Dogs of the Northeast Tribes in the Colonial Period

Indians of the Northeast used dogs for hunting, guarding, food, companionship, and in rituals.  Far to the north they were used for transport by pulling toboggans (until the use of sleds, as preferred by Indians to the west began to spread across northern Canada). Dogs appeared in myths and dream narratives of the Northeast Indians, as was true throughout the Americas.  Unfortunately, the cultures of the Indians and their dog cultures were largely destroyed by disease, war, and displacement, and the sort of detailed anthropological studies possible with Plains and West Coast tribes were not undertaken early enough to put a rigorous scientific face on what is known.  There were, however, many accounts of early explorers, missionaries, and settlers that preserved native memories, and often recorded Indian practices and legends with reliable accuracy. 

Unlike the Spanish expansion in Central and South America (and even Florida and the Southwest), the early New England and eastern Canadian colonists did not use dogs in military operations against the Indians, though they did bring some mastiffs for guarding and hunting and were soon aware of the terror the large dogs struck in the natives.  The natives also saw the advantages of the larger European dogs in guarding and hunting certain game, and among many tribes the European dogs began to replace the native animals.  Consequently, it is not always certain that the records describe practices that preceded European settlement, or the degree to which native practices evolved with the arrival of the European dogs. 

Types of Native Dogs

Rosier (1605) said the Indians near Pemaquid Point (Maine) used dogs and tamed wolves for hunting with bows and arrows. He described some of the dogs as looking like spaniels. Native dogs are often described as small in early accounts.  Livermore (1877) saw dogs on Block Island he believed to be a remnant of Indian dogs:

“They are below a medium size, with short legs but powerful broad breasts, heavy quarters, massive head unlike the bulldog, the terrier, the hound, the mastiff, but resembling mostly the last; with a fierce disposition that in some makes but little distinction between friend and foe.”

The description probably fits the picture of the dog of the Bersimis in Allen (1920) that appears to the left. The fright of the Indians on seeing the large dogs of the Europeans also suggests that the Indians were only used to relatively small dogs.  Of New Netherland (the coastal area settled by the Dutch, including what is now New York), Nicolaes van Wassenaer wrote in 1625 (Jameson 1909):

“Their dogs are small. When the worthy Lambrecht van Twenhuyzen had once given the skipper a big dog, and it was brought to them on ship-board, they were very much afraid of it; calling it, also, a sachem of dogs, as being one of the biggest. The dog, tied with a rope on board, was very furious against them, they being clad like beasts with skins, for he thought they were wild animals; but when they gave him some of their bread made of Indian corn, which grows there, he learned to distinguish them, that they were men.”

The dogs brought by the Dutch were probably brought for hunting and guard work, with their ability to intimidate only being discovered later. 

The Indian dogs are often described as looking like wolves or foxes, or containing the blood of wild canids. Wolley (1701), in his account of New York in the 1670s, said the Indians ate their dogs if they were very hungry, and said that the dogs “are but young Wolves stolen from their damms, several of which I have seen following them as our Dogs here, but they won’t eat our Dogs because they say we feed them with salt meat, which none or but few of the Indians love, for they had none before the Christians came.” Josselyn (1833) believed Indian dogs in Maine were wolf-fox crosses that were kept for hunting moose, which the Indians would lance if close enough.

Speck (1925), writing about the Indians of the Lake St. John and Gulf of St. Lawrence region, says that the real Indian dogs, i.e., the original strain, were known as “wolf dogs.”  They were used as trailers and in hunting.  Speck (1940) wrote that a half-wolf was known to be on Indian Island at Old Town, Maine, as late as 1912.

As for coloration, Butler and Hadlock (1977), who referred to many of the sources used to write this blog, summarize accounts of early explorers mentioning Indian dogs, particularly apparently the small ones, as being black and white, just white, red, and brown.  Skeletons, often partial skeletons, are all that is left of any of these dogs.  The photograph is of a dog cranium found in Maine that Allen included in his study of Indian dogs.

Tribes brought their dogs with them during migrations. Benjamin Basset, in the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1792), recorded that the Indians of Martha’s Vineyard believed that the first Indian who came to the Vineyard “was brought thither with his dog on a cake of ice.”  

