NormalizeHEAD main

author: nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> 2025-02-05 05:28:56 -0800
committer: nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> 2025-02-05 05:28:56 -0800
commit: f8b99563735fdcc21b709b36daf1390a4ce0a091 (patch)
tree: f97d7edbb273572388a602527404e9dc86552ec4
parent: 35b1fc48e6636a4d3064a1fb4b0a84d5d160ec9e (diff)
257 files changed, 17 insertions, 32966 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d7b82bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+*.txt text eol=lf
+*.htm text eol=lf
+*.html text eol=lf
+*.md text eol=lf
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f3cc28f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #50828 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50828)
diff --git a/old/50828-0.txt b/old/50828-0.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 196afbd..0000000
--- a/old/50828-0.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,14128 +0,0 @@
-The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North
-America, by Edwin Tappan Adney and Howard Irving Chapelle
-
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
-other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions 
-whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
-the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at 
-www.gutenberg.org.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
-to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.
-
-
-
-
-Title: The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America
-
-
-Author: Edwin Tappan Adney and Howard Irving Chapelle
-
-
-
-Release Date: January 2, 2016  [eBook #50828]
-
-Language: English
-
-Character set encoding: UTF-8
-
-
-***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BARK CANOES AND SKIN BOATS OF
-NORTH AMERICA***
-
-
-E-text prepared by Richard Tonsing, Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, and the
-Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net)
-
-
-
-Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this file
-      which includes the more than 200 original illustrations.
-      See 50828-h.htm or 50828-h.zip:
-      (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50828/50828-h/50828-h.htm)
-      or
-      (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50828/50828-h.zip)
-
-
-Transcriber's note:
-
-      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
-
-      Text enclosed by tilde characters is in bold sans-serif
-      face (=bold sans-serif=).
-
-
-
-
-
-SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
-
-UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM
-
-
-[Illustration: BULLETIN 230
-
-WASHINGTON, D. C.
-
-1964]
-
-
-Museum of History and Technology
-
-
-THE BARK CANOES AND SKIN BOATS OF NORTH AMERICA
-
-EDWIN TAPPAN ADNEY and HOWARD I. CHAPELLE
-
-Curator of Transportation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-B031222CA
-
-Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
-1964
-
-Publications of the United States National Museum
-
-The scholarly and scientific publications of the United States National
-Museum include two series, _Proceedings of the United States National
-Museum_ and _United States National Museum Bulletin_.
-
-In these series the Museum publishes original articles and
-monographs dealing with the collections and work of its constituent
-museums--The Museum of Natural History and the Museum of History
-and Technology--setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of
-Anthropology, Biology, History, Geology, and Technology. Copies of each
-publication are distributed to libraries, to cultural and scientific
-organizations, and to specialists and others interested in the
-different subjects.
-
-The _Proceedings_, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in
-separate form, of shorter papers from the Museum of Natural History.
-These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication
-date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume.
-
-In the _Bulletin_ series, the first of which was issued in 1875,
-appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs
-(occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected
-works on related subjects. _Bulletins_ are either octavo or quarto
-in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902
-papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum of Natural
-History have been published in the _Bulletin_ series under the heading
-_Contributions from the United States National Herbarium_, and since
-1959, in _Bulletins_ titled "Contributions from the Museum of History
-and Technology," have been gathered shorter papers relating to the
-collections and research of that Museum.
-
-This work, the result of cooperation with the Mariners' Museum, the
-Stefansson Library, the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation,
-and the American Museum of Natural History, forms number 230 of the
-_Bulletin_ series.
-
-                                                         FRANK A. TAYLOR
-
-                               _Director, United States National Museum_
-
-                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
-                           WASHINGTON: 1964
-
-                   *       *       *       *       *
-
-             For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,
-                    U.S. Government Printing Office
-                  Washington, D.C. 20402--Price $6.75
-
-
-
-
-_Special acknowledgment_
-
-
-_Is here gratefully made to The Mariners' Museum, Newport News,
-Virginia, under whose auspices was prepared and with whose cooperation
-is here published the part of this work based on the Adney papers; also
-to the late Vilhjalmur Stefansson, for whose_ ENCYCLOPEDIA ARCTICA _was
-written the chapter on Arctic skin boats._
-
-
-
-
-_Contents_
-
-
-                                                                  _Page_
-
-  Introduction                                                         1
-
-  1. Early History                                                     7
-
-  2. Materials and Tools                                              14
-
-  3. Form and Construction                                            27
-        Form                                                          27
-        Construction                                                  36
-
-  4. Eastern Maritime Region                                          58
-        Micmac                                                        58
-        Malecite                                                      70
-        St. Francis                                                   88
-        Beothuk                                                       94
-
-  5. Central Canada                                                   99
-        Eastern Cree                                                 101
-        Têtes de Boule                                               107
-        Algonkin                                                     113
-        Ojibway                                                      122
-        Western Cree                                                 132
-        Fur-trade Canoes                                             135
-
-  6. Northwestern Canada                                             154
-        Narrow-Bottom Canoe                                          155
-        Kayak-Form Canoe                                             158
-        Sturgeon-Nose Canoe                                          168
-
-  7. Arctic Skin Boats: by _Howard I. Chapelle_                      174
-        The Umiak                                                    181
-        The Kayak                                                    190
-
-  8. Temporary Craft                                                 212
-        Bark Canoes                                                  212
-        Skin Boats                                                   219
-
-  Retrospect                                                         221
-
-  Appendix: The Kayak Roll, by _John D. Heath_                       223
-
-  Bibliography                                                       231
-
-  Index                                                              235
-
-
-
-
-_Illustrations_
-
-
-  _Figure_                                                        _Page_
-
-  1 Fur-trade canoe on the Missinaibi River, 1901. (_Canadian
-        Geological Survey photo._)                                     2
-
-  2 Page from a manuscript of 1771, "Observations on Hudsons
-        Bay," by Alexander Graham, Factor. (In archives of Hudson's
-        Bay Company.)                                                  9
-
-  3 Canoes from LaHontan's _Nouveaux Voyages ... dans l'Amerique
-        septentrionale_, showing crude representations typical of
-        early writers.                                                11
-
-  4 Lines of an old birch-bark canoe, probably Micmac, brought to
-        England in 1749 from New England. (_From Admiralty Collection
-        of Draughts, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich._)           12
-
-  5 Ojibway Indian carrying spruce roots, Lac Seul, Ont., 1919.
-        (_Canadian Geological Survey photo._)                         15
-
-  6 Roll of bark for a hunting canoe. Algonkin Reserve, at Golden
-        Lake, Ont., 1927.                                             16
-
-  7 Sketch: wood-splitting techniques, cedar and spruce.              17
-
-  8-19 Sketches of tools: 8, stone axe; 9, stone hammer, wedge, and
-        knife; 10, mauls and driving sticks; 11, stone scraper; 12,
-        bow drill; 13, modern Hudson Bay axe; 14, steel fur-trade
-        tomahawk; 15, steel canoe awls; 16, crooked knives; 17, froe;
-        18, shaving horse; 19, bucksaw.                               17
-
-  20 Peeling, rolling, and transporting bark. (_Sketches by
-        Adney._)                                                      25
-
-  21 Sketch: Building frame for a large canoe.                        26
-
-  22, 23 Sketches: Effect on canoe bottom of crimping and goring
-        bark.                                                         30
-
-  24 Sketch: Canoe formed by use of gores and panels.                 31
-
-  25 Gunwale ends nailed and wrapped with spruce roots. (_Sketch
-        by Adney._)                                                   31
-
-  26 Gunwales and stakes on building bed, plan view. (_Sketch by
-        Adney._)                                                      32
-
-  27 Photo: Gunwale lashings, examples made by Adney.                 33
-
-  28 Photo: Gunwale-end lashings, examples made by Adney.             33
-
-  29 Sketch: Splints arranged in various ways to sheath the bottom
-        of a canoe.                                                   34
-
-  30 End details, including construction of stem-pieces.
-        (_Sketches by Adney._)                                        35
-
-  31 Lines of 2½-fathom St. John River Malecite canoe.                36
-
-  32 Malecite canoe building, 1910. (Canadian Geological Survey
-        photos.)                                                      39
-
-  33 First stage of canoe construction: assembled gunwale frame is
-        used to locate stakes temporarily on building bed. (_Sketch
-        by Adney._)                                                   40
-
-  34 Second stage of canoe construction: bark cover is laid out on
-        the building bed, and the gunwales are in place upon it.
-        (_Sketch by Adney._)                                          41
-
-  35 Photo: Malecite canoe builders near Fredericton, N.B., using
-        wooden plank building bed.                                    42
-
-  36 Sketch: Two common styles of root stitching used in bark
-        canoes.                                                       43
-
-  37 Comparison of canoe on the building bed and canoe when first
-        removed from building bed during fifth stage of construction.
-        (_Detail sketches by Adney._)                                 44
-
-  38 Third stage of canoe construction: the bark cover is shaped
-        on the building bed. (_Sketch by Adney._)                     45
-
-  39 Cross section of canoe on building bed during third and
-        fourth stages of construction. (_Sketch by Adney._)           46
-
-  40 Sketch: Multiple cross section through one side of a canoe on
-        the building bed, at the headboard, middle, first, and second
-        thwarts.                                                      46
-
-  41 Fourth stage of canoe construction: bark cover has been
-        shaped and all stakes placed. (_Sketch by Adney._)            47
-
-  42 Fifth stage of canoe construction: canoe is removed from
-        building bed and set on horses to shape ends and complete
-        sewing. (_Sketch by Adney._)                                  49
-
-  43 Ribs being dried and shaped for Ojibway canoe. (_Canadian
-        Geological Survey photo._)                                    50
-
-  44 Sketch: Details of ribs and method of shaping them in pairs.     51
-
-  45 Sixth stage of canoe construction: in this stage splints for
-        sheathing (upper left) are fixed in place and held by
-        temporary ribs (lower right) under the gunwales. (_Sketch by
-        Adney._)                                                      53
-
-  46 General details of birch-bark canoe construction, in a
-        drawing by Adney. (From _Harper's Young People_, supplement,
-        July 29, 1890.)                                               54
-
-  47 Gunwale construction and thwart or crossbar fastenings, as
-        shown in a sketch by Adney. (_Harper's Young People_,
-        supplement, July 29, 1890.)                                   56
-
-  48 "Peter Joe at Work." Drawing by Adney for his article "How an
-        Indian Birch-Bark Canoe is Made." (_Harper's Young People_,
-        supplement, July 29, 1890.)                                   57
-
-  49 Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe.                  59
-
-  50 Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe.                  60
-
-  51 Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe.                  61
-
-  52 Lines of 2½-fathom Micmac big-river canoe.                       62
-
-  53 Lines of 3-fathom Micmac ocean canoe fitted for sailing.         63
-
-  54 Micmac rough-water canoe, Bathurst, N.B. (_Canadian
-        Geological Survey photo._)                                    64
-
-  55 Micmac Woods canoe, built by Malecite Jim Paul at St. Mary's
-        Reserve in 1911. (_Canadian Geological Survey photo._)        64
-
-  56 Micmac rough-water canoe fitted for sailing. (_Photo W. H.
-        Mechling, 1913._)                                             65
-
-  57 Micmac rough-water canoe, Bay Chaleur. (_Photo H. V.
-        Henderson, West Bathurst, N.B._)                              66
-
-  58 Micmac rough-water sailing canoe, Bay Chaleur. (_Canadian
-        Geological Survey photo._)                                    66
-
-  59 Drawing: Details of Micmac canoes, including mast and sail.      67
-
-  60 Micmac canoe, Bathurst, N.B. (_Canadian Geological Survey
-        photo._)                                                      68
-
-  61 Micmac woman gumming seams of canoe, Bathurst, N.B., 1913.
-        (_Canadian Geological Survey photo._)                         69
-
-  62 Lines of 2½-fathom Malecite river canoe, 19th century. Old
-        form with raking ends and much sheer.                         71
-
-  63 Lines of old form of Malecite-Abnaki 2½-fathom ocean canoe of
-        the Penobscots in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.            72
-
-  64 Lines of large 3-fathom ocean canoe of the Passamaquoddy
-        porpoise hunters.                                             73
-
-  65 Lines of old form of Passamaquoddy 2½-fathom ocean canoe.        74
-
-  66 Lines of Malecite racing canoe of 1888, showing ~V~-shaped keel
-        piece between sheathing and bark to form deadrise.            75
-
-  67 Lines of sharp-ended 2½-fathom Passamaquoddy hunting canoe,
-        for use on tidal river.                                       76
-
-  68 Lines of Malecite 2½-fathom St. Lawrence River canoe,
-        probably a hybrid model.                                      77
-
-  69 Lines of Malecite 2½-fathom river canoe of 1890 from the
-        Rivière du Loup region.                                       78
-
-  70 Lines of Modern (1895) 2½-fathom Malecite St. John River
-        canoe.                                                        79
-
-  71 Drawing: Malecite canoe details, gear, and gunwale
-        decorations.                                                  80
-
-  72 Drawing: Malecite canoe details, stem profiles, paddles, sail
-        rig, and salmon spear.                                        81
-
-  73 Lines and decoration reconstructed from a very old model of a
-        St. John River ancient woods, or pack, canoe.                 81
-
-  74 Lines of last known Passamaquoddy decorated ocean canoe to be
-        built (1898).                                                 82
-
-  75 Drawing: Malecite canoe details and decorations.                 83
-
-  76 Sketches: Wulegessis decorations.                             84-85
-
-  77 Photo: End decorations, Passamaquoddy canoe.                     86
-
-  78 Photo: End decorations, Passamaquoddy canoe.                     87
-
-  79 Photo: Passamaquoddy decorated canoe.                            87
-
-  80 Lines of 2-fathom St. Francis canoe of about 1865                89
-
-  81 Lines of "14-foot" St. Francis canoe of about 191090
-
-  82 Lines of 2½-fathom low-ended St. Francis canoe.                  91
-
-  83 Lines of St. Francis-Abnaki canoe for open water, a type that
-        became extinct before 1890. From Adney's drawings of a canoe
-        formerly in the Museum of Natural History.                    92
-
-  84 Photo: Model of a St. Francis-Abnaki canoe under construction.   93
-
-  85 Photo: St. Francis-Abnaki canoe.                                 93
-
-  86 A 15-foot Beothuk canoe of Newfoundland (_Sketch by Adney._)     95
-
-  87 Lines based on Adney's reconstruction of 15-foot Beothuk
-        canoe.                                                        97
-
-  88 Montagnais crooked canoe. (_Canadian Geological Survey
-        photo._)                                                     100
-
-  89 Birch-bark crooked canoe, Ungava Cree. (_Smithsonian
-        Institution photo._)                                         101
-
-  90 Lines of 3-fathom Nascapee canoe, eastern Labrador.             102
-
-  91 Lines of 2-fathom Montagnais canoe of southern Labrador and
-        Quebec.                                                      102
-
-  92 Lines of 2½-fathom crooked canoe of the Ungava Peninsula.       103
-
-  93 Lines of hybrid-model 2-fathom Nascapee canoe.                  103
-
-  94 Eastern Cree crooked canoe of rather moderate sheer and
-        rocker. (_Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo._)          104
-
-  95 Photo: Straight and crooked canoes, eastern Cree.               105
-
-  96 Montagnais canvas-covered crooked canoe under construction.
-        (_Canadian Geological Survey photo._)                        106
-
-  97 Sketch: Fiddlehead of scraped bark on bow and stern of a
-        Montagnais birch-bark canoe at Seven Islands, Que., 1915.    107
-
-  98 Sketch: Disk of colored porcupine quills decorating canoe
-        found at Namaquagon, Que., 1898.                             107
-
-  99 Fleet of 51 birch-bark canoes of the Têtes de Boule Indians,
-        assembled at the Hudson's Bay Company post, Grand Lake
-        Victoria, Procession Sunday, August 1895. (_Photo,
-        Post-Factor L. A. Christopherson._)                          108
-
-  100 Photo: Têtes de Boule canoe.                                   109
-
-  101 Photo: Têtes de Boule canoes.                                  110
-
-  102 Lines of 1½-fathom Têtes de Boule hunting canoe.               111
-
-  103 Lines of 2½-fathom Têtes de Boule canoe, with construction
-        details.                                                     111
-
-  104 Lines of 2-fathom Têtes de Boule hunting canoe.                112
-
-  105 Photo: Old Algonkin canoe.                                     113
-
-  106 Lines of 2½-fathom old model, Ottawa River, Algonkin canoe.    114
-
-  107 Photo: Models made by Adney of Algonkin and Ojibway
-        stem-pieces.                                                 115
-
-  108 Lines of light, fast 2-fathom hunting canoe of the old
-        Algonkin model.                                              116
-
-  109 Lines of hybrid 2½- and 2-fathom Algonkin canoes.              117
-
-  110 Lines of 2-fathom Algonkin hunter's canoe, without headboards. 118
-
-  111 Photo: Algonkin canoe, old type.                               119
-
-  112 Photo: Algonkin "Wabinaki Chiman"                              120
-
-  113 Algonkin canoe decorations, Golden Lake, Ont.                  121
-
-  114 Lines of 2-fathom Ojibway hunter's canoe, built in 1873        123
-
-  115 Lines of 3-fathom Ojibway old model rice-harvesting canoe and
-        2-fathom hunter's canoe.                                     124
-
-  116 Lines of 3-fathom Ojibway freight canoe.                       124
-
-  117 Lines of 2½-fathom Ojibway, old form, canoe and a 16-foot
-        long-nose Cree-Ojibway canoe.                                125
-
-  118 Eastern Ojibway canoe, old form. (_Canadian Pacific Railway
-        photo._)                                                     126
-
-  119 Photo: Ojibway Long-Nose canoe, Rainy Lake District.           126
-
-  120 Lines of 2-fathom Ojibway hunter's canoe, 1849 and long-nose
-        Minnesota Ojibway rice-harvesting canoe.                     127
-
-  121 Photos: Canoe building, Lac Seul, Canada, 1918             128-129
-
-  122 Long Lake Ojibway long-nose canoe. (_Canadian Geological
-        Survey photo._)                                              130
-
-  123 Photo: Ojibway 19-foot canoe with 13 Indians aboard (1913)     131
-
-  124 Lines of 2½-fathom western Cree canoe, Winisk River district,
-        northwest of James Bay.                                      133
-
-  125 Lines of a 6-fathom fur-trade canoe of the early 19th century. 134
-
-  126 Inboard profile of a 6-fathom fur-trade canoe, and details of
-        construction, fitting, and decoration.                       135
-
-  127 Lines of small 3-fathom north canoe of the Têtes de Boule
-        model.                                                       136
-
-  128 Photo: Models of fur-trade canoes.                             137
-
-  129 "Fur-Trade Maître Canot With Passengers." From an oil
-        painting by Hopkins (_Public Archives of Canada photo_).     138
-
-  130 "Bivouac in Expedition in Hudson's Bay Canoe." From an oil
-        painting by Hopkins (_Public Archives of Canada photo_).     139
-
-  131 Ojibway 3-fathom fur-trade canoe, a cargo-carrying type,
-        marked by cut-under end profiles, that was built as late as
-        1894.                                                        139
-
-  132 Lines of a 5-fathom fur-trade canoe, Grand Lake Victoria
-        Post, Hudson's Bay Company.                                  140
-
-  133 "Hudson's Bay Canoe Running the Rapids." From an oil painting
-        by Hopkins (_Public Archives of Canada photo_).              141
-
-  134 "Repairing the Canoe." From an oil painting by Hopkins
-        (_Public Archives of Canada photo_).                         142
-
-  135 Lines of a 4½-fathom Hudson's Bay Company "North Canoe,"
-        built by Crees near James Bay, mid-19th century.             143
-
-  136 Photo: 5-fathom fur-trade canoe from Brunswick House, a
-        Hudson's Bay Company post.                                   144
-
-  137 Fur-trade canoes on the Missinaibi River, 1901. (_Canadian
-        Geological Survey photo._)                                   145
-
-  138 Photo: Fur-trade canoe brigade from Christopherson's Hudson's
-        Bay Company post, about 1885.                                146
-
-  139 Forest rangers, Lake Timagami, Ontario. (_Canadian Pacific
-        Railway Company photo._)                                     147
-
-  140 Photo: Models made by Adney of fur-trade canoe stem-pieces.    149
-
-  141 Photo: Models by Adney of fur-trade canoe stem-pieces.         151
-
-  142 Portaging a 4½-fathom fur-trade canoe, about 1902, near the
-        head of the Ottawa River. (_Canadian Pacific Railway Company
-        photo._)                                                     152
-
-  143 Decorations, fur-trade canoes (_Watercolor sketch by Adney._)  153
-
-  144 Lines of 2-fathom Chipewyan hunter's canoe.                    155
-
-  145 Lines of 2½-fathom Chipewyan and 3-fathom Dogrib cargo, or
-        family, canoes.                                              156
-
-  146 Lines of 3-fathom Slavey and 2½-fathom Algonkin-type
-        Athabascan plank-stem canoes.                                157
-
-  147 Lines of Eskimo kayak-form birch-bark canoe from Alaskan
-        Coast.                                                       159
-
-  148 Lines of Athabascan hunting canoes of the kayak form.          160
-
-  149 Lines of extinct forms of Loucheux and bateau-form canoes,
-        reconstructed from old models.                               161
-
-  150 Lines of kayak-form canoes of the Alaskan Eskimos and
-        Canadian Athabascan Indians.                                 163
-
-  151 Lines of kayak-form canoe of British Columbia and upper Yukon
-        valley.                                                      164
-
-  152 Construction of kayak-form canoe of the lower Yukon, showing
-        rigid bottom frame. (_Smithsonian Institution photo._)       165
-
-  153 Photo: Model of an extinct form of Athabascan type birch-bark
-        canoe, of British Columbia. In Peabody Museum, Harvard
-        University.                                                  167
-
-  154 Lines of sturgeon-nose bark canoe of the Kutenai and Shuswap.  169
-
-  155 Ojibway canoe construction. (_Canadian Geological Survey
-        photos._)                                                170-171
-
-  156 Photo: Indians with canoe at Alert Bay, on Cormorant Island,
-        B. C.                                                        173
-
-  157 Eighteenth-century lines drawing of a kayak, from Labrador or
-        southern Baffin Island.                                      175
-
-  158 Western Alaskan umiak with eight women paddling, Cape Prince
-        of Wales, Alaska, 1936. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)       177
-
-  159 Western Alaskan umiak being beached, Cape Prince of Wales,
-        Alaska, 1936. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)                 177
-
-  160 Repairing umiak frame at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, 1930.
-        (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)                               178
-
-  161 Eskimo woman splitting walrus hide to make umiak cover, St.
-        Lawrence Island, Alaska, 1930. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)
-                                                                     178
-
-  162 Fitting split walrus-hide cover to umiak at St. Lawrence
-        Island, Alaska, 1930. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)         179
-
-  163 Outboard motor installed on umiak, Cape Prince of Wales,
-        Alaska, 1936. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)                 179
-
-  164 Launching umiak in light surf, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska,
-        1936. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)                         179
-
-  165 Umiaks on racks, in front of village on Little Diomede
-        Island, July 30, 1936. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)        181
-
-  166 Umiak covered with split walrus hide, Cape Prince of Wales,
-        Alaska. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)                       183
-
-  167 Lines of small umiak for walrus hunting, west coast of
-        Alaska. 1888-89                                              184
-
-  168 Umiaks near Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, showing walrus hide
-        cover and lacing. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)             185
-
-  169 Lines of umiak, west coast of Alaska, King Island, 1886        186
-
-  170 Making the blind seam: two stages of method used by the
-        Eskimo to join skins together.                               186
-
-  171 Lines of north Alaskan whaling umiak of about 1890             187
-
-  172 Lines of Baffin Island umiak, 1885. Drawn from model and
-        detailed measurements of a single boat.                      188
-
-  173 Lines of east Greenland umiak, drawn from measurements taken
-        off by a U.S. Army officer in 1945.                          189
-
-  174 Frame of kayak, Nunivak Island, Alaska. (_Photo by Henry B.
-        Collins._)                                                   191
-
-  175 Frame of kayak at Nunivak Island, Alaska, 1927. (_Photo by
-        Henry B. Collins._)                                          193
-
-  176 Lines of Koryak kayak, drawn from damaged kayak in the
-        American Museum of Natural History, 1948.                    195
-
-  177 Lines of Kodiak Island kayak, 1885, in U.S. National Museum.   196
-
-  178 Lines of Aleutian kayak, Unalaska, 1894, in U.S. National
-        Museum.                                                      196
-
-  179 Lines of kayak from Russian Siberia, 2-hole Aleutian type, in
-        Washington State Historical Society and Museum. Taken off by
-        John Heath, 1962.                                            197
-
-  180 Lines of Nunivak Island kayak, Alaska, 1889, in U.S. National
-        Museum.                                                      198
-
-  181 Lines of King Island kayak, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National
-        Museum.                                                      198
-
-  182 Lines of Norton Sound kayak, Alaska, 1889, in U.S. National
-        Museum.                                                      198
-
-  183 Nunivak Island kayak with picture of mythological water
-        monster Palriayuk painted along gunwale. (_Photo by Henry B.
-        Collins._)                                                   199
-
-  184 Photo: Nunivak Island kayak in U.S. National Museum.           199
-
-  185 Western Alaskan kayak, Cape Prince of Wales, 1936. (_Photo by
-        Henry B. Collins._)                                          200
-
-  186 Lines of Kotzebue Sound kayak, in Mariners' Museum.            201
-
-  187 Lines of Point Barrow kayak, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National
-        Museum.                                                      201
-
-  188 Lines of Mackenzie Delta kayak, in Museum of the American
-        Indian.                                                      201
-
-  189 Photo: Kayak from Point Barrow, Alaska, in U.S. National
-        Museum.                                                      202
-
-  190 Photo: Cockpit of kayak from Point Barrow.                     202
-
-  191 Lines of kayak in U.S. National Museum.                        203
-
-  192 Lines of kayak from Coronation Gulf, Canada.                   203
-
-  193 Lines of Caribou Eskimo kayak, Canada, in American Museum of
-        Natural History.                                             203
-
-  194 Lines of Netsilik Eskimo kayak, King William Island, Canada,
-        in the American Museum of Natural History.                   203
-
-  195 Lines of old kayak from vicinity of Southampton Island,
-        Canada.                                                      205
-
-  196 Lines of Baffin Island kayak, from Cape Dorset, Canada, in
-        the Museum of the American Indian.                           205
-
-  197 Lines of kayak from north Labrador, Canada, in the Museum of
-        the American Indian.                                         207
-
-  198 Lines of Labrador kayak, Canada, in the U.S. National Museum.  207
-
-  199 Lines of north Greenland kayak, in the Museum of the American
-        Indian.                                                      207
-
-  200 Lines of north Greenland kayak, in the Peabody Museum, Salem,
-        Mass.                                                        207
-
-  201 Photo: Profile of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay, in the
-        National Museum.                                             208
-
-  202 Photo: Deck of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.                 208
-
-  203 Photo: Cockpit of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.              209
-
-  204 Photo: Bow view of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.             209
-
-  205 Lines of northwestern Greenland kayak, in the U.S. National
-        Museum.                                                      210
-
-  206 Lines of southwestern Greenland kayak, 1883, in the U.S.
-        National Museum.                                             210
-
-  207 Lines of southwestern Greenland kayak, in the Peabody Museum,
-        Salem, Mass.                                                 210
-
-  208 Lines of south Greenland kayak, in the American Museum of
-        Natural History.                                             211
-
-  209 Lines of Malecite and Iroquois temporary canoes.               214
-
-  210 Photo: Model of hickory-bark canoe under construction, in the
-        Mariner's Museum.                                            217
-
-  211 Sketch: Detail of thwart used in Malecite temporary
-        spruce-bark canoe.                                           217
-
-  212 Iroquois temporary elm-bark canoe, after a drawing of 1849.    218
-
-  213 Large moosehide canoe of upper Gravel River, Mackenzie
-        valley. (_Photo, George M. Douglas._)                        221
-
-  214 Sketch: Standard Greenland roll.                               224
-
-  215 Sketch: Critical stage of a capsize recovery.                  225
-
-  216 Sketch: Hand positions used with the standard Greenland roll.  226
-
-  217 Sketch: Kayak rescue, bow-grab method.                         226
-
-  218 Sketch: Kayak rescue, paddle-grab method.                      226
-
-  219 Preparing for demonstration of Eskimo roll, Igdlorssuit, West
-        Greenland. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)                      227
-
-  220 Getting aboard kayak. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)             228
-
-  221 Fully capsized kayak. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)             228
-
-  222 Emerging from roll. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)               229
-
-  223 Emerging from roll. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)               229
-
-  224 Righting the kayak. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)               229
-
-                                 _The
-                      Bark Canoes and Skin Boats
-                                  of
-                            North America_
-
-
-
-
-INTRODUCTION
-
-[Illustration: Figure 1
-
-FUR-TRADE CANOE ON THE MISSINAIBI RIVER, 1901. (_Canadian Geological
-Survey photo._)]
-
-The bark canoes of the North American Indians, particularly those of
-birch bark, were among the most highly developed of manually propelled
-primitive watercraft. Built with Stone Age tools from materials
-available in the areas of their use, their design, size, and appearance
-were varied so as to create boats suitable to the many and different
-requirements of their users. The great skill exhibited in their design
-and construction shows that a long period of development must have
-taken place before they became known to white men.
-
-The Indian bark canoes were most efficient watercraft for use in
-forest travel; they were capable of being propelled easily with a
-single-bladed paddle. This allowed the paddler, unlike the oarsman,
-to face the direction of travel, a necessity in obstructed or shoal
-waters and in fast-moving streams. The canoes, being light, could be
-carried overland for long distances, even where trails were rough or
-nonexistent. Yet they could carry heavy loads in shallow water and
-could be repaired in the forest without special tools.
-
-Bark canoes were designed for various conditions: some for use in
-rapid streams, some for quiet waters, some for the open waters of
-lakes, some for use along the coast. Most were intended for portage in
-overland transportation as well. They were built in a variety of sizes,
-from small one-man hunting and fishing canoes to canoes large enough
-to carry a ton of cargo and a crew, or a war-party, or one or more
-families moving to new habitations. Some canoes were designed so that
-they could be used, turned bottom up, for shelter ashore.
-
-The superior qualities of the bark canoes of North America are
-indicated by the white man's unqualified adoption of the craft. Almost
-as soon as he arrived in North America, the white man learned to use
-the canoe, without alteration, for wilderness travel. Much later,
-when the original materials used in building were no longer readily
-available, canvas was substituted for bark, and nails for the lashings
-and sewing; but as long as manual propulsion was used, the basic
-models of the bark canoes were retained. Indeed, the models and the
-proportions used in many of these old bark canoes are retained in the
-canoes used today in the wildernesses of northern Canada and Alaska,
-and the same styles may be seen in the canoes used for pleasure in the
-summer resorts of Europe and America. The bark canoe of North America
-shares with the Eskimo kayak the distinction of being one of the few
-primitive craft of which the basic models are retained in the boats of
-civilized man.
-
-It may seem strange, then, that the literature on American bark canoes
-is so limited. Many possible explanations for this might be offered.
-One is that the art of bark canoe building died early, as the Indians
-came into contact with the whites, before there was any attempt fully
-to record Indian culture. The bark canoe is fragile compared to the
-dugout. The latter might last hundreds of years submerged in a bog, but
-the bark canoe will not last more than a few decades. It is difficult,
-in fact, to preserve bark canoes in museums, for as they age and the
-bark becomes brittle, they are easily damaged in moving and handling.
-
-Some small models made by Indians are preserved, but, like most models
-made by primitive men, these are not to any scale and do not show
-with equal accuracy all parts of the canoes they represent. They are,
-therefore, of value only when full-sized canoes of the same type are
-available for comparison, but this is too rarely the case with the
-American Indian bark canoes. Today the builders who might have added to
-our knowledge are long dead.
-
-It might be said fairly that those who had the best opportunities to
-observe, including many whose profession it was to record the culture
-of primitive man, showed little interest in watercraft and have left
-us only the most meager descriptions. Even when the watercraft of the
-primitive man had obviously played a large part in his culture, we
-rarely find a record complete enough to allow the same accuracy of
-reproduction that obtains, say, for his art, his dress, or his pottery.
-Once lost, the information on primitive watercraft cannot, as a rule,
-be recovered.
