THE DERIVATION OF THE EUROPEAN DOMESTIC

ANIMALS.1

By Prof. Dr. C. KELLER (Zurich).

The tremendous advances made in zoogeographic investigations, especially those of the last decade, are very gratifying, and the results have proven especially fruitful in shedding new light upon certain geological problems, but they likewise emphasize another fact, namely, that in dealing with zoogeographic questions zoologists have so far concerned themselves chiefly with wild faunas. The domesticated fauna seems to have been overlooked and it is seldom indeed that a modern zoogeographic work touches this phase in more than an exceedingly superficial way. Although the domesticated fauna is still considered a negligible quantity by many, this is evidently due to old traditions which one might well dispense with at the present time.

It is true that this relatively young fauna, produced under the influence of man, can throw no light upon general geographic and geologic problems, but it becomes important in the history of culture and offers valuable points in the discussion of anthropological questions. The faunal character of a given region is very often dominated by the domesticated fauna, and while the latter is small as far as the number of species is concerned, yet it makes up for this by a large number of individuals. The domesticated animals enter into close competition with the surrounding wild fauna and force it into. the background or even to extinction. A long account might be written upon the changes which have thus taken place in certain regions. I will simply allude to what has occurred in North America, South Africa, and Australia, where the native fauna was forced to retreat all along the line, in parts even exterminated, during the last century, to make room for an entirely new fauna, that of the domesticated species. On European soil these changes took place in a less vigorous manner, though the keeping of domesticated animals had its beginning here in neolithic times, when it was very generally

1 Translated by permission from Verhandlungen des VIII Internationalen Zoologen-Kongresses zu Graz. 15-20 Aug., 1910, pp. 356-365. Jena, 1912.

practiced in southern Europe. The native fauna gave way very slowly but steadily.

It is not my desire to discuss all phases of this process, which extends back into ancient, yes, even into prehistoric times. I omit a consideration of changes in the native fauna and will confine myself entirely to the introduction of domesticated animals, so far as we can at present determine the individual phases of this process in Europe. The solution of this problem has been attempted at various times, but the result has until very recently been incomplete. We shall attempt to demonstrate here what constitutes autochthonous derivation and what has been added from foreign sources.

It is evident that the phylogenetic relationships had to be established before these tangled problems could be approached. Half a century ago the task seemed hopeless. It is sufficiently significant that the celebrated and venerable master of biology, Charles Darwin, as late as 1859, in the first chapter of his path-breaking work, "Origin of Species," gave utterance to the statement that "The origin of most of our domestic animals will probably forever remain vague." This really sounded pessimistic, almost like a scientific "Lasciate ogni speranza!"

To-day we no longer worship this pessimism, for bit by bit, though not without much effort, we have had many surprising glimpses into the history of the domesticated animals of Europe.

In the same year, 1859, a French investigator, Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, approached these problems in a decidedly optimistic manner. He tried to determine the time of appearance and the geographic derivation of our domesticated animals. The Orient and particularly Asia, seemed to him to be the original home of most of these animals, especially those which were attached to the home in the most remote times, that is, the dog, horse, ass, pig, camel, goat, sheep, cow, pigeon, and the hen. It is true, he approaches the subject rather one-sidedly, since he bases his deductions chiefly upon cultural history and does not permit the necessary analytic comparative anatomy to assume its proper place. He later received considerable aid from Victor Hehn who followed, entirely one-sided, linguistic methods. His well-known work, "Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere in ihrem Übergang aus Asien nach Grichenland und Italien," which received an altogether undeserved attention, has not always been accorded favorable criticism from the scientific side, and even after its careful revision by Schrader it may be looked upon as out of date.

In 1862 Ludwig Rütimeyer's classic "Fauna der Pfahlbauten" appeared and formed the turning point in the investigations of the history of European domestic animals. In this work, through prehistoric and comparative anatomic methods, facts were adduced in a

scientific and unchallengeable manner, showing that already with the beginning of the Lake Dwellings a goodly number of domestic animals had made their appearance in Europe. They were somewhat different, it is true, from the present forms, being more primitive and simpler in their race fusion, but nevertheless the races of to-day have their foundation in many instances in those of the Lake Dwellings. Rütimeyer's opinions, although many times attacked, have in the main remained unshaken. Rütimeyer was not satisfied to simply expound the historic facts, but he attempted in a number of cases to connect these animals with their wild progenitors by comparative anatomic studies. It is true the material available at that time was very limited. The domestic animals of Asia and Africa. were little known. Even Europe, which might have furnished valuable keys to the situation, was insufficiently explored, and in fact remains so to-day. The genial Rütimeyer nevertheless recognized the relations with ancestral forms perfectly correctly. He cleared up the cattle question and in conjunction with Hermann v. Nathusius, determined in a different manner the derivation of the domestic pig. Other derivation questions, which he did not deem sufficiently clear, he left open for future consideration.

Charles Darwin hailed Rütimeyer's discoveries with great enthusiasm in England. He was even stimulated to undertake personal investigations, which resulted in a commendable expounding of the derivation of the pigeons, chickens, and rabbits. Even in the phylogeny of the dogs, he developed correct and basic principles.