Genetics of Native American Dogs

The dominant genetic argument at present is that “New and Old World dogs are derived from Eurasian wolfs.”  (Leonard et al. 2002) One study, however, has argued a separate origin for some varieties of North American indigenous dogs, thus positing separate North American domestication events. (Koop et al. 2000)

Castoviejo-Fisher et al. (2011) found mitochondrial DNA from two dogs living in Mayan villages in the State of Yucatan, Mexico, that might have been inherited from the pre-Columbian dog population.  The researchers observed that the impact of the arrival of European dogs on native dog populations was more profound than they expected at the beginning of their search for native markers.   

“The extent of this impact is unexpected because of the large historical population size of dogs in the Americas and the existence of potential refugia (e.g. isolated human groups) where native lineages could have survived. Several factors might have contributed to this replacement, including direct persecution, preference for the often larger newly arrived dogs, or susceptibility to introduced infectious diseases.”

The “extensive replacement of the native American dog population,” according to the researchers “illustrates that even cultural and biological elements that are not specific targets of invaders can be profoundly affected at a continental scale and in a short period of time.”  Needless to say, this makes finding evidence of original strains problematic in areas besides genetics. 

Care of Dogs

Sagard (1632) said the Hurons had numerous dogs that did not bark but which were useful in hunting.  He described Indian women using a mixture of corn mashed in water to feed puppies by putting it in their own mouths then passing to the mouths of the puppies, “but I found this very displeasing and nasty, to put their mouth in this way to the puppies’ muzzles, which are often not too clean.”

An account of a priest in the Jesuit Relations, Father Le Jeune, described the dogs living in Huron houses and being “held as dear as the children of the house, and share the beds, plates, and food of their masters.” He says that “a number of dogs” might be slaughtered to make a three-day feast. “During the feast there is much destruction, sometimes fires, and the dogs are knocked down.” Dogs might be sacrificed that a sick man could recover.  This might come to the sick man in a dream. Le Jeune recounted that when a girl died, her family wanted to bury her two favorite dogs with her, saying that “the dead girl loved them, and it is our custom to give to the dead what they loved or possessed when they were living." The Jesuits would not permit this.

Father Le Jeune appreciated the dogs as providing heat:

“As to the dogs, which I have mentioned as one of the discomforts of the Savages' houses, I do not know that I ought to blame them, for they have sometimes rendered me good service….  These poor beasts, not being able to live outdoors, came and lay down sometimes upon my shoulders, sometimes upon my feet, and as I only had one blanket to serve both as covering and mattress, I was not sorry for this protection, willingly restoring to them a part of the heat which I drew from them.  It is true that, as they were large and numerous, they occasionally crowded and annoyed me so much, that in giving me a little heat they robbed me of my sleep, so that I very often drove them away. “

Dogs were not to be fed bones of beavers and porcupines according to the priest, though there is no nutritional concept involved: 

“It is remarkable how they gather and collect these bones, and preserve them with so much care, that you would say their game would be lost if they violated their superstitions.  As I was laughing at them, and telling them that Beavers do not know what is done with their bones, they answered me, 'Thou dost not know how to take Beavers, and thou wishest to talk about it.' Before the Beaver was entirely dead, they told me, its soul comes to make the round of the Cabin of him who has killed it, and looks very carefully to see what is done with its bones; if they are given to the dogs, the other Beavers would be apprised of it and therefore they would make themselves hard to capture. But they are very glad to have their bones thrown into the fire, or into a river; especially the trap which has caught them is very glad of this.”

Naming Dogs

Giving personal names to dogs was likely widespread.  An Indian who had lost his dog said to Father Le Jeune:

“Ah! it is true " (said he,) "that I dearly loved Ouatit; I had resolved to keep him with me all his life; there was no dream that could have influenced me to make a feast of him,—I would not have given him for anything in the world; and yet it would be some consolation to me now if they had brought me a little Bear, which could take his place and carry his name.”

Names listed by Speck for dogs of the Algonquian tribes include: Baby, Little Pin, Sauce, Ask Him, Try Him, Who?, Where’s That?, Hoot Owl, Clown, Bear, Raccoon, Pigs, Frog, Wolf, Stingy. As in all cultures, dogs were named for traits, appearance, or to remind their masters of jokes.