-
-However, as far as the bark canoes of North America are concerned,
-there was another factor. The student who became sufficiently
-interested to begin research soon discovered that one man was devoting
-his lifetime to the study of these craft; that, in a field with few
-documentary records and fewer artifacts, he had had opportunities for
-detailed examination not open to younger men; and that it was widely
-expected that this man would eventually publish his findings. Hence
-many, who might otherwise have carried on some research and writing,
-turned to other subjects. Practically, then, the whole field had been
-left to Edwin Tappan Adney.
-
-Born at Athens, Ohio, in 1868, Edwin Tappan Adney was the son of
-Professor H. H. Adney, formerly a colonel in a volunteer regiment in
-the Civil War but then on the faculty of Ohio University. His mother
-was Ruth Shaw Adney. Edwin Tappan Adney did not receive a college
-education, but he managed to pursue three years' study of art with
-The Art Students' League of New York. Apparently he was interested in
-ornithology as well as in art, and spent much time in New York museums,
-where he met Ernest Thompson Seton and other naturalists. Being unable
-to afford more study in art school, he went on what was intended to be
-a short vacation, in 1887, to Woodstock, New Brunswick. There he became
-interested in the woods-life of Peter Joe, a Malecite Indian who lived
-in a temporary camp nearby. This life so interested the 19-year-old
-Ohioan that he turned toward the career of an artist-craftsman,
-recording outdoor scenes of the wilderness in pictures.
-
-He undertook to learn the handicrafts of the Indian, in order to
-picture him and his works correctly, and lengthened his stay. In 1889,
-Adney and Peter Joe each built a birch-bark canoe, Adney following and
-recording every step the Indian made during construction. The result
-Adney published, with sketches, in _Harper's Young People_ magazine,
-July 29, 1890, and, in a later version, in _Outing_, May 1900. These,
-so far as is known, are the earliest detailed descriptions of a
-birch-bark canoe, with instructions for building one. Daniel Beard
-considered them the best, and with Adney's permission used the material
-in his _Boating Book for Boys_.
-
-In 1897, Adney went to the Klondike as an artist and special
-correspondent for _Harper's Weekly_ and _The London Chronicle_, to
-report on the gold-rush. He also wrote a book on his experience,
-_Klondike Stampede_, published in 1900. In 1899 he married Minnie Bell
-Sharp, of Woodstock, but by 1900 Adney was again in the Northwest,
-this time as special correspondent for _Colliers_ magazine at Nome,
-Alaska, during the gold-rush of that year. On his return to New
-York, Adney engaged in illustrating outdoor scenes and also lectured
-for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In 1908
-he contributed to a Harper's Outdoor Book for Boys. From New York
-he removed to Montreal and became a citizen of Canada, entering the
-Canadian Army as a Lieutenant of Engineers in 1916. He was assigned
-to the construction of training models and was on the staff of the
-Military College, mustering out in 1919. He then made his home in
-Montreal, engaging in painting and illustrating. From his early years
-in Woodstock he had made a hobby of the study of birch-bark canoes, and
-while in Montreal he became honorary consultant to the Museum of McGill
-University, dealing with Indian lore. By 1925 Adney had assembled a
-great deal of material and, to clarify his ideas, he began construction
-of scale models of each type of canoe, carrying on a very extensive
-correspondence with Indians, factors and other employees (retired and
-active) of the Hudson's Bay Company, and with government agents on the
-Indian Reservations. He also made a number of expeditions to interview
-Indians. Possessing linguistic ability in Malecite, he was much
-interested in all the Indian languages; this helped him in his canoe
-studies.
-
-Owing to personal and financial misfortunes, he and his wife (then
-blind) returned in the early 1930's to her family homestead in
-Woodstock, where Mrs. Adney died in 1937. Adney continued his work
-under the greatest difficulties, including ill-health, until his death,
-October 10, 1950. He did not succeed in completing his research and had
-not organized his collection of papers and notes for publication when
-he died.
-
-Through the farsightedness of Frederick Hill, then director of The
-Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Virginia, Adney had, ten years before
-his death, deposited in the museum over a hundred of his models and a
-portion of his papers. After his death his son Glenn Adney cooperated
-in placing in The Mariners' Museum the remaining papers dealing with
-bark canoes, thus completing the "Adney Collection."
-
-Frederick Hill's appreciation of the scope and value of the collection
-prompted him to seek my assistance in organizing this material with a
-view to publication. Though the Adney papers were apparently complete
-and were found, upon careful examination, to contain an immense amount
-of valuable information, they were in a highly chaotic state. At the
-request of The Mariners' Museum, I have assembled the pertinent papers
-and have compiled from Adney's research notes as complete a description
-as I could of bark canoes, their history, construction, decoration and
-use. I had long been interested in the primitive watercraft of the
-Americas, but I was one of those who had discontinued research on bark
-canoes upon learning of Adney's work. The little I had accomplished
-dealt almost entirely with the canoes of Alaska and British Columbia;
-from these I had turned to dugouts and to the skin boats of the Eskimo.
-Therefore I have faced with much diffidence the task of assembling and
-preparing the Adney papers for publication, particularly since it was
-not always clear what Adney had finally decided about certain matters
-pertaining to canoes. His notes were seldom arranged in a sequence that
-would enable the reader to decide which, of a number of solutions or
-opinions given, were Adney's final ones.
-
-Adney's interest in canoes, as canoes, was very great, but his interest
-in anthropology led him to form many opinions about pre-Columbian
-migrations of Indian tribes and about the significance of the
-decorations used in some canoes. His papers contain considerable
-discussion of these matters, but they are in such state that only an
-ethnologist could edit and evaluate them. In addition, my own studies
-lead me to conclude that the mere examination of watercraft alone is
-insufficient evidence upon which to base opinions as far-reaching as
-those of Adney. Therefore I have not attempted to present in this
-work any of Adney's theories regarding the origin or ethnological
-significance of the canoes discussed. I have followed the same practice
-with those Adney papers which concern Indian language, some of which
-relate to individual tribal canoe types and are contained in the canoe
-material. (Most of his papers on linguistics are now in The Peabody
-Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.)
-
-The strength and weaknesses of Adney's work, as shown in his papers,
-drawings, and models, seem to me to be fully apparent. That part
-dealing with the eastern Indians, with whom he had long personal
-contact, is by far the most voluminous and, perhaps, the most accurate.
-The canoes used by Indians west of the St. Lawrence as far as the
-western end of the Great Lakes and northward to the west side of
-Hudsons Bay are, with a few exceptions, covered in somewhat less
-detail, but the material nonetheless appears ample for our purpose. The
-canoes used in the Canadian Northwest, except those from the vicinity
-of Great Slave Lake, and in Alaska were less well described. It appears
-that Adney had relatively little opportunity to examine closely the
-canoes used in Alaska, during his visit there in 1900, and that he
-later was unable to visit those American museums having collections
-that would have helped him with regard to these areas. As a result, I
-have found it desirable to add my own material on these areas, drawn
-largely from the collections of American museums and from my notes on
-construction details.
-
-An important part of Adney's work deals with the large canoes used in
-the fur trade. Very little beyond the barest of descriptions has been
-published and, with but few exceptions, contemporary paintings and
-drawings of these canoes are obviously faulty. Adney was fortunate
-enough to have been able to begin his research on these canoes while
-there were men alive who had built and used them. As a result he
-obtained information that would have been lost within, at most, the
-span of a decade. His interest was doubly keen, fortunately, for Adney
-not only was interested in the canoes as such, he also valued the
-information for its aid in painting historical scenes. As a result,
-there is hardly a question concerning fur trade canoes, whether of
-model, construction, decoration, or use, that is not answered in his
-material.
-
-I have made every effort to preserve the results of Adney's
-investigations of the individual types in accurate drawings or in the
-descriptions in the text. It was necessary to redraw and complete
-most of Adney's scale drawings of canoes, for they were prepared for
-model-building rather than for publication. Where his drawings were
-incomplete, they could be filled in from his scale models and notes.
-It must be kept in mind that in drawing plans of primitive craft the
-draftsman must inevitably "idealize" the subject somewhat, since a
-drawing shows fair curves and straight lines which the primitive
-craft do not have in all cases. Also, the inboard profiles are
-diagrammatic rather than precise, because, in the necessary reduction
-of the full-size canoe to a drawing, this is the only way to show its
-"form" in a manner that can be interpreted accurately and that can
-be reproduced in a model or full size, as desired. It is necessary
-to add that, though most of the Adney plans were measured from
-full-size canoes, some were reconstructed from Indian models, builders'
-information, or other sources. Thanks to Adney's thorough knowledge of
-bark construction, the plans are highly accurate, but there are still
-chances for error, and these are discussed where they occur.
-
-Although reconstruction of extinct canoe types is difficult, for the
-strange canoes of the Beothuk Indians of Newfoundland Adney appears to
-have solved some of the riddles posed by contemporary descriptions and
-the few grave models extant (the latter may have been children's toys).
-Whether or not his reconstructed canoe is completely accurate cannot be
-determined; at least it conforms reasonably well to the descriptions
-and models, and Adney's thorough knowledge of Indian craftsmanship
-gives weight to his opinions and conclusions. This much can be said:
-the resulting canoe would be a practical one and it fulfills very
-nearly all descriptions of the type known today.
-
-Adney's papers and drawings dealing with the construction of bark
-canoes are most complete and valuable. So complete as to be almost a
-set of "how-to-do-it" instructions, they cover everything from the
-selection of materials and use of tools to the art of shaping and
-building the canoe. An understanding of these building instructions is
-essential to any sound examination of the bark canoes of North America,
-for they show the limitations of the medium and indicate what was and
-what was not reasonable to expect from the finished product.
-
-In working on Adney's papers, it became obvious that this publication
-could not be limited to birch-bark canoes, since canoes built of other
-barks and even some covered with skins appear in the birch bark areas.
-Because of this, and to explain the technical differences between these
-and the birch canoes, skin-covered canoes have been included. I have
-also appended a chapter on Eskimo skin boats and kayaks. This material
-I had originally prepared for inclusion in the _Encyclopedia Arctica_,
-publication of which was cancelled after one volume had appeared. As
-a result, the present work now covers the native craft, exclusive of
-dugouts, of all North America north of Mexico.
-
-In my opinion the value of the information gathered by Edwin Tappan
-Adney is well worth the effort that has been expended to bring it to
-its present form, and any merit that attaches to it belongs largely to
-Adney himself, whose long and painstaking research, carried on under
-severe personal difficulties, is the foundation of this study.
-
-                                                 HOWARD IRVING CHAPELLE
-                                            _Curator of Transportation,
-                                      Museum of History and Technology_
-
-
-
-
-_Chapter One_
-
-EARLY HISTORY
-
-
-The development of bark canoes in North America before the arrival of
-the white men cannot satisfactorily be traced. Unlike the dugout, the
-bark canoe is too perishable to survive in recognizable form buried in
-a bog or submerged in water, so we have little or no visual evidence of
-very great age upon which to base sound assumptions.
-
-Records of bark canoes, contained in the reports of the early white
-explorers of North America, are woefully lacking in detail, but they
-at least give grounds for believing that the bark canoes even then
-were highly developed, and were the product of a very long period of
-existence and improvement prior to the first appearance of Europeans.
-
-The Europeans were most impressed by the fact that the canoes were
-built of bark reinforced by a light wooden frame. The speed with
-which they could be propelled by the Indians also caused amazement,
-as did their light weight and marked strength, combined with a great
-load-carrying capacity in shallow water. It is remarkable, however,
-that although bark canoes apparently aroused so much admiration among
-Europeans, so little of accurate and complete information appears in
-their writings.
-
-With two notable exceptions, to be discussed later, early explorers,
-churchmen, travellers, and writers were generally content merely to
-mention the number of persons in a canoe. The first published account
-of variations in existing forms of the American bark canoe does not
-occur until 1724, and the first known illustration of a bark canoe
-accurate enough to indicate its tribal designation appeared only two
-years earlier. This fact makes any detailed examination of the early
-books dealing with North America quite unprofitable as far as precise
-information on bark canoes is concerned.
-
-The first known reference by a Frenchman to the bark canoe is that of
-Jacques Cartier, who reported that he saw two bark canoes in 1535; he
-said the two carried a total of 17 men. Champlain was the first to
-record any definite dimensions of the bark canoes; he wrote that in
-1603 he saw, near what is now Quebec, bark canoes 8 to 9 paces long
-and 1½ paces wide, and he added that they might transport as much as
-a pipe of wine yet were light enough to be carried easily by one man.
-If a pace is taken as about 30 inches, then the canoes would have
-been between 20 and 23 feet long, between 40 and 50 inches beam and
-capable of carrying about half a ton, English measurements. These were
-apparently Algonkin canoes. Champlain was impressed by the speed of
-the bark canoes; he reported that his fully manned longboat was passed
-by two canoes, each with two paddlers. As will be seen, he was perhaps
-primarily responsible for the rapid adoption of bark canoes by the
-early French in Canada.
-
-The first English reference that has been found is in the records of
-Captain George Weymouth's voyage. He and his crew in 1603 saw bark
-canoes to the westward of Penobscot Bay, on what is now the coast of
-Maine. The English were impressed, just as Champlain had been, by
-the speed with which canoes having but three or four paddlers could
-pass his ship's boat manned with four oarsmen. Weymouth also speaks
-admiringly of the fine workmanship shown in the structure of the canoes.
-
-When Champlain attacked the Iroquois, on what is now Lake Champlain,
-he found that these Indians had "oak" bark (more probably elm) canoes
-capable of carrying 10, 15, and 18 men. This would indicate that the
-maximum size of the Iroquois canoes was about 30 to 33 feet long. The
-illustrations in his published account indicate canoes about 30 feet
-long; but early illustrations of this kind were too often the product
-of the artist's imagination, just as were the delineations of the
-animals and plants of North America.
-
-As an example of what may be deduced from other early French accounts,
-Champlain in 1615, with a companion and 12 Indians, embarked at La
-Chine in two bark canoes for a trip to the Great Lakes. He stated
-that the two canoes, with men and baggage aboard, were over-crowded.
-Taking one of these canoes as having 7 men and baggage aboard, it seems
-apparent that it was not much larger than the largest of the canoes
-Champlain had seen in 1603 on the St. Lawrence. But in 1672, Louis
-Joliet and Father Jacques Marquette traveled in two canoes, carrying
-a total of 5 French and 25 Indians--say 14 in one canoe and 16 in the
-other. These canoes, then, must have been at least 28 feet long over
-the gunwales, exclusive of the round of the ends, or about 30 feet
-overall. The Chevalier Henri de Tonti, one of La Salle's officers,
-mentions a canoe carrying 30 men--probably 14 paddlers on each side, a
-steersman, and a passenger or officer. Such a capacity might indicate
-a canoe about 40 feet over the gunwales, though this seems very long
-indeed; it is more probable that the canoe would be about 36 feet long.
-
-Another of La Salle's officers, Baron de LaHontan, gave the first
-reasonably complete account that has been found of the size and
-character of a birch-bark canoe. This was written at Montreal June 29,
-1684. After stating that he had seen at least a hundred bark canoes in
-his journeys, he said that birch-bark canoes ranged in length from 10
-to 28 _pieds_ and were capable of carrying from 2 to 14 persons. The
-largest, when carrying cargo, might be handled by three men and could
-carry 2,000 pounds of freight (20 quintals). These large canoes were
-safe and never upset. They were built of bark peeled in the winter; hot
-water was thrown on the bark to make it pliable, so that it could be
-rolled up after it was removed from the tree. The canoes were built of
-more than one piece of bark as a rule.
-
-The large canoes, he reports, were 28 _pieds_ long, 4½ _pieds_ wide and
-20 _pouces_ deep, top of gunwale to top of frames on bottom. The last
-indicates "inside" measurement; in this the length would be over the
-gunwales, not overall, and the beam inside the gunwales, not extreme.
-He also says the canoes had a lining or sheathing of cedar "splints"
-or plank and, inside this, cedar ribs or frames. The bark was the
-thickness of an _écu_ (this coin, a crown, was a little less than ⅛
-inch thick), the sheathing the thickness of two _écus_, and the ribs of
-three. The ends of the ribs were pointed and these were seated in holes
-in the underside of the gunwales. There were 8 crosspieces (thwarts)
-between the gunwales (note: such a canoe would commonly have 9 thwarts;
-LaHontan may have erred here).
-
-The canoes were convenient, he says, because of their great lightness
-and shallow draft, but they were easily damaged. Hence they had to be
-loaded and unloaded afloat and usually required repairs to the bark
-covers at the end of each day. They had to be staked down at night,
-so that a strong wind might not damage or blow them away; but this
-light weight permitted them to be carried with ease by two men, one at
-each end, and this suited them for use on the rivers of Canada, where
-rapids and falls made carrying frequently necessary. These canoes were
-of no value on the Lakes, LaHontan states, as they could not be used
-in windy weather; though in good weather they might cross lakes and
-might go four or five leagues on open water. The canoes carried small
-sails, but these could be used only with fair winds of moderate force.
-The paddlers might kneel, sit, or stand to paddle and pole the canoes.
-The paddle blade was 20 _pouces_ long, 6 wide, and 4 _lignes_ thick;
-the handle was of the diameter of a pigeon's egg and three _pieds_
-long. The paddlers also had a "setting pole," to pole the canoes in
-shoal water. The canoes were alike at both ends and cost 80 _écus_
-(LaHontan's cost 90), and would last not more than five or six years.
-The foregoing is but a condensed extract of LaHontan's lively account.
-
-In translating LaHontan's measurements a _pied_ is taken as 12.79
-inches, a _pouce_ as about 1⅛ inches. The French fathom, or _brasse_,
-as used in colonial Canada, was the length from finger-tip to
-finger-tip of the arms outstretched and so varied, but may be roughly
-estimated as about 64 inches; this was the "fathom" used later in
-classing fur-trade canoes for length. In English measurements his
-large canoe would have been about 30 feet long over the gunwales and,
-perhaps, almost 33 feet overall, 57½ inches beam inside the gunwales,
-or about 60 inches extreme beam. The depth inside would be 21 or 21¾
-inches bottom to top of gunwale amidships. LaHontan also described the
-elm-bark canoes of the Iroquois as being large and wide enough to carry
-30 paddlers, 15 on a side, sitting or standing. Here again a canoe
-about 40 feet long is indicated. He said that these elm-bark canoes
-were crude, heavy and slow, with low sides, so that once he and his men
-reached an open lake, he no longer feared pursuit by the Iroquois in
-these craft.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 2
-
-PAGE FROM A MANUSCRIPT OF 1771, "Observations on Hudsons Bay," by
-Alexander Graham, Factor, now in the archives of the Hudson's Bay
-Company in London. The birch-bark canoe at the top, the kayak below,
-and the paddles are obviously drawn by one not trained to observe as an
-artist.]
-
-From the slight evidence offered in such records as these, it appears
-that the Indians may have had, when the Europeans first reached
-Canada, canoes at least as long as the 5-fathom or 5½-fathom canoe
-of later times. It appears also that these dimensions applied to the
-canoes of the Great Lakes area and perhaps to the elm-bark canoes of
-the Iroquois as well. Probably there were canoes as short as 10 feet,
-used as one-man hunting and fishing boats, and it is plainly evident
-that canoes between this length and about 24 feet were very common.
-The evidence in La Salle's time, in the last half of the seventeenth
-century, must be taken with some caution, as French influence on the
-size of large canoes may have by then come into play. The comparison
-between the maximum length of the Iroquois canoes, inferred from the
-report of Champlain, and that suggested by LaHontan, might indicate
-this growth.
-
-Beginning as early as 1660, the colonial government of Canada issued
-_congés_ or trading licenses. These were first granted to the military
-officers or their families; later the _congés_ were issued to all
-approved traders, and the fees were used for pensions of the military
-personnel. Records of these licenses, preserved from about 1700, show
-that three men commonly made up the crew of a trading canoe in the
-earliest years, but that by 1725 five men were employed, by 1737 seven
-men, and by 1747 seven or eight men. However, as LaHontan has stated
-that in his time three men were sufficient to man a large canoe with
-cargo, it is evident that the _congés_ offer unreliable data and do not
-necessarily prove that the size of canoes had increased during this
-period. The increase in the crews may have been brought about by the
-greater distances travelled, with an increased number of portages or,
-perhaps, by heavier items of cargo.
-
-The war canoe does not appear in these early accounts as a special
-type. According to the traditions of the eastern Micmac and Malecite
-Indians, their war canoes were only large enough to carry three or
-four warriors and so must not have exceeded 18 feet in length. These
-were built for speed, narrow and with very sharp ends; the bottom
-was made as smooth as was possible. Each canoe carried the insignia
-of each of its warriors, that is, his personal mark or sign. A canoe
-carrying a war leader had only his personal mark, none for the rest of
-the crew. It is possible to regard the large canoes of the Iroquois
-as "war canoes" since they were used in the pursuit of French raiders
-in LaHontan's time. However, the Iroquois did not build the canoes
-primarily for war; in early times these fierce tribesmen preferred
-to take to the warpath in the dead of winter and to raid overland
-on snowshoes. In open weather, they used the rough, short-lived and
-quickly built elm-bark canoes to cross streams and lakes or to follow
-waterways, discarding them when the immediate purpose was accomplished.
-Probably it was the French who really produced the bark "war canoes,"
-for they appear to have placed great emphasis on large canoes for use
-of the military, as indicated by LaHontan's concern with the largest
-canoes of his time. Perhaps large bark canoes were once used on the
-Great Lakes for war parties, but, if so, no mention of a special type
-has been found in the early French accounts. The sparse references
-suggest that both large and small canoes were used by the war parties
-but that no special type paralleling the characteristics of the Micmac
-and Malecite war canoes existed in the West. The huge dugout war
-canoe of the Indians of the Northwest Coast appears to have had no
-counterpart in size among the birch or elm bark canoes.
-
-Except for LaHontan, the early French writers who refer to the use
-of sail agree that the canoes were quite unfitted for sailing. It is
-extremely doubtful that the prehistoric Indians using bark canoes were
-acquainted with sails, though it is possible that the coastal Indians
-might have set up a bush in the bow to utilize a following wind and
-thus lighten the labor of paddling. However, once the Indian saw the
-usefulness of a sail demonstrated by white men, he was quick to adopt
-it; judging from the LaHontan reference, and the use of sails in canoes
-must have become well established in some areas by 1685.
-
-One of the most important elements in the history of the canoe is its
-early adoption by the French. Champlain was the first to recommend its
-use by white men. He stated that the bark canoe would be very necessary
-in trade and exploration, pointing out that in order to penetrate the
-back country above the rapids at Montreal, during the short summer
-season, and to come back in time to return to France for the winter
-(unless the winter was to be spent in Canada) the canoe would have
-to be used. With it the small and large streams could be navigated
-safely and the numerous overland carries could be quickly made. Also,
-of course, Indians could be employed as crews without the need of
-training them to row. This general argument in favor of the bark canoe
-remained sound after the desirability of going home to France for the
-winter had ceased to influence French ideas. The quick expansion of the
-French fur trade in the early seventeenth century opened up the western
-country into the Great Lakes area and to the northward. It was soon
-discovered that by using canoes on the ancient canoe route along the
-Ottawa River goods could reach the western posts on the Lakes and be
-transported north early enough to reach the northernmost posts before
-the first freeze-up occurred. The use of sailing vessels on the Lakes
-did not enable this to be accomplished, so that until the railroads
-were built in western Canada, the canoe remained the mode of transport
-for the fur trade in this area. Even after the railways were built,
-canoe traffic remained important, until well into the first half of the
-twentieth century as part of the local system of transportation in the
-northwestern country of Canada.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 3
-
-CANOES FROM LAHONTAN'S _Nouveaux Voyages ... dans l'Amerique
-Septentrionale_, showing crude representations typical of early
-writers.]
-
-The unsatisfactory illustrations accompanying early published accounts
-have been mentioned. The earliest recognizable canoe to be shown in
-an illustration is the reasonably accurate drawing of a Micmac canoe
-that appears in Bacqueville de la Poterie's book, published in 1722.
-LaFiteau, another Frenchman, in 1724 published a book that not only
-contains recognizable drawings but points out reasons for the variation
-in the appearance of bark canoes:
-
-  The Abenacquis, for example, are less high in the sides, less
-  large, and more flat at the two ends; in a way they are almost
-  level for their whole extent; because those who travel on their
-  small rivers are sure to be troubled and struck by the branches of
-  trees that border and extend over the water. On the other hand, the
-  Outaouacs [Ottawas] and the nations of the upper country having to
-  do their navigation on the St. Lawrence River where there are many
-  falls and rapids, or especially on the Lakes where there is always
-  a very considerable swell, must have high ends.
-
-His illustrations show that his low-ended canoes were of Micmac type
-but that his high-ended canoes were not of the Ottawa River or Great
-Lakes types but rather of the eastern Malecite of the lower St.
-Lawrence valley. This Jesuit missionary also noted that the canoes were
-alike at the ends and that the paddles were of maple and about 5 feet
-long, with blades 18 inches long and 6 wide. He observed that bark
-canoes were unfitted for sailing.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 4
-
-LINES OF AN OLD BIRCH-BARK CANOE, probably Micmac, brought to England
-in 1749 from New England. This canoe was not alike at both ends,
-although apparently intended to be so by the builder. (_From Admiralty
-Collection of Draughts, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich._)]
-
-The early English settlers of New England and New York were acquainted
-with the canoe forms of eastern Indians such as the Micmac, Malecite,
-Abnaki, and the Iroquois. Surviving records, however, show no detailed
-description of these canoes by an English writer and no illustration
-until about 1750. At this time a bark canoe, apparently Micmac, was
-brought from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to England and delivered to
-Lord Anson who had it placed in the Boat House of the Chatham Dockyard.
-There it was measured and a scale drawing was made by Admiralty
-draftsmen; the drawing is now in the Admiralty Collection of Draughts,
-in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich. A redrawing of this plan
-appears opposite. It probably represents a war canoe, since a narrow,
-sharp-ended canoe is shown. The bottom, neither flat nor fully round,
-is a rounded ~V~-shape; this may indicate a canoe intended for coastal
-waters. Other drawings, of a later date, showing crude plans of canoes,
-exist in Europe but none yet found appear as carefully drawn as the
-Admiralty plan, a scale drawing, which seems to be both the earliest
-and the most accurate 18th-century representation of a tribal type of
-American Indian bark canoe.
-
-Due to the rapid development of the French fur trade, and the attendant
-exploration, a great variety of canoe types must have become known to
-the French by 1750, yet little in the way of drawings and no early
-scale plans have been found. This is rather surprising, not only
-because the opportunity for observation existed but also because a
-canoe factory was actually operated by the French. The memoirs of
-Colonel Franquet, Military Engineer-in-Chief for New France, contain
-extensive references to this factory as it existed in 1751.
-
-The canoe factory was located at Trois Rivières, just below Montreal,
-on the St. Lawrence. A standard large canoe was built, and the rate
-of production was then 20 a year. Franquet gives as the dimensions of
-the canoes the following (converted to English measurement): length
-36 feet, beam about 5½ feet, and depth about 33 inches. Much of his
-description is not clear, but it seems evident that the canoe described
-was very much like the later _grand canot_, or large canoe, of the
-fur trade. The date at which this factory was established is unknown;
-it may have existed as early as 1700, as might have been required by
-the rapid expansion of the French trade and other activities in the
-last half of the previous century. It is apparent from early comments
-that the French found the Indian canoe-builders unreliable, not to say
-most uncertain, as a source of supply. The need for large canoes for
-military and trade operations had forced the establishment of such a
-factory as soon as Europeans could learn how to build the canoes. This
-would, in fact, have been the only possible solution.
-
-Of course, it must not be assumed that the bark canoes were the only
-watercraft used by the early French traders. They used plank boats as
-well, ranging from scows to flat-bottomed bateaux and ship's boats, and
-they also had some early sailing craft built on the Great Lakes and on
-the lower St. Lawrence. The bateau, shaped much like a modern dory but
-with a sharp stern, was adopted by the English settlers as well as the
-French. In early colonial times this form of boat was called by the
-English a "battoe," or "Schenectady Boat," and later, an "Albany Boat."
-It was sharp at both ends, it usually had straight flaring sides with a
-flat bottom, and was commonly built of white pine plank. Some, however,
-had rounded sides and lapstrake planking, as shown by a plan of a
-bateau of 1776 in the Admiralty Collection of Draughts. Early bateaux
-had about the same range of size as the bark canoes but later ones were
-larger.
-
-After the English gained control of Canada, the records of the Hudson's
-Bay Company, and of individual traders and travellers such as Alexander
-Henry, Jr., and Alexander MacKenzie, at the end of the eighteenth
-century, give much material on the fur-trade canoes but little on the
-small Indian canoes. In general, these records show that the fur-trade
-canoe of the West was commonly 24 feet long inside the gunwales,
-exclusive of the curves of bow and stern; 4 feet 9 inches beam; 26
-inches deep; and light enough to be carried by two men, as MacKenzie
-recorded, "three or four miles without resting on a good road." But the
-development of the fur-trade canoes is best left for a later chapter.
-
-The use of the name "canoe" for bark watercraft does not appear to
-been taken from a North American Indian usage. The early French
-explorers and travellers called these craft _canau_ (pl. _canaux_).
-As this also meant "canal," the name _canot_ (pl. _canots_) was soon
-substituted. But some early writers preferred to call the canoe _ecorse
-de bouleau_, or birch-bark, and sometimes the name used was merely the
-generic _petit embarcation_, or small boat. The early English term was
-"canoa," later "canoe." The popular uses of canoe, canoa, _canau_, and
-_canot_ are thought to have begun early in the sixteenth century as the
-adaptation of a Carib Indian word for a dugout canoe.
-
-
-Summary
-
-It will be seen that the early descriptions of the North American
-bark canoes are generally lacking in exact detail. Yet this scanty
-information strongly supports the claim that bark canoes were highly
-developed and that the only influence white men exercised upon their
-design was related to an increase in size of the large canoes that
-may have taken place in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
-centuries. The very early recognition of the speed, fine construction,
-and general adaptability of the bark canoes to wilderness travel
-sustain this view. The two known instances mentioned of early accurate
-illustration emphasize that distinct variations in tribal forms of
-canoes existed, and that these were little changed between early
-colonial times and a relatively recent period, despite steadily
-increasing influence of the European.
-
-
-
-
-_Chapter Two_
-
-MATERIALS and TOOLS
-
-
-Bark of the paper birch was the material preferred by the North
-American Indians for the construction of their canoes, although other
-barks were used where birch was not available. This tree (_Betula
-papyrifera_ Marsh.), also known as the canoe birch, is found in good
-soil, often near streams, and where growing conditions are favorable
-it becomes large, reaching a height of a hundred feet, with a butt
-diameter of thirty inches or more. Its range forms a wide belt
-across the continent, with the northern limits in Canada along a
-line extending westward from Newfoundland to the southern shores of
-Hudson Bay and thence generally northwestward to Great Bear Lake,
-the Yukon River, and the Alaskan coast. The southern limits extend
-roughly westward from Long Island to the southern shores of Lake
-Erie and through central Michigan to Lake Superior, thence through
-Wisconsin, northern Nebraska, and northwesterly through the Dakotas,
-northern Montana, and northern Washington to the Pacific Coast. The
-trees are both abundant and large in the eastern portion of the belt,
-particularly in Newfoundland, Quebec, the Maritime Provinces, Ontario,
-Maine, and New Hampshire, in contrast to the western areas. Near the
-limits of growth to the north and south the trees are usually small and
-scattered.
-
-The leaves are rather small, deep green, and pointed-oval, and are
-often heart-shaped at the base. The edges of the leaves are rather
-coarsely toothed along the margin, which is slightly six-notched. The
-small limbs are black, sometimes spotted with white, and the large are
-white.
-
-The bark of the tree has an aromatic odor when freshly peeled, and is
-chalky white marked with black splotches on either side of limbs or
-where branches have grown at one time. Elsewhere on the bark, dark,
-or black, horizontal lines of varying lengths also appear. The lower
-part of the tree, to about the height of winter snows, has bark that
-is usually rough, blemished and thin; above this level, to the height
-of the lowest large limbs, the bark is often only slightly blemished
-and is thick and well formed. The bark is made up of paper-like
-layers, their color deepens with each layer from the chalky white of
-the exterior through creamy buff to a light tan on the inner layer. A
-gelatinous greenish to yellow rind, or cambium layer, lies between the
-bark and the wood of the trunk; its characteristics are different from
-those of the rest of the bark. The horizontal lines that appear on each
-successive paper-like layer do not appear on the rind.
