Rooting for a Team or for Kangal

Some of the subject matter covered below is not directly related to the main issue, but it will help indirectly to better understand the events and beliefs. The roots are being investigated here, not because of an interest about the origins, but for the purpose of bringing some issues into the light and to end the exaggeration and myths. We will proceed as the questions come.

When was the name “Kangal” heard for the first time in relation to a dog? According to the records of Selcuk University in Konya, Turkey, it was heard in the early 1970s.

When was the Kangal dog first bred at Gemlik Military Kennels? At about the same time, the 1970s, but under a different name: Coban Kopegi or Karabas.

The founder of the Anatolian Shepherd Dog Club of America (ASDCA), Mr. Ballard, and the founder of the American Kangal Shepherd Dog Club, Mr. Nelson, were involved in this issue at about the same time. Afterwards, Turkish universities showed an interest in the subject. It should be confessed that the shepherd dog issue was brought to the public’s attention mainly by Americans. At that time, Ballard called the Anatolian dogs “Anatolian Shepherd Dogs.” Nelson used “Kangal,” “Akbas,” and “Kars” as the names for three regional groups.

The name “Kangal” was first heard in Turkey long after the breeding and training programs started in Gemlik, in the early 1980s. None of the breeds existed before as breeds until they were discovered in the 1970-80s. In actuality, there was no discovery, because nothing was hidden or unknown. What had been done was pointing and naming. When all the above dogs’ names were not known as breed names in Anatolia, they were taught to Turks via television with the new descriptions.

Akbas was present but not as a breed. Akbas, Akit, Akkus were all local names given to the same type and color of shepherd dogs. The Kangal dog was present in Kangal as a famous shepherd dog from Kangal, but not as a Kangal breed. All of Turkey jumped into these new names and descriptions, along with the media, people lacking the skill of just evaluation, and academicians lacking research drives. Afterward, national feelings were stirred and slogans were said aloud with plenty of excitement, like, “The Kangal is ours; we will not let anyone steal it.” In fact, the Kangal had not been lost; therefore it could not have been stolen. The public mind became mixed up when reaction became the primary form of activity instead of production. Some of the nationalist groups took a very chauvinistic attitude and rushed into questioning one of the two American groups saying, “How could you dare call our Kangal an Anatolian Shepherd Dog?” as if the Kangal name was part of the Turkish constitution and Turkish history and therefore a national dog name. They forgot that the name had been chosen and given by Nelson, and they turned against the other name and embraced the name “Kangal” automatically. When the shepherd dogs were encountered by Ballard for the first time in 1970, there was no name other than Coban Kopegi/Çoban Iti in 1970. (Shepherd Dog; “It” means dog, in original Turkish). Most likely, when he asked how these dogs were named, he received a response like “Coban Kopegi” from most of the Turks around him.

Where were these dogs from? They were from Anatolia. There were two possible names that could be given to these dogs, “Turkish” or “Anatolian.” The former indicates a race or a nation, and the latter indicates the geography and time period. Ballard made his choice for the second one. If another name would have been presented to him, I suppose he could have taken the other proposed name. Yet neither of the two American clubs could be morally forced to use a name dictated by the Turks, because the aforementioned clubs belong to the Americans and the option of the name is their choice. Meanwhile, no serious Turkish kennel club had existed until 2002. Instead of blaming Americans and especially ASDCA, judging and executing ourselves (Turks) would have been the correct deed.

Let’s line up some questions in relation to the above information:

Why has the Kangal had to wait until the 1970s, or more accurately until 1983, so that it could collect fame nationally and internationally? Have Turks lacked the expert people and institutions which could indicate the presence of this dog?

Mr. and Mrs. Nelson first brought the Kangal, as a breed, to America in 1983. This has been mentioned in the international dog literature (Kangal Dog, 2004). Why has the name “Kangal” not been seen earlier in the international sources?

After the above brief update, I could explain to you the main reason I wrote this article. It is the worry that the two made-up breeds would, in the long run, damage the local varieties of shepherd dogs in the entire region of Anatolia. This article has no intention of questioning the value and importance of the white Yoruk shepherd dogs (Akbas) nor does it intend to despise the already accepted qualities of the Kangal dog. All the regional dogs are valuable on their own terms and in their original environments.

Without entering into more details, taking a look at the conditions in Anatolia during the near and ancient times would facilitate comprehension of the matter.

