In the world of dogs, there is an obsession with claiming that one’s favored breed is of ancient ancestry.
It’s an obsession that gets somewhat silly whenever one tries to look at the claims using the historical record or genetic evidence.
For example, it is well-known that the drop-eared sighthounds that are found from North Africa through the Middle East to India and China are representative of a fairly old type.
However, they are not necessarily old breeds. That’s because these dogs never existed as a “breed” in the first place until Westerners got their hands on them, and the only reason why these breeds appear to be so ancient is because they remained outside Western dog population, which were notoriously mixed until the Victorians began turning them into breeds.
But you’ll often see claims that someone is preserving salukis or Afghan hounds by keeping them pure or keeping out “foreign’ colors.
They think they are preserving animals from an ancient bloodline that some less scientific people have claimed that Afghan hounds were the dogs that Noah put on his ark. The implication is that if one is breeding Afghan hounds, then you must be breeding the original “dog kind.”
But even those who don’t follow myths in the bible still think they are preserving an ancient breed, and they must follow the traditions, which means they think that these breeds have been pure for thousands of years.
They take the fact that this type of dog is really old and then superimpose upon it the Victorian “breed” concept, and in this bizarre syncretism, they create a fiction that by keeping these breeds pure and free of foreign of foreign color, they are preserving the strains.
It’s a bizarre fiction, but at least one can claim that this type of sighthound is pretty old.
But it’s not just with these breeds.
Take the Irish water spaniel. As far as I can tell, the dog we call the Irish water spaniel probably didn’t exist in its current form until the 1840’s, when a shooting sportsman from Dublin named Justin McCarthy began to select from the local water spaniel population. I think it’s very likely that the local strain of water spaniel had a lot the old rough water dog’s ancestry. The rough water dog was sort of the English variant of the French barbet and the German poodle, though it was a stockier dog, not unlike a Labradoodle.
Water spaniels certainly are an older type. They appear right through the late Medieval and Early Modern period in the British Isles, but to claim that the Irish water spaniel is the same thing as this dogs is a real stretch.
But that’s not where Irish water spaniel fanciers leave it. No, they go even further back. Using archaeological evidence of several skulls found in the 7 and 8th centuries in Ireland and during the late Stone Age and early Bronze Age in Central Europe, Irish water spaniel people have claimed that the old dog skulls represent Irish water spaniels!
Never mind that dog skull shape is one of the most variable features that the species possesses. One can see historical evidence of dog breeds developing entirely different skull through selective breeding. Almost anyone who has any knowledge of dogs knows that we have monkeyed with their skull shapes quite a bit. For example, the dogs Americans call Jack Rusell terriers and the AKC recognizes as Parson Russell terriers are actually the older form of fox terrier, which had mesocephalic skull. The wire and smooth fox terriers one sees in the ring have elongated muzzles, but their ancestors all looked like the dogs we call Jack Russells.
For this reason. claims about skull shape and ancestry in domestic dogs really don’t impress me much.
But that doesn’t stop people from making the claim.
Even if it is absurd.
But there is actually a reason for the claims of ancient origin. This reason has two basic features:
One is that humans will follow tradition. There must be something innate in human nature that causes us to follow tradition. It certainly would have an evolutionary advantage for younger members of a family group to follow the guidance of their elders.
And if your elders know how to find food or make some useful tool, that’s a very advantageous behavioral adaptation.
But if your elders belief absolute nonsense, it’s not such a good adaptation.
Which is where the dog fancy gets mixed in.
People involved in dogs are intensely political, and there is a lot of jockeying for power within each breed club.
One way to get power in dog clubs is to have some claim that the way you’re doing things has something to do with the “original intent” of the breed. If you can bring up some historical facts or something like facts to back your case, people will listen to you. And if you question it, why should we listen to you?
So if you can claim that your dog is ancient and you’re doing something to preserve the it in its original form, you will become a sort of hero.
Most of these breed origin stories don’t hold up under careful scrutiny.
That’s because they really aren’t meant to be histories.
They are meant to be creation myths that orient the faithful into thinking a certain way and accepting certain strictures and values.
This is the real reason why so many people are so caught up on the story that their chosen breed is of ancient origin.
It’s not about the facts. It’s about the society surrounding that breed in modern times.