-
-The thickness of the bark cannot be judged from the size of a tree
-and may vary markedly among trees of the same approximate size in a
-single grove. The thickness varies from a little less than one-eighth
-to over three-sixteenths inch; bark with a thickness of one-quarter
-inch or more is rarely found. For canoe construction, bark must be over
-one-eighth inch thick, tough, and from a naturally straight trunk of
-sufficient diameter and length to give reasonably large pieces. The
-"eyes" must be small and not so closely spaced as to allow the bark to
-split easily in their vicinity.
-
-The bark can be peeled readily when the sap is flowing. In winter,
-when the exterior of the tree is frozen, the bark can be removed only
-when heat is applied. During a prolonged thaw, however, this may be
-accomplished without the application of heat. Bark peeled from the tree
-during a winter thaw, and early in the spring or late in the fall,
-usually adheres strongly to the inner rind, which comes away from the
-tree with the bark. The act of peeling, however, puts a strain on the
-bark, so that only tough, well-made bark can be removed under these
-conditions. This particular characteristic caused Indians in the east
-to call bark with the rind adhering "winter bark," even though it might
-have been peeled from a tree during the warm weather of early summer.
-Since in large trees the flow of sap usually starts later than in small
-ones, the period in which good bark is obtainable may extend into late
-June in some localities. Upon exposure to air and moisture, the inner
-rind first turns orange-red and gradually darkens with age until in a
-few years it becomes dark brown, or sepia. If it is first moistened,
-the rind can be scraped off, and this allowed it to be employed in
-decoration, enough being left to form designs. Hence winter bark was
-prized.
-
-To the eastern Indians "summer bark" was a poor grade that readily
-separated into its paper-like layers, a characteristic of bark peeled
-in hot weather, or of poorly made bark in any season. In the west,
-however, high-quality bark was often scarce and, therefore, the
-distinction between winter and summer bark does not seem to have been
-made. Newfoundland once had excellent canoe bark, as did the Maritime
-Provinces, Maine, New Hampshire, and Quebec, but the best bark was
-found back from the seacoast. Ontario and the country to the immediate
-north of Lake Superior are also said to have produced bark of high
-quality for canoe building.
-
-The bark of the paper birch was preferred for canoe building because
-it could be obtained in quite large sheets clear of serious blemishes;
-because its grain ran around the tree rather than along the line of
-vertical tree growth, so that sheets could be "sewn" together to obtain
-length in a canoe; and because the bark was resinous and not only did
-not stretch and shrink as did other barks, but also had some elasticity
-when green, or when kept damp. This elasticity, of course, was lost
-once the bark was allowed to become dry through exposure to air and
-sunshine, a factor which controlled to some extent the technique of its
-employment.
-
-Many other barks were employed in bark canoe construction, but in
-most instances the craft were for temporary or emergency use and were
-discarded after a short time. Such barks as spruce (_Picea_), elm
-(_Ulmus_), chestnut (_Castenea dentata L._), hickory (_Carya_ spp.),
-basswood (_Tilia_ spp.), and cottonwood (_Populus_ spp.) are said
-to have been used in bark canoe construction in some parts of North
-America. Birches other than the paper birch could be used, but most of
-them produced bark that was thin and otherwise poor, and was considered
-unsuitable for the better types of canoes. Barks other than birch
-usually had rough surfaces that had to be scraped away, in order to
-make the material flexible enough for canoe construction. Spruce bark
-had some of the good qualities of the paper birch bark, but to a far
-less degree, and was considered at best a mere substitute. Non-resinous
-barks, because of their structure could not be joined together to
-gain length, and their characteristic shrinkage and swelling made it
-virtually impossible to keep them attached to a solid framework for any
-great length of time.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 5
-
-OJIBWAY INDIAN carrying spruce roots, Lac Seul, Ont., 1919. (_Canadian
-Geological Survey photo._)]
-
-The material used for "sewing" together pieces of birch bark was most
-commonly the root of the black spruce (_Picea mariana_ (Mill.) B.S.P.),
-which grows in much of the area where the paper birch exists. The root
-of this particular spruce is long but of small diameter; it is tough,
-durable, and flexible enough for the purpose. The tree usually grows
-in soft, moist ground, so that the long roots are commonly very close
-to the surface, where they could easily be dug up with a sharp stick
-or with the hands. In some areas of favorable growing conditions, the
-roots of the black spruce could be obtained in lengths up to 20 feet,
-yet with a maximum diameter no larger than that of a lead pencil.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 6
-
-ROLL OF BARK FOR A HUNTING CANOE. Holding the bark is the intended
-builder, Vincent Mikans, then (in 1927), at age 100, the oldest Indian
-on the Algonkin Reserve at Golden Lake, Ont.]
-
-Other roots could be used in an emergency, such as those of the other
-spruces, as well as of the northern white-cedar (_Thuja occidentalis_
-L.), tamarack (hackmatack or eastern larch) (_Laris laricina_ (Du Roi)
-K. Koch) and jack pine (_pinus banksiana_ Lamb.), the last named being
-used extensively by some of the western tribes. Although inferior to
-the black spruce for sewing, these and other materials were used for
-sewing bark; even rawhide was employed for some purposes in canoe
-construction by certain tribes.
-
-Canoes built of nonresinous barks were usually lashed, instead of sewn,
-by thongs of such material as the inner bark of the northern white
-cedar, basswood, elm, or hickory, for the reason stated earlier. Spruce
-root was also used for lashings, if readily available. Since sheets of
-birch bark were joined without employing a needle, the sewing actually
-could more correctly be termed lacing, rather than stitching. But for
-the nonresinous barks, which could stand little sewing or lacing,
-perhaps lashing is the better term.
-
-Before steel tools became available to the Indians, the woodwork
-required in constructing a birch-bark canoe represented great labor,
-since stone tools having poor cutting characteristics were used.
-Selection of the proper wood was therefore a vital consideration. In
-most sections of the bark canoe area, the northern white cedar was
-the most sought-for wood for canoe construction. This timber had the
-excellent characteristic of splitting cleanly and readily when dry and
-well-seasoned. As a result, the Indian could either utilize fallen
-timber of this species, windblown or torn up in spring floods; with the
-crude means available he could fell a suitable tree well in advance of
-his needs; or he could girdle the tree so that it would die and season
-on the stump and then fell it at his convenience. If split properly,
-ribs of white cedar could be bent and set in shape by the use of hot
-water. In many areas the ribs, sheathing, and the gunwale members of
-bark canoes were made of this wood, as were also the headboards and
-stem pieces.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 7
-
-White cedar Black spruce
-
-Wood-splitting techniques]
-
-Black spruce was also employed, as it too would split well, although
-only when green. This wood also required a different direction in
-splitting than the white cedar. Ribs of black spruce could be bent and
-set in shape when this was done while the wood was green. In some areas
-black spruce was used in place of white cedar for all parts of a bark
-canoe structure.
-
-Hard maple (usually either _Acer saccharum_ Marsh. or _A. nigrum_
-Michx.), can be split rather easily while green; this wood was used
-for the crosspieces or thwarts that hold the gunwales apart and for
-paddles. Larch, particularly western larch (_Larix occidentalis_
-Nutt.), was used in some areas for canoe members. White and black ash
-(_Fraxinus americana_ L. and _F. nigra_ Marsh.), were also used where
-suitable wood of these species was available. In the northwest, spruce
-and various pines were employed, as was also willow (_Salix_). It
-should be noted that the use of many woods in bark canoe construction
-can be identified only in the period after steel tools became
-available; it must be assumed that the range of selection was much
-narrower in prehistoric times.
-
-To make a bark cover watertight, it is necessary to coat all seams
-and to cover all "sewing" with a waterproof material, of which the
-most favored by the Indians was "spruce gum," the resin obtained from
-black or white spruce (_Picea mariana_ or _P. glauca_ (Moench) Voss).
-The resin of the red spruce (_Picea rubens_ Sarg.) was not used, so
-far as has been discovered. The soft resin was scraped from a fallen
-tree or from one damaged in summer. Spruce gum could be accumulated by
-stripping a narrow length of bark from trees early in the spring and
-then, during warm weather, gathering the resin that appeared at the
-bottoms of the scars thus made. It was melted or heated in various ways
-to make it workable and certain materials were usually added to make it
-durable in use.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 8
-
-Stone axe]
-
-The most important aids to the Indian in canoe construction were his
-patience, knowledge of the working qualities of materials, his manual
-skill with the crude cutting, scraping, and boring instruments known
-to him, and of course fire; time was, perforce, of less importance. The
-canoe builder had to learn by experience and close observation how to
-work the material available. The wood-working tools of the stone age
-were relatively inefficient, but with care and skill could be used with
-remarkable precision and neatness.
-
-Felling of trees was accomplished by use of a stone axe, hatchet, or
-adze, combined with the use of fire. The method almost universally
-employed by primitive people was followed. The tree was first girdled
-by striking it with the stone tool to loosen and raise the wood fibers
-and remove the soft green bark. Above this girdle the trunk was daubed
-all around with wet earth, or preferably clay. A large, hot fire was
-then built around the base of the tree and, after the loose fibers were
-burned away and the wood well charred, the char was removed by blows
-from the stone tool. The process was repeated until the trunk was cut
-through enough for the tree to fall. The fallen trunk could be cut into
-sections by employing the same methods, mud being laid on each side
-of the "cut" to prevent the fire from spreading along the trunk. Fire
-could also be used to cut down poles and small trees, to cut them into
-sections, and to sharpen the ends into points to form crude wedges or
-stakes.
-
-Stone tools were formed by chipping flint, jasper, or other forms of
-quartz, such as chalcedony, into flakes with sharp edges. This was done
-by striking the nodule of stone a sharp blow with another stone held
-in the hand or mounted in a handle of hide or wood to form a stone
-hammer. The flakes were then shaped by pressing the edges with a horn
-point--say, part of a deer antler--to force a chip from the flake. The
-chipping tool was sometimes fitted with a hide or wood handle set at
-right angles to the tool, so that its head could be hit with a stone or
-horn hammer. The flake being worked upon, if small, was often held in
-the hand, which was protected from the slipping of a chipping tool by
-a pad of rawhide. Heat was not used in chipping, and some Indians took
-care to keep the flake damp while working it, occasionally burying the
-flake for a while in moist soil. The cutting edge of a stone tool could
-be ground by abrasion on a hard piece of granite or on sandstone, but
-the final degree of sharpness depended upon the qualities of the stone
-being used as a tool. Slate could be used in tools in spite of its
-brittleness. In general, stone tools were unsuitable for chopping or
-whittling wood.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 9
-
-Stone hammer
-
-Stone wedge
-
-Stone knife with rawhide thong handle]
-
-Splitting was done by starting the split at the upper, or small end, of
-a balk of timber with a maul and a stone wedge or the blade of a stone
-axe, hatchet, or knife. The stone knives used for this work were not
-finished tools with wood handles, but rather, as the blade was often
-damaged in use, selected flakes fitted with hide pads that served as
-a handle. The tool was usually driven into the wood with blows from a
-wooden club or maul, the brittle stone tool being protected from damage
-by a pad of rawhide secured to the top, or head, of the tool. Once the
-split was started, it could be continued by driving more wedges, or
-pointed sticks, into the split; this process was continued until the
-whole balk was divided. White cedar was split into quarters by this
-method and then the heartwood was split away, the latter being used for
-canoe structural members. From short balks of the length of the longest
-rib or perhaps a little more, were split battens equal in thickness
-to two ribs and in width also equal to two, so that by splitting one
-batten two ways four finished ribs were produced. The broad faces
-of the ribs were as nearly parallel to the bark side of the wood as
-possible, as the ribs would bend satisfactorily toward or away from the
-bark side only. Black spruce, however, was split in line with the wood
-rays, from the heart outward toward the bark, so that one of the rib's
-narrow edges faced the bark side; only in this direction would the wood
-split readily and only when made this way would the ribs bend without
-great breakage.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 10
-
-Wooden mauls
-
-(2, 3 used to set ribs with 4, 5)
-
-Driving sticks]
-
-Long pieces for sheathing and for the gunwale members were split
-from white cedar or black spruce. The splitting of such long pieces
-as these required not only proper selection of clear wood, but also
-careful manipulation of wood and tools in the operation. Splitting of
-this kind--say, for ribs in the finish cut--was usually done by first
-splitting out a batten large enough to form two members. To split it
-again, a stone knife was tapped into the end grain to start the split
-at the desired point, which, as has been noted, was always at the upper
-end of the stick, not at the root end. Once the split was opened, it
-was continued by use of a sharp-pointed stick and the stone knife;
-if the split showed a tendency to run off the grain as it opened, it
-could be controlled by bending the batten, or one of the halves, away
-from the direction the split was taking. The first rough split usually
-served to show the worker the splitting characteristics of a piece of
-wood. This method of finishing frame members in bark canoes accounts
-for the uneven surfaces that often mark some parts, a wavy grain
-producing a wave in the surface of the wood when it was finished. If
-it were desired to produce a partially split piece of wood, such as
-some tribal groups used for the stems, or in order to allow greater
-curvature at the ends of the gunwale, the splitting was stopped at the
-desired point and a tight lashing of rawhide or bark was placed there
-to form a stop.
-
-The tapering of frames, gunwales, and thwarts and the shaping of
-paddles were accomplished by splitting away surplus wood along the
-thin edges and by abrasion and scraping on all edges. Stone scrapers
-were widely employed; shell could be employed in some areas. Rubbing
-with an abrasive such as soft sandstone was used when the wood became
-thoroughly dry; hardwood could often be polished by rubbing it with a
-large piece of wood, or by use of fine sand held in a rawhide pad. By
-these means the sharp edges could be rounded off and the final shaping
-accomplished. Some stone knives could be used to cut wood slowly, saw
-fashion, and this process appears to to have been used to form the
-thwart ends that in many canoes were tenoned into the gunwales. A stone
-knife used saw fashion would also cut a bent sapling easily, though
-slowly. To cut and trim bark a stone knife was employed; to peel bark
-from a tree, a hatchet, axe, or chisel could be used.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 11
-
-Stone scraper]
-
-Drilling was done by means of a bone awl made from a splinter of the
-shank-bone of a deer; the blade of this awl had a roughly triangular
-cross-section. The splinter was held in a wooden handle or in a rawhide
-grip. The awl was used not only to make holes in wood, but also as the
-punch to make holes for "sewing" in bark. Large holes were drilled by
-means of the bow-drill, in which a stone drill-point was rotated back
-and forth by the bow-string. Some Indians rotated the drill between the
-palms of their hands, or by a string with handgrips at each end. The
-top of the drill was steadied by a block held in the worker's mouth,
-the top rotating in a hole in the underside of the block. With the
-bow-drill, however, the block was held in one hand.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 12
-
-Bow Drill]
-
-Peeling the bark from roots and splitting them was done by use of the
-thumbnail, a stone knife, or a clamshell. Biting was also resorted
-to. The end of a root could also be split by first pounding it with a
-stone, using a log or another stone as an anvil, to open the fibers
-at one end. Splitting a root was usually done by biting to start the
-split. Once this was done, half was held in the mouth and the other
-half between the thumb and forefinger of the right hand. Then the
-two parts were gradually pulled apart with the right hand, while the
-thumbnail of the left was used to guide the split. If the split showed
-a tendency to "run off," bending the root away from the direction of
-the run while continuing the splitting usually served to change the
-course of the split. If a root was hard to split, the stone knife
-came into play instead of the thumbnail. When the split reached arm's
-length, the ends were shifted in hand and mouth and the operation
-continued.
-
-The use of hot water as an aid in bending wood was well known to
-some tribal groups before the white man came. Water was placed in a
-wooden trough, or in a bark basin, and heated to boiling by dropping
-hot stones into it. Some Indians boiled water in bark utensils by
-placing them over a fire of hot coals surrounded by stones and earth
-so that the flame could not reach the highly inflammable bark above
-the water-level in the dish. Stones were lifted from the fire with
-wooden tongs made of green saplings bent into a ~U~-shape or made
-into a spoon-like outline. A straight stick and a forked one, used
-together, formed another type of tongs. The straight stick was placed
-in and under the fork; then, by forcing the latter under the stone and
-bringing the end of the straight stick hard against its top, the stone
-was held firmly, pincer-fashion.
-
-The wood to be bent was first soaked in the boiling water, or the water
-was poured over it by means of a birch-bark or other dipper. When the
-wood was thoroughly soaked with boiling water, bending began, and as
-it progressed boiling water was almost continuously poured on the
-wood. When the wood had been bent to a desired form, it was secured in
-shape by thongs and allowed to cool and dry out, during which it would
-take a permanent set. Hard bends, as in gunwale ends and stem-pieces,
-were made by this means, usually after the wood had been split into a
-number of laminations in the area of the greatest bend. When the piece
-had been boiled and bent to its required form, the laminations were
-secured by wrapping them spirally with a thong of inner bark (such as
-basswood), of roots, or of rawhide.
-
-Flat stones were used to weigh down bark in order to flatten it and
-prevent curling. Picked up about the canoe-building site, they had
-one smooth and fairly flat surface so that no harm came to the bark,
-and were of such size and weight as could be handled easily by the
-builder. Smooth stones from a stream appear to have been preferred. In
-preparation for building a canoe, the pins, stakes, and poles which
-were of only temporary use were cut or burned down in the manner
-mentioned and stored ready for use. Bark containers were made and
-filled with spruce gum, and the materials used in making it hard and
-durable were gathered. The building site was selected in the shade,
-to prevent the bark from becoming hard and brittle, and on ground
-that was smooth, clear of outcroppings of stone, and roots, or other
-obstructions, and firm enough to hold the stakes driven into it. The
-location was, of course, usually near the water where the canoe was to
-be launched.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 13
-
-Modern Hudson Bay axe]
-
-When steel tools became available, the work of the Indian in cutting
-and shaping wood became much easier but it is doubtful that better
-workmanship resulted. The steel axe and hatchet made more rapid and
-far easier than before the felling and cutting up of trees, poles, and
-sticks; they could also be used in peeling bark. The favored style of
-axe among Canadian Indians was what is known as the "Hudson Bay axe";
-it is made as a fairly large or "full-axe," as a lighter "half-axe,"
-and as a large hatchet, or hand-axe. The head of the blade is very
-narrow, the front of the blade vertical, while the back widens toward
-the cutting edge and the latter stands at a slightly acute angle to the
-front of the blade. This style of axe seems to follow the traditional
-form of the tomahawk and is popular because it cuts well, yet is
-lighter to carry than the other forms of axe. It is also called a
-"cedar axe" in some localities. In modern times, Indian hatchets are of
-the commercial variety, the "lathing" form being preferred because it
-holds somewhat to the old trade tomahawk in form of blade and weight.
-The traditional steel tomahawk, incidentally was an adaptation of one
-of the European forms of hatchet, sold in the early days of the fur
-trade.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 14
-
-Steel tomahawk (fur trade)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 15
-
-Steel canoe awls]
-
-The "canoe awl" of the fur trade was a steel awl with a blade
-triangular or square in cross-section, and was sometimes made of an old
-triangular file of small size. Its blade was locked into a hardwood
-handle, and it was a modern version of the old bone awl of the bark
-canoe builders, hence its name.
-
-The plane was also used by modern Indians, but not in white man's
-fashion, in which the wood is held in a vise and smoothed by sliding
-the tool forward over the work. The Indian usually fixed the plane
-upside down on a bench or timber and slid the work over the sole, much
-as would be done with a power-driven joiner. However, the plane was not
-very popular among any of the canoe-building Indians.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 16
-
-Crooked knives]
-
-The boring tool most favored by the Indians was the common steel
-gimlet; if a larger boring tool was desired, an auger of the required
-diameter was bought and fitted with a removable cross-handle rather
-than a brace.
-
-One steel tool having much popularity among canoe-building Indians was
-the pioneer's splitting tool known as the "froe." This was a heavy
-steel blade, fifteen to twenty inches long, about two inches wide, and
-nearly a quarter inch thick along its back. One end of the blade ended
-in a tight loop into which a heavy hardwood handle, about a foot long,
-was set at right angles to the back edge of the blade, so that, when
-held in the hand, the blade was cutting edge down, with the handle
-upright. The froe was driven into the end of a balk of timber to be
-split by blows from a wooden maul on the back of its blade. Once the
-split was started, the maul was dropped and the hand that had held it
-was placed at the end of the blade away from the handle. By twisting
-the blade with the two hands the split could be forced open. The froe
-was a most powerful and efficient splitting tool when narrow, short
-plank, or battens, were required. The balk to be split was usually
-placed more or less end-up, as its length permitted, in the crotch of a
-felled tree, so as to hold it steady during the splitting. The pioneer
-used this tool to make clapboards and riven shingles; the Indian canoe
-builder found it handy for all splitting.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 17
-
-Froe]
-
-Another pioneer tool that became useful to the Indian canoe builder was
-the "shaving horse." A sort of bench and vise, it was used by Indians
-in a variety of forms, all based on the same principle of construction.
-Usually a seven-foot-long bench made of a large log flattened on top
-was supported by two or four legs, one pair being high enough to
-raise that end of the bench several feet off the ground to provide a
-seat for the operator. To the top of the bench was secured a shorter,
-wedge-shaped piece flattened top and bottom, with one end beveled and
-fastened to the bench and the other held about 12 inches above it by a
-support tenoned into the bench about thirty inches from the high end.
-Through the bench and the shorter piece were cut slots, about four feet
-from the high end of the bench and aligned to receive an arm pivoted on
-the bench and extending from the ground to above the upper slot. The
-arm was shaped to overhang the slot on the front, toward the operator's
-end of the bench, and on each side. The lower portion of the arm was
-squared to fit the slot, and a crosspiece was secured to, or through,
-its lower end.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 18
-
-SHAVING HORSE.]
-
-The worker sat astraddle the high end of the bench, facing the low end,
-with his feet on the crosspiece of the pivoted arm. Placing a piece of
-wood on top of the wedge-shaped piece, close to the head of the pivoted
-arm, he pushed forward on the crosspiece with his feet, thus forcing
-the head down hard upon the wood, so that it was held as in a vise. The
-wood could then be shaved down to a required shape with a drawknife or
-crooked knife without the necessity of holding the work. A long piece
-was canted on top of the bench so that the finished part would pass by
-the body of the worker, and, if it were necessary to shape the full
-length, it could be reversed.
-
-Nails and tacks eventually came into use, though they were never used
-in all phases of the construction of a particular canoe. In the last
-days of bark canoe construction, the bark was tacked to the gunwales
-and, in areas where a gunwale cap was customarily employed, the cap was
-often nailed to the top of the gunwales.
-
-The "bucksaw" also came into the hands of the Indians, but the frame of
-this saw was too awkward to carry, so the Indian usually bought only
-the blade. With a couple of nails and a bent sapling he could make a
-very good frame in the woods, when the saw was required. The ends of
-the sapling were slotted to take the ends of the blade and then drilled
-crosswise to the slot, so a nail could be inserted to hold the ends of
-blade and sapling together. With the end of the nail bent over, the
-frame was locked together and the tension was given to the blade by the
-bent sapling handle.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 19
-
-Bucksaw]
-
-The "crooked knife" was the most important and popular steel tool found
-among the Indians building bark canoes. It was made from a flat steel
-file with one side worked down to a cutting-edge. The back of the
-blade thus formed was usually a little less than an eighth of an inch
-thick. The cutting edge was bevel-form, like that of a drawknife or
-chisel, with the back face quite flat. The tang of the file was fitted
-into a handle made of a crotched stick, to one arm of which the tang
-was attached, while the other projected at a slightly obtuse angle
-away from the back of the blade. The tang was usually held in place
-by being bent at its end into a slight hook and let into the handle,
-where it was secured with sinew lashing; wire later came into use for
-this lashing. The knife, held with the cutting edge toward the user,
-was grasped fingers-up with the thumb of the holding hand laid along
-the part of the handle projecting away from the user. This steadied the
-knife in cutting. Unlike a jackknife, the crooked knife was not used
-to whittle but to cut toward the user, and was, in effect, a one-hand
-drawknife. This form of knife is so satisfactory that it is to this day
-employed instead of a drawknife by many boat-builders in New Brunswick
-and Quebec. A variation in the crooked knife has the tip of the blade
-turned upward, on the flat, so that it can be used in hollowing out
-a wooden bowl or dish. The blades of crooked knives seen are usually
-about five-eighths inch wide and perhaps five or six inches long. Some
-are only slightly beveled along the cutting edge; others show this
-feature very markedly.
-
-Awls, as well as chisels and other stone or bone blades, often had
-handles on their sides to allow them to be held safely when hit with
-a hammer. Some of the stone blades and chisels thus took the form of
-adzes and could be used like them, but only, of course, to cut charred
-or very soft wood. The sharpening of stone tools followed the same
-methods used in their original manufacture and was a slow undertaking.
-
-To some Indians an efficient wood-cutting chisel was available in the
-teeth of the beaver. Each tooth was nearly a quarter inch wide, so
-two teeth would give a cut of nearly half an inch. The usual practice
-appears to have been to employ the skull as a handle, though some
-beaver tooth chisels had wooden handles. As used in making tenons in
-the gunwales, two holes, of a diameter equal to the desired width, were
-first drilled close enough together to make the length of the desired
-tenon, after which the intervening wood, especially if it was white
-cedar or black spruce, could be readily split out by means of either a
-beaver tooth or narrow stone chisel.
-
-The maul was merely some form of wooden club; the most common type
-was made by cutting away part of the length of a small balk to form a
-handle, the remainder being left to form the head. The swelling of the
-trunk of a small tree at the ground, where the roots form, was also
-utilized to give weight and bulk to the head of a maul. It could be
-hardened by scorching the head in a fire. Another method of pounding
-and driving was to employ a stone held in one hand or both. Stone
-hammers were rarely employed, since the maul or a stone held in the
-hand would serve the purpose.
-
-The birch tree that was to supply the bark was usually selected far in
-advance of the time of construction. By exploring the birch groves,
-the builder located a number of trees from which a suitable quantity
-of bark of the desired quality could be obtained. Samples of the bark
-of each tree were stripped from the trunk and carefully inspected and
-tested. If they separated into layers when bent back and forth, the
-bark was poor. If the "eyes" inside the bark were lumpy, the bark in
-their vicinity would split too easily; this was also true if they were
-too close together, but if the eyes on the inside of the bark appeared
-hollow there was no objection. Bark that was dead white, or the outer
-surface of which was marked by small strips partly peeled away from the
-layer below, would be rejected as poor in quality.
-
-Preferably, bark was stripped from the selected trees during a
-prolonged thaw in winter, particularly one accompanied by rain, or as
-soon as the sap in the trees had begun to flow in early spring. If this
-was not possible, "winter" bark, as described on page 14, was used as
-long as it was obtainable. Only dire necessity forced the Indian to use
-bark of a poor quality. Fall peeling, after the first frosts, was also
-practiced in some areas. The work on the tree was done from stages made
-of small trees whose branches could be used in climbing, or from rough
-ladders constructed of short rungs lashed to two poles. When steel axes
-and hatchets were available the tree could be felled, provided care was
-taken to have it fall on poles laid on the ground to prevent damage
-to the bark in the fall and to keep the trunk high enough to allow it
-to be peeled. Felling permitted use of hot water to heat the bark,
-and thus made peeling possible in colder weather than would permit
-stripping a standing tree. Felling by burning, however, sometimes
-resulted in an uncontrolled fall in which the bark could be damaged.
-
-Whether stone or steel knives were used, the bark was cut in the same
-manner, with the blade held at an angle to make a slashing cut; holding
-a sharp knife upright, so as to cut square to the surface of the bark,
-makes the tool stick and jump, and a ragged cut results. A stone or
-steel axe blade could also very readily be used in cutting bark; with
-such tools, it was customary to tap the head with a maul to make the
-cut. It was necessary to make only the longitudinal cut on the trunk of
-the birch tree, as the bark would split around the tree with the grain
-at the ends of this cut. Spruce and other barks, however, required both
-vertical and horizontal cuts.
-
-Once the vertical cut was made to the desired length, one edge of the
-bark was carefully pried away from the wood with the blade of a knife.
-Then the removal of the bark could proceed more rapidly. Instead of
-starting the bark with a knife blade, some Indians used a small stick,
-one end of which was slightly bent and made into a chisel shape about
-three-quarters of an inch wide. This was used to pry the bark away, not
-only along the edge of the vertical cut, but throughout the operation
-of peeling. Another tool, useful in obtaining "winter" bark, which was
-difficult to strip from the tree, was a piece of dry, thick birch bark,
-about a foot square, with one edge cut in a slight round and beveled to
-a sharp edge. The beveled side was inserted beneath the bark and rocked
-on its curved cutting edge, thus separating the bark from the wood with
-less danger of splitting the bark. Spruce and other barks were removed
-from the tree with the same tools.
-
-After the bark had been removed from the tree, it was handled with
-great care to avoid splitting it along the grain. Even in quite warm
-weather, the bark was usually heated slightly with a bark torch to make
-it flexible; sometimes hot water was applied if the inner rind was not
-to be used for decoration. Then the sheets were rolled up tightly in
-the direction of growth of the tree. This made a roll convenient for
-transporting and also helped to prevent the bark from curling. If the
-bark was not to be used immediately, it was carefully submerged in
-water so that it would not dry out before it was fitted to the canoe.
-Spruce and other resinous barks, which could not be stored, were used
-as soon as possible after they were stripped from the tree, the rough
-exterior surface being removed by scraping.
-
-Roots for "sewing" were also gathered, split, and rolled up, then
-placed in water so they would remain flexible. Sometimes they were
-boiled as well, just before being used.
-
-The spruce gum was gathered and tempered. Before metal kettles and
-frying pans became available to the Indians, it was heated in a number
-of ways. One method was to heat it in a wooden trough with hot stones.
-As the spruce gum melted easily, great temperature was not required.
-Stone and pottery containers were also used. Another method was to boil
-water in a bark container and drop in the spruce gum, which melted and
-floated on top of the water in such a consistency that it could be
-skimmed off with a bark spoon or dipper. Chips and dirt were skimmed
-off the hot gum with a strip of bark or a flat stick.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 20
-
-PEELING, ROLLING, AND TRANSPORTING bark for use in canoe construction.
-(_Sketches by Adney._)]
-
-Tempering, done after the gum was melted, consisted of adding animal
-fat and a little finely powdered charcoal. The mixture was then tested
-by dipping a strip of bark into it and then into cold water. The strip
-was bent to see if it cracked the spruce gum; if it did, too much
-tempering material had been added and more gum was required. If no
-cracking occurred, the gum on the strip was held in the hand for a few
-moments to see if it became tacky or could be rubbed off the strip; if
-either occurred, more tempering was needed. The method of tempering
-had many variations. One was to remelt the gum a number of times; this
-darkened it and made it harder. Red ochre or vermillion were sometimes
-added, often together with charcoal made from the willow. Instead of
-spruce gum, in some areas, pine resin was used, tempered with tallow
-and sometimes charcoal. The Indians in the East sometimes used remelted
-spruce gum to which a little tallow had been added, making a light
-brown or almost transparent mixture. Most tribal groups used gum that
-was black, or nearly so.
-
-For repair work, when melted spruce gum could not be procured in the
-usual manner, hard globules and flakes of gum scraped from a fallen
-spruce tree were used. These could not be easily melted, so they were
-first chewed thoroughly until soft; then the gum was spread over a
-seam. This type of gum would not stick well unless it were smoothed
-with a glowing stick, and hence was used only in emergencies.
-
-It is believed that before steel tools were available birch-bark canoes
-were commonly built of a number of sheets of bark rather than, as quite
-often occurred in later times, of only one or two sheets. The greater
-number of sheets in the early canoes resulted from the difficulty in
-obtaining large sheets from a standing tree. Comparison of surviving
-birch-bark canoes suggests that those built of a number of sheets
-would have contained the better bark, as large sheets often included
-bark taken from low on the trunk, and this, as has been mentioned, is
-usually of poorer quality than that higher on the trunk.
-
-It is known that the early Indians carried on some trade in bark canoe
-building materials, as they did in stone for weapons and tools. Areas
-in which some materials were scarce or of poor quality might thus
-obtain replacements from more fortunate areas. Fine quality bark,
-"sewing" roots, and good spruce gum had trade value, and these items
-were sold by some of the early fur traders. Paint does not appear to
-have been used on early canoes, except, in some instances, on the
-woodwork. This use occurred mostly in the East, particularly among the
-Beothuks in Newfoundland. Paint was apparently not used on birch bark
-until it was introduced by white men in the fur trade.