Are the dogs mentioned Turkish dogs? If the people who have lived together for 1000 years are considered Turkish, then the dogs are Turkish too. From an absolute perspective, it is unimportant where these dogs came from. With the same perspective, it is relatively unimportant whether these dogs are Turkish, Kurdish, or Iranian. The truth is that it would not be realistic to transfer these dogs to another nation at this point. It is sufficient at the present that these dogs have been living in this land. How would it feel and what would happen if we decide to imagine their pasts as old as 10,000 years instead of 1,000? Our opinions about them change and the chronological period that they belong to expands; yet their real being will not be affected by our speculations on paper.

How meaningful is the possibility of their 10,000-year-old ancient past? We need to know where the sheep husbandry started if we accept the argument that they were originally sheep dogs. The assumption of their being battlefield dogs should be taken into account as a possibility and investigated also, because shepherding and wrestling go side-by-side in the Molossian-type dogs; furthermore wrestling dominates shepherding in the Dachmarda dogs of Tajikistan. The origination of sheep herding in Turkmenistan 10,000 years ago is somewhat irrelevant. Since our subject is Anatolia, it is safer to start with Anatolia. We will have to get into Central Asia later in order to make comparisons.

First, we need to see the association between Anatolia and Mesopotamia if we want to understand the argument announcing that the Kangal originated with the civilizations in Mesopotamia. This warning reminds us that southeast Anatolia is part of Mesopotamia. The political borders have always fluctuated in the past. The human races, and the animal and plant species, are not restricted to political borders. Migration is a natural outcome of war. Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire and the geographical connection of these two units does not disappear today because of the newly formed countries. As of today (12/15/2006), Iraq practically does not exist. The same situation demonstrates itself with northeast Anatolia being part of the Caucasians.

How do we know that Sumerians had lived in Iraq? Recently, new theories have been developed that they possibly came from the north. Furthermore, an alphabet similar to theirs has been discovered in Transylvanian Hungary. These writings are at least 1,000 years old, older than the ones in Mesopotamia. Their sagas explain that they came from cold and dark lands. They are Nordic and fair skinned (Hamori, 2004). How about the times when Iraq, Iran, and Anatolia were under the rule of Persians, Macedonians, Babylonians, and Ottomans? Have we forgotten that Anatolia had been invaded by Arabs? Are we too decisive to limit our history to the Republic of Turkey only? Do we include the Ottoman Empire, or after including the Ottomans will we say, “Pretend the rest did not exist.”? We have to decide whether we are going to approach this history from an ideological perspective or from the perspective of anthropology, sociology, archeology, technology, or linguistics.

So where and when did the Hittites live? The Hittite Empire was located right in the heart of Anatolia, and its borders exceeded today’s southeast Anatolia. When the Hittites came, there were other nations living in areas like Ankara and Corum; they had flocks of small ruminants, and their entire production was not based on agriculture. Cave lions roamed Anatolia as they do India today, with a decimated population. Those people had to have shepherd dogs in order to protect their herds against not only the wolf but also against the lion and leopard.

Wheat, barley, and sheep were domesticated in 9000 BC. The oldest human settlements in which wheat was cultivated, and sheep and goat husbandry practiced, were in 7000 BC in Çatalhöyük and in Palestine-Carmo.

The Hittites settled in northern-central Anatolia in 1900 BC. They conquered the entire Cappadocia high plains in 1800 BC, and they ended the Hammurabi rule in 1600 BC. In 1500 BC, the Assyrians who lived in Syria and in southeast Anatolia were taken over by the Hurrians. Assurbanipal II moved the old Assyrian capital to Kalah, and he expanded his empire as far as Iran and Caucasia. Persian Cyrus conquered Babylon in 500 BC (USF, 2004). Following this, there were several other empires and peoples in these regions before the Seljuks, Ottomans, and other central Asian tribes took over. Wars, trade, and migrations took place among these people continuously.

We know that the Hittites kept sheep flocks in 1900 BC. The majority of the bone remnants of the animals found in Çatalhöyük were sheep and goats, and their ratio fluctuated between 6/1 and 11/1. One of the tracks found, belonged to a dog that had five nails (Çatalhöyük, 1996)! Lahar was the livestock goddess and Enten was the shepherd god in the Sumerian mythology that goes back as far as 3800 BC. Multiplying the number of sheep was King Dumuzi’s responsibility (Siren, 2000).