While I agree with you, as an Italian Greyhound owner I have to admit a jolt of pleasure seeing small greyhounds pictured in art from the 1600’s. Particularly since my other breed, Shelties, were likely never used to herd as such (and their extreme variation in size and type even within a litter bears out that they are essentially little mutts–not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind you!)
A well written and interesting article. Its too bad that many people can’t just enjoy the dog for what it is, a great companion and wonderful addition to a full life, instead of a tool to social power and prestige amongst a group of delusional people.
One of the many advantages of going with gun dogs. Any pretense of ancient origins is laughable. Not to say there aren’t gun dog folks who make laughable attempts to deny the mixed ancestry of their breeds.
In reply to Nora’s comment about seeing Italian Greyhounds in art from the 1600s; if they’re were some way to prove it, I would bet my life that other breeds have gone into the line of dogs her Greyhounds descend from since those painting were done. I know the pleasure of seeing your preferred breed in art, or reading of them in ancient journals. Though it’s a well known fact that Captain Graham recreated the Irish wolfhound, which had practically gone extinct in Ireland, by crossbreeding the few survivors of the “type” with other breeds, I’d be thrilled to think that even a little of that old blood trickled down to the dogs Graham produced, and hence into mine.
I’m of Scottish-Irish, Norwegian, French-Native American extraction, pretty much a mutt, but proud of all all that’s in me. If I were to discover I was descended from some ancient king of any of these people, I would certainly be more proud that he was a distant ancestor than if I were descended from him in a continuous line by him having children with his own sisters. What we outlaw among people we insist on with our registered dogs. It thrills me to think that my wolfhounds may be (partially) descended from those ancient dogs that once fought the battles and roamed the castles of the Emerald Isle, but it thrills me just as much that my wolfhound-malamute crosses are, as it does for my “pure” Irish wolfhounds. Maybe even more.
DAC, I did say “small greyhounds” rather than IGs specifically–but I would bet my life that more than other breeds going in to the small greyhounds, they went in to other breeds (some of which would prefer not to admit it!)
Only because they appear to be generally considered “decorative” companion dogs rather than “useful.” As if being a companion dog was not useful in and of itself.
Toy dogs to this day are often used as a vulgar display of wealth. Once it was the diminutive mastiff (pug), tiny coursing dog (Italian greyhound) or mini versions of gundogs (king charles spaniels). A way of high society to say “look at me – I’m so wealthy that I can afford to have a little lap dog version of a dog that the peasants can’t afford to feed and my staff use to catch my dinner”. Nowadays it’s the poor little rich girls with their chihuahua sat in their Hermes Birkin bag in a $750 dress and a Versace collar. And let me say that it’s a reflection on the people, not the dogs themselves. The dogs would rather be living in a tent with a loving owner than a palace or used as a living Barbie. Being a companion is one of the most useful roles dogs fulfill, regardless of their size or any other jobs they do.
I love the small greyhounds. I can see the evidence of sight-hound ancestry in my Patterdale terrier. She looks more like a stouter IG or Whippet than any terrier I’ve seen. I didn’t mean to be disrespectful to your statement in any way; we all love the dogs we love. And if all there were in the world today were AKC dogs (or their equivalent in other countries), I’d be working my butt off crossbreeding those dogs to create my own version of my ideal dog. And for a rat-killing terrier I’d be breeding some form of small greyhound into some terrier line. That’s how creating a useful, healthy dog works. And there’s nothing wrong with a companion dog; there’s a big demand for them, and if I live long enough, I hope to eventually die snoozing in a rocking chair with a little dog in my lap. Its just when these companion dogs are allowed (forced?) to become deformed freaks that I start to see the sinister head of Mans ego rising above the welfare of the dog.
Regarding the IWS, perhaps writers should be more careful to differentiate between water spaniels that were Irish by virtue of being on/from that island, and Irish Water Spaniels of that specific recognized/recorded breed. An AKC registered American Water Spaniel living in Ireland could (correctly) be called an Irish water spaniel, but it is never going to be an Irish Water Spaniel.
The difference is that “water spaniel” is a generic reference; and ” Irish Water Spaniel” (or American Water Spaniel) is a specific, a proper name. (Which is why the initial letters are capitalized.) Or so I was taught, so many years ago.