-
-
-Summary
-
-It will be seen that the Indian gathered all materials and prepared
-them for use with only a few simple tools, most of which could be
-manufactured at the building site and discarded after the work was
-completed. The only other tools he usually brought to the scene were
-those he normally required in his everyday existence in the forest.
-Some instruments used in canoe building, however, might be preserved;
-these were the measuring sticks on which were marked, by notches,
-certain measurements to be used in shaping a canoe. Also, some Indians
-used a building frame that shaped the bottom in plan view. These are
-best described when the actual building methods are examined.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 21
-
-BUILDING FRAME FOR A LARGE CANOE. Dotted lines show change in shape
-is caused by omitting crossbars or by using short bars in ends. Note
-lashing at ends and method of fastening thwart with a thong.]
-
-
-
-
-_Chapter Three_
-
-FORM AND CONSTRUCTION
-
-
-Classification of the types of bark canoes built by the Indians is not
-a simple matter. Perhaps the most practical way is to employ the tribal
-designation, such as Cree canoe, Micmac canoe, accepting as a criterion
-the distinctive general appearance of the canoes used by each tribe. It
-must be emphasized, however, that this method of classification does
-not indicate the model, or "lines," employed. Both the model and the
-size of bark canoes were extensively affected by the requirements of
-use: lake, coastal, or river navigation; smooth, rough, or fast-running
-water; transportation of a hunter, a family, or cargo; the conditions
-and length of portages; and the permanence of construction desired.
-Canoes of various models, sizes, methods of construction, or decoration
-might be found within the limits of a single tribal classification.
-Also, within a given area, there might be apparent similarity in
-model among the canoes of two or three tribal groups. However, a
-classification based on geographical areas has been found to be
-impractical, because the movements of tribal groups in search of new
-hunting grounds tend to make tribal boundaries difficult to define.
-
-
-_Form_
-
-The canoes of some tribal groups appear to be hybrids, representing an
-intermingling of types as a result of some past contact between tribes.
-Those of other groups are of like model, form, and even appearance,
-possibly owing to like conditions of employment. The effects of a
-similarity in use requirements upon inventiveness is seen in the
-applications for modern patent rights, where two or more applications
-can cover almost exactly the same device without the slightest evidence
-of contact between the applicants; there is no logical reason to
-suppose the same condition cannot apply to primitive peoples, even
-though their processes of invention might be very slow or relatively
-rare in occurrence.
-
-The effects of migration of tribes upon their canoe forms can only be
-studied with respect to those comparatively recent times for which
-records and observations are available. From the limited information
-at hand it appears that the Indian, when he moved to an area where use
-requirements and materials available for building differed from those
-to which he had been accustomed, was often forced to modify the model,
-form, size, and construction of his canoe. In some instances this seems
-to have resulted in the adoption of another tribal form.
-
-The distinctive feature that usually identifies the tribal
-classification of a bark canoe is the profile of the ends, although
-sometimes the profile of the gunwale, or sheer, and even of the
-bottom, is also involved. The bow and stern of many bark canoes were
-as near alike in profile as the method of construction would permit;
-nevertheless some types had distinct bow and and stern forms. Among
-tribes the form of the ends of the canoes varied considerably; some
-were low and unimpressive, others were high and often graceful.
-
-Obviously practical reasons can be found for certain tribal variations.
-In some areas, the low ends appear to ensue from the use of the canoe
-in open water, where the wind resistance of a high end would make
-paddling laborious. In others the low ends appear to result from the
-canoe being commonly employed in small streams where overhanging
-branches would obstruct passage. Portage conditions may likewise have
-been a factor; low ends would pass through brush more easily than high.
-Types used where rapids were to be run often had ends higher than the
-gunwales to prevent the canoe from shipping water over the bow. The
-high, distinctive ends of the canoes most used in the fur trade,
-on the other hand, were said to have resulted from the necessity of
-employing the canoe as a shelter. When the canoe was turned upside
-down on the ground, with one gunwale and the tops of the high ends
-supporting it, there was enough headroom under the canoe to permit
-its use as a shelter without the addition of any temporary structure.
-The desirability of this characteristic in the fur-trade canoe can be
-explained by the fact that the crew travelled as many hours as possible
-each day, and rested for only a very short period, so that rapid
-erection of shelter lengthened both the periods of travel and of rest.
-
-Yet these practical considerations do not always explain the end-forms
-found in bark canoes. Canoes with relatively high ends were used in
-open waters, and similar canoes were portaged extensively. Possibly
-the Indian's consciousness of tribal distinctions led him to retain
-some feature, such as height of the end-forms, as a means of tribal
-recognition, even though practical considerations required its
-suppression to some degree.
-
-The profile of the gunwales also varied a good deal among tribal types.
-Most bark canoes, because of the raised end-forms, showed a short,
-sharp upsweep of the sheer close to the bow and stern. Some showed a
-marked hump, or upward sweep, amidships which made the sheer profile
-follow somewhat the form of a cupid's bow. Many types had a straight,
-or nearly straight, sheer; others had an orthodox sheer, with the
-lowest part nearly amidships.
-
-The bottom profiles of bark canoes showed varying degrees of curvature.
-In some the bottom was straight for most of its length, with a slight
-rise toward the ends. In others the bottom showed a marked curvature
-over its full length, and in a few the bottom was practically straight
-between the points at which the stems were formed. Some northwestern
-types had a slightly hogged bottom, but in these the wooden framework
-was unusually flexible, so that the bottom became straight, or even a
-little rockered when the canoe was afloat and manned.
-
-The practical reasons for these bottom forms are not clear. For canoes
-used in rapid streams or in exposed waters where high winds were to
-be met many Indians preferred bottoms that were straight. Others in
-these same conditions preferred them rockered to varying degrees. It
-is possible that rocker may be desirable in canoes that must be run
-ashore end-on in surf. Of course, a strongly rockered bottom permits
-quick turning; this may have been appreciated by some tribal groups.
-Still other Indians appear to have believed that a canoe with a
-slightly rockered bottom could be paddled more easily than one having a
-perfectly straight bottom.
-
-The midsections of bark canoes varied somewhat in form within a single
-tribal type, because the method of construction did not give absolute
-control of the sectional shape during the building, but, on the whole,
-the shape followed tribal custom, being modified only to meet use
-requirements. Perhaps the two most common midsection shapes were the
-~U~-form, with the bottom somewhat flattened, and the dish-shape,
-having rather straight, flaring sides combined with a narrow, flat,
-or nearly flat bottom. Some eastern canoes showed marked tumble-home
-in the topside above the bilge; often they had a wide and rather flat
-rounded bottom, with a short, hard turn in the bilge. A few eastern
-canoes, used mainly in open waters along the coast, had bottoms with
-deadrise--that is, a shallow ~V~-form, the apex of the ~V~ being much
-rounded; the ~V~-bottom, of course, would have aided in steering the
-canoe in strong winds. One type of canoe with this rising bottom had
-tumble-home topsides, but another, used under severe conditions, had a
-midsection that was an almost perfect ~V~, the apex being rounded but
-with so little curvature in the arms that no bilge could be seen.
-
-Generally speaking, the eastern canoes had a rather well rounded bottom
-with a high turn of the bilge and some tumble-home above, though they
-might have a flatter form when built for shallow-water use or for
-increased carrying capacity. A canoe built for speed, however, might
-be very round on the bottom, and it might or might not have some
-tumble-home in the topside. In the West, a flat bottom with flaring
-topsides predominated; fast canoes there had a very narrow, flat bottom
-with some flare, the width of the bottom and the amount of flare being
-increased to give greater capacity on a shallow draft. Some canoes in
-the Northwest had a skiff-form flat bottom and flaring sides, with the
-chine rounded off sharply.
-
-The form of the sections near the ends of a canoe are controlled to a
-great extent by the form of midsection. In canoes having flat bottoms
-combined with flaring sides this form was usually carried to the ends,
-where it became a rather sharp ~V~, giving fine lines for speed when
-the canoe was light, and only moderately increased resistance when
-it was loaded. Among eastern canoes having tumble-home topsides, the
-midsection form could be carried to the ends, gradually becoming
-sharper in canoes having "chin" in the profiles of the ends; in canoes
-having no chin, the sections necessarily took a pointed oval form close
-to the ends. A few canoes having flaring sides and chin ends showed a
-similar change in form. In all, however, the bow and stern showed a
-tendency toward fullness near the waterline.
-
-Canoes with a strongly ~U~-shaped midsection commonly carried this form
-to the ends, with increasing sharpness in the round of the ~U~. The
-~U~-form predominated in the end-sections of eastern canoes, of course,
-though a few showed a ~V~-form, as must be expected. The fairing of
-the end sections into the end profiles appears to have controlled this
-matter. The outline of the gunwales, in plan view, also influenced the
-form of the end-sections and of the level lines there. Some canoes,
-when viewed from above, showed a pinched-in form at the ends, this was
-caused by the construction of the gunwales or by the projection of
-the end-profile forms beyond the ends of the true structural gunwale
-members. Such canoes would have a very strong hollow in the level lines
-projected through their hull-form below the gunwales, and this could
-have been accentuated by any strong chin in the bow and stern shapes.
-On the other hand, many canoes showed no hollow, and the level lines
-were straight for some distance inboard of the ends, or were slightly
-convex. Full, convex level lines will appear below the waterline in
-canoes having a strongly rockered bottom.
-
-It should be noted that the Indians were aware that very sharp-ended
-canoes usually were fast under paddle; hence they employed this
-characteristic in any canoe where high speed was desired. However,
-the degree of sharpness in the gunwales and at the level lines is not
-always the same at both ends, though the variation is sometimes too
-slight to be detected without careful measurement; it may at times have
-been accidental, but in many cases it appears to have been intentional.
-
-Some eastern canoes having their greatest width, or beam, on the
-gunwales at midlength had finer level lines aft than forward,
-apparently to produce trim by the stern when afloat and manned. This
-made them steer well in rough water. Some northwestern canoes had their
-greatest beam abaft the midlength, giving them a long, sharp bow; the
-run was sometimes formed by sweeping up the bottom aft to a shallow
-stern, as well as by the double-ended form of the canoe. Despite a
-general similarity in the form of the ends, in some canoes the bow
-was marked by its greater height, in others, by the manner in which
-the bark was lapped at the seams, or by the manner of decoration. In
-a few with ends exactly alike the bow was indicated by the fitting
-of the thwarts such as, for example, by placing at the forward end a
-particular style of thwart, intended to hold the torch used in spearing
-fish at night, or to support a mast and sail.
-
-In examining the lines, or model, of a bark canoe, the limitations
-imposed upon the builder by the characteristics of bark must be
-considered. The degree of flexibility, the run of the grain, and the
-toughness and elasticity of the bark used all influenced the form
-of canoes. The marked chin in the ends of some canoes, for example,
-resulted from an effort to offset the tendency of birch bark to split
-when a row of stitches lay in the same line of grain. The curved chin
-profile allowed the stitching to cross a number of lines of grain.
-Sometimes this tendency was avoided by incorporating battens into the
-coarse stitching; this style of sewing was particularly useful in
-piecing out birch bark for width in a canoe, where the sewing had to be
-in line with the grain. The Indians also employed alternating short and
-long stitching in some form for the same purpose. Spruce bark, as used
-in canoes in the extreme North and Northwest, could be sewn in much the
-same manner as birch bark, but with due regard for the longitudinal
-grain of the spruce bark.
-
-The joining of two pieces of bark by root sewing or lacing, combined
-with the use of spruce gum to obtain watertightness, formed a seam that
-could be readily damaged by abrasion from launching the canoe, from
-pulling it ashore, or from grounding it accidentally. For this reason,
-seams below the waterline were kept at a minimum and were never placed
-along the longitudinal centerline of the bottom, where they would
-have formed a sharp apex to both the ~V~-shaped midsection and to the
-deadrise bottom form. Likewise, a seam was not used in forming the
-rocker of the bottom. Though seams had to be used to join the bark at
-bow and stern, the form of the canoe allowed the seams to be greatly
-strengthened and protected there.
-
-The restrictions on form imposed by barks such as elm, chestnut, and
-hickory were very great. These barks, which are not as elastic as birch
-bark, were sometimes employed in a single large sheet. The sheets were
-not joined for length; canoes of this material were often formed by
-crimping, or lap folding, rather than by cutting out gores and then
-sewing the edges together. The characteristics of these barks can
-readily be demonstrated with a sheet of paper: such a sheet can be
-made into a crude canoe-form by bending it lengthwise and joining the
-ends, but it will be obvious that the midsection takes a very unstable
-~U~-form. By forcing the ends inward to give a ram, or chin, effect
-to bow and stern, a somewhat flatter bottom can be obtained in the
-midsection. By crimping or folding the paper gore-fashion near each
-end of the canoe-form at the gunwale edge, some rocker is created in
-the bottom and the width of the gunwales is increased near the ends,
-giving more capacity. But without the crimping along the gunwale, when
-the midsection form is flattened on the bottom, the latter tends to
-hog. Many of these bark canoes utilized both the rams ends and crimping
-to obtain a more useful form. However, while a sheet of birch bark
-could be crimped or gored into a scow-form canoe such as the Asiatic
-birch-bark canoe, no example of this form from North America is known.
-On this continent all bark canoes were sharp at both ends, i.e.,
-double-ended, although a number of North American dugouts were scow-(or
-punt-) shaped.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 22
-
-CANOE formed (a) without crimping or goring sides, showing hogged
-bottom; and (b) with ram ends to reduce hogging of bottom.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 23
-
-CANOE formed (a) by crimping sides, showing rockered bottom line, and
-(b) by simple gores in sides. The same effects are obtained by making
-bark cover of three pieces: sides and bottom.]
-
-Birch bark gave much more freedom in the selection of form simply
-because it could be joined together in small odd-sized sheets to shape
-a hull, and because it was elastic enough to allow some "moulding"
-by pressure of the framework employed. Birch bark could be gored, or
-slashed, and rejoined without resort to folding or crimping; thus it
-permitted a smooth exterior surface to be achieved. The toughness of
-the bark was sufficient to allow some sewing in line with the grain,
-to add to the width of a sheet, if the proper technique were employed
-(this was also true to a lesser extent of spruce bark).
-
-[Illustration: Figure 24
-
-CANOE FORMED by use of gores and panels.]
-
-The framework of most bark canoes depended upon the gunwale structure
-to give longitudinal strength to the hull; for this reason the
-structure was made sufficiently large in cross-section to be rather
-stiff, or was formed of more than one member. An inner and outer
-gunwale construction was employed in many bark canoes. The inner
-member was the strength member and was sometimes square, or nearly so,
-in cross-section. In some canoes bark was brought up on the outside
-of this gunwale member, lapped over the top, and lashed over it; in
-others the bark was lashed to both inner and outer gunwales. The outer
-gunwale, a rectangular-sectioned batten bent narrow-edge up, was
-applied like a guard, outside the bark, and was secured by pegs, by the
-lashings of the bark cover, or by widely spaced lashings. On top of
-the large inner gunwale and usually extending outward over the outer
-gunwale, a thin cap, pegged or lashed in the same manner as the outer
-gunwale, was sometimes added; this was intended to protect the lashing
-of the bark to the gunwale rather than to add longitudinal strength.
-
-The corners of the inner gunwale, or of the single gunwale, were all
-rounded off to prevent them from cutting the sewing and lashings. The
-bottom outboard corner was sometimes rounded off more than the other,
-or beveled, in order to form between the outboard face of the gunwale
-and the bark a slot into which the heads of the ribs could be forced.
-An alternate method of accomplishing this was to notch or drill holes
-in the gunwales for the heads of the ribs.
-
-The ends of the gunwales were fashioned in various ways. In some canoes
-the gunwales were sheered upward at the ends only slightly, the gunwale
-ends being secured to wide end boards in the stems or extended past
-them and secured to the stem-pieces. The apparent sheer in the latter
-might be formed by bending the outer gunwale, or outwale, and the cap
-(if one existed) to the required curve and then securing the ends
-to the stem-piece, or to the end boards, as the form of end profile
-dictated. If either the single gunwale or the outwale or both were
-sharply sheered, they were split, to a point near the end thwart, into
-two or four or even more laminations; even the rail cap, which was
-perhaps half an inch thick, might be split in the same manner to allow
-a sharp upward sweep at the stems. After being bent, the split members
-were temporarily wrapped to hold the laminations together. In no bark
-canoes did the ends of the gunwales curve back on themselves to form a
-hook just inboard of the bow and stern, despite the numerous pictures
-that show this feature. The gunwale ends sometimes projected almost
-perpendicularly upward, slightly above the top of the bow and stern,
-so that when the canoe was upside down its weight came on these rather
-than on the sewing of the ends of the craft.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 25
-
-GUNWALE ENDS nailed and wrapped with spruce roots. (_Sketch by Adney._)]
-
-The gunwale ends in some canoes were fastened together by means of one
-or more lashings, often widely spaced. After being lashed together,
-a narrow wedge was sometimes driven between the two gunwales from
-inboard to tighten the lashings. The ends were sometimes beveled on
-their bearing surfaces so as to make a neat appearance when joined. The
-various ways in which the gunwale ends at stem and stern were finished
-can best be described when individual types are under examination. Some
-canoes had a small piece of bark over the ends of the gunwales but
-under the outwales that held it in place. Whether these pieces were
-employed to protect the lashing of the gunwales and adjoining work from
-the weather, or whether they were the vestigial remains of a decking
-once used, cannot be determined. In the Canadian Northwest the ends
-of bark canoes were sometimes decked with bark for a short distance
-inboard.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 26
-
-GUNWALES AND STAKES ON BUILDING BED, plan view. (_Sketch by Adney._)]
-
-The bark was secured to the gunwales by a continuous spiral lashing
-all along the main gunwale or by separated lashing in series. In the
-first, the continuous lashing, where it passed through the bark, might
-show regularly spaced separations to avoid the tops of the ribs. In the
-second, the lashings were placed clear of the ribs. There were some
-slight variations in the lashings, but these were of minor importance
-so far as structural strength is concerned. In all cases, the bark was
-brought up to or over the top of the gunwale before being secured, so
-that the holes for the lashing were pierced at some distance from the
-edge of the bark to prevent it from splitting.
-
-The ends of the thwarts were mortised into the gunwales and also
-secured by lashings. The number of thwarts varied with the tribal type,
-the size, and the purpose of the canoe. Usually an odd number, from
-three to nine, were used, though occasional canoes had two or four
-thwarts. Very small canoes for hunting might have only two or three
-thwarts, but most canoes 14 to 20 feet long had five. Canoes intended
-for portaging usually had one thwart at midlength to aid in lifting the
-canoe for the carry position. The distance between the thwarts might be
-determined by structural design, or might be fixed so as to divide the
-cargo space to allow proper trim. The thwarts might serve as backrests
-for passengers, but were never used as seats. There was no standard
-form for the shape of the thwarts, which varied not only to some degree
-by tribal classification, but even among builders in single tribe. They
-were usually thickest and widest over the centerline of the canoe,
-tapering outboard and then spreading again at the gunwales to form a
-marked shoulder at the mortise. The lashings to the gunwales often
-passed through two or more holes in this shoulder.
-
-The ribs, or frames, of most canoes were very closely spaced and
-were wide, flat, and thin. They ran in a single length from gunwale
-to gunwale. In canoes having ~V~-sections near the ends, the ribs
-were often so sharply bent as to be fractured slightly. Across the
-bottom they were wide but above the bilge they tapered in width toward
-the end, which was either a rounded point or a beveled or rounded
-chisel-edge. The ribs were forced under the gunwales so that the heads
-fitted into the bevel, or into notches or holes at the underside and
-outboard edge of the gunwale, between it and the bark cover. By canting
-the rib to bring its ends into the proper position and then forcing it
-nearly perpendicular, the builder brought enough pressure on the bark
-cover to mold it to the required form. Bulging of the bark at each
-frame was prevented by a thin plank sheathing. The ribs in many Eastern
-canoes were spaced so that on the bottom they were separated only by a
-space equal to the width of a rib.
-
-Each piece of sheathing, better described as a "splint" than as
-"planking," was commonly of irregular form. The edges were often
-beveled to a marked thinness. While some builders laid the sheathing
-edge-to-edge in the bark cover, others overlapped the edges. Nearly
-all builders feathered the butts and overlapped them slightly. The
-sheathing was held in position by a number of light temporary ribs
-while the permanent frames, or ribs, were being installed. It is to be
-noted that the sheathing was neither lashed nor pegged; it remained
-fixed in place only through the pressure of the bent ribs and the
-restraint of the bark skin.
-
-The exact method of fitting the sheathing varied somewhat from area
-to area, but not in every instance from tribe to tribe. The bottom
-sheathing used by some eastern Indians was in two lengths. The
-individual pieces were tapered toward the stems and the edges butted
-closely together. The sides were in three lengths, but otherwise
-similarly fitted. The butts lapped very slightly. In a second method,
-used to the westward, the sheathing was laid edge-to-edge in two
-lengths, with the butts slightly lapped. The center members of the
-bottom, usually five, were parallel-sided, but the outboard ends of
-those at the turn of the bilges were beveled, or snied, off. The
-members further outboard were in one length, with both ends snied off.
-The bottom thus appeared as an elongated diamond-form. The topside
-sheathing was fitted as in the first instance.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 27
-
-GUNWALE LASHINGS, examples made by Adney: 1, Elm-bark, Malecite; 2, St.
-Francis; 3, Algonkin; 4, Malecite.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 28
-
-GUNWALE-END LASHINGS, examples made by Adney: Athabascan (large),
-Ojibway (small).]
-
-A variation in the second style used three lengths in the centerline
-sheathing. In still another variation a centerline piece was laid in
-two lengths without taper, the next outboard piece was then cut in the
-shape of a broad-based triangle, and the rest were laid in two lengths,
-with the sides parallel to the sides of the triangular strake and with
-their ends snied off against the centerline pieces. In a fourth style
-short pieces, roughly elongate-oval in shape, were overlapped on all
-sides and laid irregularly so that when in place they appeared "thrown
-in." With this style, the midship section was laid first and secured by
-a temporary rib, then the next toward the ends, with the butts shoved
-under the ends of the middle section. The next series was similarly
-laid so that the top member of each butt-lap faced toward the ends of
-the hull and was under a rib. The ends were not cut square across,
-but were either blunt-pointed or rounded. Five lengths of sheathing
-were often used, and the widths of the individual pieces of sheathing
-were rarely the same, so the seams were not lined up and presented an
-irregular appearance in the finished canoe. The sheathing was thin
-enough to allow it to take the curve of the bilge easily.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 29
-
-SPLINTS ARRANGED in various ways to sheath the bottom of a canoe: 1,
-Micmac, Malecite; 2, Central Cree, Têtes de Boule, etc.; 3, Montagnais;
-4, Algonkin, Ojibway, etc.]
-
-If the sheathing was lapped, the overlap was always slight. In some
-old canoes a small space was left between the edges of the sheathing,
-particularly in the topsides. In some northwestern bark canoes there
-was no sheathing; these used a batten system somewhat like that in
-the Eskimo kayak, except that in the bark canoes the battens were
-not lashed to the ribs, being held in place only by pressure. These
-kayak-like bark canoes had a bottom framework formed with chine
-members; some had a rigid bottom frame of this type, while others
-had bottom frames secured only by rib pressure. The purpose of the
-sheathing, it should be noted, was to protect the bark cover from
-abrasion from the inside, to prevent the ribs from bulging the bark,
-and to back up the bark so as to resist impacts; but in no case, even
-when battens were employed, as in the Northwest, did the sheathing
-add to the longitudinal strength of the bark canoe. The principle
-of the stressed rib and clamped sheathing, which is the most marked
-characteristic in the construction of the North American Indian bark
-canoe, is fundamentally different from that used in the construction of
-the Eskimos' skin craft.
-
-A wide variety of framing methods are exhibited in the construction of
-the ends, or stems, of bark canoes. In the temporary types of the East,
-the bark was trimmed to a straight, slightly "ram" form and secured by
-sewing over two battens, one outboard on each side. Birch-bark canoes
-of the East usually had an inside stem-piece bent by the lamination
-method to the desired profile, the heel being left unsplit; as usual,
-the laminations were spirally wrapped, often with basswood-bark thongs.
-The stem-piece was then placed between the bark of the sides, and
-the bark and wood were lashed together with an over-and-over stitch.
-Sometimes variations of the short-and-long form of stitch were used
-here, and some builders also placed a halved-root batten over the
-ends of the bark before lashing to form a stem-band as protection to
-the seam. In some canoes the end lashing passed through holes drilled
-in the stem-pieces, often with the turns alternating in some regular
-manner through and around the stem-piece.
-
-The stem-pieces were generally very light, and in some canoes the head
-was notched and sharply bent down and inboard, so that it could be
-secured to the ends of the gunwales. Some tribal types had no inner
-stem-piece, and the stem profiles were strengthened merely by the use
-of two split-root or halved-sapling battens, one on each side, outside
-the bark and under the sewing.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 30
-
-END DETAILS, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF STEM-PIECES and fitting of bark
-over them, ending of gunwale caps at stem heads, and the headboard,
-with its location. Lamination of the stem pieces shows fewer laminae
-than is common. (_Sketches by Adney._)]
-
-Birch-bark canoes to the westward used battens under the end lashing
-as well as rather complicated inside stem-pieces. In some parts of
-the West and Northwest, the ends were formed of boards set up on edge
-fore-and-aft, the bark being lashed through all, with the boards
-projecting slightly outboard of the ends of the bark cover to form a
-cutwater.
-
-To support the inside stem-piece, some form of headboard was usually
-fitted near each end after the sheathing was in place. These were
-shaped to the cross-section of the canoe so as to form bulkheads.
-In some canoes, these miniature bulkheads stood vertical, but in
-others they were curved somewhat to follow the general curve of the
-end-profile, and this caused them to be shaped more like a batten
-than a bulkhead. Bent headboards were sometimes stepped so as to rake
-outboard. Sometimes the form of the headboard permitted the gunwale
-members to be lashed to it, and often there was a notch for the main
-gunwale on each side.
-
-The headboards were sometimes stepped on the unsplit heel of the
-stem-piece; a notch was made in the bottom of the headboard to allow
-this. In two types of canoe in which there was no inner stem-piece, the
-headboards were stepped on short keel pieces, or "frogs," fore-and-aft
-on the bottom and extending slightly forward of the end of the
-sheathing to reinforce the forefoot. The purpose of the headboard was
-to strengthen the stem-piece, and in many cases it was an integral
-member of the end structure itself and helped to maintain its form. The
-headboard usually served to support the gunwale ends in some manner, it
-stretched the bark smooth near the stems, and it secured the ends of
-the sheathing where support from a rib would have been most difficult
-to obtain. Many canoes had the space between the headboard and the
-stem-piece stuffed with shavings, moss, or other dry material to help
-mold the bark to form beyond the sheathing in the ends. Some tribal
-groups decorated the headboards.
-
-In a few canoes, the stem-piece was additionally supported by a short,
-horizontal member stepped in the forward face of the headboard and
-projecting forward to bear on the after side of the stem-piece. The
-latter was sometimes bent back onto itself above this member to form a
-loop around the top of the end-profile, and the gunwale ends or a part
-of the gunwale structure were secured to it. This complicated bending
-of the stem-piece, in conjunction with use of a headboard and a brace
-member, served to stiffen the end structure sufficiently to meet the
-requirements of service.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 31
-
-MALECITE CANOE OF THE TYPE DESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER. This 2½ fathom
-St. John River canoe represents the last Malecite birch-bark model,
-and usually was fastened with tacks and nails, rather than with root
-lashings and pegs as described here.]
-
-The use of a bark cover over the gunwale ends has already been
-mentioned. In some eastern canoes, this was placed under the cap and
-outwale pieces and extended below the latter in a shallow flap on which
-the owner's mark or other decoration might appear; the flap was in fact
-a kind of name board. Such flaps do not appear on the partly decked
-bark canoes of the Northwest.
-
-This general description of the structure of the bark canoes is
-sufficient to permit the explanation of the actual construction of
-a bark canoe to be more readily understood, and it also serves to
-illustrate the close connection between the method of construction
-and the formation of the lines, or model, of bark canoes. From the
-description, too, it can be seen that while the shape of a bark canoe
-was partially planned during the construction the control of every part
-of the model could not be maintained with the same degree of precision
-as in the building of an Eskimo skin boat or an Indian dugout.
-
-
-_Construction_
-
-One aspect of canoe construction, the Indian method of making
-measurements, was briefly mentioned (p. 8) under a discussion of the
-origin of the measurement known in French Canada as the _brasse_.
-This was the distance from finger-tip to finger-tip of the arms
-outstretched; in the fur trade in English times it was known as the
-fathom and it appears to have been about 64 inches, or less than the
-nautical fathom of 6 feet. Other measurements used were the greatest
-width of the ball of the thumb, which is very close to an English inch,
-and the width of the four fingers, each finger-breadth being close to
-three-fourths of an English inch. The length of the forearm, usually
-from the knuckles of the clenched hand to the elbow, was also employed
-by some Indians, as a convenient measurement.
-
-Measurements in these units might be memorized and used in building,
-but many Indians used measuring sticks, and these served as
-"foot-rules." They were sometimes squared and were painted as well as
-notched.
-
-A Malecite Indian, interviewed in 1925, had three such sticks for canoe
-building. One, for the length of the gunwale frame, was half the total
-length required; it was notched to show the distance at which the ends
-of the gunwales were lashed and also the position of the thwarts. Such
-a stick would be about 7 feet long for a 16-foot canoe, 8 feet for an
-18-foot canoe. The second stick was notched to show half the length of
-each of the thwarts. The third stick had notches showing the height of
-the gunwale at each thwart and at the end, four notches in all for the
-half-length of the canoe. This stick measured from the surface of the
-building bed, not from a regular base line.
-
-The method of measuring canoes appears to have been fairly well
-standardized, at least in historical times. As stated earlier, length
-was commonly taken over the gunwales only, and did not include the
-end profiles, which might extend up to a foot or slightly more beyond
-the gunwale ends, bow and stern. However, in certain old records
-the overall length is given, and in various areas other methods of
-measurement existed. Where a building frame was used, the given length
-of the canoe was the length of this frame; usually this approximated
-the length of the gunwales. The width of a canoe was measured by the
-Indian from inside to inside of the main gunwale members. The extreme
-beam might be only 2 or 3 inches greater than the inside measurement
-of the gunwales, but if the sides bulged out, the beam might actually
-be 6 or more inches greater. The depth was usually measured from the
-inside of the ribs to the top of the gunwale but in building it was
-measured from the surface of the building bed to the bottom of the main
-gunwales, as noted above in the description of the measuring sticks.
-
-Thus it will be seen that the Indian measurements constituted a
-statement of dimensions primarily useful to the builder, for their main
-purpose was to fix the proportions rather than establish the actual
-length, width, and depth. Today we state the length of a canoe in terms
-of extreme overall measurement; the Indian was inclined to state the
-length in building terms, giving dimensions applicable to the woodwork
-only, just as the old-time shipbuilder gave the keel length of a vessel
-instead of the overall length on deck.
-
-The building site was carefully selected. The space in which the canoe
-was to be set up had to be smooth, free of stones and roots or anything
-that might damage the bark, and the soil had to be such that stakes
-driven into it would stand firmly. A shady place was preferred, as the
-bark would not dry there as fast as in sunlight. Since the construction
-of a canoe required both time and the aid of the whole Indian family,
-the site had to be close to a suitable place for camping, where food
-and water could be obtained. It is not surprising, therefore, to find
-canoe building sites that apparently had been used by generations of
-Indians.
-
-The preparation of the building bed was controlled by the intended
-form of the canoe to be built. If the bottom of the canoe was to be
-rockered, the cleared ground was brought to a flat surface for the
-length required for setting up the canoe. If the rocker was to be
-great, the middle of the bed would be slightly depressed. If the bottom
-was to be straight fore-and-aft, or very nearly so, the bed was crowned
-from 1½ to 2 inches higher in the middle than at the ends, so that the
-canoe was first set up with a hogged bottom. Very large canoes such as
-were used in the fur trade required as much as 4 inches crown in the
-building bed. Other dimensions being equal, the amount of crown was
-usually somewhat greater in canoes having bulging sides than in ones
-having more upright or flaring sides. Canoe factories such as were
-operated in certain fur-trading posts sometimes had a plank building
-bed suitably crowned and drilled for setting the stakes.