The fifth nail can also be seen in regular dogs as well as in the shepherd dogs, but the frequency of this trait is higher among the shepherd dogs. The reason behind this can be discussed separately.

The presence of sheep flocks belonging to the Hittites in the 1900’s BC, and dogs with five nails including dewclaws, justifies us in making an assumption even without seeing any pictures, that this dog with five nails could be a shepherd dog. The sheep flocks had to be protected, and this condition strengthens the possibility that this dog was a shepherd dog.

Is it plausible that the Hittites immigrated to Anatolia from Central Asia and brought these dogs along with them? Both assumptions could be validated, but if the key question is whether the Hittites had these dogs when they lived in Anatolia, then the answer could be “yes.” The dogs we see in the ancient illustrations are usually wheel-tailed, large-headed, thick-jawed, and lion-some. They are sometimes portrayed as tied with chains, being walked by a man, or as chasing prey with spiky collars on their necks. Assyrian Mastiffs being walked by servants are observed on the relics in 1200 BC. Similar dogs with uncropped ears and large heads are portrayed as hunting dogs chasing wild horses (Mery, 1970).

Meds and Persians had ruled Persia between 1500 BC and 300 BC until Alexander of Macedonia conquered it. During this time period, Anatolia was under his rule. In 3000 BC, long before Alexander took Anatolia and forced the borders of Turkmenistan, nomadic horsemen from Central Asia who spoke the Indo-European language, came to Persia. These people were the Skits, Medes, and Persians.

Among these people, the Skits especially lived a semi-nomadic life on the north face of the Zagros Mountains. Seljuk Turks from Horasan became active in the Baghdad area in 1055 AD. The time difference between when Seljuk Turks showed up on the borders of Anatolia and when the Hittites raised sheep herds is 3000 years (Library of Congress Country Studies, 1987). Seljuk Turks were Oguz Turks and Oguz tribes brought their values and methods to Anatolia. Small ruminants and dogs were part of what they brought. I call their dogs “Yoruk Shepherds Dogs.” How do I know what they looked like? The explanation will come in the following pages. The above is not a thorough history of this vast subject matter.

Now let’s put forth a series of features and assertions about the Kangal dog. The Kangal comes with a black mask, short hair, a wheel tail, is usually fawn, has a square muzzle, and has the guarding instinct. Perhaps no one would disagree with the above description. We could clarify the issue by posing more questions:

1) Is it true that the Kangal is a variation and/or subtype of the wolf, which has its origin in Central Asia and is adapted to the freezing cold? First, it is not plausible to derive the Kangal from the wolf just by looking at its color. In recent years there are theories that state that the wolf may not be the direct ancestor of the Mastiff and Molos-type dogs (Mosczcinsky & Edbladh, 1995). Second, the explanation of the functionality of the Karabas (black mask) could be that it protects the eyes from very strong sunlight, which does not indicate that the weather is necessarily hot. The higher in the mountains, the stronger is the sunlight. The sunlight combined with the snow could cause snow blindness. For these reasons we could say that the Karabas feature of the Kangal demonstrates itself in practice. It does not mean that you should use this logic as a basis to claim that the Kangal is not adapted to the cold.

2) If the Kangal is adapted to the cold climate, then why is it not encountered in Agri, Erzurum, Kars, and Kyrgyzistan? If it is not, then why do some Kangal experts claim that it needs to be acclimatized to the low lands and sea levels?

3) Why does the Morkaraman (purple/red/black Karaman sheep breed) from eastern Turkey become the Akkaraman (white Karaman) in central Anatolia?

4) If the Kangal could be adapted to warmer places like Izmir and Adana, then why did Oguz Turks not adapt them to the warmer regions 1000 years ago?

5) Why have ak-Kangals (white Kangals) not been brought from the frozen steppes with Akkaraman sheep? Why are the Siberian sledge dogs not black-masked and why are several self-whites observed?

6) If it is assumed that the Kangal came from Turkmenistan, then why are the Alabays that are under the protection of the Turkmen government not Kangals and pintos and broader-bodied dogs?

7) If the Karabas trait is not a trait that is frequently observed in Turkistan, then where does it originate?

8) If the same traditions had been brought into Anatolia, then we would have seen tail cropping in addition to ear cropping in Anatolia. Why has one tradition been carried forward but not the other, or if both of them had been brought in then why has one of them disappeared?

