Defining Primitive Dogs
The nomenclature surrounding our canine companions is overwhelming. Names, histories, adjectives, and categories become labels at every turn. A single breed could have 6-7 different names or group associations based on different factors. In the scientific literature, it isn’t much better. Authors can put their own unique spin on names, terminology, or categories as they see fit as long as they can back it up with evidence. Sometimes this propels information forward, but still leaves the uninformed populations using older terminology.
The term “primitive dogs” is a prime example of this. Depending on the literature you are reading, a dog labeled “primitive dog” may be also called any of a dozen other names including ancient, pariah, aboriginal, indigenous, land race, rare, local, village, spitz, sighthound, guardian, hunting, edible, etc. This doesn’t even include cultural names for these dogs.
Definitions are helpful for the purpose of clarity. Therefore to provide said clarity and a foundation of understanding, we describe dog breeds maintaining ancient genes, primitive appearance and retention of wild traits as “primitive dogs” (Beregovoy & Porter, 2007; Dwyer & Minnegal, 2016; Janice Koler-Matznick, 2002; Larson et al., 2012; Mehrkam & Wynne, 2014; Parker, 2004; vonHoldt et al., 2010).
The populations of breeds that fall into this category are far from small. 1000 different breeds of dog exist around the world, yet only 20% are recognized by any specific kennel club (Mehrkam & Wynne, 2014; Morris, 2002). Many of the remaining 80% fall into the realm of “primitive dogs”. This is due to the fact that most early or ancient dog breeds were originally land races or village dogs, and some still exist in that state today. While others still maintain many of the behaviors of their ancestors today, even after post-Victorian selective breeding (Beregovoy & Porter, 2007; Coppinger & Coppinger, 2001; Tonoike et al., 2015).
Finding information about primitive dogs can be challenging. The purpose of Couch Wolves is to try and establish a place where applicable information can be found easily with just a simple Google search. However evidence-backed information is lacking. Specific information regarding primitive breeds of dog are unrepresented in the scientific literature, leaving gaps in our understanding of their behavior (Mehrkam & Wynne, 2014). To better understand the behaviors of primitive dogs more studies need to be conducted, and that is finally starting to happen. In the meantime, the handful of studies (2-3 including 10 or so primitive dog breeds) that have done behavioral analysis on primitive breeds have shown them to be less trainable, more fearful of strangers, and less attached than more modern breeds (Scott & Fuller, 20; Smith, Browne, & Serpell, 2017; Svartberg, 2006; Svartberg & Forkman, 2002; Tonoike et al., 2015). If these traits are accurate, we need to learn why and if that impacts our relationship with them. Papers on dog ownership suggest that most of these characteristics are defined as less desirable to dog owners and may affect attachment (King, Marston, & Bennett, 2009; Smith et al., 2017). Yet on the contrary to this assessment, owner’s choices in dog breeds seem to have little to do with these factors (Ghirlanda, Acerbi, Herzog, & Serpell, 2013; Rehn & Keeling, 2016). It will be valuable to learn more about how primitive dog owners feel about their dogs. But from our anecdotal community, we are convinced that owner attachment is strong.
How owners create attachment to dogs can be influenced by behavioral expectations based on factors such as breed. Interestingly owners’ “ideal” concept of behavior has no relation to their level of attachment while moderate expectations based on individual behaviors carries more weight (Serpell, 1996). It is worthwhile to determine if “less trainable” qualities of these dogs are a factor of culture, training methods, or owner expectation and experience level. It is certainly the experience of Couch Wolves members that primitive dogs are highly trainable when given the best motivators and training methods.
So what do we include under the umbrella of “primitive dogs”?
Both “cultured” and “uncultured” breeds that still maintain ancient genes, primitive appearance and retention of wild traits. Previous exclusive literature has not benefited primitive breeds and their enthusiasts in the past. Therefore we choose to be inclusive about who fits under this umbrella and we offer a long and exhaustive list of what dog breeds fit. However, if your dog is not included and still shows many of the traits of other primitive dogs, in our opinion you are just as welcome.
Jobs: Guarding, Herding, Hunting, Companion, Edible,
Land race: A localized breed selected for environmental pressures more so than human preferences.
Some breeds may be extremely rare or extinct.