-
-Two methods of setting up the canoe were used. In most of the eastern
-area, the gunwales were put together and used to establish the plan
-outline of the canoe on the building bed. But a building frame was used
-for constructing the various narrow-bottom canoes having flaring sides,
-and for some other tribal forms. The frame, made in the same general
-form as the gunwales when assembled, but less wide and sometimes much
-shorter, could be taken apart easily, allowing it to be removed after
-the canoe was built; hence it could be used to build as many canoes as
-desired to the same dimensions as the first, and was retained by the
-builder as a tool, or pattern, for future use.
-
-The method of construction in which gunwales only were used in setting
-up the canoe will be explained first in order to show the general
-technique of construction. Use of the building frame will then be
-described. Important deviations from these methods will be described in
-later chapters under the individual tribal types in which they occur.
-
-The Malecite canoe, a straight-bottomed craft about 19 feet long and 36
-inches beam, is used as the example, hence the method of building to be
-described is that generally employed in the East, where variations in
-construction mainly involve the use or omission of structural elements.
-
-The gunwales are the first members to be formed. In the Malecite canoe
-these are the inner gunwales, as the canoe will have outwales and
-caps. The gunwales are split from white cedar to produce battens that
-will square 1½ inches when shaped. The gunwales are tapered each way
-from midlength, where they are 1½ inches square, to a point 3 inches
-short of the ends, where they are ¾ by 1 to 1¼ inches. The edges of
-the gunwales are all rounded, and the outboard bottom edge is beveled
-almost ½ inch, at 45° to the bottom of the member. The last 3 inches at
-each end is formed like half a blunt arrowhead, as shown in the sketch
-of the member on page 31. The gunwales will be bent, side to side, on
-the flat as far as the ends are concerned, so the blunt arrowhead is
-formed on one of the wide faces of the ends as shown. The arrowhead
-form allows a neat joint when the gunwale ends are brought together,
-pegged athwartships, and then wrapped with a root lashing. In forming
-and finishing the gunwales, a good deal of care is required to get them
-to bend alike, so that the centerline of the finished frame will be
-straight and true.
-
-To take the ends of the middle thwart, a mortise ¼ by 2 inches is cut
-in each gunwale member athwartships at exactly midlength, the length
-of the mortise being with the run of the gunwale. In it, the middle
-thwart, 33 inches long, is fitted. Made of a ⅞-inch by 3-inch piece of
-hard maple, the thwart tapers slightly in thickness each way from its
-center to within 5 inches of the shoulders, which are 30 inches apart.
-The thickness at a point 5 inches from the shoulder is ¾ inch; from
-there the taper is quick to the shoulder, which is ⁵⁄₁₆ inch thick,
-with a drop to ¼ inch in the tenon. The width, 3 inches at the center,
-decreases in a graceful curve to within 5 inches of the shoulder, where
-it is 2 inches, then increases to about 3 inches at the shoulder. The
-width of the tenon is, of course, 2 inches, to fit the mortise hole in
-the gunwale. The edges of the outer 5 inches of the thwart are rounded
-off or beveled a good deal; inboard they are only slightly rounded.
-
-The thwart is carefully fitted to the gunwale members and the ends are
-pegged. Some builders wedged the ends of this thwart from outside the
-gunwales, the wedge standing vertical in the thwart so that the gunwale
-would not split; however, it is not certain that wedging was used in
-prehistoric times, although it is seen in some existing old canoes. The
-pegs used in this canoe are driven from above, into holes bored through
-the gunwale and the tenon of the thwart to lock all firmly together.
-Three holes are then bored in the broad shoulders of the thwart about
-1½ inches inboard of gunwale for the root lashing that is also used.
-
-The ends of the gunwale members are now brought together, and to avoid
-an unfair curve appearing at the thwart in place, short pieces of
-split plank or of sapling, notched to hold them in place, are inserted
-between the gunwale members as temporary thwarts at points about 5 feet
-on each side of the middle thwart. After the ends are brought together
-and the final fitting is carried out, a peg is driven athwartships the
-ends and a single-part root lashing is carefully wrapped around the
-assembly.
-
-Some canoe builders omitted the blunted half-arrowhead form at the
-gunwale end. Instead, the inside faces were tapered to allow the two
-parts to bear on one another for some distance. The gunwales were then
-pinched together and lashed with one or more wrappings. Finally, a thin
-wedge was sometimes driven from inboard between the two gunwale ends to
-tighten the wrappings. The wedges were usually so carefully fitted as
-to be difficult to identify. It is probable that this wedged gunwale
-ending represents the prehistoric form, and the blunted half-arrowhead
-ending is a result of the use of steel tools.
-
-After the ends of the gunwales have been securely fastened together,
-the first pair of permanent thwarts is fitted. These are located 36
-inches, center to center, on each side of the middle thwart, a distance
-that determines the centers of the mortises in each gunwale member.
-Each thwart, made from a ¾-inch by 3-inch piece, tapers smoothly in
-thickness from the ¾-inch center to the ⁵⁄₁₆-inch shoulder. The tenon
-is of the same dimensions as that of the middle thwart, the width
-takes the same form as that of the middle thwart, and the edges are
-similarly beveled and rounded. The distance between the shoulders,
-taken along the centerline, is 22½ inches, and the centerline length of
-the thwart 25½ inches. However, the shoulders and ends of the tenons
-must be bevelled to follow the curve of the gunwales hence the extreme
-length of the thwart is actually very close to 26 inches. The worker
-determines the bevel of the shoulders by fitting the thwart to the
-run of the gunwales, the temporary thwarts being shifted so that the
-distance between the gunwales equals that set by the measuring stick.
-These two thwarts having been fitted, the tenons are pegged as before,
-but in the shoulders only one lashing hole is bored instead of the
-three employed in the middle thwart.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 32
-
-MALECITE CANOE BUILDING, 1910. (_Canadian Geological Survey photos._)
-
-Weighting gunwales on bark cover on building bed.
-
-Resetting stakes.
-
-Shaping bark cover and securing it to stakes.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 33
-
-FIRST STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: assembled gunwale frame is used to
-locate stakes temporarily on building bed. Instead of the gunwales, a
-building frame was used in some areas. (_Sketch by Adney_.)]
-
-The second pair of thwarts is placed 30 inches, center to center, from
-the first pair, one at each end, and on the basis of this measurement
-the tenons are cut as for the others. These two thwarts are made of
-⅝-by 4-inch pieces tapering in thickness each way from the center to
-the shoulder, where they are a scant ⁵⁄₁₆ inch thick, the tenons having
-the same dimensions as in the other thwarts. In width the thwarts are
-worked to an even 3 inches from shoulder to shoulder, but in the form
-of a curve so that when each thwart is in place its center will be
-bowed toward the ends of the canoe, viewed from above. As in the first
-pair, the shoulders and ends are cut to a bevel to fit the gunwale;
-at the centerline they each measure 12 inches shoulder-to-shoulder in
-a straight line athwartships and 15 inches end-to-end. Allowing for
-bevel, the maximum length is just over 15-⁵⁄₁₆ inches. These thwarts
-are drilled for single gunwale lashings and the corner edges are well
-rounded from shoulder to shoulder. The distance from the centerlines
-of these last thwarts at the bow and stern to the extreme ends of the
-joined gunwales is 33 inches, so the finished gunwale length is 16 feet.
-
-After the endmost thwarts are pegged into place, the temporary stays
-are removed. At each step of construction the alignment of the gunwales
-is checked by measuring with the measuring sticks and by sighting,
-since the shape of the assembled gunwales, in this case of the inner
-gunwales, is very important in determining the sharpness of the
-completed canoe and the fairness of its general form.
-
-The assembled gunwales are now ready to be laid on the building bed
-which, for the Malecite canoe, is 20 feet long, about 3½ feet wide and
-is raised about 1½ inches at midlength so that the canoe bottom will be
-straight when the craft is in the water. The gunwale frame having been
-carefully centered on this bed, with the middle thwart exactly over the
-highest point in the surface of the bed, some scrap split-planking is
-laid across the gunwales and the whole weighted down with a few flat
-stones. Next, 34 stakes from 30 to 50 inches long are prepared, each
-made of a halved length of sapling. Around the outside of the gunwale
-frame 26 of these are driven in pairs opposite one another across the
-frame, about 24 inches apart and placed so that none is opposite a
-thwart, except for the stakes at the extreme ends of the gunwale frame,
-which are spaced about a foot from their nearest neighbors and are
-face-to-face, about 1½ inches apart. All the stakes are driven with
-the flat face about an inch from the gunwale frame and parallel to its
-outside edge. Finally two more pairs of stakes are driven at each end,
-the first pair about a foot beyond the end of the gunwale frame and
-1½ inches apart, the second about 6 inches beyond these and similarly
-spaced. The length between the outermost stakes, measured over the
-gunwale frame, is about 18½ feet. Great care is taken to line up the
-last pairs of stakes with the centerline of the gunwale frame.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 34
-
-SECOND STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: stakes have been removed and laid
-aside, and the gunwales shown in first stage have been removed from the
-building bed. The bark cover is laid out on the building bed, and the
-gunwales are in place upon it, weighted down with stones. (_Sketch by
-Adney_.)]
-
-If the canoe is to have a slight rocker near the ends and is to be
-straight over the rest of the bottom, the ends of the gunwale frame
-will be blocked above the building bed so that the frame is not hogged
-on the bed.
-
-After the builder is satisfied with the staking, each stake is
-carefully pulled up and laid to one side, off the bed but near its
-hole. The weights are then removed from the gunwale frame, which is
-lifted from the bed and laid aside, and the bed, if disturbed is
-repaired and re-leveled.
-
-The roll of birch bark is now removed from storage, perhaps in a nearby
-pool where it has been placed to keep it flexible, and unrolled white
-side up on the building bed. As the bark dries, it will become more and
-more stiff, so it will be necessary to moisten it frequently during
-construction to maintain its flexibility.
-
-The bark is usually long enough, but often it is not wide enough. If
-the bark is too short, it may be pieced out at this time, or later. If
-it is not wide enough it is centered on the bed; the piecing out will
-be done later. The gunwale frame is now laid on the bark, care being
-taken to place it as nearly as possible in its former position on the
-bed.
-
-The bark outside the frame is then slashed from the edge to a point
-close to the end of each thwart, and also to points along the frame
-halfway between the thwarts, so that the edges can be turned up. While
-it is being slashed, the bark cover is bent slightly, so that it is
-cut under tension. Later, when the required shape can be determined,
-these slashes will be made into gores, the Malecite canoes having
-flush seams, not overlaps, in the topsides and bottom. If a fault is
-noted along the outer edge of the bark, a slash may be placed so as to
-allow the fault to be cut out in the later goring; irregularity in the
-position of the cuts does no great harm to the progress of building
-these canoes. The slashes are usually carried to within an inch of the
-gunwales on the bed. It is not customary to slash the bark close to the
-end, there the bark can usually be brought up unbroken, depending upon
-the form of the end.
-
-When the bark has been cut as described, it can be turned up smoothly
-all around the frame so that the stake holes can be seen and a few
-of the stakes can be replaced. The frame and the bark are then
-realigned so that all stakes may be replaced in their holes without
-difficulty. When the frame and bark are aligned, the frame is weighted
-as before and the bark is turned up all around it, the stakes being
-firmly driven, as this is done, in their original holes. The longest
-stakes are at the ends of the frame, as the depth of the hull is to be
-greatest there. The tops of each pair of opposite stakes are now tied
-together with a thong of basswood or cedar bark, to hold them rigid and
-upright.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 35
-
-MALECITE CANOE BUILDERS NEAR FREDERICTON, N.B., using wooden plank
-building bed with stakes set in holes in the platform. This was a late
-method of construction, which probably originated in the early French
-canoe factory at Trois Rivières, Que.]
-
-After the bark is turned up around the frame, its lack of width becomes
-fully apparent. At this stage, some builders fitted the additional
-pieces to gain the necessary width; others did it later. The method of
-piecing the bark cover and the sewing technique, however, is explained
-here.
-
-The bark is pieced out with regard to the danger of abrasion that would
-occur when the canoe is moving through obstructions in the water, or
-when it is rolled or hauled ashore and unloaded. If the bark is to be
-lapped below the waterline, the thickness of the bark of both pieces
-in the lap is scraped thin so a ridge will not be formed athwart the
-bottom; here, however, most tribes used edge-to-edge joining. If
-there are laps in the topsides, the exposed edge is toward the stern;
-if in the midlength, upward toward the gunwale; and if it is in the
-end the lap may be toward the bottom, because this makes it easier
-to sew, and because in the ends of the canoe there is less danger of
-serious abrasion. Many tribes used edge-to-edge joining everywhere
-in the topsides so that the direction of lapping was not a matter of
-consideration. The type of goring, whether by slash and lap or by
-cutting out a ~V~-shaped gore, will, of course, have much to do with
-the selection of the method of sewing to be used.
-
-It is to be recalled that in canoe building no needle was used in
-sewing the bark; the ends of the root strands were sharpened and used
-to thread the strand through the awl holes. Much of the topside sewing
-in a bark canoe was done with small strands made by splitting small
-roots in half and then flattening the halves by scraping. Large root
-strands quartered and prepared in the same manner, or the cores of
-these, were sometimes used in heavy sewing or lashing at the gunwale or
-in the ends of a canoe.
-
-As noted previously, root thongs were used well water-soaked or quite
-green, for they became very stiff and rather brittle as they dried
-out. Once in place, however, the drying did not seem to destroy their
-strength. Rawhide was also used for such sewing by some tribes.
-
-The sewing was done by Indian women, if their help was available, and
-the forms of stitching used in canoe building varied greatly. The root
-sewing at the ends of the canoes ranged from a simple over-and-over
-spiral form to elaborate and decorative styles. Long-and-short
-stitching in a sequence that usually followed some formal pattern was
-widely used. Among the patterns were such arrangements as one long,
-four short, and one long; or two longs, two or three shorts, and two
-longs; or one short, five of progressively increasing length, and then
-one short; or six progressively longer followed by six progressively
-shorter. Cross-stitching, employing the two ends of the sewing root as
-in the lacing of a shoe was also common. Sometimes this was combined
-with a straight-across double-strand pass to join the ends of the ~X~.
-The harness stitch, in which both ends of the sewing root were passed
-in opposite directions through the same holes, was often used, as was
-the 2-thong in-and-out lacing from each side used in northwestern
-canoes having plank stem-pieces.
-
-If the root strand was too short to complete a seam, instead of being
-spliced or knotted the end was tucked back under the last turns or
-stitches, on the inside of the bark cover. In starting, the tail was
-placed under the first turn of the stitch, so that it could not be
-pulled through. To finish sewing with double-ended strands, as in the
-harness stitch, both ends were tucked under the last turn or two.
-
-Commonly two or more turns were taken through a single hole in the
-bark; this might be done to clear some obstruction such as a frame head
-at the gunwale, or to provide a stronger stitch, or turn, as in the
-harness stitch and others, or to allow for greater spacing between awl
-holes in the bark. (Since the awl blade was tapered, the size of the
-hole it made in the bark could be regulated by the depth of penetration
-of the blade as it was turned in the hole.)
-
-The length of stitches varied with the need for strength and
-watertightness. Long stitches were about I inch, short stitches from
-about ⅜ to ½ inch in length. The run of the grain, of course, was a
-consideration in the length of stitch used.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 36
-
-SEWING: two common styles of root stitching used in bark canoes.]
-
-The piecing of the side panels was done with a great variety of sewing
-styles, according to strength requirements. The strain put upon the
-bark in molding it by rib pressure was greater in the midlength than
-in the ends; and the sewing differed accordingly. The over-and-over
-spiral, with a batten under the sewing, was used for sewing in the
-midlength, as was back-stitching, a variety of basting stitch in which
-a new pass is started about half way between stitches, thus forming
-overlapped passes or turns. Back-stitching was usually done in a
-direction slightly diagonal to the line of sewing, so as to cross
-the grain of the bark at an angle with each pass. The double-thong
-in-and-out stitch, in which each thong goes through the same hole from
-opposite sides, was frequently used. The simple, spiral over-and-over
-stitch was used in sewing panels in the ends of canoes, as was the
-simple, in-and-out basting stitch using either a single or double
-strand.
-
-When the sides were pieced out edge-to-edge, the sewing was usually
-done spirally, over and over a narrow, thin batten placed outside the
-bark cover. This batten might be either a thin split sapling or, more
-commonly, a split and thinned piece of root. If the pieced-out sides
-were lapped, then the harness stitch was commonly used. The lap might
-be some inches wide to decrease the danger of splitting while the bark
-was being punched with the awl, afterward the surplus was cut away
-leaving about a half inch of overlap. On rare occasions the strength
-of a lapped-edge seam was increased by the use of a parallel row of
-stitching.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 37
-
-COMPARISON OF CANOE ON THE BUILDING BED (above), with gunwales or
-building frame weighted down by stones inside bark cover, and (below)
-canoe when first removed from building bed during fifth stage of
-construction. (_Sketches by Adney._)]
-
-In making the canoe watertight, it is to be remembered that some forms
-of stitch make the bark lie up tight all along its edges while others
-bind only where the stitch crosses the seam. The in-and-out stitch,
-which was used only above the waterline, cannot be pulled up hard
-without causing the bark to pucker and split and cannot be made very
-watertight with gum. The over-and-over stitch, in either a spiral
-form or square across the seam on the outside and diagonally on the
-inside, is very strong; when a batten is used under the stitches it
-can be pulled up hard and allows a very watertight gumming. When this
-style of sewing is used without a batten across the run of the grain,
-as in the gore seams, it cannot be pulled up as hard, but will serve.
-Back-stitching, which was much used in the topsides, can be pulled up
-quite hard and makes a tight seam when gummed, as do the harness stitch
-and cross-stitch. The ends, regardless of the style of sewing used,
-were more readily made tight by gumming than the other seams in a bark
-canoe.
-
-Two basic methods, with some slight and unimportant variations, were
-used to fasten the bark to the gunwales. One employed a continuous
-over-and-over stitch, the other employed groups of lashings. On a canoe
-with the lashing continuous along the gunwales, the turns were made
-two or more times through the same hole on each side of each rib head
-to allow space for them. This might also be done where the lashing was
-in groups, as described above. Usually, a measuring stick was used to
-space the groups between thwart ends so that each group came between
-the rib heads. The groupings could be independent lashings, or the
-strand could be carried from one group to another. If the latter, it
-was passed along under the gunwale in a number of in-and-out stitches
-or in a single lone stitch either inside or out, or else it was brought
-around over the gunwale from the last full turn. Some tribes use both
-ends of the lashing, passing them through the same hole in the bark
-from opposite directions below the gunwales; the ends might be carried
-in the same manner in a long stitch to the next group. In some elm and
-other bark canoes employing basswood or cedar-bark lashings the bark
-was tied with a single turn at wide intervals; when roots were used
-in these, however, small groupings of stitches were customary. When
-group lashings were used with birch bark, the intervals between groups
-was usually relatively short, though in a few canoes the groups and
-intervals were of nearly equal length.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 38
-
-THIRD STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: the bark cover is shaped on the
-building bed. The gores have been cut; part of the cover is shaped and
-secured by stakes and battens. "A" shows battens secured by sticks
-lashed to stakes. (_Sketch by Adney_.)]
-
-In an independent group, the ends of the strand were treated as in
-whipping, the tail being under the first turns made and the end tucked
-back under the last--usually on the inside of the gunwales. Where there
-were inner and outer gunwales the lashing was always around both,
-and the tail might be jammed between them. If a cap was used on the
-gunwales, the lashings were always under it. The use of a knotted turn
-to start a lashing occurred only in the old Têtes de Boule canoes.
-
-On the Malecite canoe, the sides are pieced out in one to three panels
-rather than in one long, narrow panel on each side. The panel for the
-midlength requires the greatest strength and is usually lapped inside
-the bottom bark. The latter is first trimmed straight along its edge,
-and the panel inserted behind it with a couple of inches of lap. Then
-the two pieces of bark are sewn together over a halved-root batten with
-an over-and-over stitch. (Other tribes used some form of the harness
-stitch, or a similar style, allowing great strength.) The middle panel
-does not extend much beyond the ends of the first pair of thwarts on
-each side of the middle. The next panels toward the ends are lapped
-outside the bottom bark and are sewn with the back-stitch. Then,
-if still another panel is required at each end, this too is lapped
-outside and is sewn in the lap with an in-and-out stitch. The ends of
-the panels are usually sewn with an over-and-over stitch that runs
-square with the seam outside and diagonally to it inside the bark. (The
-harness stitch was used here by some tribes, as were many forms of the
-cross-stitch.) The ends of the canoe and the gores have already been
-sewn during an earlier stage of the building process.
-
-Once the sides are pieced out, the bark is ready to be turned up and
-around the gunwale frame and clamped perpendicularly. To effect this,
-small stakes are made by halving saplings, so that each half is about a
-half inch thick. The butt of each half is cut chisel-shaped, with the
-bevel on the flat side; the rounded face is smoothed off, and it may
-be tapered toward the head of the stake. Between two of the slashes
-a length of bark is now brought up against the outer stakes; against
-the bark the small, inside stake is placed with the round face of the
-chisel-pointed butt wedged against the outer face of the gunwale. The
-top is then levered against the outside stake, so that the flat face of
-each clamps the bark in place. The top of the inner stake is then bound
-to the outer.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 39
-
-CROSS SECTION of canoe on building bed during third stage of
-construction (above) and fourth stage. (_Sketch by Adney._)]
-
-In setting the inside stakes, care is taken that their points do not
-pierce the bark. No inside stakes are required at the ends, as here the
-outside stakes are so close together in opposing pairs as to hold the
-bark in a sharp fold along the centerline of the cover. This of course
-is also true of the stakes beyond the ends of the gunwales.
-
-After a few lengths of bark have been thus secured, they are faired
-between the stakes by inserting thin strips of split sapling, or
-battens of wood or root, along each side of the bark, under the inside
-and outside stakes. These battens are placed about halfway up the
-upturned bark. Some builders used long wooden battens, as this gave a
-very fair side when enough lengths were secured upright; others got
-the same results with short battens, the ends of which were overlapped
-between a pair of stakes on each side.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 40
-
-MULTIPLE CROSS SECTION through one side of a canoe on the building
-bed: at the headboard, middle, first, and second thwarts. Gunwale is
-raised and supported on sheering posts set under thwarts. Crown of
-the building bed is shown by varying heights of bottoms of the four
-sections.]
-
-When the bark has been turned up and clamped, the gores may be trimmed
-to allow it to be sewn with edge-to-edge seams at each slash. This
-is usually done after the sides are faired, by moving the battens up
-and down as the cuts are made, then replacing them in their original
-position. The gores or slashes, if overlapped, are not usually sewn at
-this stage of construction.
-
-With the inside stakes in place, the longitudinal battens secured,
-and the gores cut or the overlaps properly arranged, all is ready for
-sheering the gunwales. First the weights are removed from the gunwale
-frame so that it can be lifted. If the inside stakes have been properly
-made and fitted this can be done without disturbing the sides, though
-the ties across each pair of outside stakes may have to be slacked
-off somewhat. Before lifting the frame, some short posts, usually of
-sapling or of waste from splitting out the gunwales and thwarts, are
-cut in lengths determined by the measuring stick or from memory, one
-for each end of each thwart, and one for each end of the gunwale frame.
-Those under the middle thwart ends in this canoe are 7½ inches long,
-those under the next thwarts out from the middle will be 9 inches,
-those under the end thwarts will be 12 inches, and those at the gunwale
-ends will be 17 inches long. These posts, cut with squared butts, are
-laid alongside the bed. The gunwale frame is now lifted and the pair of
-posts to go under the middle thwart are stepped on the bark cover, the
-gunwale is lowered onto them, and while the frame and posts are held
-steady, stones are laid on a plank over the middle thwart. Next, the
-ends of the gunwales are held and lifted so that a pair of posts can be
-placed at the thwarts next out from the middle. More weights are placed
-over these, the operation is repeated for the end thwarts and, finally
-at the gunwale ends, so that the gunwales now stand on posts on the
-bark cover, sprung to the correct fore-and-aft sheer and steadied by
-the bearing of the outside of the gunwale frame on the rounded faces of
-the inside stakes. Now the sheer has been established and the depth of
-the canoe is approximated.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 41
-
-FOURTH STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: bark cover has been shaped and
-all stakes placed. The gunwales have been raised to sheer height; "A"
-indicates the sticks which fix the sheer of the gunwales; "B" indicates
-blocks placed under ends to form rocker. Side panels are shown in
-place, and cover is being sewn to gunwales. (_Sketch by Adney._)]
-
-To protect the bark cover from the thrust of the weights used to
-ballast the frame, some builders inserted small bark or wood shields
-for padding under the heels of the posts. By some tribes the posts were
-notched on one face, to fit inside the gunwales near the thwarts, and
-there were also other ways of assembling the gunwales themselves.
-
-It should be apparent that the operations just described would serve
-only for canoes in which the sheer had a gentle, fair sweep. For canoes
-in which the sheer turned up sharply at the ends, the gunwale members
-might have to be split into laminations and prebent to the required
-sheer before being assembled into the gunwale frame. To accomplish
-this, the laminations were scalded with boiling water until saturated
-and then the gunwale members were staked out on the ground or tied
-with cords to set the wood in the desired curves as it dried out. The
-laminations were then wrapped with cord and the gunwale was ready to
-assemble. To produce a hogged sheer, the gunwales were made of green
-spruce and then staked out to season in the form desired; a hogged
-sheer was also formed by steaming or boiling the gunwale members at
-midlength.
-
-The canoe, as now erected on the building bed, has a double-ended,
-flat-bottomed, wall-sided form. The gunwales are sprung to the proper
-breadth and sheer, and the bark is standing irregularly above them. At
-this point, on canoes not having outwales, the bark cover was laced or
-lashed to the gunwales. Since the Malecite canoe has outwales, these
-are now made and fitted. They consist of two white cedar battens
-about 19½ feet long, perhaps 1 inch wide, and ½ inch thick. The face
-that will be the outboard side is usually somewhat rounded, as are all
-the corners, and the corner that will be on the inside and bottom of
-each batten when it is in place is somewhat beveled. The outwales are
-placed between the bark and the outside stakes, the inside stakes being
-removed one by one as this is done. The removal of the inside stakes
-allows room for the outwale to be inserted in their place, between
-the outside stakes and the inner gunwale face, and it allows the bark
-to be brought against the outside face of the inner gunwales. In the
-process of fitting the outwales, the battens along the sides may have
-to be removed and replaced, or shifted, and the cross-ties of each
-pair of outside stakes may require adjustment. Beginning at midlength,
-the outwale is pegged through the bark cover to the inner gunwales at
-intervals of 6 to 9 inches. The pegging is not carried much beyond the
-end thwarts in any canoe and could not be in canoes having laminated
-gunwales near the ends.
-
-The Malecite canoe has bark covers over the ends of the inner gunwales,
-and these are now fitted so that they can be passed under the outwales
-and clamped in place. The ends of the outwales are forced inside the
-stakes at and beyond the ends of the gunwales, assuming a pinched-in
-appearance there, and they may reach a few inches beyond the ends
-of the bark cover; they will be cut and shaped to the length of the
-finished canoe later.
-
-The outwale pegs are made by splitting from a balk of birch, larch, or
-fir roughly squared dowels about ¼ inch square and 6 to 9 inches long.
-Each dowel is then tapered and rounded each way from the middle to
-form two shanks that are between ⅛ and ³⁄₁₆ inch in diameter over 2 to
-3 inches of length. The ends may be sharpened by fire. The dowels are
-then cut in two, providing a pair of pegs with large heads. These are
-driven in holes drilled through the outwales, bark cover, and gunwales,
-and when well home, the protruding ends are cut off flush. Toward the
-ends of the gunwales, the spaces between the pegs increase, and at
-the extreme ends, the outwale will be lashed to the gunwale by widely
-spaced groupings of root strand. These are usually temporary, as the
-final lashing of the bark to the gunwales will secure the outwales.
-
-After the outwales are secured in place, the bark is fastened to the
-assembled gunwales with group lashings. In the Malecite canoe being
-built, these are independent, each grouping consisting of eight to ten
-complete turns of the root strand. The intervals between, roughly 2
-inches, are usually spaced by means of a special measuring-stick to
-insure evenness. Before the lashing is actually begun, however, the
-excess bark standing above the gunwales is cut away. The bark either
-is trimmed flush with the top of the gunwale, or enough is left for a
-flap that will fully cover the top of the inner gunwale, to be turned
-down under the lashing. The latter method, the stronger, was used by
-many builders. In making the turns in the group lashings, two or three
-turns may be taken through a single hole in the bark; the Malecites did
-this to avoid having the holes too close together. The result is that
-the group when seen from outboard appears as a ~W~-form, with only two
-or three holes in the bark for an entire group. Care is taken to lay
-up the turns over the gunwales neatly, turn against turn without open
-spacing or overlaps and crossings.
-
-When this is completed, the ends of the thwarts can be lashed, the
-strand passing through the holes in the shoulders, around the two
-gunwale members, and through one or two holes in the bark cover. The
-groupings for the bark cover are spaced so that these lashings do not
-overlap them, and thus the lashings serve a dual purpose.
-
-Next, the gores are usually sewn and the ends of the side panels
-closed. To do this, the temporary side battens outside the bark
-are removed. Since this is a Malecite canoe, the gores are sewn
-edge-to-edge with an over-and-over stitch, the strand crossing the
-seam square outside and diagonally inside. When these seams and those
-remaining in the upper panels are sewn, the rather stiff bark holds the
-shape formed on the building bed to a remarkable degree.
-
-The canoe can now be raised from the building bed. To set it up at a
-most convenient working height, the weights are first removed from the
-gunwales and the remaining stakes are pulled up. The canoe is then
-lifted from its bed and turned upside down over a couple of logs, or
-crude horses. Traditionally, logs or sapling were rested across two
-pairs of boulders or the logs were tied between two pairs of trees at
-convenient distances apart. More recently, horses, formed by sticking
-four legs into auger holes drilled in the bottom of a 4-foot length
-of timber, were used. After the canoe is on its supports the ends are
-ready to be closed in.
-
-The stem-pieces customarily used by the Malecite builder are formed
-from two clear white cedar billets a full 36 inches long and in the
-rough nearly 1½ inches square. The billets are first shaped so that
-the outboard face of each stem-piece is about ¾ inch wide, making it
-a truncated triangle in cross-section. Then, along lines parallel to
-the base of the truncated triangle, it is split into six laminations
-which are carried to within 6 or 7 inches of the end selected to be the
-heel of the stem-piece. Just clear of the laminations a notch is cut
-into the top side of the heel, to hold the headboard, as will be seen.
-The piece is then treated with boiling water until the laminations are
-flexible, and the curve of the stem-piece can be formed and either
-pegged out or tied with cords until it dries in the desired shape.
-When dry the laminations are tightly wrapped with basswood bark cord,
-leaving the form of the stem-piece a quarter arc of a circle, with
-short tangents at each end, as shown in the illustration (p. 35).
-
-[Illustration: Figure 42
-
-FIFTH STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: canoe is removed from building bed
-and set on horse in order to shape ends and complete sewing. Bark cover
-has dried out in a flat-bottomed and wall-sided form. (_Sketch by
-Adney._)]
-
-Next, the ends of the outwales are cut to a length determined by the
-quality of the bark already in place; if the bark in one end is not
-very good, it may be cut away somewhat and the canoe made shorter by
-this amount at both ends in finishing. After the ends of the outwales
-have been cut, both are notched on the inside at the extreme ends to
-take the head of the stem-piece. The outwales may or may not project
-¼ or ½ inch beyond the stem and the stem head may project ½ or 1 inch
-above the top of the outwales of the canoe; these matters, at the
-builder's option, decide the length of the notch and the fitting of the
-stem-pieces.
-
-The stem-piece is now placed between the folded bark end of the canoe
-with the heel resting for a small distance along its length on the bark
-bottom; the head must come to the right height above the outwales, as
-noted. While one worker holds the stem-piece in place, another trims
-away the excess bark at the end to the profile of the outboard face of
-the stem-piece. Thus the profile of each end is cut and the rake of
-the ends is established. The bark is next lashed to the stem-piece.