This romance is intricately connected with my breed “the dog of legends”. It is true that working dogs of large, rugged type have existed in Central Asia for millennia, protecting livestock & families from predators & marauders. But those that claim they KNOW their dogs’ pedigrees can be traced back 5,000 years is ridiculous. A) Record-keeping just isn’t that accurate. B) EVERY living thing has ancient ancestors. C) WHO CARES? Once you get more than a few generations back, you don’t have a lot of genetic influence on the current generation unless you’ve been inbreeding like crazy, which has not been done in Central Asian Shepherds until very recently. The reason all the old photos & painting & statues of the working dogs look the same is because form follows function. They were dogs intended to perform a task & only the ones which happened to have a certain form survived the harsh lifestyle & were allowed to breed. “Purity” is an invented concept.
Well said.
Both my breeds are touted as ancient by many who own them and it’s utter twaddle. The Tibetan Mastiff in name only goes back to the Victorian era and was only given that name because they were big. Yet many claim them to be the ancestor of all mastiffs/LGDs. I don’t need to tell you that TMs are more or less the same landrace as your breed. Yes, there are many unmistakeable depictions of this type and colour of dog in Tibetan art and my TM looks just like those dogs and the ones still working in Tibet to this day. But my dog’s ancestors came from places like Nepal and Afghanistan as well as Tibet, so that makes a mockery of the obsession of pure blood. I’ve no doubt this exchange of DNA has always gone on due to there being many ancient trade routes running through the heartland of many of what are now seen as distinct breeds. Still, people will always argue that their particular group of this landrace that spans most of Eurasia are pure and the originals.
And oh, the shar-pei history is a laugh a minute. Some breeders claim they are depicted in art for thousands of years and present only ambiguous evidence. I’ve never gone with this as to me it’s pretty obvious they are derived from chow chows rather than a common ancestor, despite what the canine genome project says. Even the name was made up as the original Chinese Fighting Dog moniker put people in the West off. The breed is as old as many others, likely dating back to the 18th century and the influx of Western breeds to China, but that still only makes them an offshoot of a breed that’s likeness is depicted in art for a couple of thousand years. And the chow chow iself is part of a quite large Eurasian landrace i.e. spitz breeds. In both cases, the breeding stock that reached the West was usually plucked off the streets of China from what are now known as Tang dogs.
The irony lost on some people is that the further back you trace any breed you come to one of several general types rather than THE definitive mother breed that the “my breed’s older than yours” brigade claim they own. Even the dogs that have their likeness in ancient art are not necessarily off the hook either – look at the Norwegian Elkhound for instance. Claimed to be 6000 years old, but in reality a modern recreation.
as you say, there’s a tendency to claim “ancient” connections to a lot of things. You see the same thing with “ancestry.com” type ancestry searches (hey, you too were descended from king X or famous person Y”. Obviously ALL breeds descend from very ancient times — in that they are mostly descended from domestic wolves (which may have occurred 30,000 or more years ago). And of course “types” were used in various roles — specialized mastiff types are shown in some of the earliest art (Egyptian and Assyrian). While the English mastiff isn’t some preserved Assyrian mastiff, an “ancestry.com” tracking might well find that some Assyrian mastiff contributed at some point (people in ancient times got around a lot more than folk may think).
And yes, people do tend to “reinvent” — but useful tools do get “disseminated” — from stirrups to wheels, yokes, domesticated cattle, plows, iron working, etc — it’s quite clear that something useful gets “spread around”. There was some genetic study that “proved” that 16 million people are descended from Ghenghis Khan (Nat geo, 14 Feb 2003). Does this make them Mongolian warriors? nope. But it gives people a connection with the past. I think the same sort of thing occurs in breeds (be they AKC registered or not). Something “ancient” tends to have more value than “hey, I just developed this last year” — you see the same argument in some livestock breeds (Cotswold sheep being one).
Hey. Great article. I will have to quote it massively on my blog. The only difference between me and those professional kennel breed re-creators, is I admit what I am advocating for, in recognizing/recreating/devolving to, the old common dog type of the Western US.
Kate, Not to get off subject here, but what type is that; a mixed breed sheep/cattle dog pariah? Sounds interesting.
Hi dac
The latest article should tell you what I’d like to see happening with the common dog.
oops no links. sorry. I’ll fix the email address on my gravatar.
Thanks.
As a Saluki owner for the past 43 years, I appreciate this article greatly. It’s always been my belief that my Salukis are simply a branch of a tree that some British fanciers decided to turn into a “breed” some 100 years ago. Hardly “ancient” by those standards…