; on another side the second brother rides with his ten thousand servants and five thousand dogs. They move close to each other, one after another, spreading over distance of a whole day to travel and catching every animal on the way. It was a pleasure to watch the hunt, the dogs and the hunters and I would tell you, that the Khan himself, when he and his princes were galloping on the plains with their gyrfalcons and the dogs chased on one or another side, bear, deer and all kinds of animals… In the area, where Great Khan lives, as far as twenty days of travel, nobody, a merchant, an artisan, or a peasant, is allowed to keep birds of prey or hunting dogs. In other areas they can keep hunting dogs and birds of prey and hunt as they wish.” Also, Marko Polo saw different kinds of dogs, such as hunting dogs and sight hounds in Eastern Tibet. L. P. Sabaneev (edition of 1987) mentioned the ancient Chinese hound called Mahugo, which still survived in late 19th Century in Sichuan Province, Central China. In the fifth chronological period, the final change and impoverishment of dog breeds of Central Asia took place.

By the end of it, the majority of ancient breeds disappeared and different kinds of sheep herding dogs and Tazy became increasingly popular. Unfortunately, in the majority of outstanding accounts of travelers of XIX Century in Central Asia and Eastern Turkestan, including NW China, including N. M. Przhevalsky, V. I. Roborovsky, P. K. Kozlov, CH. Valikhanov, N. A. Severtsov, Sivers and others, there were no descriptions of the dogs of people, which they visited. Perhaps, this topic was not of interest to them.