-In this canoe it is done with a spiral over-and-over stitch, a batten
-made of a large split root being placed over the edges of the bark, as
-the lashing proceeds, to form a stem band. The turns pass alternately
-from outboard around the inboard face of the stem-piece and through it;
-the awl inserted in the laminations from one side opens them enough to
-allow the strand to be forced through. Care is taken to pull up the
-strand very hard each time. As the outwale is approached, the bark is
-cut away at the notching in each so that the outwales can be brought
-snugly against the sides of the stem-piece. Here the strand is brought
-up one or two times over the outwales, abaft the stem head, before the
-bitter end is tucked, thus locking the outwales to the stem-piece and
-the bark. Then a lashing is placed around the outwales just inboard
-of the stem-piece, passing through a hole in the flap of the end
-deck-piece of bark and through the side bark. This lashing holds the
-outboard end of the deck piece flap. At the inboard end of the flap,
-another lashing is required, but the pinched-in outwales require
-additional securing outboard of this point; hence a lashing is passed
-just inboard of the middle of the flap, a little outboard of the ends
-of the inwales, and about six inches inboard from this lashing another
-is passed through the side bark and around the gunwale and outwale on
-each side. These three lashings hold the outwales snug to the ends of
-the gunwales and against the projecting bark ends in the pinched-in
-form of projecting outwales.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 43
-
-RIBS BEING DRIED AND SHAPED FOR OJIBWAY CANOE. (_Canadian Geological
-Survey photo._)]
-
-The heels of the stem-pieces rest on the bottom bark and the sewing is
-carried down to where the cutting of the profile makes an end to the
-seam, the solid part of the heels extending about 6 to 8 inches inboard
-of this. Next, any sewing required on the bottom is done. When the bark
-cover has been given a final inspection on the outside and all sewing
-has been completed, the canoe is lifted from its supports, righted, and
-set on the bed or on a smooth grassy place.
-
-All seams are now payed with gum on the inside of the bark while this
-can still be done without interference from the sheathing or those
-parts of the structure remaining to be installed. The Malecites used
-only spruce gum tempered with animal fat. The gum, heated until it is
-sufficiently soft to pour like heavy syrup, is spread with a small
-wooden paddle or spoon, and is then worked into the seam and smoothed
-by rubbing with the thumb dipped in water to prevent the gum from
-sticking and burning. It is first worked into the ends, between the
-bark and each side of the stem-pieces, particularly near the heel below
-the waterline. When the crevices are filled, a piece of bark (in later
-times a piece of cloth was used) wide enough to cover the gum alongside
-is well smeared with warm gum and pressed down along the inside of the
-stem-pieces. On each seam, at gores, and on side panels a thin narrow
-strip of bark is smeared with gum and pressed over the seam after the
-latter had been well payed. The bark is now carefully scrutinized for
-small splits, holes, or thin spots since these can be easily patched
-from the inside at this stage of construction. In fitting bark strips
-and in gumming, great care is taken to obtain a flat surface; the edges
-of the strips inside are faired to the inside face of the bark by
-smearing gum along the edges. The canoe is now ready to be sheathed and
-ribbed out.
-
-The sheathing for this canoe has been split in advance out of clear
-white cedar in splints about 5 to 9 feet long, 3 to 4¼ inches wide, and
-⅛ inch thick. The butts of each piece have been whittled to a feather
-edge, the bevel extending back about 2 inches. Also, some pieces of
-basket ash have been split out of saplings for temporary ribs to hold
-the sheathing in place.
-
-A total of 50 or more ribs in five lengths, the longest about 5 feet,
-have been made up from white cedar heartwood and bent to the desired
-shape.
-
-In deciding the rough lengths of the ribs, the builder can resort
-to various methods. He can prebend ribs in pairs to a number of
-arbitrarily chosen shapes: the first set of six pairs to the desired
-midsection form; a second set of five pairs to the form of the section
-between the middle and first pair of thwarts; a third, of five pairs,
-to the section at the first thwarts each way from the middle; a fourth,
-of four pairs, to the section between the end and the first pair of
-thwarts each way from the middle; a fifth, of three pairs, to the
-section at the end thwarts; and a sixth, of two or three pairs, for the
-section at or near the headboards. This makes from 50 to 52 frames in a
-canoe measuring 18 or 19 feet overall.
-
-Each frame piece is treated with boiling water and then bent, over the
-knee or around a tree, to a slightly greater degree than is needed.
-While thus bent, each pair is wrapped lengthwise over the end with a
-strip of basswood or cedar bark to hold the ribs in shape. Sometimes
-a strut is placed under the bark strips to maintain the desired form,
-or a cross-tie of bark may be employed. The ribs are then allowed to
-season in this position.
-
-Another method, which will be illustrated later (p. 53), involves
-placing ribs of green spruce in their approximate position and forcing
-them against the bark. In this method, a number of long battens are
-placed over the roughly bent ribs laid loosely inside the bark cover,
-and are spread by forcing a series of short crosspieces, or stays,
-between them athwartships. The bark is given a good wetting with
-boiling water to make it flexible and elastic, so that the pressure
-applied to the battens by the temporary crosspieces brings the bark
-to the shape desired for the canoe. The rough lengths of the ribs are
-determined by use of a measuring stick or by measurements made around
-the bark with a piece of flexible root or a batten of basket ash. The
-ribs, in any case, are made somewhat longer than required to allow a
-final fitting when being placed over the sheathing.
-
-It can be seen that the exact form the canoe takes is largely a matter
-of judgment and of the flexibility and elasticity of the bark, rather
-than of precise molding on a predetermined model, or lines.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 44
-
-DETAILS OF RIBS and method of shaping them in pairs in a bark strap or
-thong so that they take a "set" while drying out.]
-
-In the Malecite canoe the ribs are wide amidships, 3 or 4 inches, and
-narrow to 2½ or 2 inches toward the ends. The thickness is an even ⅜
-inch. Most birch-bark canoes have ribs of even thickness their full
-length, but in a few the thickness is tapered slightly above the turn
-of the bilge, usually when the tumble-home is high on the sides and
-rather great. The width, as previously explained, is usually carried
-all across the bottom; above the bilges there is a moderate taper.
-
-The sheathing of the canoe is now first to be put in place. In the
-Malecite canoe the center pieces are the longest; they are tapered
-each way from their butts, which overlap about 2 inches amidships. The
-ends are made narrow enough to fit readily into the sharp transverse
-curve of the bottom and are long enough to pass under the heels of the
-stem pieces for an inch or two. The pieces of sheathing on each side
-of the center pieces are fitted in the same manner, and by the time
-two or three courses are in place they must be held in some manner at
-the ends. This is accomplished by means of the rough temporary ribs
-mentioned earlier. The sheathing is laid edge-to-edge, with the butts
-overlapping, and, if there are not enough long pieces to complete the
-bottom amidships, three or four lengths, with overlapped butts, will be
-used. As the sheathing progresses, more temporary ribs will have to be
-added. At the turn of the bilge, the sheathing will bend transversely
-as pressure is applied by the temporary ribs; the bark must be again
-wetted so that the angular bilge can be forced into a roughly rounded
-form. Particular care is required in finishing the sheathing below the
-gunwale to be certain that the top strake will be close up against the
-sewing of the bark at gunwales, but no particular attempt is made to
-make the edges of the sheathing in the topsides maintain edge-to-edge
-contact.
-
-The pressure of the temporary ribs, the heads of which are forced under
-the gunwales, and the elasticity of the bark due to treating it with
-boiling water are enough to rough-shape the canoe.
-
-Before the permanent ribs are placed the sheer is checked. If it
-appears to have straightened, the ends of the gunwales are supported
-by means of short posts placed under them, with the heels standing on
-the heels of the stem pieces or on the sheathing. Then some stakes,
-each having a projecting limb or root, are cut and are driven into the
-ground with the limb hooked over the gunwale to force it down.
-
-After measurements have been made for the first rib with a strand of
-root or an ash batten, it is now cut to a length slightly more than
-would permit the rib to be forced upright when in place. The ends of
-the rib are set in place in the bevel, or notch, on the underside of
-the gunwales, against the bark cover, and with the bottom part of the
-rib standing inboard of the head. Then, with one end of a short batten
-placed against its inboard side, the rib is driven toward the end of
-the canoe with blows from a club on the head of the batten. If the rib
-drives too easily it is removed and laid aside; if too hard, it is
-shortened. It must go home tightly enough to stretch slightly the bark
-cover by bringing pressure to bear on the whole width of the sheathing.
-Care is taken, in this operation, to keep moist not only the bark but
-also the sewing, particularly along the gunwales, so that all possible
-elasticity is obtained. The ribs are set, one by one, working to within
-two or three frames of the midship thwart; then the other end of the
-canoe is begun. The last three or four ribs to be placed are thus
-amidships. In every rib driven, the tension is great, but no rib is
-driven so that it stands perpendicular to the base. Those first driven
-stand with their bottoms nearer the midship thwart than the ends, and
-this angle, or slant, continues to amidships; the ribs in the other end
-of the canoe slant in the opposite direction.
-
-It will be evident that skill is required to estimate how much pressure
-the bark will stand before bursting under the strain of the driven
-ribs. It is also apparent that the shape of the canoe is controlled
-by the shaping given the ribs in the prebending, for this fixes the
-amount of tumble-home and the amount of round, or rounded-~V~, given to
-the bottom athwartships. No fixed rules appear to exist; the eye and
-judgment of the builder are his only guides. To show how much strain is
-placed on the bark, however, it may be noted that inspection of two old
-canoes showed that the gunwale pegs had been noticeably bent between
-the inner and outer gunwales.
-
-It appears to have been a rather common practice, after all the ribs
-had been driven into place, to allow the canoe to stand a few days and
-then again to set the frames (where unevenness appears in the topsides)
-with driving batten and maul, the bark cover and the root sewing or
-lashings having been again thoroughly wetted.
-
-The headboards are now to be made. These are shaped in the form of an
-elongate-oval from a wide splint of white cedar about 4 inches wide
-at midlength and ¼ inch thick. The narrow end is first cut off square
-or nearly so; the bottom end is notched to fit in the notch in the
-heel of the stem-piece and the top has a small tenon at the centerline
-that will be fitted into a hole drilled or gouged in the underside
-of the inner gunwales where they join at the ends. The length of the
-headboards in the canoe being built is 15¾ inches over all, and when
-they have been made for each end, they are checked as to width and
-height to see that they can be fitted. Next, the extreme ends of the
-canoe between the stem and the headboards are stuffed with dry cedar
-shavings or dry moss so that the sides stand firm on each side of the
-bow outboard of the ends of the sheathing, which ends rather unevenly,
-just outboard of where the headboards will stand. This completed, the
-headboards are forced into position by first stepping the heel notch
-in the stem-piece notch and then bending the board by placing one
-hand against its middle and pulling the top toward the worker. This
-shortens the height of the board enough so the tenon projecting on its
-head can be sprung into the small hole under the inner gunwales, where
-it becomes rigidly fixed. Its sprung shape pushes up the gunwales and
-makes the side bark of the ends very taut and smooth, while supporting
-the gunwale ends.
-
-Two thin strips about 19 feet long are next split out of white cedar
-to form the gunwale caps; these are ¼ to ⅜ inch thick, and taper each
-way from about 2 inches wide in the middle to 1 inch wide at the ends.
-These are laid along the top of the inner gunwales and fastened down
-with pegs placed clear of the gunwale lashings. The ends of the strips
-are usually secured by two or three small lashings; the caps thus
-formed often stop short of the ends of the inner gunwale members. If
-the caps are carried right out to the stems, as was the practice of
-some Malecite builders, the lashings of the outwale are not turned in
-until after the caps are in place, in which case the bark deck pieces,
-or flaps, are put in just before the final lashing is made.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 45
-
-SIXTH STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: canoe has been righted and placed
-on a grassy or sandy spot. In this stage splints for sheathing (upper
-left) are fixed in place and held by temporary ribs (lower right) under
-the gunwales. The bark cover has been completely sewn and the shape of
-the canoe is set by the temporary ribs. (_Sketch by Adney._)]
-
-Next, the canoe is turned upside-down and all seams are gummed smoothly
-on the outside. The ends, from the beginning of the seam to above the
-waterline, may be heavily gummed and then covered with a narrow strip
-of thin bark, heavily enough smeared with gum to cause it to adhere
-over the seam. In more recent times a piece of gummed cloth was used
-here. Above this protective strip, the end seams are filled with gum so
-that the outside can be smoothed off flush on the face of the cutwater
-between the stitches. All seams in the side and bottom are gummed
-smooth and any holes or patches remaining to be gummed are taken care
-of in this final inspection.
-
-If the canoe is to be decorated (not many types were) the outside
-of the bark is moistened and the rough, reddish winter bark, or
-inner rind, is scraped away, leaving only enough to form the desired
-decorations. When paints of various colors could be obtained, these
-were also employed, but the use of the inner rind was apparently the
-older and more common method of decorating.
-
-The paddles are made from splints of spruce or maple, ash, white cedar,
-or larch. Two forms of blade were used by the Malecite. The older form
-is long and narrow, with the blade wide near the top and the taper
-straight along each edge to a narrow, rounded point. Above the greatest
-width, the blade tapers almost straight along the edge, coming into
-an oval handle very quickly. At the head, the handle is widened and
-it ends squared off, but the taper toward the handle is straight, not
-flared as in modern canoe paddles; there is no swelling. Paddles of a
-shape similar to this, some without a wide handle, were used by other
-eastern Indians. The more recent form of Malecite paddle has a long
-leaf-shaped, or beaver-tail, blade, much like that of the modern canoe
-paddle, except that it ends in a dull point; the handle is as in the
-old form but the head is swelled to form the upper grip. The face of
-the blade, in both old and new form, has a noticeable ridge down the
-centerline.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 46
-
-GENERAL DETAILS OF BIRCH-BARK CANOE CONSTRUCTION, in a drawing by
-Adney. (From _Harper's Young People_, supplement, July 29, 1890.)]
-
-The eastern style of construction described here produced what might
-be called a wide-bottom canoe with some tumble-home above the turn of
-the bilge, but a different method of construction was used to produce
-canoes having a narrow bottom and flaring sides. These canoes were not
-set up on the building bed, in the first steps of shaping the hull,
-with the gunwale frame on the cover bark. Instead, a special building
-frame, mentioned earlier, was used. Each tribe using the building frame
-had its own style, but the variations were confined to minor matters or
-to proportion of width to length.
-
-In general, the building frame is made of two squared battens, about
-1¼ inch square for an 18-foot canoe. These, sometimes tapered slightly
-toward each end, are fitted with crosspieces with halved notches in
-each end to fit over the top of the battens. There may be as many as
-nine or as few as three of these crosspieces, with seven apparently a
-common number. Where ends of the long battens join they are beveled
-slightly on the inside face and notches are cut on the outside face
-to take the end lashings. Each crosspiece end is lashed around the
-long battens, a hole being made in each end of the crosspiece for
-this purpose. The lashings, commonly bark or rawhide thongs, are all
-temporary, as the building frame has to be dismantled to remove it from
-the canoe. Sometimes holes are drilled in the ends of the crosspieces,
-or in the long battens, and in them are stepped the posts used to fix
-the sheer of the gunwales.
-
-The methods of construction, using the building frame, varied somewhat
-among the tribes. Since the gunwale was both longer and wider across
-than the building frame, the posts for sheering were set with outboard
-flare. However, some builders made the gunwales hogged by staking
-them out when green, and then set them above the building frame with
-vertical posts. These gunwales would not be fitted with thwarts nor
-would the thwart tenons always be cut at this stage. The bark was
-lashed to the gunwales while they were in the hogged position with the
-ends secured; the gunwales were then spread by inserting spreaders,
-or stays, between them, after which the thwarts were fitted. This
-method required knowledge of just how much hog should be given to the
-gunwales, and it must be stated that not all builders guessed right
-enough to produce a good-looking sheer. Judging the hogging required
-in the gunwales was complicated by the fact that most of these canoes
-had laminated ends in the gunwales at bow and stern, and a quick upturn
-there as well. This method of construction persisted, however, because
-the straight sides made easy the sewing of gores and side panels. In
-some Alaskan birch-bark canoes the building frame was, in fact, part of
-the hull structure and remained in the canoe. In these, the building
-frame was hogged and then flattened by the ribs in construction so as
-to smooth the bottom bark by placing it under tension. In some canoes
-the posts for sheering the canoe rested under the thwarts rather than
-under the gunwales. In most canoes the building frame was taken apart
-and removed from the canoe when the gunwale structure was complete and
-in place, sheered.
-
-Where large sheets of bark were available, the setting up with the
-building frame or gunwale was made easier than where the bark had to be
-pieced out for both length and width. If large pieces of bark could be
-obtained there was little or no sewing on the bottom; only the gores
-or laps, and the panels, in the side required attention after the bark
-had been lashed to the gunwales. In such instances, the set-up did not
-require perpendicular sides, as the sides could be completed after the
-canoe was removed from the building bed and the building frame had been
-removed from the hull. There were many minor variations in the set-up
-and in the sequence of the sewing. In view of the slight opportunities
-that now exist for examining the old building methods and construction
-sequences, it is impossible to be certain that the one used by a
-tribe in recent times was that employed in prehistoric times by their
-ancestors.
-
-Instead of a laminated stem-piece, a large root whittled to the desired
-cross section was sometimes used by builders among the Malecites and
-other eastern tribes. This was bent into the ends while green and to
-it was lashed the bark, so that the stem dried in place to the desired
-profile curve. No inner stem-piece was used by the Micmacs, who formed
-the end structure by placing a split-root batten on each outside face
-of the bark and passing the lashing around both. When a plank-on-edge
-was used to form the stem-piece, as mentioned earlier, no headboard was
-required, as the gunwales ends could be brought to the plank structure.
-In canoes having the complicated stem structure seen in the large
-fur-trade canoes and some others, the headboard became an integral part
-of the stem structure, rather than an independent unit, and was placed
-in the canoe during building with the stem-pieces.
-
-There was much variation in the form of gunwale structure employed in
-bark canoes. A strip of bark was added all along the outwale by some
-tribes, so that between the gunwale members and for a short distance
-below the sewing the bark was doubled; the bottom of this strip was,
-in fact, a flap not secured and thus was much like the flaps at the
-ends of the Malecite canoe, but without covering the top of the main
-gunwales. The outwale and inwale cross sections of some canoes were
-almost round. The use of a single gunwale member is commonly followed
-by continuous lashing of the bark along it. On some northwestern canoes
-having continuous lashing, the ends of the ribs were made in sharp
-points that could penetrate between the turns of root sewing, under
-the gunwales. The ends of the ribs in some of these were secured more
-firmly by tying them to long battens placed between the ribs and the
-bark cover just below the gunwales. The northwestern canoes built in
-this manner had double gunwales, an outwale and an inwale, but no bevel
-or notch for the rib heads. The ends of the gunwales, inner and outer,
-were secured in many ways. Some, instead of being pegged and lashed,
-were simply tied together; others were fastened by a rather elaborate
-lashing through the bark and around the gunwales. Caps were sometimes
-allowed to overlap at the ends and were pinned together with pegs or
-lashed. In some canoes the outwales were lashed, rather than pegged, to
-the inwales, and for this and for the caps rawhide appears to have once
-been widely used. In some canoes the head of the stem-piece was bent
-inboard sharply and lashed to the ends of the inwales or outwales. In
-many canoes the gunwales, instead of stopping short of the stem-piece,
-ran to it and were lashed there.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 47
-
-GUNWALE CONSTRUCTION and thwart or crossbar fastenings, as shown in a
-sketch by Adney. (From _Harper's Young People_, supplement, July 29,
-1890.)]
-
-At the start of ribbing out a canoe, the first two or three ribs might
-not be put at each end until after the headboards had been fitted,
-and sometimes a rib was placed on each side of the middle thwart,
-apparently to hold securely the sheathing butted amidships while the
-ribbing progressed toward them from the ends. When a canoe was short
-and rather wide, the ribs usually were bent by placing them inside
-the faired bark cover before the sheathing was installed, there to
-dry and set or to season, depending on whether they were steamed or
-green. Prebending the ribs, as described in the building of a Malecite
-canoe, worked well only when the canoe was long, narrow, and sharp. The
-spacing of the ribs was done by eye, not by precise measurement, and
-was never exactly the same over the length of the canoe. Ribs near the
-ends were usually spaced at greater intervals than those in the middle
-third of the length.
-
-The extension of the bark beyond the ends of the inner gunwale in an
-eastern canoe was often about one foot on each end, but this distance
-was actually determined by the length of the bark available and by the
-usual reluctance of the builder to add a panel at the end.
-
-For the height of the end posts, in sheering the gunwales, a common
-Malecite measurement was the length of the forearm from knuckles of
-clenched fist to back of elbow. These posts were often left in place
-until the stems were fitted.
-
-The use of a building frame is known to have been common in areas
-where, normally, the gunwale frame would be employed in the initial
-steps in building. In a few instances this occurred when a builder
-had a number of canoes of the same size to construct. It seems
-probable that the use of the building frame spread into Eastern areas
-comparatively recently as a result of the influence of the fur-trade
-canoes on construction methods. The employment of the plank building
-bed in the East is known to have occurred among individual canoe
-builders late in the nineteenth century as a result of this influence.
-
-The use of nails and tacks instead of pegs and root lashing or sewing
-in bark canoe construction became quite widespread early in the
-nineteenth century; it is to be seen in many old canoes preserved in
-museums. The bark in these is often secured to the gunwales with carpet
-or flat-headed tacks, and both the outwale and the cap are nailed
-to the inner gunwales with cut or wire nails. Various combinations
-of lashings and nailing can be seen in these canoes, although such
-combinations are sometimes the result of comparatively recent repairs
-or restorations rather than evidence of the original construction.
-No date can be placed on the introduction of nails into Indian canoe
-building, although it may be said that nailing was used in many eastern
-areas before 1850.
-
-Among the many published descriptions of the method of building bark
-canoes the earliest give very incomplete information on the building
-sequence and usually contain obvious errors as to proportions and
-materials. (An example is that of Nicolas Denys, who, sometime between
-1632 and 1650, saw bark canoes being built in what is now New Brunswick
-and Cape Breton.) The best descriptions are relatively recent and, as a
-result, may describe methods of construction that are not aboriginal.
-
-The description given here is based upon notes made by Adney in 1889-90
-and upon inspection of old canoes from the various tribal areas. It
-was noted that, although among canoes of the same approximate length
-there was some variation in dimensions and some variety in end form,
-the construction appeared to vary remarkably little, and it is apparent
-that the Malecites held very closely to a fixed sequence in the
-building process. There was, however, great variation in detail. The
-number of gore slashes in canoes 18 to 19 feet long varied from 10 to
-23 on a side. The number was not always the same on both sides of a
-canoe nor were the gores always opposite one another. Canoes with long,
-sharp ends often had a large number of closely spaced gores in the
-middle third of the length, with widely spaced gores toward the ends.
-Full-ended canoes, on the other hand, had rather equally spaced gores
-their full length. The amount and form of rocker was also a factor in
-spacing the gores, and when the rocker was confined to short distances
-close to the ends there would naturally be rather closely spaced gores
-in these portions of the sides.
-
-A number of the building practices remain to be described, but these
-will be best understood when the individual tribal canoe forms are
-examined. No written description of building canoes can be understood
-without reference to drawings, and to promote this understanding
-construction details have been shown on many of those of individual
-canoes of each tribal type.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 48
-
-"PETER JOE AT WORK." Drawing by Adney for his article "How an Indian
-Birch-Bark Canoe is Made" (_Harper's Young People_, supplement, July
-29, 1890).]
-
-
-
-
-_Chapter Four_
-
-EASTERN MARITIME REGION
-
-
-Study of the tribal forms of bark canoes might well be started with
-the canoes of the eastern coastal Indians, whose craft were the first
-seen by white men. These were the canoes of the Indians inhabiting
-what are now the Maritime Provinces and part of Quebec, on the shores
-of the St. Lawrence River and in Newfoundland, in Canada, and of the
-Indians of Maine and New Hampshire, in New England. Within this area
-were the Micmac, the Malecite, and the mixture of tribal groups known
-as the Abnaki in modern times, as well as the Beothuk of Newfoundland.
-All these groups were expert canoe builders and it was their work that
-first impressed the white men with the virtues of the birch-bark canoe
-in forest travel.
-
-
-_Micmac_
-
-The Micmac Indians appear to have occupied the Gaspé Peninsula, most of
-the north shore of New Brunswick and nearly all the shores of the Bay
-of Fundy as well as all of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Cape
-Breton. They may have also occupied much of southern and central New
-Brunswick as well, but if so they had been driven from these sections
-by the Malecites before the white men came. The Micmacs were known
-to the early French invaders under a variety of names; "Gaspesians,"
-"Canadiens," "Sourikois," or "Souriquois," while the English colonists
-of New England called them merely "Eastern Indians." The name Micmac is
-said to mean "allies" and not known, but this name was in use early in
-the 18th century, if not before 1700.
-
-The Micmac were a hunting people with warlike characteristics; they
-aided the Malecite and other New England Indians in warfare against the
-early New England colonists and in later times aided the French against
-the English in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These Indians lived in an
-area where water transport represented the easiest method of travel and
-so they became expert builders and users of birch-bark canoes, which
-they employed in hunting, fishing, general travel, and warfare.
-
-The area in which they lived produced fine birch bark and suitable wood
-for the framework. Through experience, they had become able to design
-canoes for specific purposes and had produced a variety of models and
-sizes. The hunting canoe was the smallest, being usually somewhere
-between 9 and 14 feet long, with an occasional canoe as long as 15
-feet. This light craft, known as a "woods canoe" and sometimes as a
-"portage canoe," was intended for navigating very small streams and
-for portaging. Another model, the "big-river canoe," somewhat longer
-than the woods canoe, was usually between 15 and 20 feet long. A third
-model, the "open water canoe," was for hunting seal and porpoise in
-salt water and ranged from about 18 feet to a little over 24 feet in
-length. The fourth model, the "war canoe," about which little is known,
-appears to have been built in either the "big-river" or "open-water"
-form, and to the same length, but sharper and with less beam so as to
-be faster.
-
-The tribal characteristics of the Micmac birch-bark canoes were to be
-seen in the form of the midsection, in certain structural details, and
-in their generally sharp, torpedo-shaped lines. The construction was
-very light and marked by good workmanship. The distinctive profiles of
-bow and stern, which do not appear in the canoes of other tribes in so
-radical a form, were almost circular, fairing from the bottom around
-into the sheer in a series of curves. The break in the profile of the
-ends at the sheer, a break that marks in more or less degree, the end
-profile of other tribal forms, never occurs in the Micmac canoe. At
-most, a slight break in the "streamlined" curve might occur at the
-point where the profile was started in the bottom, at which point there
-might be a short, hard curve.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 49
-
-MICMAC 2-FATHOM PACK, OR WOODS, CANOE for woods travel with light
-loads, used by the Nova Scotia Micmacs.]
-
-The form of the sheer line of the Micmac canoes apparently varied with
-the model: the woods canoe had the usual curved sheer with the point
-of lowest freeboard about amidships, the big river canoe had either a
-nearly straight sheer or one very slightly hogged, while the open-water
-canoe had a strongly hogged sheer in which the midship portion was
-often as much as 3 or 4 inches above that just inboard of the ends.
-However, there is a possibility that, at one time, the sheer of all
-Micmac canoes was more or less hogged. The little that is known of the
-war canoes of colonial times indicate that they had the strongly hogged
-sheer that now marks the open-water model, through it is also known
-that some of these were really of the big-river model, which in later
-times had usually no more than a vestige of the hogged sheer.
-
-The hull-forms of the Micmac canoes were marked in the topsides by a
-strong tumble-home, carried the full length of the hull, that gave
-these canoes more beam below than at the gunwale. The form of the
-midsection varied with the model; the woods canoe usually had a rather
-flat bottom athwartships, the big river canoe a slightly rounded
-bottom, and the open water canoe either a well-rounded bottom or one
-in the form of a slightly rounded ~V~. The fore-and-aft rocker in the
-bottom was always moderate, usually occurring in the last few feet near
-the ends; however, many of the canoes were straight along the bottom.
-This condition will be again referred to in discussing the building
-beds used in this type. The ends were usually fine-lined; in plan view
-the gunwales came into the ends in straight or slightly hollow lines.
-The level lines below the gunwales might also be straight as they came
-into the ends, but were commonly somewhat hollow; a few examples show
-marked hollowness there. Predominantly, the Micmac canoes were very
-sharp in the ends and paddled swiftly. Early Micmac canoes seem to have
-been narrower than more recent examples, which are usually rather broad
-as compared to the types used by some other tribes.
-
-Structurally, the Micmac canoes were distinguished by the construction
-of the ends and by their light build throughout. The canoes had no
-inner framework to shape the ends; stiffness there was obtained by
-placing battens outside the bark, one on each side of the hull, that
-ran from the bottom of the cut in the bark required to shape the ends
-to somewhat inboard of the ends of the gunwales at the sheer. These two
-battens, as well as a split-root stem-band covering the raw ends of the
-cut bark, were held in place by passing a spiral over-and-over lashing
-around all three. Sometimes thicker battens reaching from the high
-point of the ends inboard to the end thwarts were added, in which case
-the side battens were stopped at the high point of the ends and there
-faired into the thick battens.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 50
-
-MICMAC 2-FATHOM PACK, OR WOODS, CANOE with Northern Lights decoration
-on bow, and seven thwarts.]
-
-The gunwale structure was rather light, the maximum cross section of
-the main gunwale in large canoes being rarely in excess of 1¼ inches
-square. These members usually tapered slightly toward the ends of the
-canoe and had a half-arrowhead form where they were joined. Old canoes
-had no guard or outwale, but some more recent Micmac canoes have had a
-short guard along the middle third of the length. Often there was no
-bevel to take the rib ends on the lower outboard corner of the main
-gunwales, and the gunwales were not fitted so that their outboard faces
-stood vertically. Instead, the tenons in the gunwales were cut to slant
-upward from the inside, so that installation of the thwarts would cause
-the outboard face to flare outward at the top. Between this face and
-the inside of the bark cover were forced the beveled ends of the ribs,
-which were cut chisel-shape. However, some builders beveled or rounded
-the lower outboard corner of the main gunwale, as described under
-Malecite canoe building (p. 38). The bark cover in the Micmac canoe was
-always brought up over the gunwales, gored to prevent unevenness, and
-folded down on top of them before being lashed. The gunwale lashing was
-a continuous one in which the turns practically touched one another
-outboard, though they were sometimes separated under the gunwale to
-clear the ribs, which widened near their ends, so the intervals between
-them were very small.
-
-The other member of the gunwale structure was the cap; its thickness
-was usually ¼ to ⅜ inch, reduced slightly toward the ends. Its inboard
-face and the bottom were flat, but the top was somewhat rounded, with
-the thickness reduced toward the outboard edge. The cap was fastened
-to the main gunwales with pegs and with short lashing groups near the
-ends, but in late examples nails were used. The ends of the caps were
-bevelled off on the inboard side, so that they came together in pointed
-form. The cap usually ended near the end of the gunwale but in some
-canoes, particularly those that were nail-fastened, the cap was let
-into the gunwale (see p. 50) so that the top was flush with end of the
-gunwale.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 51
-
-MICMAC 2-FATHOM PACK, OR WOODS, CANOE with normal sheer and flat
-bottom.]
-
-The ends of the gunwales were supported by headboards that were bellied
-outboard to bring tension vertically on the bark cover. The heel of the
-board stood on a short frog, laid on the bottom with the inboard end
-touching or slightly lapping over the endmost rib. The frog supported
-the heels of the headboard and also the forefoot of the stem-piece,
-which otherwise would have but partial support from the sewing battens
-outside the ends at these points. The headboard was rather oval-shaped
-and the top was notched on each side to fit under the gunwale; the
-narrow central tenon stood slightly above the top of the main gunwales
-when the headboard was sprung into place and was held in position by a
-lashing across the gunwales inboard of the top of the headboard. The
-heel was held by the notch in the frog. Cedar shavings were stuffed
-into the ends of the canoe between the stem-piece and the headboard
-to mold the ends properly, as no ribs could be inserted there. All
-woodwork in these canoes was white cedar, except the headboards and
-thwarts, which were maple, and the stem battens, which were usually
-basket ash but sometimes were split spruce roots.
-
-The more recent Micmac canoes usually had no more than five thwarts;
-this number was found even on small woods canoes. However, old records
-indicate that canoes 20 to 28 feet long on the gunwales were once built
-with seven thwarts. The shape of the thwarts varied, apparently in
-accordance with the builder's fancy. The most common form was nearly
-rectangular in cross-section; in elevation, it was thick at the hull
-centerline and tapered smoothly to the outboard ends; and in plan it
-was narrowest at the hull centerline and increased in width toward
-the ends, the increase being rather sharp at the shoulders of the
-tenon. In some, the tenon went through the main gunwales and touched
-the inside of the bark cover; in others the ends of the thwarts were
-pointed in elevation, square in plan, and were inserted in shallow,
-blind tenons on the inboard side of the main gunwales. A single 3-turn
-lashing through a hole in the shoulder and around the main gunwale was
-used in every case.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 51
-
-MICMAC 2-FATHOM PACK, OR WOODS, CANOE with normal sheer and flat
-bottom.]
