ORDO CARNIVORA. 351 
and the Caucasus. The dog, however, may have come either from the sphere of 
Indian culture or from Russia; although, according to Studer, a Siberian origin 
is possible. 
On the other hand an Iranian or Indian domestication or an autochthonous 
origin of the house-dog, shown by the presence in the lowest neolithic layers of 
the Anau kurgan of Canis pallipes or a similar wolf, might support a very plausible 
hypothesis based on former philological or archeological researches. ‘This would 
not apply especially to the domestication of Camis pallipes, but to that of the 
dingo or another wild dog of Turkestan as well. Perhaps later excavations by 
Mr. Pumpelly,; possibly in strata of a still earlier period, will bring to light the 
bones of house-dogs; for the fact that none are known from the first period is no 
proof that they may not be found. It would, in fact, seem almost necessary that 
the Anau-li should have had, with their great herds of sheep and cattle in eneo- 
lithic time, a domestic dog that originated in the same neighborhood. 
According to Hommel* the different peoples speaking the Turko-Tartaric 
languages must have had in common an autochthonous dog, which was designated 
by the radical word kuc. Budenzf also calls attention to the original character 
of this designation and concedes the hypothesis of an autochthonous domesti- 
cation of the dog in the earliest times of the development of the Altaic culture. 
Vambéryt also sees an evidence of the high age of Altaic domestication of the dog 
in the myth of the Kirghiz, who derive themselves from the dog through an unnat- 
ural connection with forty maidens. 
Not only is the shepherd-dog thought by some to have originated in Iran, 
but H. Kraemer$ and C. Keller|| attempt to derive most of the European mastiffs 
—at least the Canis molossus of the ancients and the St. Bernard—from Tibet. 
Albrecht,‘] however, shows from a large stock of philological data that the 
Tibetans were not responsible for this domestication but rather the people who 
lived to the west and south of Tibet; and that the name of the dog argues against 
a domestication in Tibet, for in the west it is kukurra, while in Tibet it is kh. 
Albrecht believes, therefore, in two domestications, one of which produced a large 
dog (kukurra), in the west, and a smaller one (khz), in Tibet, which were then 
exchanged and crossed among the respective peoples. 
If, lastly, we would look for the shepherd-dog of the East, which might pos- 
sibly have been derived from the dog of Anau, we must turn our eyes to where 
the earliest rays of the light of history penetrate the prehistoric darkness—to 
Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt. 
The Assyrian monuments do not introduce us to more than two varieties 
of the dog—the large and powerful mastiff, used in the chase of great animals, 
and the grayhound, used in coursing the hare. Other breeds, however, were 

* Die Namen d. Sdugetiere bei den suedsemit. Voelkern, p. 441. 
+ Magyar-Ugor ésszehasonlito szotar, 1881, p. 74. 
¢ Die prim. Kultur des turko-tatarischen Volkes, p. 197. Leipzig, 1879. 
§Die Haustierfunde von Vindonissa, Revue zoolog., tome 7, pp. 143-272; and Die Abstammung des 
Bernhardiner, Globus, pp. 171-188, 1904. 
|| Die Abstammung der aeltesten Haustiere, p. 76. Ziirich, 1902. 
{ Zur aeltesten Geschichte des Hundes, pp. 55-56. Miinchen, 1903. 