9) How can it be explained that the Kangal is seen especially on the eastern side of Sivas, in southeastern Anatolia, in Rezaiye and Kermansah in Iran under the name Kanjal or Kancal, and in some parts of Iraq? (Bear in mind that political borders are nonexistent for the purpose of this investigation.)

10) Would Iraqis and Iranians they be uncaringly adopting the Turkish values? Or, are their cultural values more similar to ours than we think? There must be an explanation for why Turkish singers are listened to in Azerbaijan, Iran, and Iraq. Kangal is called Kanjal in Dagistan Azerbaijan. Kanjal is just like Kangal and it can also be seen in red coats (Iran zoo, 2003).

Whether the Kangal has been developed by the nomads or by the sedentary agriculturalists is another question. It will be beneficial to stay away from easy explanations and to check out the possibilities. For this latter process, the production methods and the drawings and statues from different time periods in different regions would constitute some records to investigate.

Can we still see the Kangal and its variations with the nomadic Middle-Eastern, inner Asian, and Anatolian people? Black-masked dogs do not frequently or exclusively accompany Anatolian Yoruks, Iranian Bakhtiari or Kasgais, Mongols, or Kazhak nomads. Naturally, if the Kangal came from these populations or is a product or byproduct of the nomadic life style, then should we not see the remnants of it in these populations? When we look at the presence of the dog through the sheep populations, we see that Morkaramans are still present in eastern Anatolia in places like Erzurum, Erzincan, Kars, Van, and Bitlis. Their color varies between shades of red to purple, as well as full black. They make up about 20% of the sheep in Anatolia.

Daglic sheep are from the Aegean region. Their color is like Akkaraman and they have a black head. Akkaraman are everywhere in central Anatolia, including Eskisehir and Kutahya (northeast Aegean), and make up about 40% of all the Anatolian sheep. Ivese/ Ogese /Awassi is a southeastern sheep endemic to Mesopotamia (Soysal, 2004). Their common characteristic is having an “S” type big tail.

Morkaraman are the sheep for very cold lands, but for some reason they do not live in Sivas where the cold-resistant Kangal dog lives. As it might be noticed, some of the questions are also answers. Let’s try to prepare more detailed answers to questions, adding questions as they arise. Then we will enter into the Akbas issue and return to the Kangal.

11) As suggested by some authors, could Akbas have descended from the white Arctic Wolf and been brought to Anatolia from the frozen steppes of western Siberia? The White Wolf is a variety of the Gray Wolf, and the main differences between them are their size and color. If it were likely that the White Wolf had been domesticated into Akbas by the Siberian nomads, we would have seen the leftovers there today. Yet, only reindeer shepherding is being practiced there today. For that region and its climate are not well suited for sheep or goat husbandry. So, it is without foundation to consider that Akbas had been developed there. If there were a basis, it should be explained via climate change and migrations. Explaining the situation with migrations will not help, since air transportation was not practiced back then. Furthermore, the Akbas should have left some sample populations behind, except in Iran. As we have seen, using formal logic, like taking the colors as given, is not effective. The scientific explanation for the existence of the white color in Akbas cannot be explained via the White Wolf, but it can be explained by the expressions of genes. The best explanation of the white color is the one which has received scientific approval, which is the “extreme white spotting” explanation. At this point, it is necessary to study the natural conditions in Iran.

It would be wrong to conclude that the Akbas’ adaptation to warm weather was accomplished in Iran, because Iran is one of the few mountainous places on earth, in that the Zagros Mountains exceed 9000 ft (3000 m). There are at least five peaks that exceed 12,000 ft (4000 m) in Iran. The elevation falls to 4500 ft (1500 m) in southeast Iran. The Elbruz Mountains in the Caspian region are narrow but high. The volcanic Damavand Mountain reaches 16,800 ft (5600 m). The inner highlands in the inner region of Iran are an average of 2700 ft (900 m), and several mountains in this region climb up to 9000 ft (3000 m). There are only two lowlands in Iran: Kuzistan in the southeast and the Caspian flatland in the north. Almost the entire Kuzistan area is covered with marshes, and it is not suited to small ruminant husbandry; larger ruminants like water buffalo are preferred. The summers are hot and humid in Kuzistan. The average summer temperature is 104 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Centigrade), with an annual rainfall of 39 inches (1000 mm). The Caspian lowlands receive about 20 inches (500 mm) of rain annually. In general, Iran has a dry climate with about 10 inches (250 mm) of rainfall annually. It would not be sensible to stubbornly develop Akbas in the Kuzistan region.

