[quote=Astibus] Yaj, maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I do not have a hard time believing that the breeds of the region seem more or less interrelated. All I said was that considering the historic development of mankind itself, the first domesticated dogs were likely employed to work with livestock (or hunt) rather than to just guard the homestead. Declaring the TM as the source of all the aforementioned sub-breeds, rather than the product of these indigenous working dogs, seems very counterintuitive. That's all. :) Dan[/quote] Dan, That is why I said that I will not comment on who originated from whom since that is very difficult to determine hundreds of years later. Having said that I think guarding the owner and his property is a more basic and instinctive behaviour than guarding livestock which is more specialised. We were hunter gatherers before we started rearing livestock and the earliest dogs were probably used for companionship,food source (in times of scarcity),guarding(early warning system), and later as a livestock guardian. There are still primitive communities living as hunter gatherers which do not rear livestock but use pariah dogs for hunting and guarding. I can understand your dislike for the "TM is the father of all molosser breeds" theory. I hate assumptions without proof too. We are facing the same problem in sighthounds with the"Saluki is the mother goddess of all sighthounds" too. Regards, Yaj.