Camp Guards

Butler and Hadlock say that settlers often killed the dogs of the Indians because they gave warning to the Indians when the settlers were preparing to attack.  Cotton Mather (1702) describes an incident in the Pequot War where an Indian camp was attacked:

“The Two Captains, with their Two Companies … for them to make their Assaults upon; and as they approached within a Rod of the Fort, a Dog Barking awakened another Cerberus, an Indian that stood Centinel, who immediately cried out Wannux, Wannux, i.e. English! English! However, the Courageous Captains presently found a way to enter the Fort, and thereupon followed a Bloody Encounter, wherein several of the English were wounded, and many of the Indians killed.”

Dogs in Hunting

Butler and Hadlock (1977) concluded that the use of native dogs in hunting was widespread among northeast tribes.  Father Sagard (1632) described the dogs tracking animals:

“When it is found, the men pursue it courageously and never leave it until they have brought it down, finally having wearied it to death they get their dogs to worry it so that it must fall. They then cut open the belly, give the quarry [curée] to the dogs, have a feast and carry off the remainder (Lors ils luy ouvrent le ventre, baillent la curée aux chiens, festinent, & emportent le reste).” 

Hind (1863) describes dogs of the Indians in Labrador being able to find bears when their hiding places are covered with snow.  Dogs were not permitted to touch the bones or taste the blood of the bears they killed. 

Alexander Henry saw raccoons hunted by the Huron in 1763 or 1764 (Drake 1844):

“As soon as a dog falls on a fresh track of the raccoon, he gives notice by a cry, and immediately pursues. His barking enables the hunter to follow. The raccoon, which travels slowly, and is soon overtaken, makes for a tree, on which he remains till shot.”

The photograph shows a hunting dog type from Labrador (Speck 1925). A painting reproduced in Schwartz (1997) shows a dog, probably having jumped off a canoe of a Micmac hunting party, retrieving a fowl that had fallen into the water. 

Dogs as Food

Henry Hudson (as quoted in Jameson 1909) saw a dog killed and skinned for a feast:

“On our coming near the house, two mats were spread out to sit upon, and immediately some food was served in well made red wooden bowls; two men were also despatched at once with bows and arrows in quest of game, who soon after brought in a pair of pigeons which they had just shot. They likewise killed at once a fat dog, and skinned it in great haste, with shells which they get out of the water.”

Wood (1764) reported an account of an Indian in Massachusetts eating a dog. Drake records that a captive of the Indian’s during King Phillip’s war was obliged to eat dogs, skunks, rattlesnakes, and bark, as they fled.  Father Le Jeune says the Hurons sometimes ate dogs.   Of another group in Quebec, which had abundant game, he wrote that they would not eat dogs even during a famine “because they said that, if the dog was killed to be eaten, a man would be killed by blows from an axe.”  Cotton Mather (1702) includes a narrative of Hannah Swarton, who was captured by Indians in 1690, describing eating dog flesh during a period of famine, which appears to be when dogs were most commonly eaten. 

Ceremonial eating, according to Butler and Hadlock, sometimes involved eating dog flesh.  John Gyles, a captive of the Penobscot Indians beginning in 1689, wrote:

“When the Indians determine on war, or are entering upon a particular expedition, they kill a number of their dogs, burn off their hair and cut them to pieces, leaving only one dog's head whole. The rest of the flesh they boil, and make a fine feast of it. Then the dog's head that was left whole is scorched, till the nose and lips have shrunk from the teeth, leaving them bare and grinning. This done, they fasten it on a stick, and the Indian who is proposed to be chief in the expedition takes the head into his hand, and sings a warlike song, in which he mentions the town they design to attack, and the principal man in it; threatening that in a few days he will carry that man's head and scalp in his hand, in the same manner. When the chief has finished singing, he so places the dog's head as to grin at him who he supposes will go his second, who, if he accepts, takes the head in his hand and sings; but if he refuses to go, he turns the teeth to another in the company. The Indians imagine that dog's flesh makes them bold and courageous. I have seen an Indian split a dog's head with a hatchet, take out the brains hot, and eat them raw with the blood running down his jaws!”

Dog Sacrifices

Dogs could be sacrificed without being eaten.  Alexander Henry (Drake) describes an Algonquian tribe on the great lakes tying a dog’s legs together and throwing it into a lake, “an offering designed to soothe the angry passions of some offended Manito.”

