ThE WHITE  of AKBAS 02 (Akbash)

Has it ever been wondered that why are Akbas not grey or black, but white? No. They were accepted as they were told about them.

Is there any possibility that there are some grey akbas? Of course, because "Akbas" is a name given to the dogs, which have white coats. It is not a name of a breed. Akbas/Akbash is white coloured Yoruk dog. Any colour Yoruk dog can be encountered, because shepherds priority has always been the functionality not the colour in breeding.

We know that there are white dogs work as shepherds in Konya, Afyon, Eskisehir, Denizli ve Diyarbakir for some flocks. Both black masked dogs and white colour dogs along with pinto ones that some people call them "strays" continue their shepherding effectively without taking part in the related debates, since flock guarding has nothing to do with the coat colour. Generally it is easily not noticed that akbas is a derivation of pinto, and pinto is a derivation of grey or fawn dogs.

Who decided that Akbas dogs were to be white?

This decision had been made in the U.S.A., and some individuals and institutions that authorized themselves in Turkey had to go along with this decision. Even changing the name from "Akbas" to "Eskisehir" cannot correct the mistake, because as it was stated above, Akbas is only a Yoruk shepherd dog that has a white colour. 

What would one say about the Ankara cat? Is it really from Ankara? If so, could it be seen in the streets of Ankara? Is it really white? Is there any black one?

The truth is, not only the black one exists, but there are also tabby and orange ones. In those days when they were decided to be bred, they had to be whitened according to the requirements of the time. According to a gossip, Gazi Ataturk mentioned the white ones and the Ankara zoo commenced breeding exclusively the whites. The prominent cat clubs in the U.S.A accepts the presence of the other colours.

Ankara rabbit is known as a white rabbit in Turkey. However, both black and grey ones exist as well. In Turkey, they are commercially bred in Isparta and Kayseri. They are also bred in Germany, U.K., France and U.S.A.

In addition to the white colour of Ankara goat, there are black, grey, liver and pinto coloured ones. They are bred in Australia and in the U.S.A., but they are disregarded in Turkey.

All right, then why is there an abundance of colours? Let's explain:

If the above-mentioned animals that we used to know as exclusively white, have various colours, then why are the other colours  absent in Akbas or if we may correctly express Yoruk dogs?

Naturally they exist, because the absence of colour variations is against the science of Genetics. It is a necessity to direct the question to the related Turkish scientists that why they have not released any kind of explanation about this subject.

There is a concept called biologic diversity in biology and it is not a virtual one. Once one starts organizing large gene pools according to some certain colours or desired qualities, smaller pools are created and the pollution rate of these smaller pools increase and this situation brings weak and diseased individuals along with it. Although the logic behind to squat and to lower the variation level of genes is not clear, the only explanation behind this tendency could be about politics or personal interest.

It would be very easy for an expert geneticist to create a new shepherd dog called "Kapkara" means jet black. But it would not be racism, but a "raw racism". However an endeavor like this will not only have no functional outcome, but it is historically unverifiable as well. Certainly there are black shepherd dogs just like the whites and agoutis, but not in an isolated area that is hard to access.

The main or the base colour in dogs and especially in the Anatolian Shepherd Dogs is wolf grey. Wolf colour, which is agouti, includes white, black and yellow in it. The perfect blend of these colours is called agouti. For this reason it is natural to see various colours in the Anatolian Shepherd dogs, since they are as natural as they can be. Although it might be inferred in connection to this information that some subspecies were created by positive selection for some colours, what is really done is division based on colours. This has nothing to do with a breed description and creation whatsoever.

Today there is a trend in bringing the working sable GSDs back to shows, which have been excluded for a long time in Germany. Although the longhaired GSDs cannot participate in the shows, the ones, which have undercoats, are allowed as breeding stocks.

Dalmatian puppies with orange spots instead of black ones or smooth coated ones can be born from purebred parents. The same situation can be observed in purebred Mastiffs as longhaired ness or white spots. It would be surprising to see these traits' regression, thinking that they had been eliminated long time ago. The reason for these traits' come back is their being always there without expressing themselves.

The above explanations do not mean that all the Anatolian dogs do not show variations and are exact copies of each other. The dogs from one region are related to the dogs from other regions in Anatolia and each region has dogs with certain characteristics. In this connection the name "Anatolian Shepherd Dog" would not be accepting the presence of all the other bloods. Here it should be mentioned that the author of Turkish Shepherd Dog Kangal book, Dogan Kartay accepts the name "Anatolian Shepherd Dog" as a general form but not as a breed. 