Other questions of the day forced the problem of domestic animals into the background, whence it later emerged to a prominent position. A retrogressive movement tended to discredit the Darwinian basis. But the domestic species were responsible for the most important foundation of the Darwinian teachings, and a careful revision of these, therefore, seemed absolutely necessary to support these doctrines. In fact, the study of the history of the domestic animals of Europe and other places had never ceased. Austria has at all times displayed a lively interest in such problems. I will remind you of Fitzinger, who followed domesticated animal geography until 1876. The labors of Wilkens and especially those of Leopold Adametz have thrown much light upon the cattle question viewed from the zootechnic standpoint, while those of Woldrich and Jeiteles have emphasized the prehistoric side. In Germany the labors of Alfred Nehring are well known. With the assistance of my students I have personally attacked the problem of the domesticated animal in all its phases, and thus a lot of material has accumulated, which will give us a clearer insight into the question. If we examine the derivation 85360°-SM 1912

-32

of European domestic animals in the light of our present knowledge, we find it evident that they came to us from various sources.

In the first place, we have a large contingent which is of European origin, and this we must designate as having been derived in an autochthonous manner.

Alfred Nehring furnished the convincing proof about the horse, that the heavy, calm strains, which one designates as occidental horses, are traceable to a diluvial wild-horse ancestor of middle Europe.

The pigs with the sharp backs, still strongly represented in the northern Alps, especially in Bavaria and northern Germany, were shown by Hermann v. Nathusius and Ludwig Rütimeyer to be descendants of the wild pig of Europe; and the short-tailed domestic sheep, which at present have been forced far to the north, appear very probably to have been derived from the south European mouflon. No investigator doubts, since Rütimeyer made his brilliant investigations, that the heavy cattle of the steppes of southeastern Europe and the lowland cattle of northwestern Europe have sprung from the aurochs (Bos primigenius), which persisted as a wild animal down to historic times. In spite of all the remonstrances made to me, I am still forced, even more than ever, by my recent investigations, which will be published in a large monograph in the near future, to consider the mainland of Greece as the starting point of the Bos primigenius domestication in the early Mycenian times. The entire process is clearly represented on the noted gold goblet of Vaphio, which undoubtedly is based upon close observation in nature. One might object, saying that no osteological finds of the ur (aurochs) have been made in that region. But yet I have recently demonstrated by means of old Cretan ur pictures and undoubted ur bones that Bos primigenius lived in that region up to the early historic period all objections must vanish. The latest finds tell us that even before the Mycenic period the domesticating of animals had begun in Crete. The latest efforts to prove that the ur was first domesticated in Mesopotamia appear to me to be entirely misplaced.

To the smaller domesticated animals, Europe has but comparatively recently-that is, in historic times-added the rabbit, the goose, and the duck. A second category of domestic animals in Europe is surely of Asiatic origin-that is, introduced. This is not surprising, for Europe, geographically considered, is only an Asiatic dependency. Nothing seems more natural than that this colossus land should have given us much from its overabundance of domestic animals. I feel certain that the spitz dog, like the peat dog of the Lake Dwellers, came from western Asia. Even of more certain Asiatic origin are the bronze dogs, whose little-altered descendants greet us to-day in the form of the shepherd dog, both of which have sprung

from the Indian wolf. It is easily demonstrated that the original home of the great "dogge" is to be found in the highlands of Tibet. They became established in Europe at the time of Alexander the Great, and appeared in our northern Alps at the beginning of the first century, where they were distributed by the Romans. They have been demonstrated in the Roman-Helvetian colony of Vindonissa and in southern Germany.

That the domestic goat, which was kept by the oldest Lake Dwellers, is of west Asiatic origin, and derived from the Bezoar goat, is universally acknowledged. It came through the Aegean Islands.

In very early times, during the Mycenian period, wool sheep reached Greece and the rest of southern Europe. The story of the "Golden Fleece" points toward Colchis, to the east of the Black Sea, as its original home, and zoogeographic facts point favorably in that direction.

As for our pigs, the investigations of Rütimeyer and Nathusius have proved that even in prehistoric times Asiatic blood reached Europe. The banded pig (Sus vittatus) distributed over southeast Asia is the wild pig from which the domesticated Asiatic pig has been developed. All doubts about this are dispelled by the anatomic facts of the case. Southern Europe has always kept these pigs to the exclusion of all others. I was able to demonstrate their presence in the Ægean Archipelago, even as far back as the neolithic period. The examination which I conducted upon the skulls of the Spanish and Sardinian domesticated pigs showed that even to-day the Asiatic race has retained its pure strain in the Mediterranean region. It was long unknown which ocean route had been used in the transportation of this animal, in so far as the Semitic culture of Mesopotamia probably refused this domestic animal. Lippert expressed the opinion that it might have reached the west along the northern border of Mesopotamia. The investigations of J. U. Dürst upon the bone remains from the old culture strata of Anau in Turkestan have substantiated these opinions in every way.

There can be no doubt that Asia gave to Europe from its wealth of domesticated horses. The dainty oriental horses prevail over others even to-day in the east and south of our continent. But whether, in addition to the Przewalsky horse, another ancestral horse will have to be considered has not been completely established as yet. But that horses were first domesticated in the interior of Asia has been established from the historic cultural fact that the domestic horse appeared first in large numbers, historically considered, in the interior of Asia. The prehistoric presence of the domestic horse is known for Turkestan, where it occurs in the very oldest culture strata. This has the characters of the oriental horse and was of small size. It may have become distributed over Asia Minor at an early period, whence it