Father Le Jeune wrote of the Indians of Acadia that a dying man’s dogs were killed that he might have forerunners in the other world.  These dogs, if not eaten, were buried with him.  The priest also describes dogs being sacrificed to heal a sick woman:

“Many feasts were made for her recovery; and, among others, one day when she was very sick they made a feast of a dog, in consequence of which, according to their story, she felt wonderfully well,—and also, because she began to open her eyes while the dog was still half alive on the coals, they thought that this medicine was operating, and that she already felt some effects from it.”

He also describes a ceremony of a society during which a young man, having encountered a specter or demon, becomes insane.  “The remedy was, promptly to kill two dogs, and, among others, one which he held especially dear, of which a feast was made. In consequence of this he became better, and finally returned to his senses.”

Dog sacrifices were sometimes conducted to save someone from a prediction in a dream.  Another priest, Hierosme Lalemant (also in the Jesuit Relations), included the following story:

“A certain man had dreamed, while in the soundest slumber, that Iroquois had taken and burned him as a Captive, No sooner was he awake than a Council was held on the matter. ‘The ill fortune of such a Dream,’ it was said, ‘must be averted.’ The Captains at once caused twelve or thirteen fires to be lighted, on the spot where they were accustomed to burn their Enemies. Each one armed himself with firebrands and flaming torches, and they burned this Captive of a Dream; he shrieked like madman When he avoided one fire, he at once fell into another. In this manner, he made his way three times around the Cabin; and, as he thus passed, as naked as one's hand, each one applied to him a lighted torch, saying: ‘Courage, my Brother, it is thus that we have pity on thee.’ At the conclusion, they left him an opening by which he might issue from captivity. As he went out, he seized a dog that was held there ready for him, placed it at once on his shoulders, and carried it among the Cabins as a consecrated victim, which he publicly offered to the Demon of war, begging him to accept this semblance instead of the reality of his Dream. And, in order that the Sacrifice might be fully consummated, the dog was killed with a club, and was singed and roasted in the flames; and, after all this, it was eaten at a public feast, in the same manner as they usually eat their Captives.”

Cotton Mather describes the Indians of New England sacrificing a dog for the protection they believed this gave them:

“That the Indians in the Wars with us, finding a sore Inconvenience by our Dogs, which would make a sad yelling if in the Night they scented the Approaches of them, they sacrificed a Dog to the Devil; after which no English Dog would bark at an Indian for divers Months ensuing.”

Butler and Hadlock conclude that the “custom of feasting on dogs preparatory to entering upon warfare appears to have been widely distributed throughout the northeastern woodland areas inhabited by hunting nomadic tribes.”

Mather also mentions a demonic possession of some people in Plymouth who came under the spell of a woman named Mary Ross, who was possessed of “as Frantick a Daemon as ever was heard of.”  Mary Ross apparently convinced one of her followers to sacrifice a dog:

“That upon her Order Dunen Sacrific’d a Dog.  The Men and the Two Women then Danced Naked altogether; for which, when the Constable carried ‘em to the Magistrates, Ross uttered Stupendous Blasphemies, but Dunen lay for Dead an Hour on the Floor, saying, when he came to himself, that Ross bid him, and he could not resist.”

Mather does not lay blame for this incident on any Indians, but it seems to suggest that settlers at the time could also regard dogs as sacrificial animals. 

Dog Burials

Edwin Rogers (1943) described a dog burial on Indian River, near Milford, Connecticut:

“Isolated dog burials, and occasionally dogs associated with human remains, were characteristic of this site. Such a burial occurred near the center of the plot in a refuse pit five feet in diameter and thirty inches deep. The skeleton was placed in the bottom of the pit in the usual flexed position with the body laid about south and north on its right side, facing east. Parallel to, and resting within eight inches of the back of the human remains was the skeleton of a small dog the size of a fox terrier. The dog was completely covered with large sturgeon scales laid over him as shingles are laid on a roof.”

Rogers also mentions a burial of a child with a small dog. Claude Coffin (1939) describes a very carefully planned burial at Stratford, Connecticut:

“They were in the center of the pit, about one and one-half feet apart and in a triangular formation.

All were at the same depth, and in a flexed position. They were lying on their stomachs, feet folded under them, in upright positions, heads and necks extended; their tails also extended behind them. All had their heads pointing to the east. These animals were about the size of the average collie dog.”