Aboriginal / land race Laika
Aboriginal Greyhound type land race dogs
Anatolian Shepherd land race dogs
Arubian Cunucu Dog
Black Norwegian Elkhound
Canadian Eskimo Dog
Canary Island Podenco
Central Asian Shepherd
Chinese Foo Dog
Chukotka Sled Laika
Common India Dog
East Siberian Laika
India Pariah Dogs
Karelian Bear Dog
Klamath Indian Dog
Longhaired Inca Dog
Longhaired Pueblo Dog
New Guinea Singing Dog
Peruvian Pugnosed Dog
Philippines Native Dog
Phu Quoc Dog
Phu Quoc Dogs
Shortlegged Indian Dog
Shortnosed Indian Dog
Tahltan Bear Dog
West Siberian Laika
Beregovoy, V., & Porter, J. M. (2007). Primitive breeds - perfect dogs. Wheat Ridge, Colo.: Hoflin Publ.
Brisbin, I. L., & Risch, T. S. (1997). Primitive dogs, their ecology and behavior: Unique oppurtunties to study the early development of the human-canine bond. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 210(8), 1122–1126.
Coppinger, R., & Coppinger, L. (2001). Dogs: a startling new understanding of canine origin, behavior, and evolution. New York: Scribner.
Dwyer, P. D., & Minnegal, M. (2016). Wild dogs and village dogs in New Guinea: were they different? Australian Mammalogy, 38(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1071/AM15011
Eken Asp, H., Fikse, W. F., Nilsson, K., & Strandberg, E. (2015). Breed differences in everyday behaviour of dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 169, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.010
Grigg, E. K., Nibblett, B. M., Sacks, B. N., Hack, R., Serpell, J. A., & Hart, L. (2016). Genetic and behavioral characteristics of the St. Kitts ‘island dog.’ Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 178, 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.02.002
Hsu, Y., & Serpell, J. A. (2003). Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 223(9), 1293–1300. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2003.223.1293
Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F., & Stallones, L. (1992). Psychometric Evaluation of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (Laps). Anthrozoös, 5(3), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279392787011395
King, T., Marston, L. C., & Bennett, P. C. (2009). Describing the ideal Australian companion dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 120(1–2), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.04.011
Koler-Matznick, Janice. (2002). The origin of the dog revisited. Anthrozoös, 15(2), 98–118. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279302786992595
Larson, G., Karlsson, E. K., Perri, A., Webster, M. T., Ho, S. Y. W., Peters, J., … Lindblad-Toh, K. (2012). Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8878–8883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203005109
Mehrkam, L. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2014). Behavioral differences among breeds of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris): Current status of the science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 155, 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.03.005
Morris, D. (2002). Dogs: the ultimate dictionary of over 1,000 dog breeds. North Pomfret, Vt: Trafalgar Square Pub.
Parker, H. G. (2004). Genetic Structure of the Purebred Domestic Dog. Science, 304(5674), 1160–1164. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097406
Rehn, T., & Keeling, L. J. (2016). Measuring dog-owner relationships: Crossing boundaries between animal behaviour and human psychology. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 183, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.07.003
Scott, J. P., & Fuller, J. L. (20). Genetics and the social behavior of the dog (Nachdr.). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Serpell, J. A. (1996). Evidence for an association between pet behavior and owner attachment levels. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47(1–2), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)01010-6
Smith, B. P., Browne, M., & Serpell, J. A. (2017). Owner-reported behavioural characteristics of dingoes ( Canis dingo ) living as companion animals: A comparison to ‘modern’ and ‘ancient’ dog breeds. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 187, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.11.010
Svartberg, K. (2006). Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 96(3–4), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.06.014
Svartberg, K., & Forkman, B. (2002). Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79(2), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00121-1
Tonoike, A., Nagasawa, M., Mogi, K., Serpell, J. A., Ohtsuki, H., & Kikusui, T. (2015). Comparison of owner-reported behavioral characteristics among genetically clustered breeds of dog Canis familiaris. Scientific Reports, 5, 17710. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17710
Troughton, E. (1955). A new native dog from the Papuan Highlands. The Proceedings of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 93–94.
vonHoldt, B. M., Pollinger, J. P., Lohmueller, K. E., Han, E., Parker, H. G., Quignon, P., … Wayne, R. K. (2010). Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication. Nature, 464(7290), 898–902. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08837