Comment to 'akbash, anatolian, kangal, boz kangal, malakli...'
  • [quote1320633912=Tonedog] [quote] Consider it a quick-shot attempt at attesting an "independent" evolutionary path. This statue is located at the British Museum and depicts a Molossian Hound.[/QUOTE] I'm curious, does the statue have "molossian hound" carved on it anywhere (or the other-language equivalent)? [/quote1320633912] Good point. I think the "molossian hound" is the title as it refers back to what the Romans called it. I personally never took the term hound in this context literally, i.e. depicting a hunting dog. It obviously ain't one. What always puzzled me is that noone wondered about the obvious mane on that thing. With closer observation (i.e. chest and front legs) one can safely assume anatomical correctness of the statue. That period of time was known anyway for their precise anatomical depictions. But I digress. I don't know about alaunt (I actually don't), but I would bet money that there's "sheepdog" in that dog. [quote1320633912=Tonedog] This statue may not have molossian hound carved on it anywhere, but I'd still lean towards it either being a molossian sheepdog, or molossian sheepdog x alaunt like wolf said (or something basically to that effect). [/quote1320633912] No argument there. [quote1320633912=Tonedog] [QUOTE]I'd say it is both. In the mountains, working Shars are exceedingly formidable, because they basically come across as wild animals. [..] On the other hand, yes, Shars have (always) been used as war dogs and extensively as fighters, as they were the poor peasants' cavalry. [..] So Wolf's statement is absolutely correct, Shars have traditionally been used for much more than guarding sheep.[/QUOTE] And this could explain why maybe, way back 2000 + years ago, their ancestors were crossed out to alaunt type gripping dogs. [/quote1320633912] Could very well be. All I know is they do kick ass, and that region "always" had a unique gene pool. My dad told me when I was a kid that in the 1950s (and later) the Soviets really wanted to get their hand on those dogs. This was back in the early 80s or so. As I said, the Yugos always knew that they had something unique there. I remember that I wanted to take a pup with me to Germany in the late 70s, and my father's very good friend, who happened to be the veterinary director of the entire region couldn't help us out. It took several years more before I actually owned a Shar in Germany. [quote1320633912=Tonedog] [QUOTE]Shars are still big dogs, they just aren't very tall.[/QUOTE] If you knew me you'd know my noting that they aren't soo big is actually a compliment. A positive observation that bodes well for them if they're to "win me over" and convince me they're built to actually function and perform. Sources I've read suggest 55 kgs is the normal upper limit for real shars, and I often bandy that 55 kgs figure around as the max weight for a functional dogs (with rare, very tall exceptions). So for me their size being generally under 55 kgs means their "stories" check out at least in that department, unlike the 200 lbs behemoths. [/quote1320633912] Oh, I didn't take it in an offensive way. I just wanted to clarify why I consider Shars big dogs. GSDs are medium size (at least correct ones) and Shars are big dogs. And I personally don't care for giant breeds. On another note, what's with all the color talk about alaunts? Is that a myth, romanticized "showie" talk? Or absolute necessity and staple in alaunt descendents?
    0 0 0 0 0 0