A Comparison of Dog Shoulder Height in Colonial, European, and Native American Contexts Martin H. Welker (Penn State) and Rebecca Dunham (Parks Canada) 80 Introduction: Results: Colonial Dogs at the Fortress of Louisbourg: 60 Colonization is a central tenant of the “grand challenges” for archaeology (Kintigh et al. 2014) and changes in the distribution of species have been used to study colonization in the past. Dogs are the only domesticate to have existed on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean prior to the Columbian Exchange. Historic documents indicate that European colonists to North America preferred large, European dogs capable of protecting livestock, hunting, and defending settlements. European dogs were frequently described as larger than their Native American counterparts, and colonial governments instituted widespread bans on the trade of European dogs as early as 1619. Morphometric data on over 200 individuals representing colonial, European, and Native American dogs dating to 0-1800 AD are used to test colonial breed preferences, and whether colonial dogs were truly larger than Native American dogs. Our analysis identifies noticeable differences in dog’s average shoulder height (Clark 1996; Harcourt 1974), supporting assertions that many dogs introduced by European colonists were selected for size and were significantly larger than local Native American dogs at contact. Dog 1B43D1 in situ Dog 1B3B87 in situ Dog 1B4T8 in situ (not included) Hypotheses: H1: Shoulder height estimates for dogs in the colonies will be significantly larger than those in Native American contexts. H2: Colonial dog’s shoulder height estimates will be within the range of contemporaneous dogs from Europe. The King’s Bastion at the Fortress of Louisbourg H3: Selective importation of large breeds will result less shoulder height variability among colonial dogs than found in Europe. Three 18th century dog burials were recovered during archaeological excavation (Howard 1962, Marwitt 1966). Two of these dogs were analyzed in July 2016 at the Fortress of Louisbourg. Both were fully grown adults with permanent dentition and fused epiphyses at their time of death. No cut marks, burning, or gnawing were observed, though 1B3B87 exhibited a healed complete and displaced fracture of the left femur which had never been properly set. Figure 4: Dogs in the colonial sample. Colonial Dogs: European colonists brought familiar, European dogs including mastiffs, bloodhounds, and greyhounds (Figure 2) with them to herd livestock, defend settlements, track game, and act as war dogs (Derr 2004). Molasser or mastiff circa 1800 (print by P. Reinagle) A Cuban bloodhound 1860’s (engraver unknown) Greyhound circa 1800 (print by P. Reinagle) The Fortress of Louisbourg was established by the French Crown in 1713, and originally settled by colonists from the French colony of Plaisance, Newfoundland. Louisbourg quickly became a fortified city housing one of the largest garrisons in North America and the capital of France’s Ile Royale colony. Louisbourg was captured in 1745 by English colonists supported by the British Navy, but returned to French control in 1748. Louisbourg was captured again by the British Army in 1758, and destroyed in 1760. European colonists frequently sought to prevent Native American’s from acquiring European livestock including dogs. Virginia’s Colonial Assembly banned the trading of “English dogs of quality” to the Native Americans, fining between 5 shillings and ten pounds per offence (Derr 2004). Materials and Methods: Shoulder height estimates for Colonial (n=12, Fig 3), European (n=165), and Eastern Native American (n=95) dogs dating to the period 0-1800 AD were collected from the published and grey literature, or contributed by scholars. ANOVA analysis was used to compare these samples and assess whether shoulder height was significantly different in any of the three samples. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 40 20 0 1800 1400 1000 600 200 Figure 4: Shoulder height in Native American dogs though time. 80 Dogs in the colonial contexts are on average 12-13cm larger at the shoulder than the average Native American or European dog (Figure 6). ANOVA analysis reveals that the colonial dogs are significantly larger than either the Native American (F=45.43, df=106, p=0.000) or European (F=16.31, df=176, p=0.000) samples. 