The reason that his opinion is mentioned here is that he is one of the rare people in this field who spent about forty years on these dogs in Turkey but not in a different country. Although I have several disagreements with him on this subject, his opinions should make some sort of difference compared to someone who knows these dogs after a few days of field trip or after they were imported or transplanted into another country.

Although ASDCA recognizes all the dogs with long and short hair except blacks, there is no indication that it recognizes Caucasian Shepherd dogs. Even if ASDCA recognizes them, considering inner Anatolia's dogs as the same with Caucasian ones would be saying that Karayaka sheep from Karadeniz region is the same with Kivircik sheep from Marmara region.

As the sheep has their own formational and colour related variation among them, the Anatolian dogs will too. What should not be disregarded here are the criteria and methods of breeding these two different animals. The breeding among dogs takes place more liberal and natural way compared to sheep's. Although a bitch can get pregnant from several dogs, a selected ram is introduced to ewes in sheep breeding and this breeding method is a more controlled one compared to dogs'. Having this kind of control enables the breeders to define the colour and the structure. That is why the colour and structural variation can be more frequently witnessed among dogs. The Kangal and Akbas clubs' demonstrating the black mask or white body as determining qualities are limitative and artificial criteria.

The dogs from Van and Erzurum are related to the ones from Nigde or Maras, however the latter are different then the former. Then are they different breeds? The strength and the nice thing about Anatolian dogs is that their not going through the process of being a breed surprisingly. Confusingly (for Europeans and Americans) these dogs are not different breeds, because breeds do not exist in Anatolia as it is understood in Europe, and they have not been created. These dogs are different strains, and these different strains should be preserved by keeping their differences, but not by isolation through walls like strict breed descriptions. They should follow their routes as they came.

What this means is, as there are Morkaraman, Akkaraman, Daglic, Karayaka, Kivircik, Ivese and etc sheep, there are dogs endemic to their regions. The differences should not be eliminated but supported, and the blood exchange among the subgroups must be allowed without distorting the main characteristics. 

Being an imitation of Europe or America will not only bring any gains for Turks, but being an imitation will cause erosion of the old rooted values and since the history brings several proofs that this attitude will only bring losses.

Before accepting Akbas' presence as a separate breed with valid back ups, its differences with Akyaka Kangal have to be thoroughly examined. Before concluding whether Akbas is not a white variety of Yoruk dogs and whether they are originating from Northwest Anatolia or they are especially found in that area one must take the following statement from Kamuran Gurun's book "Armenian Report" into account: "Hrozny who is an Hittitologist and an archeologist writes that "Phrygians, Traks, Misiens and other Balkan people including Armenians migrating to the Asia Minor and putting an end to Hittite empire, because of the pressure applied by Illyrians was about B.C. 1200".  What this means is Anatolia is a land of migrations and those migrations did not always take place from east to west. Akbas dog could have been brought to Anatolia from west, because there are white examples in the west. The ones brought from west could have mixed with the ones from the east, but these conclusions could be history related speculations. Naturally concluding, "therefore all the white dogs had been brought from Europe" would be a very easy one. What I am trying to do here is reviewing all the possibilities. As Kartay mentioned that we could see Bozyaka Kangal puppies from Karayaka Kangal parents, and Akyaka Kangal puppies from Bozyaka parents, what we have today is that we see Akits (white dogs) with different colour dogs in Eskisehir and Afyon regions and the people who traditionally have been breeding them are Yoruks.

Another point that needs to be added here is that the claim, which asserts that Akbas dogs have sight hound characteristics. It is absurd to claim that Yoruk dogs resemble somehow sight hounds, although we can say that they are not as thick boned as Kangals. It is very possible to encounter some white Yoruk dogs with pretty broad structure with thick bones. The common denominator of the so-called Akbas dogs, which are registered with Akbas clubs in the U.S.A and Canada, is their white colour. They have both long and short coats. Some of them exhibit mastiff like traits like Akyaka Kangal, and some others have very slender structure. It looks like all the dogs collected from Turkey have been described and named on a table in the U.S.A. .It reminds one the way the map of Africa had been drawn during 1^st and 2^nd W.W. Some descriptions have been made without considering the traditional and methodological boundaries. While labeling the white dogs from Eskisehir and Afyon region as "Akbas", how would be the white dogs from Corum labeled? How would the white dogs, which can be seen with Mugla and Aladaglar Yoruks be categorized? There are white dogs of Siirt, which could make 65 km per hour (measured by Veterinarian Gurkan from Ankara University in 1987). Will the fate of these dogs be left to American experts or will the Turks put a stop to their fanatic tendencies, which is spread all over the country with the help and approval of international experts and then review the data in a calm manner? It should be mentioned one more time that Akits (white dogs) whether they are in Eskisehir or Kutahya or Aladaglar are seen together with the other coloured dogs and in this case there is not a relationship between the colour and purity or breed difference from a scientific perspective.