Likewise, in spite of the fact that the Arabian climate is dry and the Bedevis are nomads, horse and camel husbandry have been developed in Arabia. On the other hand, in addition to horse-raising, partial camel husbandry and extensive sheep shepherding is popular in Turkistan and Iran. The Kasgai Turks, whose population reaches 250,000 in the Zagros region, are sheep and goat shepherds. They spend the summers in the Zagros Mountains, over 8202 ft (2500 m) in elevation. The Kasgays were first forced into sedentary living habits in 1939. When Sah Riza was exiled in 1941, they returned to their pastoral lives for a short time. Then they were pressured by the Iranian government to settle down into the sedentary lifestyle again until 1986. Persians were active shepherds when they were part of the Parni tribe in 247 BC, and when small ruminant shepherding was not exclusively a Turkic lifestyle (Library of Congress Country Studies, 1987).

At the present time, Kasgays and Bahtiyaris guard their herds with multi-colored shepherd dogs. Multi-colored dogs are observed in the Afyon region in western Anatolia. Keeping multi-colored dogs shows the perceptions of both Iranian Kasgays and Anatolian Yoruks. Since there is no direct link between color and breed, it does not necessarily lead to a cause-effect relationship; even if there were one, it would be a lazy solution to interpret color variation as a sign of cross breeding.

It is not appropriate to imagine whether they are crossbreeds or not, because if there were a crossbreeding, either we would not be able to tell when it started, or we would not have a device to measure it. More importantly, it is wiser to take what we have as it is, instead of going back 1000 to 3000 years. The Doberman was a crossbred dog about one hundred years ago. The GSD was not considered a breed before 1900. Staying away from the explanations based on breed descriptions will clear and broaden our perspective. The ones who insist on the presence of crossbreeding should start working out the Anatolian people’s genetic make-up. Finding information and clues about how Anatolian Shepherds or Yoruk Dogs are pure or mixed is as impossible as figuring out the genetic make-up of the Anatolians as a people.

13) Moreover, if Akbas is adapted to a warm climate, then why do we observe Kaba (long wooly-coated) as frequently as we see Kirik (short-coated) Akbas, but we do not observe the same in the Kangal group? It is a pretty frequent trait, Kaba-coats, in the Yoruk dogs, and this has no connection to color. Any color can come with a Kaba coat. The Bolu Yoruks are especially Kaba dogs. The areas where Kirik Akbas are encountered in western Anatolia also contain Kirik karabas and alas (pintos). If the short coat/Kirik has been passed to these dogs from the Kangal, then we would see a uniform color distribution in the general population. The Kaba coat goes with a colder climate, in general, but the opposite is not true. Only working out the logic on this issue will be adequate to verify this fact.

Similarly, the color variations ranging from black to white are observed in the Caucasian dogs of eastern Anatolia, as well as in the dogs in the higher parts of southeast Anatolia. The main difference between these two regions is in the length of hair; short-haired dogs are more common in southeastern Anatolia. The dogs from Karacadag Mountain in Diyarbakir remind one of the Caucasian dogs with Kaba coats and multi-colored hair.

In short, the argument of Akbas being acclimated to warmer climates is not a valid one. The climate in Ankara, Afyon, and Eskisehir is very similar to Sivas and Kayseri. What could have happened is that perhaps some tribes preferred some colors against the others.

14) If the Akbas is so well-adapted to warmer climates and is mainly present in western Anatolia, then what would be the reason behind trying to adapt the Kangal to western Turkey? Why are local dogs not the focus and not appreciated? Tire, Seferihisar, and Karaburun are the areas in Izmir where one can still find good specimens of Yoruk dogs, whether white, pinto (fawn or black spotted), or fawn dogs, which are already acclimated to the region. In addition to this, the Akbas Yoruk dog has been found to be the most successful dog for shepherding in the USA (Coppinger, 1995). The logic is not clear for defending the contradictory position that the Kangal is adapted to freezing cold climates and yet is working hard to adapt to hot climates! Now we are back to the Kangal.