60 40 20 0 1800 1400 1000 600 200 Figure 5: Shoulder height in European dogs though time. ANOVA Comparison of the Native American and European samples reveals that these populations are not statistically different (F=0.398, df=259, p=0.529). Discussion: The hypotheses tested here were generally supported by the data collected. Though the sample of shoulder heights available for colonial dogs is small, it does suggest a preference for larger breeds in colonial societies (Figure 6). Morphometric differences in the stature of European and Colonial dogs reflect selection of dogs to fill specific roles in European society including ratting, hunting, livestock management, warfare, and use as pets. The narrower range of shoulder height estimates exhibited by Native American dogs does not preclude selection for specific purposes (e.g. consumption, hunting, fiber, or traction), but indicates that these roles did not require the extreme variation in body size found in European dogs (Figure 6). A greater range of shoulder heights in European dog populations made it possible for colonists to select for large size in the dogs they chose to bring with them. Ownership of dogs of specific types was likely limited to the wealthy who used contacts in Europe to acquire dogs of known breeding lineages (Meacham 2011). Poorer colonists frequently owned mongrels of indeterminate, though probably European, origin (Meacham 2011). Site Sylvestor Manor Ferryland St. Augustine Fortress of Louisbourg Fortress of Louisbourg Fort Shirley Anderson Armory Anderson Armory Anderson Armory Anderson Armory Anderson Armory Anderson Armory No clear pattern of size change is seen in either Native American (Figure 4) or European (Figure 5) dogs between 0-1800 AD. This suggests that average shoulder heights generated from these samples are reliable estimates of average dog size over this period. Date 1652-? 1691 1700-1782 1700-1768 1700-1768 1753-1756 1775-1800 1775-1800 1775-1800 1775-1800 1775-1800 1775-1800 Location New York Newfoundland Florida Nova Scotia Nova Scotia Pennsylvania Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Sex Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk F M F M F M Height (cm) 60.00 64.02 52.50 58.11 60.87 60.09 49.31 56.45 32.29 53.41 63.28 66.33 Source Sportman 2003 Gaulton & Burchell (Unpublished) Bostwick 1980 This Analysis This Analysis Welker (Unpublished) Wagner 2014 Wagner 2014 Wagner 2014 Wagner 2014 Wagner 2014 Wagner 2014 The introduction of species to new environments is among the most pervasive elements of human colonization efforts, the effects of which are among archaeology’s “Grand Challenges” (Kintigh et al. 2014). Historical contexts are powerful source of data which when supplemented by historical records, may contribute to our understanding of these processes. Further analyses of dogs in colonial contexts will improve the robustness of these results. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank volunteer Joanne Hughes, and Dr. Sarah McClure for permitting use of Penn State Zooarchaeology Laboratory supplies and equipment. Thanks are also due to those whose morphometric data was used in this analysis, especially Drs. Barry Gaulton and Meghan Burchell (Memorial University) for contributing data from a colonial dog from Ferryland, Newfoundland. Figure 6: Shoulder height in Native American, Colonial, and European dogs. Averages indicated to the side. References: Bostwick JA. 1980. The Plaza II Site Excavation of a Colonial Spanish Well in St. Augustine, Florida. Historical Archaeology 14(1): 73-81. Clark KM. 1996. Neolithic Dogs: A Reappraisal Based on Evidence from the Remains of a Large Canid Deposited in a Ritual Feature. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 6(2): 211-219. Derr M. 2004. A Dog’s History of America: How Our Best Friend Explored, Conquered, and Settled a Continent. North Point Press, New York. Harcourt RA. 1974. The Dog in Early Prehistoric Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 1(2):151-175. Howard, JH. 1962. The Archaeology of the King’s Bastion, Fortress of Louisbourg, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Manuscript on file at the Fortress of Louisbourg, Parks Canada. Kintigh KW, Altshul J, Beaudry MC, Drennan R, Kinzig AP, Kohler TA, Limp WF, Maschner HDG, Michener WK, Pauketat TR, Peregrine P, Sabloff JA, Wilkinson TJ, Wright HT, Zeder MA. 2014. Grant Challenges for Archaeology. American Antiquity 79(1): 5-24. Marwitt, JP. 1966. Archaeological Investigation of the King’s Bastion Outer Works. Manuscript on file at the Fortress of Louisbourg, Parks Canada. Meacham SH. 2011. Pets, Status, and Slavery in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake. The Journal of Southern History 77(3): 521-554. Wagner KR. 2014. An Osteological Analysis of 18th Century Dog Burials at the Williamsburg Public Armory. Undergraduate Honors Thesis, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.