The new naming and description must be done without regarding the present ones in the West by considering the conditions of Anatolia by using the findings and data related to region, climate and function, because it is apparent that it is absurd for Turks to evaluate their values in relation to the  the west. When a mentality like "the product is from the Turk and the label is from the Non-Turk" is followed, the product will be globalised in the long run. One of the reasons we like these dogs is their being Turkic in the first place.

February 18 2004

ANATOLIAN CAUCASIAN DOGS 03

How do we call sheep? We name all the sheep according to their own traits except for Kangal Sheep. Kangal Sheep is actually an Akkaraman Sheep. It could have turned into a subspecies endemic to Sivas, however it is unnecessary to enter the details of this subject currently. By using the above example, should we call Morkaraman Sheep as the Igdir Karaman or Sarikamis or Bitlis or Bayburt Karaman? How may Akkaraman be called? Could it be called Sivrihisar/Eskisehir or Kutahya or Erciyes Sheep?

Then from now on, Daglic can be called Sakarya in relation to the Sakarya River, since it can be seen anywhere in the Agean region. The important consideration would be what the current political tendencies are at the point of naming. Whose sheep is Kivircik? Does it belong to Bursa or Edirne? How about Ogese/Ivese, the one that became an Israeli sheep? It could have been called Urfa Sheep. Could the Kara sigir (black cow) be from Karaman? If not can we assign it to another city, just like the process of converting some small towns into cities for political reasons?

Kangal dog is called "Kangal", but Akbas is not called Sivrihisar-Eskisehir or Kizilcahamam-Ankara. How can "Kangal" was detected in Kangal, when one can encounter some of the best examples of Kangal dog in Konya- Haymana and Karaman? Is Konya not one of our sheep husbandry centers?

How is the shepherd dog of Southern Caucasia or North-east Anatolia's shepherd dog of Morkarman Sheep classified in relation to the above naming mentality? Luckily some American experts found a name for these groups of dogs: Kars Dog. The mentality is a centralized one, but relatively. The names were picked at least according to the centers of the regions. It is unjust for Eskisehir region. There is a Kangal dog and a Kars dog, but not an Eskisehir one. Since the Southern Caucasian dogs can be seen in any colour, it is hard to call them "Karabas", and "Akbas" is being used. Could we call it "Morbas" meaning purple heads originating from Morkaraman Sheep? Since they are in any colour, and if we are to go by names related to colours then, "Potpourri" could be the best name. If we accept the fact that the city of Kars is a beautiful city that has a historical background, and say, "Let it be "Kars", then we face another fact that another sheep breed called "Tuj" is raised in Kars, Ardahan and Igdir region. We could call pale colour dogs from that area as "Tuj dogs". Another breed of sheep called "Karayaka" in the East Black Sea region, and  "Hemsin" especially in Artvin and surrounding regions are raised. All these regions have their own shepherd dogs and they are all variations of Caucasian Shepherd dogs.

The name "Kars" was assigned to the Caucasian dogs by disregarding the fact that the North East Anatolia is both historically and geographically part of the Southern Caucasia.
Both scientific and historical perspectives points the best name, which could be assigned to these dogs is Kafkas Koyci/Coban Iti (Caucasian Shepherd Dog). None of the North East and some East Anatolian cities will be excluded by this way, because these dogs can be naturally seen in Agri and Van as well. The name "Caucasian" will include the historical, social and cultural ties with the neighbouring states as well. The limited name and descriptions will degrade the richness of this subject.

Remember the existence of synthetically created Turkic republics of Central Asia. The people who spoke the same language in Central Asia could have no longer communicated with each other when the synthetically produced republics started using the made up alphabets in their artificial boundaries via interjected practices. Yasar Kemal's books in Azerbaijan and Aytmatov's books in Turkey could have been read easily without needing to translate them from one alphabet to another if Turks used the same language. This would have not only meant a larger market but also an existence of a live exchange of culture and traditions. The artificial division of those regions demonstrate itself as a sad and illogical practice today.