Is it somehow possible that the Kangal is the product of an agricultural life instead of a nomadic life? Or could it be that it is a product of people who migrated to Anatolia long before Christ and who developed civilizations? Is it painful to accept that the Kangals that have more Mastiff traits than a regular shepherd dog are the original Kangals, as Turhan Kangal stated; therefore most dogs declared as Kangal dogs are really not Kangals? Is it possible that shepherding was not part of the job description of the original Kangal and that instead it was a battle dog, as well as a home and depot protector? Naturally a shepherd dog must be very fast. Being very powerful is not sufficient. The agility decreases as the weight increases. Shepherds would confirm this. It is known that dogs which wrestle very well, cannot speed lightly on the rocky surface; they end up with bleeding pads. There is a belief that the Kangal’s large pad facilitates walking on the snow. This sounds reasonable in the first analysis; however, the large pads do not serve a purpose for the simple reason that winter shepherding is almost absent.

According to general agreement, the Kangal has a thicker bone structure than Akbas. Could that be the reason why Akbas was found to be more successful than the Kangal in the USA? Although the color of a dog is not directly related to sheep guarding, if a Kangal works as a sheep guard, why does it not come in white coats more frequently than fawn coats? It is not reasonable to relate this to the color of the steppes, because the yellow steppes exist in both Iran and in Central Asia. The yellow/fawn color observed in ASDs is a form of the Gray Wolf’s faded version; the reduction in the number of black hairs pushes the yellows forward. The yellow and the red hairs are considered the same colors according to color genetics in canines. The density of the pigments explains the difference.

Not all the European sheep-guarding dogs are white, but most of them are white. It is argued that Turkish and Iranian Akbas are white dogs as a breed. Could it be questioned that European shepherd people are as good as the Turkish ones? Under the circumstances is it possible that the original Kangal was employed mainly as a battle dog, wrestling, killing the cornered prey, and protecting the grain depots, and when the original tasks became limited, then it started protecting flocks, further on exchanging blood with the original shepherd dogs and attaining various skull types? Is that why Turhan Kangal classified Kangal under three main types: Original, Wolf Killer and the Crossbred? (Unfortunately, I was only able to read Mr. Kangal’s work from an indirect source by Dogan Kartay.)

Well, if Kangal’s primary job was not sheep guarding, then how did it originate in Central Anatolia? The first hypothesis: When the Turkic Kangli tribe arrived in Sivas, there were already original Kangals in Kangal, and they started interbreeding with the Central Asian Yoruk-type dogs. Some native shepherds kept their original Kangal stock for different reasons and needs. That is why, although their numbers have decreased in recent years with the influence of Kangalmania, long-coated, wolfish, pinto dogs can still be observed in the Sivas region. Akbas is believed to have originated in Eskisehir where sheep herding is a traditional production. Would this be related to the fact that mixing took place in Sivas?

The second hypothesis: In relation to the first hypothesis, the Kangal is related to the production ways of the people present before the appearance of the Turks. How far can we go back in history? We can go back to the Hittites first, then the Sumerians. Who were these people? What did they do? Where did they come from? What happened to the offspring of these people after their civilizations disappeared? This question was answered in the beginning: they were mixed up with the newcomers. Their animals crossbred with each other and were improved in some cases. Now we have returned back to where we started.

The various above-mentioned uses of the Kangal are in addition to Kangals being used in bear and boar hunting, plus its large body made it a successful part of the dog wrestling events. It should also be mentioned here that dog wrestling rules and goals in Anatolia were and are at the current time different than they were and are in Europe.

Let’s go back to the Yoruk Shepherd Dogs, which are considered to be mixed. First of all, can anyone in his right mind say that there is a pure Anatolian breed? There are bloods in Anatolia, not pure breeds. This statement is valid both for the Kangal and Akbas categories. Why? The answer is on the first page of this chapter: the purity of breeds, created later in their lifetime according to foreign-club-made standards, is questionable because these dogs have never been bred so that they can be preserved “pure.” According to a certain mentality, all the Anatolian breeds are mixed except for Kangal. I suspect that the purity of the Kangal could be proven. The state of being not mixed up is applying the European cultural mindset of “purebred” to Turkish dogs. This is simply a good intention and nothing more.

Although Afyon and its environs are one of the major Yoruk settlements, and consequently are one of the most concentrated regions where sheep and goats are shepherded, the Kangal originated and has been persistently bred in the Sivas region. As the eye wanders from Kangals to other dogs, it is claimed that one sees lesser quality dogs! Why are the dogs in Afyon and its environs a mixture of Akbas and Kangal? The need to track the root at one defined center is only centralism.