The size would indicate the dogs were at least partially European. Hind (1863) describes burials on the Labrador peninsula:

"The Montagnais and Nasquapees bury their dead like the Swampy Crees, who dig with their wooden snow-shovels a hole about three feet deep, which is sometimes lined with pieces of wood. The body is placed on its side, as if sleeping, but sometimes it is put in a sitting posture. They wrap it in skins, or a blanket if they have one, with the gun, axe, fire-steel, flint, tinder, and kettle placed by its side. Sometimes the Indian's dogs are hung up at the head of the grave.”

Butler and Hadlock also summarize dog burials in Westbrook, Connecticut, near New York City, on Staten Island, at Port Washington, and Long Island.  Even dogs that had been eaten might be given a burial, rather than being left in scrap heaps. See Morey (2010) for an extensive account of the archeology of dog burials throughout the world.

Dogs of the Explorers and Settlers

Martin Pring (1603), writing about Maine south to Plymouth Harbor, describes how two mastiffs brought on the ship were used to terrify the Indians:

“We carried with us from Bristoll two excellent Mastives, of whom the Indians were more afraid, then of twentie of our men. One of these Mastives would carrie a halfe Pike in his mouth. And one Master Thomas Bridges a Gentleman of our company accompanied only with one of these Dogs, and passed sixe miles alone in the Countrey having lost his fellowes, and returned safely. And when we would be rid of the Savages company wee would let loose the Mastives, and suddenly with out-cryes they would flee away.”

In 1656, settlers of New Haven were required by law to keep dogs, preferably mastiffs, to be used against “wolves and in some other cases.” (Hoadly 1858)  Presumably the other cases included possible Indian attacks. 

The settlers were almost as afraid of wolves as they were of Indians.  Wolves could attack their dogs, but not humans.  As Wood (1764) noted:

"The Woolves bee in some respect different from them of other countries; it was never knowne yet that a Woolfe ever fet upon a man or woman. Neyther do they trouble horses or cowes; but swine, goates and red calves which they take for Deare, be often destroyed by them, so that a red calfe is cheaper than a blacke one in that regard; in Autumne and the beginning of the Spring, there ravenous rangers doe most frequent our English habitations, following the Deare which come downe at that time to those parts. They be made much like a Mungrell, being big boned, lanke paunched, deepe breasted, having a thicke necke and head, pricke eares, and long snoute, with dangerous teeth, long staring haire, and a great bush taile; it is thought of many, that our English Maftiffes might be too hard for them; but it is no such matter, for they care no more for an ordinary Maftiffe, than an ordinary Maftiffe cares for a Curre; many good Dogges have beene spoyled with them. Once a faire Grayhound hearing them at their howlings run out to chide them, who was torne in peeces before he could be rescued. One of them makes no more bones to runne away with a Pigge, than a Dogge to runne away with a Marrow bone.”

Thus, the American desire to eliminate wolf populations goes back well before the revolution.   

Settlers’ Attitudes towards Indian Dogs

A law of 1637 in Connecticut provided that if “any injurie or trespasse be offered or done by any Indian or Indians or their dogges,” the injured party can bring the Indian or Indians before a magistrate.  If members of a tribe “doe sett downe neere any English plantaƈons,” they are held responsible for any damage done by their dogs. 

An account from New Haven Colony Records of 1645 (Hoadly 1857) stated that a court having determined that hogs had been killed by Indian dogs, the settlers demanded damages but the Indians promised instead to kill their dogs.  Hempsted, Long Island, residents purchased land from Indians and required that the Indians agree to kill off their dogs.  The purchasers protested that some of the dogs were not killed, violating the agreement. The dispute went on for several years.  Easthampton, Long Island, records indicate disputes over Indian dogs bothering the settlers occurring as late as 1712. 

A New Haven law of 1650 stated:

“It is ordered by this Courte and Authority thereof, that no man within this Jurissdiction shall, directly or indirectly, amend, repaire, or cause to bee amended or repaired, any gunn, small or great, belonging to any Indian … nor shall sell nor give to any Indian, directly or indirectly, any such gunn, nor any gunpowder, or shott, or lead, or shott mould, or any millitary weapon or weapons, armor, or arrowe heads; nor sell nor barter nor give any dogg or doggs, small or great; uppon paine of ten pounds fyne for every offence, at least, in any one of the aforementioned perticulars; and the Courte shall have power to increase the fyne, or to impose corporall punnishment where a fyne cannot bee had, at theire discretion.”