-
-Sometimes the thwarts just described were straight (in plan view) on
-the side toward the middle of the canoe, and only the middle thwart
-was alike on both sides. In others the straight side of the end thwart
-and of that next inboard were toward the bow and stern of the canoe.
-In still others, the middle thwart had a rounded barb form in plan,
-with the barb located within 6 or 7 inches of the shoulder and pointed
-toward the tenon; the next thwarts out on each side of the middle
-thwart were shaped like a cupid's bow but slightly angular and aimed
-toward the ends of the canoe, and the end thwarts were of similar plan.
-In one known example having such thwarts, there were two very short
-thwarts at the ends of the canoe, of the usual plain form described
-earlier, each a few inches inboard of the headboard. Thus this canoe
-had seven thwarts in the old fashion.
-
-The ribs, or frames, were thin, about ¼ or ⁵⁄₁₆ inch thick, and across
-the bottom of the canoe they were often 3 inches wide. In the topsides
-the ribs were tapered to about 2 inches in width; when the bottom
-and outboard corner of the main gunwales were not beveled, the rib
-ends were cut square across on the wide face and chisel-shaped. When
-the gunwale corner was beveled, the ribs were formed with a sharply
-tapered dull point at the ends. From the middle of the canoe to the
-first thwarts each way from the middle, the ribs were spaced 1 inch
-edge-to-edge. From the first thwarts to the ends, the spacing was about
-1½ inches. Most builders made the ribs narrower toward the ends; if
-those in the middle of the canoe were 3 inches wide, those near the
-ends might be 2½. They were shaped and placed as described for the
-Malecite canoe in Chapter 3.
-
-In the construction of a Micmac canoe, the gunwales were first formed,
-assembled, and used as a building frame. If the sheer was to be hogged,
-this was done by treating the main gunwales with boiling water before
-assembly and then staking them out to dry in the required sheer curves.
-The building bed was well crowned, usually 2 to 2½ inches because of
-the very wide bottom and the tumble-home of these canoes. Most Micmac
-canoes appear to have had only slight fore-and-aft rocker in the
-bottom; the bottoms of the seagoing type were often quite straight,
-and the other two types had a slight rocker of perhaps 1½ inches, most
-of it near the ends. When the sheer was hogged, the amount of hog was
-probably close to the amount of crown in the building bed. The ends
-of the gunwales, when laid on the bed, were blocked up to about the
-desired amount of rocker to be given the bottom.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 53
-
-MICMAC 3-FATHOM OCEAN CANOE FITTED FOR SAILING. Short outwales or
-battens project gunwales to strengthen the ends of the canoe. Some
-specimens of this type of canoe had almost no rocker in the bottom.]
-
-The bark cover was selected with great care from the fine stand of
-paper birch available to the Micmac. Except in emergencies, only winter
-bark was used. The cover was gored six to eight times on each side,
-and most of these cuts were grouped amidships, owing to the sharpness
-of the ends. The gores were trimmed edge-to-edge, without overlap, as
-the Micmac preferred a smooth surfaced canoe, and the sewing was the
-common spiral, over and over. The width of the bark cover was usually
-pieced out amidships on each side (at least in existing models) by the
-addition of narrow panels. These may not have been necessary in the
-very old canoes, which appear to have been much narrower than more
-recent examples. The horizontal seams of the panels were straight, or
-nearly so, and did not follow the sheer. The closely spaced spiral
-over-and-over stitch was sewn over a batten, the lap being toward the
-gunwale. As has been said, a continuous over-and-over gunwale lashing
-was used. The thwart lashings were through single holes in the thwart
-shoulders, three turns being usual, and two turns around the gunwale on
-each side were added, all passing through the bark cover, of course.
-The sewing was neat and the stitches were even.
-
-The wood lining, or sheathing, of the Micmac canoe was like that
-described for the Malecite canoe in the last chapter. The sheathing was
-a full ⅛ to about ³⁄₁₆ inch thick. The strakes were laid edge-to-edge
-longitudinally, with slightly overlapping butts amidships, and were
-tapered toward the ends of the canoe. The maximum width of any strake
-at the butts was about 4 inches.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 54
-
-MICMAC ROUGH-WATER CANOE, Bathurst, N.B. (_Canadian Geological Survey
-photo._)]
-
-In some of the rough-water canoes fitted to sail, a guard strip running
-the full length of the canoe and located some 6 or 7 inches below the
-gunwale was placed along both sides to protect the strongly tumble-home
-sides from abrasion from the paddles, particularly when the craft was
-steered under sail. These strips, about ⁵⁄₁₆ inch thick and ¾ inch
-wide, were butted on each side, a little abaft amidships, and were held
-together by a single stitch. The guards were secured in place by rather
-widely spaced stitches around them that passed through the bark cover
-and ceiling, between the ribs in the topsides. At bow and stern, the
-ends of the guards butted against the battens outside the bark at the
-end profiles and were secured there by a through-all lashing.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 55
-
-MICMAC WOODS CANOE, built by Malecite Jim Paul at St. Mary's Reserve
-in 1911, under the direction of Joe Pictou, old canoe builder of Bear
-River, N.S. Modern nailed type. (_Canadian Geological Survey photo._)]
-
-The proportions and measurements of the Micmac canoes appear to have
-changed between the colonial period and the late 19th century. From
-early references, it is apparent that the early canoes were much
-narrower than later ones, in proportion to length, as mentioned
-earlier. An 18-foot rough-water canoe of the 18th century appears to
-have had an extreme beam of between 30 and 34 inches and a gunwale
-beam, measured inside the members, of 24 to 28 inches, the depth
-amidships being about 18 to 20 inches. A similar canoe late in the 19th
-century would have had an extreme beam of nearly 40 inches, a beam
-inside the gunwales of 33 or 34 inches, and a depth of about 18 inches
-or less. An early woods canoe, about 14 feet long overall, appears
-to have had an extreme beam of only 29 inches and a beam inside the
-gunwales of about 25 or 26 inches. A woods canoe of 1890 was 15 feet
-long, 36½ inches extreme beam, and 30 inches inside the gunwales, with
-the depth amidships about 11 inches. A big-river canoe of this same
-date was a little over 20 feet in extreme length, 18 feet over the
-gunwales, 41 inches extreme beam, and 34 inches gunwale width inside,
-with a depth amidships of about 12½ inches. An 18-foot big-river canoe
-of an earlier time was reported as being 37 inches extreme beam, 30½
-inches inside the gunwales, and 13 inches depth amidships. The maximum
-size of the rough-water seagoing canoe, in early times, may have been
-as great as 28 feet but with a narrow beam of roughly 29 or 30 inches
-over the gunwales, and say 24 inches inside, with a depth amidships
-as much as 20 or 22 inches due to the strongly hogged sheer there. In
-modern times, such canoes were rarely over 21 feet in overall length
-and had a maximum beam of about 42 inches, a beam inside the gunwales
-of 36 or 37 inches, and a depth amidships of 16 or 17 inches.
-
-In early colonial times, and well into the 18th century, apparently,
-the Micmac type of canoe was used as far south as New England, probably
-having been brought there by the Micmac war parties aiding the Malecite
-and the Kennebec in their wars against the English. The canoe in the
-illustration on page 12 is obviously a Micmac canoe and apparently one
-used by a war party. As it was brought to England in 1749 in the ship
-_America_, which was built in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and probably
-sailed from there, it seems highly probable that the canoe had been
-obtained nearby, perhaps in eastern Maine.
-
-The small woods canoe, most commonly about 12 feet long, appears first
-to have been used by all the Micmac. By the middle of the 19th century,
-however, this type was to be found only in Nova Scotia, owing to the
-movement of most of the tribe toward the north shore in New Brunswick,
-where their inland navigation was confined to large rivers and the
-coast. Hence the Micmac in New Brunswick used the big-river model and
-the seagoing type. The latter was last used in the vicinity of the head
-of Bay Chaleur and was often called the Restigouche canoe, after the
-Micmac village of that name. It was replaced by a 3-board skiff-canoe
-and finally by a large wooden canoe of the "Peterborough" type with
-peaked ends and lapstrake planking; some of the latter may still be
-seen on the Gaspé Peninsula.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 56
-
-MICMAC ROUGH-WATER CANOE fitted for sailing. (_Photo W. H. Mechling,
-1913._)]
-
-The use of sail in the Micmac canoes cannot be traced prior to the
-arrival of the white men. The use probably resulted from the influence
-of Europeans, but it is possible that the prehistoric Indians may
-have set up a leafy bush in the bow of their canoes to act as a sail
-with favorable winds. The old Nova Scotia expression "carrying too
-much bush," meaning over-canvassing a boat, is thought by some to
-have originated from an Indian practice observed there by the first
-settlers. In early colonial times, the Micmac used a simple square
-sail in their canoes and this, by the last decade of the 19th century,
-was replaced by a spritsail probably inspired by the dory-sail of the
-fishermen. The Indian rig was unusual in several respects. The sheet,
-for example, was double-ended; one end was made fast to the clew of the
-sail and the other to the head of the sprit, so that it served also
-as a vang. The bight was secured within reach of the steersman by a
-half hitch to a crossbar fixed well aft across the gunwales. The sail,
-nearly rectangular and with little or no peak, was laced to the mast,
-and the sprit was supported by a "snotter" lanyard tied low on the
-mast. A sprit boom was also carried by some canoes; this was secured to
-the clew of the sail and to the mast, a snotter lanyard being used at
-the latter position.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 57
-
-MICMAC ROUGH-WATER CANOE, BAY CHALEUR. (_Photo H. V. Henderson, West
-Bathurst, N.B._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 58
-
-MICMAC ROUGH-WATER SAILING CANOE, BAY CHALEUR. (_Canadian Geological
-Survey photo._)]
-
-The mast was secured by a thwart pegged, or nailed, across the gunwale
-caps. Sometimes, the thwart was also notched over the caps, so that
-the side-thrust caused by the leverage of the mast would not shear the
-fastenings. The crossbar for the sheet was sometimes similarly fastened
-and fitted, with its ends projecting outboard of the gunwales. The heel
-of the mast was sometimes stepped into a block, which was usually about
-5 inches square and 1½ inches thick, nailed or pegged to the center
-bottom board, or sometimes it was merely stepped into a hole in the
-center bottom board. The bottom boards, usually three in number were
-of wide, thin stock and were clamped in place over the ribs by three or
-four false frames driven under the thwarts, just as were the canoe ribs
-under the gunwales.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 59
-
-DETAILS OF MICMAC CANOES, INCLUDING MAST AND SAIL.]
-
-The canoes could not sail close-hauled, as a rule, though some Indians
-learned to use a leeboard in the form of a short plank hung vertically
-over the lee side and secured by a lanyard to a thwart, the board
-being shifted in tacking. An alternate was to have a passenger hold a
-paddle vertically on the lee side. There seems to have been no fixed
-proportions to the area of sail used; the actual areas appear to have
-been somewhere between 50 and 100 square feet, depending upon the size
-of the canoe. Joseph Dadaham, a Micmac, stated in 1925 that he used "24
-yards" in the sail of a "rough-water canoe" 20 feet long and about 44
-inches beam, while one 18 feet long and about 36 inches extreme beam
-carried "16 to 18 yards"; it is obvious that the "yards" are of narrow
-sail cloth and not square yards of finished sail. In the last days of
-sailing bark canoes, mast hoops and a halyard block were fitted so that
-the sail could be lowered instead of having to be furled around the
-mast (to accomplish this the "crew" had to stand). Dadaham also stated
-that for his sheet belay he used a jamb-hitch which could be released
-quickly when the canoe was found to be overpowered by the wind. It
-appears that during the last era of these bark canoes the rig had been
-improved to fit it for open-water sailing.
-
-The paddles used by the Micmac appear to have varied in shape. If the
-canoe shown in Chapter 1 (p. 12) was indeed a Micmac canoe as supposed,
-the paddle shown there is quite different from the later tribal forms
-illustrated above, and it is possible that the top grips shown in the
-more modern forms were never used in prehistoric times, when the pole
-handle shown with the old canoe may have been standard.
-
-The Micmac canoes were decorated by scraping away part of the inner
-rind of the birch bark, leaving portions of it in a formal design.
-It seems very probable that the Micmac seldom used this form of
-decoration in early times, but later they used it a great deal in their
-rough-water canoes, perhaps as a result of contact with the Malecite.
-The formal designs used as decoration by the Micmac did not have any
-particular significance as a totem or religious symbol; they were
-used purely as decoration or to identify the owner. Such forms as the
-half-moon, a star in various shapes, or some other figure might be used
-by the builder, but these were apparently only his canoe mark, not a
-family insignia or his usual signature, and could be altered at will.
-
-The usual method of decoration was to place the canoe mark on both
-sides of the canoe at the ends and to have along the gunwales amidships
-a long narrow panel of decoration, usually of some simple form. The
-panel decorations are said by Micmacs to have been selected by the
-builder merely as pleasing designs. One design used was much like the
-fleur-de-lis, another was a series of triangles supposed to represent
-camps, still another was the northern lights design, a series of
-closely spaced, sloping, parallel lines (or very narrow panels) that
-seem to represent a design much used in the quill decoration for
-which the Micmac were noted. Canoes are recorded as having stylized
-representations of a salmon, a moose, a cross, or a very simple star
-form; these may have been canoe marks or may once have been a tribal
-mark in a certain locality. A series of half-circles were sometimes
-used in the gunwale panels, which were rarely alike on both sides of
-the canoe, and it is probable that use was made of other forms that
-have not been recorded. Colored quills in northern lights pattern were
-used in some model or toy canoes but not in any surviving example of a
-full-size canoe. It is quite possible, however, that such quill-work
-was once used in Micmac canoe decoration. Painting of the bark cover
-for decorative purposes in Micmac canoes has not been recorded.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 60
-
-MICMAC CANOE, BATHURST, N.B. (_Canadian Geological Survey photo._)]
-
-Historical references to the canoes of the Micmac are frequent in
-the French records of Canada; it must have been Micmac canoes that
-Cartier saw in 1534 at Prince Edward Island and in Bay Chaleur. The
-most complete description of such canoes is in the account of Nicolas
-Denys, who came to the Micmac country in 1633 and remained there almost
-continuously until his death at 90, in 1688. His travels during this
-period took him into Maine as far as the Penobscot and throughout what
-are now New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. While his descriptions are
-primarily concerned with the Malecite dress, houses, and hunting and
-fishing techniques, his notes on birch-bark canoes seem to indicate
-very clearly that he is describing a hogged-sheer Micmac rough-water
-canoe. He says, for example, that the length of these canoes was
-between 3 and 4½ fathoms, the fathom being the French _brasse_, so
-that they ranged in length from 16 to 24 feet over the gunwales. This
-gunwale length seems reasonable, since Denys gives the beam as only
-about 2 English feet, obviously a gunwale measurement in view of
-the great tumble-home in these canoes. That the Micmac rough-water
-canoe is the subject of Denys' observations is further indicated by
-his statement that the depth was such that the gunwales came to the
-armpits of a man seated on the bottom. This could only be true in a
-canoe having a hogged sheer in the lengths given, and is, in fact, a
-slight exaggeration unless the man referred to was of less than average
-height. The depth would be about 22 English inches, great even for a
-24-foot canoe. Denys states that the inside sheathing of these canoes
-was split from cedar. He also states that the splints were about 4
-inches wide, were tapered toward the ends, and ran the full length of
-the canoe. It is probable that they were butted amidships, as in known
-examples; this, however, would have been covered by a rib and might not
-have been noticed.
-
-Denys says that the Indians "bent the cedar ribs in half-circles to
-form ribs and shaped them in the fire." Adney believed this meant by
-use of hot water. However, this bending could have been done by what
-was known in 17th-century shipbuilding practice as stoving, in which
-green lumber was roasted over an open fire until the sap and wood
-became hot enough to allow a strong bend to be made without breakage.
-Wood thus treated, when cooled and seasoned somewhat, would hold
-the set. While it is certain that later Indians knew how to employ
-hot water, it does not follow that all tribes used this method,
-particularly in early times.
-
-Denys also states that the roots of "fir," split into three or four
-parts, were used in sewing. He apparently used "fir" as a general name
-for an evergreen. It is probable that the roots used were of the black
-spruce. The technique of building he describes is about the same as
-that outlined in the last chapter. He says that the gunwales were round
-and that seven beech thwarts were employed, practices that differ from
-those in more recent Micmac canoe building, and he notes the goring of
-the bark cover. Denys states the paddles were made of beech (instead
-of maple as was perhaps the case) with blades about 6 inches wide and
-their length that of an arm (about 27 inches), with the handle a little
-longer than the blade. He also says that four, five, or six paddlers
-might be aboard a canoe and that a sail was often used. "Formerly of
-bark," the sail was made of a well-dressed hide of a young moose. Since
-it could carry eight or ten persons, the canoe Denys is referring to is
-obviously a large one. In his building description he does not mention
-headboards, rail caps, or the end forms. It may be assumed that he
-was then describing a canoe he had seen during construction but whose
-building he did not follow step by step.
-
-De la Poterie, in his book published in 1722, gives a profile and
-top view of what must have been a Micmac canoe. The probable length
-indicated must have been about 22 English feet overall and about 32
-inches extreme beam; seven thwarts are shown.
-
-Late in the 19th century there appears to have been some fusion of
-Micmac and Malecite methods of construction, as Malecite built to
-Micmac forms and vice versa. This apparently did not produce a hybrid
-form so far as appearance was concerned but it did affect construction,
-in that inner end-frames were used and other details of the Micmac
-design were altered. The Micmac, having early come into close contact
-with the Europeans, were among the first Indians to employ nails in the
-construction of bark canoes, and this resulted in an early decadence in
-their building methods. Hence, some examples of their canoes show what
-the Indians termed broken gunwales, in which the ends of the thwarts
-were not tenoned into the gunwales, but rather were let flush into the
-top by use of a dovetail cut or, less securely, by a rectangular recess
-across the gunwale, and were held in place with a nail through the
-thwart end and the gunwale member.
-
-From scanty references by early writers, it appears that a spiral
-over-and-over lashing was originally used by the Micmac on the ends and
-gunwales. The lower edges of the side panels were sewn over-and-over
-a split-root batten. In some extant examples the gores are sewn with
-a harness stitch; in others a simple spiral stitch is used. The
-cross-stitch does not appear to have been used by the Micmac. The
-gunwale caps were certainly pegged and the ends lashed; the bark cover
-was folded over the gunwale tops and clamped by the caps as well as
-secured by the gunwale lashings. Tacking the bark cover to the top of
-the gunwales, with the cap nailed over all, marks the later Micmac
-canoes. The use of nails and tacks seems to have begun earlier than
-1850.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 61
-
-MICMAC WOMAN gumming seams of canoe, Bathurst, N.B., 1913. (_Canadian
-Geological Survey photo._)]
-
-In spite of decadent construction methods used in the last Micmac
-birch-bark canoes, the model remained a very good one in each type.
-The half-circular ends, sharp lines, and standard mid-sectional forms
-were unaltered; the hogged sheer was retained in some degree in at
-least two of the canoe types, the rough water and the big river,
-right down to the end of bark-canoe building by this tribe. The very
-fine design and attractive appearance of the Micmac canoe may have
-contributed to the early acceptance by the early explorers and traders
-of the birch-bark canoe as the best mode of water transport for forest
-travel.
-
-
-_Malecite_
-
-Another tribe expert in canoe building and use was the Malecite. These
-Indians were known to the early French explorers as the "Etchimins"
-or "Tarratines" (or Tarytines). Many explanations have been given for
-the name Malecite. One is that it was applied to these people by the
-Micmac and is from their word meaning "broken talkers," since the
-Micmac had difficulty in understanding them. When the Europeans came,
-these people inhabited central and southern New Brunswick and the shore
-of Passamaquoddy Bay, with small groups or tribal subdivisions in the
-area of the Penobscot to the Kennebec. These were early affected by the
-retreat of the New England Indians before the whites into eastern and
-northern Maine and southeastern Quebec. As a result, the Penobscot and
-Kennebec Indians became part of the group later known as Abnaki, while
-the Passamaquoddy Indians remained wholly Malecite and closely attached
-to those living along the St. John River in New Brunswick. Like their
-neighbors the Micmac, the Malecite were hunters and warlike; during the
-colonial period they were usually friendly to the French and enemies
-of the English settlers in their vicinity. It is not certain that the
-tribe now called by that name were actually of a single tribal stock;
-it is possible that this designation really covers a loose federation
-of small tribal groups who eventually achieved a common language. In
-addition, the tribal designation cannot be wholly accurate because of
-the fact that much of the original group living in New England were
-absorbed in the Abnaki in the 17th and 18th centuries. Therefore, the
-Malecite are considered here to be those Indians formerly inhabiting
-valleys of the St. John and the St. Croix Rivers, and the Passamaquoddy
-Bay area. The remaining portions, the Kennebec and Penobscot Indians,
-must now be classed as Abnaki, of whom more later (see p. 88).
-
-In considering the birch-bark canoes of the Malecite, it is important
-to understand that this tribal form includes not only the types used in
-more recent times in New Brunswick and on Passamaquoddy Bay, but also
-an overlapping type related to the later Abnaki models. The old form
-of Malecite canoe used on the large rivers and along the coast appears
-to have had rather high-peaked ends, with a marked overhang fore and
-aft. The end profiles had a sloping outline, strongly curved into the
-bottom, and a rather sharply lifting sheer toward each end. This form
-was also to be seen in old canoes from the St. John River (the lower
-valley), the Passamaquoddy, the Penobscot, and the upper St. Lawrence.
-By late in the 19th century, however, this style of canoe had been
-replaced by canoes having rounded ends, the profiles being practically
-quarter-circles and sometimes with such small radii that a slight
-tumble-home appeared near the sheer. The small radius of the end curves
-is particularly marked in some of the seagoing porpoise-hunting canoes
-of the Passamaquoddy. In modern forms, the amount of sheer is moderate
-and the quick lift in the sheer to the ends is practically nonexistent.
-On the St. Lawrence, the radii of the end curves are very short and
-the upper part of the stems stands vertical and straight; the sheer,
-too, is usually rather straight. The older type, with high-peaked
-ends, was also marked by very sharp lines forward and aft, and had a
-midsection with tumble-home less extreme than in the Micmac canoes. The
-bottom, athwartships, was usually somewhat rounded (in coastal canoes
-the form might be a rounded ~V~) and the bilges were rather slack,
-with a reverse curve above, to form the tumble-home rather close to
-the gunwales. The river model probably had lower ends and less rake
-than the coastal type, but surviving examples of both give confusing
-evidence. The river canoes usually had a flatter bottom than the
-coastal type, the latter having somewhat more rocker fore-and-aft. The
-sections near the ends were rather ~V~-shaped in the coastal canoes,
-~U~-shaped in the river canoes.
-
-The old form of small hunting canoe is represented by but one poor
-model (see p. 72) in which the ends are lower and with much less rake
-than those of the river type. From this very scant evidence, it seems
-probable that the small woods canoes were patterned on the river canoe
-in all respects but the profile of the ends.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 62
-
-MALECITE 2½-FATHOM RIVER CANOE, 19TH CENTURY. Old form with raking ends
-and much sheer.]
-
-From the early English and French accounts, it is evident that none of
-the maritime Indians used very large or long war canoes, capable of
-holding many men. The old war canoes of the Malecite appear to have
-been either of the coastal or river types as the circumstances of their
-place of building and use dictated. The slight information available in
-these accounts suggests that the war canoe did not differ in appearance
-from the other types of Malecite canoes, and that they were not of
-greater size. The Malecite appear to have followed the same practices
-as the Micmac, using for war purposes canoes of standard size and
-appearance but narrower and built for speed, since a war party sought
-to travel rapidly to and from its objective in order to surprise the
-enemy and escape before organized pursuit could be formed. The Malecite
-placed four warriors in each canoe, two to paddle and two to watch and
-use weapons while afloat. However, only on rare occasions were bows
-and arrows used from canoes afloat; most fighting was done on land.
-Each canoe carried the personal mark of each of the four warriors,
-apparently one mark on each flap, or _wulegessis_, under the gunwales
-near the ends. When a war leader was carried however, only his mark
-was on his canoe. After a successful raid, the Malecite used to race
-for the last mile or so of the return journey, and the winning canoe
-was given, as a distinction, some mark or picture, often something
-humorous such as a caricature of an animal. This practice, however, was
-not confined to war canoes; in rather recent times it has been noted
-that such pictures were placed on any canoe that had shown outstanding
-qualities in racing competition or in exhibitions of skill.
-
-When making long canoe trips, the Malecite followed the widespread
-Indian practice of using the canoe as a shelter at night. When a
-camping place was reached, the canoe was unloaded, carried ashore, and
-turned upside down so that the tops of the ends and one gunwale rested
-on the ground. If the ends were high enough, as in the old Malecite
-type, one gunwale was raised off the ground far enough to permit a
-man to crawl under. If, as in the Micmac canoes, the ends were too
-low to allow this, they were raised off the ground by short forked
-sticks, with the forks resting against the end thwarts and the upper
-gunwale and the heels stuck into the earth. The dunnage (provisions
-or other cargo) was then stowed on the ground under the ends of the
-canoe and the two men would sleep under a single blanket with their
-feet pointed in opposite directions, each with his head on a pile of
-dunnage. If there were too many men aboard to do this, in bad weather a
-crude shelter was made by resting some poles on the upturned bilge and
-covering them with sheets of bark; under such a shelter meals could be
-cooked.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 63
-
-OLD FORM OF MALECITE-ABNAKI 2½--FATHOM OCEAN CANOE of the Penobscots.
-In the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.]
-
-As did many of the eastern Indians, the old Malecite tribesmen built
-canoes of materials other than birch bark. When a canoe was required
-for a temporary use such as in hunting, it could be made of spruce
-bark. (As the designs of such canoes were rather standardized, they
-will be dealt with in Chapter 8.) When bark was unobtainable, the
-Malecite built canoes covered with moosehide, or, in rare instances,
-they built wooden dugouts.
-
-The old Malecite river canoe shown on page 71 will serve to illustrate
-a description of the details of construction that were used. These
-canoes were obviously built with their gunwales (which were the length
-of the bottom only) serving as a building frame. The ends of the
-gunwales were supported by headboards stepped on the heels of the inner
-stem-pieces, and the stems raked outward from their heels. The gunwale
-ends were joined to the head of the stem-piece by the outwales and the
-gunwale caps. Bark was used to the ends of the canoe. One side of the
-bark cover was cut so that it stood well above the sheer line from the
-gunwale end outboard, and the opposite side was cut to the level of the
-sheer. The first piece was then folded over the opposite side and down,
-so that it covered both the extreme ends of the gunwales and the top of
-the inner stem-piece. Another piece of bark was then fitted over this
-fold, and this new piece formed the flaps below the outwales on each
-side, the _wulegessis_. The outwales ran past the gunwale ends and were
-cut off flush with the outboard face of the stem; the caps ran likewise
-and covered the bark over the head of the inner stem piece. The
-characteristic sheer of these canoes, where the rise toward the ends
-began, showed a quick curve that faired into a rising straight line at
-the gunwale and then continued straight and rising to the stem head.
-The _wulegessis_ was therefore quite long. The ends of the gunwales
-were not of the half-arrowhead shape, but were snied off on their
-inboard sides so that they met on a rather long bevel; the lashing was
-slightly let in to the outboard faces to keep it from slipping over the
-gunwale ends. The caps of the gunwales were similarly reduced in width,
-where they came together over the ends of the canoe.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 64
-
-LARGE 3-FATHOM OCEAN CANOE OF THE PASSAMAQUODDY porpoise hunters. These
-canoes were sometimes fitted to sail or outrigged for rowing. The last
-of this type had much lower ends.]
-
-The main gunwale members were about 1¼ inches square amidships,
-tapering to ¾ inch at the ends. The lower outboard corner was beveled
-to take the ends of the ribs, as shown on page 71, and the lower
-inboard corner was also beveled or rounded, but to a lesser degree.
-The upper inboard corner, shown beveled in the drawing of figure 62,
-was sometimes slightly rounded, as were the outwales. Amidships the
-outwale was about 1 inch deep, and it tapered toward the ends, where
-its depth was about ⅝ inch, the thickness being ½ inch amidships and a
-scant ⅜ inch at the ends. On the canoe shown, the cap was ⅜ inch thick,
-tapering to about ⁵⁄₁₆ inch at the ends, and 1¾ inches wide amidships,
-tapering to about ⅝ or ½ inch where the caps came together at the ends.
-The top corners of the cap were beveled in the example.
-
-The sheathing appears to have been about ³⁄₁₆ inch thick on the
-average. On the bottom and sides it was in two lengths, overlapping
-slightly amidships. Toward the ends of the canoe the sheathing was
-tapered, maximum width of the splints being about 4 inches amidships.
-
-The canoe, which was 18 feet 6 inches long overall, had 46 ribs. These
-were about 3 inches wide and ⅜ inch thick from the center to the first
-thwart outboard on each side, and 2 inches wide from these thwarts
-to the ends, except for the endmost five ribs, which were roughly 1¾
-inches wide. The drawing on page 71 shows the shape of the thwarts. The
-ends were tenoned through the gunwales, and there were three lacing
-holes in the ends of the middle and first thwarts and two in the end
-thwarts. The beam of the canoe inside the gunwales was 30 inches and
-outside, 31¼ inches; the tumble-home made the extreme beam 35½ inches.
-The canoe was rather flat bottomed athwartships and quite shallow, the
-depth amidships being 10¾ inches.
-
-The building bed must have had about a 1½ inch crown at midlength. It
-is probable that the stem pieces were not fixed in place until after
-the gunwales had been raised to sheer height. The gunwales were lashed
-with the Malecite group lashings, each of four turns through the bark
-and spaced at 3 to 3½ inches apart in the midlength and at 2 inches
-from the end thwarts to the headboards. Two auxiliary lashings were
-placed over the outwales and caps outboard of the gunwale ends, one
-about 6 inches beyond the ends of the gunwales and the other against
-the inboard side of the stem-piece. The end closure was accomplished by
-the usual spiral lashing passed through the laminated stem pieces. The
-latter were split (to within about 4 inches of the heel), into six or
-more laminae that were closely wrapped with bark cord. The headboards
-were bellied toward the ends to keep the bark cover under tension, and
-the ends outboard of the headboards were stuffed with shavings or moss.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 65
-
-OLD FORM OF PASSAMAQUODDY 2½-FATHOM OCEAN CANOE with characteristic
-bottom rocker and sheer. This rather small, fast canoe for coastal
-hunting and fishing was common in the 19th century.]
-
-A canoe from the Penobscot River, obtained in 1826 by the Peabody
-Museum, Salem, Massachusetts, and described in _The American Neptune_
-for October 1948, shows that the Penobscot built their canoes on the
-old Malecite model. The canoe is apparently a coastal type. It has some
-round in the bottom amidships and ~V~-sections toward the ends; it is
-18 feet 7 inches long overall, 37¼ inches maximum beam, 15¼ inches deep
-amidships, and the ends stand 26 to 28 inches above the base line, the
-bow being slightly higher and with more rake than the stern. The rocker
-takes place within 4 feet of the ends, with the bottom straight for
-about 8 feet along the midlength. The bilges amidship are slack, and
-the reverse curve to form the tumble-home starts within 6 inches of the
-gunwales (see drawing, p. 72.)
-
-A much later coastal canoe of the Passamaquoddy, a porpoise-and
-seal-hunting canoe built in 1873, will also serve to show the old type
-(see p. 73). This style of canoe was usually built in lengths ranging
-from 18 to 20 feet overall, the maximum beam was between 25 and 44
-inches, and the beam inside the gunwales was between 29½ and 36 inches.
-The depth amidships ranged from about 18 to 21 inches, and the height
-of the ends above the base was from 28 or 30 inches to as much as 45
-inches. The ribs numbered from 42 to 48 and were 3 inches wide and ½
-inch thick. The sheathing was from ¼ to ⅜ inch thick and the rocker
-of the bottom, from 4 to 6 inches, took place within the last 4 or 5
-feet of the ends. The midsection showed a well-rounded bottom, a slack
-bilge, and the high reverse to form the tumble-home seen in the old
-Penobscot canoe at Salem. These canoes were still being built well
-into the 1880's, if not later, and are to be seen in some old U.S.