Is Sivas the only isolated place in Anatolia to develop a dog like the Kangal? If not, and if it came from Central Asia, why should it not exist in places like Eskisehir, Afyon, Tunceli, and so many other sheep and goat shepherding areas?

Was there no native breed of dog in Kangal before the Kangli tribe arrived? We know of the presence of Yoruk-type dogs in Sivas, with long hair and wolfish heads. What does that mean? Could it mean that the Kangal was in the Sivas area long before Yoruks arrived? Were there no native people here before the Kangli tribe? Did the native Kangal people lack the skill of breeding shepherd dogs? Can we claim that sheep and goat shepherding did not exist before the arrival of Turks? We have seen in the previous pages that we cannot make this claim. Feta and Kasseri cheeses have been made since Aristo in 5 BC. These cheeses have been traditionally produced from sheep and goat milk. Were the shepherds before Turks defenseless against the predators when they tended and shepherded their herds? Shepherding, or pastoralism, is similar in Greece, Bulgaria, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. The shepherds are semi-pastoralists. The herds are kept in the lowlands in winter and are driven to the highlands in spring. The sheep graze more or less like Karaman sheep. Could we say that Spanish, Bask, and Italian shepherds learned shepherding from Turks? If so why did they not get Kangalized?

Why are white shepherd dogs more widespread in Europe? The first quick answer, the color of the sheep, is not the answer. If that were the case, the Kangal could have shepherded the yellow sheep! The fifth question above must be investigated here. I will repeat by altering the expression: the Kangal has the wrong color, according to this approach. It should have been black-masked and white-coated. Unfortunately, the white Kangals, Akyakas, do not have black masks. As I mentioned much earlier in the first half of the book, arguments contradictory to each other can be defended with plenty of proofs against each other. Let’s leave this subject here and move to the others that needed to be mentioned earlier.

White dogs like Great Pyrenees of Spain and France, Maremma of Italy, Tatra of Poland, and Kuvasz of Hungary, can be seen in Greece and Bulgaria. Black and white Karakacan dogs are also found in Bulgaria. It is true that long, gray-coated, black-masked Sharplanetz of Romania, and Kangal-like yet Mastiff-looking Spanish shepherd dogs heavier than Kangals and with double dew claws, exist. Nevertheless, these dogs did not become as popular as the white breeds.

Asserting that the Sharplanetz finds its origins in the Kangal by pointing to the common black mask feature is not satisfactory. The Sharplanetz is smaller than the Kangal, and it is possible that it traveled to Romania from Anatolia, but this could only be explained by relating it to Yoruk dogs. A possible second explanation is that it was taken to Romania by the nomadic Central Asian Turkic tribes. The mountain sheep of Romania is a variation of Karakul sheep of Central Asia. The Mongol and the Hun raids in Europe could be considered as a means for the Sharplanetz’s travel to Romania. Reducing the roots into one single origin is an easy way of formulating the answers. Although it is generally believed that man evolved in Africa, there are other theories that could question its validity. If the Romanian dog is not receiving its origins from Mongols and Huns, then it could have received it from Bolu Yoruks. The Bolu Yoruk dogs are almost always long-coated with gray coats and black masks. The main difference is their size, and it is possible that they shrank in Romania or that the official records show them as smaller dogs. It is possible to alter the size of a breed in about ten generations. The reason I am suggesting the Yoruk roots for Sharplanetz is the Ottomans’ relocation policy of sending Turkmen and Yoruks to the Balkans. I am not necessarily trying to reduce all the shepherd dog breeds and Sharplanetz into Turkish dogs.

Why do we enter the phase of imitation and dive into the Akbas definition just because there are white European breeds? The question on the second page of this chapter was “Have Turks lacked the expert people and institutions which could indicate the presence of this dog?” The answer is, “Yes, we lacked them.” Do we have them now? If the answers to the following questions are ready, it is possible that we have them. Why does the Kangal have special features and traits specific to Sivas? Why do dogs from other regions not have these characteristics? Have Turkish scientists gone through the trouble to find out the relationship between Gammal and Kangal? Do they intend to go to Kermansah and do comparative research studies now or in the near future? If they intend to do so, will they be basing their studies on genotype or phenotype? Or, will they repeat their memorized lines? When has the genetic map of Kangal been laid out with all the details? In addition to that, do they have findings in hand about the size, color, hair structure, and temperament? If they have these, when will they publish them? Have they studied why the white color in the shepherd dogs is distributed differently in different regions? Do they have anything to add to the genetic scientist Roy Robinson’s 1989 article, “Coat Color Inheritance in ASDs”? Or, are they waiting for another genetic scientist Willis’ contribution to the subject in order to say the last word? We expect to see pioneer studies being done by the Turkish scientists in this field.