Currently these dogs are adopted by Russians although they are not Russian dogs and they are known all over the world. It is apparent that the Anatolian Caucaisans can be internationally introduced by stressing their relative superiority over the Russian ones without changing the regional and globally accepted name. What makes Anatolian Caucasians superior is that they have not been interbred with Newfoundland and St. Bernard in order to standardize them for European approval. South Caucasian dogs have not gone through several bastardization processes yet like kennel breeding. The native Caucasians of Turkey can be found in their most natural and clean forms from Rize to Van. They are still actively used for goat and sheep protection. One should take this issue not in an ideological nationalism or in a scientific dogmatism manner but in a rational way, since these dogs are not only superior to the other Caucasians, but also national and biological values.

It should be born in mind that the other side of the border is Armenia and some very good examples of Caucasian dogs can be found there. Armenians can very well call their dogs as Armenian dogs. Thus the political descriptions and names do not necessarily reflect the reality.

Instead of trying to acclimatize these dogs to the western provinces, their local superiority to the other regions' dogs should be stressed in order for these dogs to be appreciated and utilized in their native territories. The other two made up or currently definition wise problematic breeds; Kangal and Akbas, which are heavily used by media, should not be promoted and rewarded for them to be introduced into the South Caucasia.

Why is this persistence on artificial names? Just because, Italians call their white dogs "Maremma", and Polish call theirs "Tatra", and Hungarians call theirs Kuvasz or Komondorok (the first three are actually the same dogs in different countries with minor differences), it is apparently shallow to define the white dogs in Turkey as Akbas based on a colour and thereon to classify them separately. Likewise, trying to find another name, since the name "Caucasian" is already being used for Turkish Caucasians' northern cousins reminds one a name finding competition. Since there is an insistence on the name "Kars Dog", it should be reminded that there is no such sheep breed called "Kars Sheep". What does a Kars dog do in the absence of a Kars sheep? It might be necessary to assign specific local names for these dogs, but currently it is unnecessary. If it is then Herik Dog (Amasya and environs); Karayaka Dog (between Sinop and Trabzon); Tuj Dog (Kars, Ardahan, Igdir); Morkaraman Dog (North-east Anatolia- South Caucausia); Kivircik dog (Trakya and Marmara regions). Does one need to look for a logic behind calling an Akkaraman sheep as Kangal sheep, but not calling a Morkaraman as Erzurum sheep? No, because there is none. Explanations will not make this controversy logical.

No one would think that someone is talking about a dog if one says "Artvin", "Cal", "Baklan", "Maras", but one would understand that it is about a dog if I say "Kangal". No one thinks Eskisehir is referred when I say "Akbas". As we can see, there is a perfect puzzle of inconsistencies before us. Name assignment without evaluation, in a robotic manner is wrong if one needs justify it by basing the naming on justice, logic, science, sociology and function.

The native dogs or dogs brought to Anatolia before Turks were of course present for sheep industry all over Turkey. According to historian Dogan Avcioglu, when the Turks settled down in Anatolia, they constituted 16% of the population. Because of this reason there was a dog population that could be called Yoruk (Turkmen) dogs, and a native dog population that could be called Caucasians and Real Kangals (mastiff type) dogs, but not Kars dogs.

A yurt is wherever the animals graze for Yoruks, therefore their dogs can be found wherever the Yoruks are found, however, before the existence of the city Kars, the South Caucasia was geographically present. What we can infer from this is some values are called with the people who produce them, and some other values are called with the land where those values come from. For example: Armenia is not historically a region where the Armenians lived. Armenia is the name for a geographical location, and people who lived there are called Armenians.

One of the questions that needs to be attached in this article is "Why have the Anatolian Caucasians been ignored?" Who ignored them while Kangal was being intensely promoted? Secondly why was the second new breed that was introduced as Akbas promoted less? Who marketed Akbas less than Kangal? Thirdly why is Kangal playing the leading role? Is it because it has a hard to define quality in relation to the other two strains? Is the presumed superiority of Kangal drawn by a hidden hand by which would not only include the city Sivas but also limits with Sivas and environs? Who is the organizer of this hierarchy?

Whether we have answers for the above questions or not the first thing needs to done is to classify the shepherd dogs under the regions names or according to the relative climates just like that is the case for sheep in Turkey. Following that, the dog names should be associated with sheep names. Another approach would be calling them with the names that are associated with the people who historically and traditionally bred them. Yoruk dogs would be an example. In this junction the name "Kangal" would legitimatize itself with a reservation, which is the name "Kangal" may not be as legitimate as it were before in case of finding the best Kangals in Kayseri. Therefore it would be safer to call all these dogs with the regions where they are originated from till we have detailed studies and classifications.