国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

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 Canis 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 æneo-
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. Budenz† 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.
Vámbéry‡ 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 khi.
Albrecht believes, therefore, in two domestications, one of which produced a large
dog (kukurra), in the west, and a smaller one (khi), 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