Erasing the native diversity by accepting the presence of two breeds proposed and developed by international persons is a very irresponsible attitude. We started seeing the same process that worked against the native cattle in favor of Holsteins. The solution is not adopting centralized regulations but is integrating the regional people into the local organizations for activities and progress, first with their direct contribution, second with the participation of scientists, and last with the government, because these dogs have not been developed in parliament or in the central towns.

The stage that these dogs reached, the stage that we admire and respect, has been established by continuous fluidity, diversity, and merciless selection. On the other hand, the creation of the “standard,” and other decisions on a piece of paper, will soon Europeanize and destroy these dogs.

Checking the situation and the conditions of the English Mastiff, Great Pyrenees, and even the ASDs in Europe and in the USA, will suffice to understand the trends. After the shepherd dogs that went to the USA from Europe were bastardized in about ten generations, American LGD (Livestock Guard Dog) fans turned their faces toward ASDs. Since the selection method of Turkey has not been applied in the USA and in Europe, the phase has started whereby there is a decline in the frequency of potentially suitable puppies for shepherding. The reason for importing GSDs from Germany to America is the same: selection. Unfortunately, the qualities of these dogs have been reduced by the interference of the government in Turkey, and the imported kennel breeding philosophy has been bastardizing the new generations. This breeding technique is labeled as scientific! Shepherd dog breeding is not like cattle breeding. Several people in Turkey are looking for qualities like a larger head, larger chest, and heavier body, in addition to selecting certain colors against the others. It looks like the dog farms are leading the newly developing trends. The temperament lost its importance, and the looks became the most important feature of the dogs. Now the dogs are described by their size and height. Neither courage nor responsibility, not even the intelligence nor endurance of the dogs, is tested. These people could save time by acquiring Mastiffs. Pay attention to the standards of breeding in the Ukraine, Russia, and Turkmenistan. Except for shepherding, if not for the illegal wrestling events, these dogs would never be tested. They at least are tested for three traits during the wrestling matches: power, endurance, and courage.

It is time to make choices. The dogs are either bred like models to walk on stage, or bred for guarding as a business. A real shepherd dog should be ready to defend its possessions and itself at any time and anywhere. What a man feels for a dog that does not inspire respect in him is pity. If the past generations were built on pity, do you think the dogs we own and admire could have lasted to the present?

It seems that the days are numbered for us to go to Iran and Afghanistan for higher quality dog expeditions. I am leaving more detailed solutions for another chapter and am content with the current analyses for the time being.

As a result, although the Kangal could have migrated to Anatolia from an unknown place at times unremembered, the most ancient records about it have found the dog in southeast Anatolia and it is presently believed to be in Sivas as an Anatolian dog.

It is possible that Akbas could have been brought from Europe, however it is also possible that they could have been brought into Anatolia by Oguz Turks. Being able to encounter the Akit/white dog in Iran, Afghanistan, and Kyrgyzistan would allow us to assert that the Anatolian white dog is a mixture of white dogs before and after the Turks. Nevertheless, the most convincing approach is that it is the white variety of Yoruk dogs. White color is a genetic trait that can be seen in almost all dog breeds. Yoruk dogs are a whole unit made of white, black, fawn, and pinto, that can be seen anywhere in Anatolia, including Sivas.

This statement does not mean that the Anatolian Shepherd Dog as a name can be adopted; the more proper name to welcome Anatolian Shepherd Dogs (plural) is a name that considers all the varieties. Plural naming does not mean that all the shepherd dogs of Anatolia are being cooked in the same pot for a tastier soup. Proper naming includes recognizing the differences and the traits that have not been paid attention to before. At this point, it is now time to name the dogs either by adding the functionality dimension into the name, or to name according to the regions (not city names) that the dogs originate from. It is too late to change the name Kangal, at this point. However, it is not that late to correct the mistake done with Akbas and to recognize that it is one of the color variations of the Yoruk dogs. This would end the discrimination against the Yoruk dogs with other colors.

January 30, 2004

Chapter 19