Other municipalities that passed laws prohibiting sale of dogs to Indians included Easthampton, Long Island (1650), Southold (1659). Records of the town of Providence, Rhode Island, indicate that in 1661 two officials were directed to advise the Indians living near the town “to Take som Course with theire Dogges, to Keep them from ffalling upon the Inglish Cattell … Else they must Expect to have theire Dogges Killed.”

A Strange Incident

Henry Youle Hind (1863), a Canadian explorer and geologist, was an acute observer of human and animal behavior, and had a touch of the poet about him.  He tells a story in his Explorations in the Interior of the Labrador Peninsula that might belong in several of the categories above, or none of them.  He relates that in a dry goods store he encountered a Montaignais squaw buying a shroud for her husband, who was dying.  Hind followed her to the boat where her husband was lying on his side.  It was sunset and the woman got into the boat with her husband. 

There was also a dog in the boat.  Hind says: “A dog sat on one of the seats of the boat; every now and then he raised his head, and howled low and long as if he were baying at the sun.”  Hind rowed away from shore to give the small group their privacy, but wrote that he could for a long time hear “the long low howl of the apparently conscious dog bidding farewell to the sun, which at that moment dipped below the western waves.”  A painting of this scene is included in Hind’s book and is reproduced at the beginning of this blog.  Perhaps the dog's behavior was its reaction to the impending death of its master. 

Conclusion

As is true of an analysis of all native cultures and their dogs in the Americas, one must suspend modern sensibility in order to give a fair assessment of the evidence. The Stone Age cultures that preceded European, African, and Asian civilizations also engaged in eating and sacrificing dogs, and many practices we would now find repellant continued until the final triumph of Christianity ended animal sacrifice altogether. 

Also, the English settlers were determined to establish their moral superiority over the “savages” that lived so uncomfortably close to them, and their tendency was to emphasize the unchristian practices of their unappreciated neighbors.  Hind’s illustration of a Montaignais encampment shows dogs playing and people playing with dogs, much as happens anywhere at any time.  This must have been a far more common sight than sacrificing and eating dogs, or domestication would soon have lost the advantages it provided to the species, perhaps leading to feral populations that carved out niches on the edges of civilization.  This did not happen, at least on any large scale, and when the European dogs began to displace native dogs in the affections of the Indians, the native dogs found no place to go. 

Sources:

1. Allen, G.M. (1920). Dogs of the American Aboriginees.  Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 63, 429.
2. Anderson, V.D. (1994). King Philip's Herds: Indians, Colonists, and the Problem of Livestock in Early New England. The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., 51(4), 601-624 ("Indians who raised livestock overwhelmingly preferred hogs.  More than any other imported creatures, swine resembled dogs, the one domesticated animal that Indians already had. Both species scavenged for food and ate scraps from their owners' meals.... Like dogs, swine aggressively fended off predators, such as wolves. Roger Williams recorded an instance of 'two English Swine, big with Pig,' driving a wolf from a freshly killed deer and devouring the prey themselves. Hogs could also be trained like dogs to come when called, a useful trait in an animal that foraged for itself in the woods.").
3. Bennett, M.K. (1955). The Food Economy of the New England Indians, 1605-1675, The Journal of Political Economy, 63(5), 369-397 (describing period between Champlain's exploratory voyage along the Northeast Coast and the outbreak of King Philip's War notes: "Examination of differences in food economies among the Indians of New England and adjacent Canadian territory suggests the generalization that the true hunters and gatherers among them, such as Le Jeune’s Montagnais, may represent one of the very few primitive peoples of the world who, like the Eskimo, unquestionably derived the great bulk of their food calories from animal products (animals, birds, and fish)").
4. Butler, E.L., and Hadlock, W.S. (1977). Dogs of the Northeastern Woodland Indians.  Indian and Colonial Research Center.
5. Castroviejo-Fisher, S., Skoglund, P., Valadez, R., Vila, C., and Leonard, J.A. (2011). Vanishing Native American Dog Lineages. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 11, 73.
6. Coffin, C.C. (1939). Excavations in Southwestern Connecticut. Archaeological Society of Connecticut, Bulletin, 10, 33-49. 
7. Darwin, C. (1971). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.  John Murray, London.("There must be something special, which causes dogs to howl in the night and especially during moonlight, in that remarkable and melancholy manner called baying.  All dogs do not do so; and according to Houzeau, they do not then look at the moon, but at some fixed point near the horizon.  Houzeau thinks that their imaginations are disturbed by the vague outlines of the surrounding objects, and conjure up before them fantastic images: if this be so, their feelings may almost be called superstitious.”). 
8. Denys, N. (1908). The Description and Natural History of the Coasts of North America (Acadia). The Champlain Society, Toronto.
9. Drake, S.G. (1844). Tragedies of the Wilderness; or, True and Authentic Narratives of Captives.  Antiquarian Bookstore and Institute, Boston. 
10. The Early Records of the Town of Providence, Volume III (1893). Snow & Farnham, Providence.
11. Hind, H.Y. (1963). Explorations in the Interior of the Labrador Peninsula, vol.1. Longman, Green, Longman, Robers & Green, London. 
12. Hoadly, C.J. (1857 and 1858). Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven from 1638 to 1649. Tiffany & Co., Hartford. 
13. Jameson, J.F. (1909). Original Narratives of Early American History: Narratives of New Netherland 1609-1664. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.
14. Josselyn, J. (1865).  An Account of Two Voyages to New-England Made during the Years 1638, 1663.  William Veazie, Boston.
15. Koop, B.F., Burbidge, M., Byun, A., Rink, U., Crockford, S.J. (2000). Ancient DNA Evidence of a Separate Origin for North American Indigenous Dogs.  In Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective (Crockford, S.J., ed.). British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 
16. Le Jeune’s Relation (1639). In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations ofthe Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610-1791 (Thwaites, R.G., ed.), vols.2, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 17. The Burrows Brothers, Cleveland (1908). Hierosme Lalemant’s relation is in vol. 23. 
17. Leonard, J.A., Wayne, R.K., Wheeler, J., Valadez, R., Suillen, S., and Vila, C. (2002). Ancient DNA Evidence for Old World Origin of New World Dogs.  Science, 298, 1613.
18. Livermore, S.T. (1877).  A History of Block Island from its Discovery, in 1514, to the Present Time, 1876.  The Case, Lockwood & Brainard Co., Hartford.
19. Mason, J. (1736). A Brief History of the Pequot War. Kneeland and Green, London.
20. Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections (1792). Munroe & Francis, Boston (1806).
21. Mather, C. (1702). Magnalia Christi Americana: or, the Ecclesiastical History of New-England from Its First Planting in the Year 1620 unto the Year of Our Lord 1698. Thomas Parkhurst, London.
22. Morey, D.F. (2010). Dogs: Domestication and the Development of a Social Bond.  Cambridge University Press, New York. 
23. Pferd III, W. (1987). Dogs of the American Indians.  Denlinger's, Fairfax, Virginia.
24. Pring, M. (1603). Voyage Set Out from the Citie of Bristoll, in Early English and French Voyages, Chiefly from Hakluyt, 1534-1608 (Burrage, H.S., ed., 1906). Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York).
25. Rogers, E.H. (1943). The Indian River Village Site, Milford, Connecticut.  Archaeological Society of Connecticut, Bulletin, 15, 3-78.
26. Rosier, J. (1605).  A True Relation of the Voyage of Captaine George Waymouth, in Early English and French Voyages, Chiefly from Hakluyt, 1534-1608 (Burrage, H.S., ed., 1906). Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York).
27. Sagard, G. (1632).  Le Grand Voyage du Pay des Hurons.  Paris, translated for the Champlain Society (1939). The Long Journey to the Country of the Hurons (Wrong, G.M., ed.). Champlain Society vol. 25.
28. Schwartz, M. (1997). A History of Dogs in the Early Americas. Yale University Press, New Haven.
29. Speck, F.G. (1925). Dogs of the Labrador Indians.  Natural History, 25(1), 58.
30. Speck, F.O. (1940). Penebscot Man, the Life History of a Forest Tribe in Maine.  Philadelphia. Reprinted, University of Maine Press, 1997.
31. Trumbull, J.H. (1850). Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut Prior to the Union with New Haven Colony. Brown & Parsons, Hartford.
32. Wissler, C. (3^rd ed., 1938). The American Indian. Douglas C. McMurtrie, New York.
33. Wolley, C. (1871). A Two Years Journal in New-York. London.
34. Wood, W. (1634). New-England’s Prospect.  John Wilson and Son, Boston  (1865, reprinting an edition from 1764).

Thanks to Richard Hawkins, Brian Duggan, Yva Momatiuk, and Eric Krieger for comments and corrections.