-Fish Commission photographs of porpoise and seal hunting at Eastport,
-Maine. Seal-and porpoise-hunting canoes carried a sail, usually the
-spritsail of the dory. While this model probably was little changed in
-construction from early times, the surviving examples and models are
-of the period when nails were employed. The drawing on page 74 is of a
-small coastal hunting canoe of the same class, built in 1875.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 66
-
-MALECITE RACING CANOE OF 1888, showing ~V~-shaped keel piece placed
-between sheathing and bark to form deadrise.]
-
-The reasons for the gradual decline in the building of canoes of the
-old style are not known, and the transition from the high-peaked ends
-to the more modern low and rounded ends was not sudden. It apparently
-began in some inland areas, particularly on the St. Lawrence and the
-St. John Rivers, at least as early as 1849, and the new trend in
-appearance finally reached the coast about 25 years later. In the
-period of transition, the high-peaked model developed toward the St.
-Francis type, or that of the modern "Indian" canvas canoe, as well as
-toward the low-ended type.
-
-One of the later developments took place on the St. John River, in New
-Brunswick, where two Indians, Jim Paul and Peter Polchies, both of
-St. Marys, in 1888 built for a Lt. Col. Herbert Dibble of Woodstock
-the racing canoe illustrated above (fig. 66). This canoe, 19 feet
-6½ inches long overall and only 30½ inches extreme beam, was of a
-design perhaps not characteristic of any particular type of Malecite
-canoe, but it nevertheless shows two elements that may have appeared
-during the period of change in model. The sides amidships not only are
-without tumble-home, they flare outward slightly, but tumble-home is
-developed at the first thwart each side of the middle and continues to
-the headboards. The bottom shows a marked ~V~-deadrise achieved by an
-unusual construction in a birch-bark canoe: the center strake of the
-sheathing is shaped in a shallow ~V~ in cross section, its width being
-about 2½ inches amidships and tapering each way toward the ends, and
-its thickness along the longitudinal centerline being about ⅝ inch and
-tapering to about ¼ inch at the edges; the two lengths of the strake
-are butted, not lapped, amidships, though the rest of the sheathing is
-lapped at the butts in the usual way and is uniformly ¼ inch thick.
-In this manner a ridge that gives a ~V~-deadrise is formed down the
-centerline of the bottom, though the frames are bent in a flattened
-curve from bilge to bilge. The bottom has very little rocker, the rise
-being only 1 inch, and this takes place in the last 2 feet inboard of
-the heel of the stem piece.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 67
-
-SHARP-ENDED 2½-FATHOM HUNTING CANOE for use on tidal river. Built
-by the Passamaquoddy Indian Peter Denis, it shows what may be the
-primitive construction method of obtaining a ~V~-form in hull.]
-
-Another feature in this canoe is the end profile; the curved ends
-are strongly raked, the curve used being the same as that in the old
-Malecite type, but with the stem-pieces reversed, so that the quick
-turn is at the head, near the sheer, rather than at the heel. As a
-result, the gunwales come to the ends in a straight, rising line for
-the last 16½ inches rather than as a sudden lift near the ends. The
-stem-heads stand a little above the rail caps. The headboards belly
-toward the ends and are raked in the same direction.
-
-The use of a ~V~-shaped keel piece in the sheathing has been found
-in a St. Francis canoe from the St. Lawrence country; this may be a
-rather old practice. This racing canoe is very lightly built and much
-decorated, the date 1888 being worked into the hull near one end.
-
-Another canoe having a marked ~V~-deadrise was built sometime between
-1890 and 1892 by Nicola (sometimes called Peter) Denis (sometimes
-spelled Dana), a Passamaquoddy, for his son Francis, who used it
-at Frenchman's Bay, Maine. The drawing above (fig. 67) shows a
-coastal-type hunting canoe, nailed along the gunwales but sewn
-elsewhere, and painted. The craft is 15 feet 9 inches overall and 14
-feet 5 inches over the gunwales. The beam amidships is 32 inches over
-the gunwales, 29½ inches inside. The depth amidships is 11 inches,
-and at the headboards, 14½ inches. The ends are of the low rounded
-form; the profile shows a moderate tumble-home just below the sheer,
-which is a long fair curve without any quick lift toward the ends. The
-construction is of the usual Malecite type described in Chapter 3. The
-midsection shows a remarkable amount of ~V~ in the bottom without any
-tumble-home anywhere in the topsides. The ~V~-bottom is rounded at the
-apex, where the keel would be; this is done by bending the ribs very
-sharply where they cross the centerline of the hull. A narrow strake
-of thin sheathing runs along the centerline of the canoe, and this is
-bent athwart-wise to follow the bends in the ribs there. The canoe had
-46 ribs, each 2½ inches wide and ⁵⁄₁₆ inch thick, tapered slightly from
-the middle up to the gunwales. The gunwales, as previously noted, are
-nailed and the main gunwale members are of sawed spruce. The rest of
-the framework is cedar.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 68
-
-MALECITE 2½-FATHOM ST. LAWRENCE RIVER CANOE, probably a hybrid model.
-The high ends show a western influence.]
-
-The outside of the canoe was painted red, the inside was a pale yellow,
-the gunwales and middle portions of the thwarts were cobalt blue,
-the ends of the thwarts were red. The _wulegessis_ was blue, and the
-"canoe mark" was a painted representation of the spread eagle of the
-United States Seal, the border being in black and white and the eagle
-in black, yellow, and white, holding a brown branch with green leaves.
-The whole panel was outlined in red. On the side of the canoe, near the
-stern, was a white swallowtail pennant on which is lettered "Frenchmans
-Bay" in black capital letters. This canoe was used for fishing and also
-for porpoise and seal hunting.
-
-The construction employed to form the ~V~-bottom in a birch-bark canoe
-can be seen to have been done in two ways; that described on page 76
-is undoubtedly the method used in prehistoric times, since laborious
-forming of a ~V~ keel-piece in the sheathing, using stone scrapers,
-would be avoided. The ~V~-bottom, it should be noted, usually appears
-in canoes used in open waters, as this form tends to run straight
-under paddle, in spite of a side wind, and thus requires the minimum
-of steering to hold it on its course. It was this characteristic, too,
-that made the ~V~-bottom suitable for the racing canoe on the St. John
-River, since stopping the stroke momentarily to steer diminishes the
-driving power of the stern paddler.
-
-The various river canoes of the Malecite, built to the modern low,
-rounded-end profiles, or to the short-radii and straight-line forms,
-held rather closely to the same lines, that is, sharp ends with a
-rather flat bottom amidships and an easy bilge. Some of the canoes
-retained the characteristic tumble-home, but others had nearly
-vertical sides or the curve of the bilge was carried so high that it
-ended at the gunwales.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 69
-
-MALECITE 2½-FATHOM RIVER CANOE of 1890 from the Rivière du Loup region.
-Canoes in this area had straight stems and sharp lines from at least as
-early as 1857.]
-
-On the St. Lawrence there was apparently a canoe having rather peaked
-ends as well as the rather straight-stemmed, low-ended type. A St.
-Lawrence River canoe found in the Chateau de Ramezay and built sometime
-before 1867 provides an example of the rather high-peaked ends. The
-canoe, as illustrated on page 77, has a well-rounded bilge working into
-a very round tumble-home above and into a rather flat bottom below, the
-tumble-home being carried into the extreme ends, so that the headboards
-are rather wide. The ends round up rather quickly and then continue up
-to the sheer in a very slight curve, having a very moderate tumble-home
-near the sheer. The latter follows somewhat the characteristic sheer
-of the old Malecite canoes, but the straight portion just inboard of
-the ends is much shorter, so that the quick upsweep of the sheer begins
-nearer the ends and thus appears somewhat more pronounced.
-
-The construction is in the usual manner. The rocker of the bottom is 2
-inches. The ribs are wider amidships than near the ends. The outwale
-is rounded on the outboard face so that the cap is slightly narrower
-than the thickness of inner gunwale and outwale combined. The headboard
-is rather unusual, however, as it is not bellied but stands straight
-and vertical. The lashing at the upper portion of the stems is the
-crossed stitch, below it is spiral. The gunwale groups are made up of
-six passes through the bark, and the spaces between groups are about
-2½ inches. The side panels are sewn with the harness stitch. The canoe
-is 16 feet long overall and 14 feet 5 inches inside the gunwales;
-the extreme beam amidships is 37 inches and inside the gunwales 32
-inches. The depth amidships is about 13 inches and the height of the
-ends 25 inches, with 2 inches of rocker at the headboards. This canoe,
-retaining the high ends, marks the transition from the old form to the
-new.
-
-A later canoe built on the St. Lawrence about 1890, probably near
-Rivière de Loup, is shown above. It is 16 feet 11 inches long overall,
-the beam over the gunwales is 33½ inches and inside it is 31 inches,
-the curve of the bilge being carried up to the gunwales. The bottom is
-flat for only a short width. The depth amidships is 11½ inches and the
-height of the ends is 20 inches, with 1 inch of rocker in the last two
-feet of length. The sheer is a long fair sweep without any quick upward
-lift near the ends. The headboards are very narrow and belly only very
-slightly toward the ends. The end profile illustrates the short radii
-and straight line form that marked many of the last Malecite birch-bark
-canoes of the St. Lawrence Valley. It is possible that the end-form was
-copied from the white man's St. Lawrence skiff, which usually had ends
-that were straight and nearly vertical, with a sharp turn into the keel.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 70
-
-MODERN (1895) MALECITE 2½-FATHOM ST. JOHN RIVER CANOE, with low ends
-and moderate sheer, developed late in the 19th century.]
-
-Since a Malecite canoe of the form having rounded low ends was the
-subject used to describe the construction of a birch-bark canoe in
-Chapter 3 (see p. 36), there is no need to discuss all the details
-here. There was some variety in the sewing and lashing used in Malecite
-canoes; the combination of cross and spiral stitches in the ends and
-the use of a batten and the over-and-over stitch in the side panels
-are, of course, very common in these canoes. The occasional use of
-other stitches in the side panels and even in the gores would probably
-be normal, since individual preferences in such details were not
-controlled by a narrow tribal practice.
-
-The Malecite are known to have hauled their canoes overland in the
-early spring, before the snow was entirely gone, by mounting the canoe
-on two sleds or toboggans in tandem, binding the canoe to each. This
-was done as late as the 1890's for early spring muskrat hunts. The
-Malecite also fitted their river canoes with outside protection when
-much running of rapids or "quick water" work was done. This protection
-consisted of two sets of battens (see p. 80), each set being made up of
-five or six thin splints of cedar about ⅜ inch thick and 3 inches wide,
-tapering to 2 or 1½ inches at one end. These were held together by
-four strips of basket ash, bark cord, or rawhide. Each cord was passed
-through holes or slits made edgewise through each splint. The cords
-were located so that when the splints were placed on the bottom of the
-canoe, the cords could be tied at the thwarts. The tapered ends of the
-splints were at the ends of the canoe; the butts of the two sets being
-lapped amidships with the lap toward the stern. This formed a wooden
-sheathing, outside the bottom, to protect the bark from rocks and
-snags or floating ice that might be met in rapids and small streams.
-The fitting was used also by the Micmac and Ojibway; it is not known
-whether this was an Indian or European invention. The French canoemen
-called it _barre d'abordage_ and the Malecite, _P's-ta' k'n_; the
-English woodsmen called the fitting "canoe shoes."
-
-[Illustration: Figure 71
-
-MALECITE CANOE DETAILS, GEAR, AND GUNWALE DECORATIONS.]
-
-The Malecite paddle was of various forms, as illustrated in figures
-71 and 72, the predominant form being very similar to the paddle now
-used with canvas "Indian" canoes. The total length of the blade was
-usually about 28 to 30 inches; at 10 or 11 inches from the tip it was
-about 2½ inches wide. The handle was about 36 inches long. At just
-above the blade it was 1¼ inches wide and 1 inch thick. The handle
-was not parallel-sided. Near the top it widened gradually to about 2¼
-inches at 2½ inches from the top; here the cross-grip was formed. The
-thickness of the handle reduced gradually from that given for just
-above the top of the blade to about ½ inch at about 5 inches below
-the cross-grip, and widened again to ⅝ inch at the point where the
-cross-grip was formed. The blade was ridged down its center. The lower
-end was rounded and the lower half of the blade was approximately half
-an ellipse in shape. The Passamaquoddy blade had its wide point within
-7 inches of the lower tip, where it was about 6 inches wide. The handle
-was about 1⅛ inches in diameter just above the blade, and then tapered
-in thickness until it first became oval and then flat in cross section.
-The width remained nearly constant to a point within 12 to 16 inches
-of the cross-grip, then gradually widened to nearly 3 inches at the
-top. The blade was 33 to 36 inches long and the whole paddle somewhere
-between 73 and 76 inches long. The cross-grips were sometimes round,
-at other times they were merely worked off in an oval shape to fit the
-upper hand. The usual width of the cross-grip was just under 3 inches.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 72
-
-MALECITE CANOE DETAILS, STEM PROFILES, PADDLES, SAIL RIG, AND SALMON
-SPEAR.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 73
-
-LINES AND DECORATION RECONSTRUCTED FROM A VERY OLD MODEL of an ancient
-woods, or pack, canoe, showing short ends and use of fiddlehead and
-fire-steel form of decoration.]
-
-Formerly, the Malecite placed his personal mark, or _dupskodegun_,
-on the flat of the top of his paddle near the cross-grip. The mark
-was incised into the wood and the incised line was filled with red or
-black pigment when available. Sometimes the whole paddle, including the
-blade, was covered with incised line ornamentation. This was usually a
-vine-and-leaf pattern, or a combination of small triangles and curved
-lines. The Passamaquoddy used designs suggesting the needlework once
-seen on fine linens. Sometimes other designs showing animals, camps, or
-canoes were used.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 74
-
-LAST KNOWN PASSAMAQUODDY DECORATED OCEAN CANOE to be built. Constructed
-in 1898 by Tomah Joseph, Princeton, Maine, on the same model as a
-canvas porpoise-hunting canoe.]
-
-The Malecite, particularly the Passamaquoddy, were especially skillful
-in decorating bark canoes, as can be seen from the illustrations (pp.
-81-87). Sometimes they used scraped winter bark decoration just along
-the gunwales; occasionally the whole canoe was decorated in this manner
-above the normal load waterline as described on page 87. Usually,
-however, the bark decoration was confined to a long panel just below
-the gunwales and to the ends of the canoe. The personal "mark" of
-the owner-builder would usually be on the flaps near the ends, the
-_wulegessis_, meaning the outside bark of a tree or a child's diaper,
-but in canoe nomenclature used to indicate the protective cover which
-it formed for the gunwale-end lashings. Sometimes the Malecite placed
-his mark in the gunwale decoration. Sometimes he placed a picture or
-a sign on each side of the ends below the _wulegessis_, in about the
-position used for insignia on the canvas "Indian" canoe.
-
-The swastika was used by the Passamaquoddy in a war canoe in colonial
-times and has been used later. The Passamaquoddy mark for an
-exceptional canoe (such as a war canoe that won the race home) was
-often on the _wulegessis_, and on a relatively modern canoe this mark,
-or _gogetch_, was a picture of "a funny-looking kind of doll." A common
-form of decoration in Passamaquoddy canoes was the fiddlehead curve
-which resembles the top of young fern shoots. This appears in numerous
-combinations; often double and back to back, joined with a long bar,
-or "cross." This particular combination is known as the "fiddlehead
-and cross" or as the "fire steel"; the latter because of a fancied
-resemblance of the form to the shape of the old fire-making steels
-of colonial times. A zigzag line appears to represent lightning to
-most Indians. A series of half-circles along the gunwales, with the
-rounded side down and just touching one another at the top, having a
-small circle in the center of each, represents "clouds passing over
-the moon." A similar series of half-circles without the center circles
-might mean the canoe was launched during a new moon; the number of
-half-circles shown would indicate the month.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 75
-
-MALECITE CANOE DETAILS AND DECORATIONS.]
-
-Yet there is not full agreement among Indians about the meaning of
-decorative forms; the crooked or zigzag line might also mean camps
-or the crooked score stick used in a Malecite game. The circle could
-mean sun or moon or month. A half-moon form might also be "a woman's
-earring," or a new moon. A circle with a very small one inside might be
-a "brooch," as well as "money." Right triangles, in a closely spaced
-series along the gunwales, apparently meant "door cloth," or tent door
-("what you lift with your hand"). Shown on pages 84 and 85 are some
-Indian marks on the _wulegessis_, based upon the statements of old
-Malecites or upon their sketches.
-
-After the Malecite had become Roman Catholic, a fish on the middle
-panel of a canoe meant that it had been launched on Friday. Pictures on
-a canoe sometimes indicated a mythological story; a picture of a rabbit
-sitting and smoking a pipe on one side of the canoe and a lynx on the
-other would be such a case. In Malecite mythology the rabbit was the
-ancestor of the tribe. He was also a great magician. The lynx was the
-mortal enemy of the rabbit, but in the mythological tales he was always
-overcome and defeated by the rabbit's magic. Hence, the idea conveyed
-is that "though the-lynx is near, the rabbit sits calmly smoking
-his pipe and as he knows he can overcome his enemy," or, in short,
-"self-confidence."
-
-The Indian's mark on his canoe or weapons is not a signature to be
-read by anyone. The mark may, of course, be identified as to what it
-represents, but unless it is known as the mark used by a certain man it
-cannot be "read." Any mark could be used by an Indian, either because
-it had some connection with his activities or habits, or because he
-"likes it." The stone tobacco pipe used by Peter Polchies (see p.
-85) as his mark had no known connection with this Indian's habits or
-activities. However, his son, of the same name and well known also
-as "Doctor Polchies," took the same mark, but in his case it had a
-personal meaning since he was noted locally for his skill in making
-stone pipes. Another case was a Passamaquoddy who at every opportunity
-used to pole his canoe in preference to paddling. As a result he had
-become known as "Peter of the Pole" or "Peter Pole" and he then used as
-a canoe mark a representation of a setting pole. In submitting sketches
-of the marking on the _wulegessis_ of canoes to old Indians it was
-seldom possible to learn the identity of the owner or builder, since
-the marks were usually not known to those questioned. In more recent
-times, the educated Malecite signed his name in English on his canoe
-and thus gave it more permanent identification.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 76
-
-WULEGESSIS DECORATIONS
-
-"mark of Mitchell Laporte"
-
-"that pot hanging was used by three or four generations--it was mark on
-John Lolar's canoe in 1872"
-
-"I made marks like this on wulegessis and sometimes on middle" (Charlie
-Bear)
-
-"mark of Noel John Sapier" (tomahawk)
-
-"mark of Noel Polchies" (paddle)
-
-"mark of old Peter Polchies" (stone pipe)
-
-"mark of Chief Neptune" (Passamaquoddy)
-
-"mark of Louis Paul"
-
-"canoe was finished on new moon" (Joe Ellis)
-
-"mark of old Solomon Paul"]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 77
-
-END DECORATIONS, PASSAMAQUODDY CANOE built by Tomah Joseph.]
-
-In duplicating a design, the Malecite apparently used a pattern, or
-stencil, which was preserved to allow duplication over a long period
-of time. The stencil was usually cut from birch bark, apparently an
-old practice, although whether it was done in prehistoric times cannot
-be determined. The long contact of the Malecites with Europeans is
-a factor to be considered in such matters. This is sometimes shown
-in picture-writing on a canoe; one, for instance, showed a white man
-fishing with rod and line from a canoe with an Indian guide. On the
-opposite side was the representation of an Indian camp beside two
-trees, a kettle over the fire and the brave sitting cross-legged
-smoking his pipe, indicating, of course, "comfort and contentment."
-
-Asking old Indians to identify or give the names of decorations, Adney
-recorded statements which indicate their thought in regard to such
-matters. There were used, for example, two forms of the half-moon or
-crescent; one was quite open at the points which plainly indicated a
-half-moon, but the other was more nearly closed: [Illustration] Mrs.
-Billy Ellis, widow of Frank Francis, a Malecite, said of them, "Old
-Indian earrings, that is only what I can call them. Also in nose. Wild
-Indian made them of silver or moose-bone, I guess he thought he looked
-nice; it looked like the devil." Joe Ellis, an old canoe builder, also
-called this form "earrings" and when asked why an Indian would put
-these on a canoe, replied "He will think what he will put on here. He
-might have seen his wife at bow of canoe, and put it on [there]." Shown
-the right-triangle-in-series design, Mrs. Ellis said "I fergit it but
-I will remember; what you lift with your hand, we call it that--camp
-door" (referring to the cloth or hide hung over a camp door, and raised
-at one corner to enter, so that the opening is then divided diagonally).
-
-In a later period, the Malecite usually confined decoration to the
-_wulegessis_ and to the pieced-out bark amidships, the panel formed
-on each side. The _wulegessis_ was of various forms; its bottom was
-sometimes shaped like a cupid's bow, sometimes it was rectangular.
-A common form was one representing the profile of a canoe. Being of
-winter bark, it was red or brown, with the part where the design was
-scraped showing white or yellow. The center panel was also of winter
-bark, and the design on it showed a similar contrast in color. Even
-when the bark cover was not pieced out, the panel was formed by
-scraping all the cover except a panel amidships on each side. Old
-models indicate that the early Malecite canoes may have used decoration
-all over above the waterline (see p. 81) far more frequently than
-has been the recent custom. The decorations were a fiddlehead design
-in a complicated sequence so that it bore a faint resemblance to
-the hyanthus in a formal scroll, but the design apparently had no
-ceremonial significance; it was used for the same reason given Adney
-for so many forms of bark decoration, "it looked nice."
-
-[Illustration: Figure 78
-
-END DECORATIONS, PASSAMAQUODDY CANOE built by Tomah Joseph.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 79
-
-PASSAMAQUODDY DECORATED CANOE built by Tomah Joseph.]
-
-The drawings and plans on pages 71 to 87 will serve better than words
-to show these characteristic designs and decorations. It is doubtful
-that color, paint or pigment, was used in decorating the Malecite bark
-canoes before the coming of Europeans, but it was employed occasionally
-in the last half of the 19th century. The beauty of the Malecite canoe
-designs lay not in the barbaric display of color characteristic of
-the large fur-traders' canoes, but in the tasteful distribution of
-the scraped winter bark decoration along the sides of the hull. The
-workmanship exhibited by the Malecite in the construction of their
-canoes was generally very fine; indeed, they were perhaps the most
-finished craftsmen among Indian canoe-builders.
-
-
-_St. Francis_
-
-The tribal composition of the Abnaki Indians is somewhat uncertain.
-The group was certainly made up of a portion of the old Malecite
-group, the Kennebec and Penobscot, but later also included the whole
-or parts of the refugee Indians of other New England tribes who were
-forced to flee before the advancing white settlers. It is probable
-that among the refugees were the Cowassek (Coosuc), Pennacook, and the
-Ossipee. There were also some Maine tribes among these--the Sokoki,
-Androscoggin, (Arosaguntacook), Wewenoc, Taconnet, and Pequawket. It is
-probable that the tribal groups from southern and central New England
-were mere fragments and that the largest number to make up the Abnaki
-were Malecite. The latter in turn were driven out of their old homes on
-the lower Maine coast and drifted northwestward into the old hunting
-grounds of the Kennebec and Penobscot, northwestern Maine and eastern
-Quebec as far as the St. Lawrence. The chief settlement was finally on
-the St. Francis River in Quebec, hence the Abnaki were also known as
-the "St. Francis Indians." These tribesmen held a deep-seated grudge
-against the New Englanders and, by the middle of the 18th century, they
-had made themselves thoroughly hated in New England. Siding with the
-French, the St. Francis raided the Connecticut Valley and eastward,
-taking white children and women home with them after a successful raid,
-and as a result the later St. Francis had much white blood. They were
-generally enterprising and progressive.
-
-Little is known about the canoes of these Abnaki during the period
-of their retreat northwestward. It is obvious that the Penobscot, at
-least, used the old form of the Malecite canoe. What the canoes of
-the other tribal groups were like cannot be stated. However, by the
-middle of the 19th century the St. Francis Indians had produced a very
-fine birch-bark canoe of distinctive design and excellent workmanship.
-These they began to sell to sportsmen, with the result that the type
-of canoe became a standard one for hunting and fishing in Quebec. When
-other tribal groups discovered the market for canoes, they were forced
-to copy the St. Francis model and appearance to a very marked degree
-in order to be assured of ready sales. It is obvious, from what is now
-known, that the St. Francis had adapted some ideas in canoe building
-from Indians west of the St. Lawrence, with whom they had come into
-close contact. However, they had also retained much of the building
-technique of their Malecite relatives. Hence, the St. Francis canoes
-usually represent a blend of building techniques as well as of models.
-
-The St. Francis canoe of the last half of the 19th century had
-high-peaked ends, with a quick upsweep of the sheer at bow and stern.
-The end profile was almost vertical, with a short radius where it
-faired into the bottom. The rocker of the bottom took place in the last
-18 or 24 inches of the ends, the remaining portion of the bottom being
-usually straight. The amount of rocker varied a good deal; apparently
-some canoes had only an inch or so while others had as much as four or
-five. A few canoes had a projecting "chin" end-profile; the top portion
-where it met the sheer was usually a straight line.
-
-The midsection was slightly wall-sided, with a rather quick turn of the
-bilge. The bottom was nearly flat across, with very slight rounding
-until close to the bilges. The end sections were a ~U~-shape that
-approached the ~V~ owing to the very quick turn at the centerline. The
-ends of the canoe were very sharp, coming in practically straight at
-the gunwale and at level lines below it. The gunwales were longer than
-the bottom and so the St. Francis canoes were commonly built with a
-building-frame which was nearly as wide amidships as the gunwales but
-shorter in length.
-
-At least one St. Francis canoe, built on Lake Memphremagog, was
-constructed with a tumble-home amidships the same as that of some
-Malecite canoes. The rocker of the bottom at each end started at the
-first thwart on each side of the middle and gradually increased toward
-the ends, which faired into the bottom without any break in the curves.
-The end profiles projected with a chin that was full and round up to
-the peaked stem heads. The sheer swept up sharply near the ends to the
-stem heads. This particular canoe represented a hybrid design not
-developed for sale to sportsmen, and the sole example, a full-size
-canoe formerly in The American Museum of Natural History at New York
-and measured by Adney in 1890, is now missing and probably has been
-broken up.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 80
-
-ST. FRANCIS 2-FATHOM CANOE OF ABOUT 1865, with upright stems. Built for
-forest travel, this form ranged in size from 12 feet 6 inches overall
-and 26½-inch beam, to 16 feet overall and 34-inch beam.]
-
-The St. Francis canoes were usually small, being commonly between
-12 and 16 feet overall; the 15-foot length usually was preferred by
-sportsmen. The width amidships was from 32 to 35 inches and the depth
-12 to 14 inches. The 14-foot canoe usually had a beam of about 32
-inches and was nearly 14 inches deep; if built for portaging the ends
-were somewhat lower than if the canoe was to be used in open waters.
-Canoes built for hunting might be as short as 10 or 11 feet and of
-only 26 to 28 inches beam; these were the true woods canoes of the St.
-Francis.
-
-The gunwale structure of the St. Francis canoes followed Malecite
-design; it was often of slightly smaller cross section than that of
-a Malecite canoe of equal length, but both outwale and cap were of
-somewhat larger cross section. The stem-pieces were split and laminated
-in the same manner, but occasionally the lamination was at the bottom,
-due to the hard curve required where the stem faired into the bottom.
-Many such canoes had no headboards, the heavy outwales being carried
-to the sides of the stem pieces and secured there to support the main
-gunwales. If the headboard was used, it was quite narrow and was
-bellied toward the ends of the canoe. In some St. Francis canoes the
-bark cover in the rockered bottom near the ends showed a marked ~V~. In
-the canoe examined by Adney at the American Museum of Natural History,
-the ribs inside toward the end showed no signs of being "broken,"
-so it is evident that the ~V~ was formed either by use of a shaped
-keel-piece in the sheathing or by an additional batten shaped to give
-this ~V~-form under the center strake. Since the ~V~ began where the
-rocker in the canoe started, in an almost angular break in the bottom,
-it is likely that a shaped batten had been used to form it. He could
-not verify this, however, as the area was covered by the frames and
-sheathing.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 81
-
-ST. FRANCIS CANOE OF ABOUT 1910, with narrow, rockered bottom, a model
-popular with guides and sportsmen for forest travel.]
-
-The sheathing was in short lengths with rounded ends which overlapped,
-and it was laid irregularly in the "thrown in" style found in many
-western birch-bark canoes. The ribs were commonly about 2 inches wide
-and nearly ⅜ inch thick, the width tapering to roughly 1¾ inches under
-the gunwales. The ends of the ribs were then sharply reduced in width
-to a chisel point about 1 inch wide; the sides of the sharply reduced
-taper being beveled, as well as the end. A 15-foot canoe usually had 46
-to 50 ribs.
-
-The thwarts, unlike those of the Micmac and some Malecite canoes, in
-which the thwarts were unequally spaced, were equally spaced according
-to a builder's formula. The ends of the thwarts, or crossbars, were
-tenoned into the main gunwales and lashed in place through the three
-lashing holes in the ends of each thwart, except the end ones, which
-usually had but two. In some small canoes, however, two lashing holes
-were placed in all thwart ends. The design of the St. Francis thwart
-was as a rule very plain, gradually increasing in width from the
-center outwards to the tenon at the gunwale in plan and decreasing in
-thickness in elevation in the same direction. The ends of the main
-gunwales were of the half-arrowhead form, and were covered with a bark
-_wulegessis_, but the flaps below the outwales were sometimes cut off,
-or they might be formed in some graceful outline.
-
-The bark cover was sometimes in one piece; when it was pieced out for
-width, the harness-stitch was used. In most canoes, the bark along the
-gunwale was doubled by adding a long narrow strip, often left hanging
-free below the gunwales and stopping just short of the _wulegessis_,
-which it resembled. It was sometimes decorated. A few St. Francis
-canoes with nailed gunwales omitted this doubling piece. When used,
-the doubling piece, as well as the end cover, were folded down on top
-of the gunwale before being sewn into place. The decoration of the
-St. Francis canoes seems to have been scant and wholly confined to a
-narrow band along the gunwale, or to the doubling pieces. The marking
-of the _wulegessis_ had ceased long before Adney investigated this type
-of canoe and no living Indian knew of any old marks, if any ever had
-been used.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 82
-
-LOW-ENDED ST. FRANCIS CANOE with ~V~-form end sections made with short,
-~V~-shaped keel battens outside the sheathing at each end. Note the
-unusual form of headboard, seen in some St. Francis canoes.]
-
-The ends were commonly lashed with a spiral or crossed stitch, but
-some builders used a series of short-to-long stitches that made groups
-generally triangular in appearance. The gunwale lashing was in groups
-about 2½ inches long, each having 5 to 7 turns through the bark. The
-groups were about 1½ to 1¼ inches apart near the ends and about 2
-inches apart elsewhere. The groups were not independent but were made
-by bringing the last turn of each group over the top and inside the
-main gunwale in a long diagonal pass so as to come through the bark
-from the inside for the first pass of the new group. The caps were
-originally pegged, with a few lashings at the ends.
-
-The ribs were bent green. After the bark cover had been sewn to the
-gunwales, the green ribs were fitted roughly inside the bark, with
-their ends standing above the gunwales, and were then forced into the
-desired shape and held there, usually by two wide battens pressed
-against them by 7 to 10 temporary cross struts. After being allowed to
-dry in place, the ribs were then removed, the sheathing was put into
-place, and the ribs, after a final fitting, were driven into their
-proper positions. Some builders put in the ribs by pairs in the shaping
-stage, one on top of the other, as this made easier the job of fitting
-the temporary battens. The forcing of the ribs to shape also served to
-shape the bark cover, and the canoe was placed on horses during the
-operation, so that the shape of the bottom could be observed while
-the bark was being moulded. Some builders used very thin longitudinal
-battens between the bark and the green ribs to avoid danger of bursting
-the bark.
-
-The canoe was built on a level building bed, in most instances
-apparently, with the ends of the building frame blocked up about an
-inch. It seems possible, however, that narrow bottom canoes may have
-been built with the bed raised 2 or 3 inches in the middle, rather than
-employing a narrow building frame. The construction of the building
-frame was the same as among the western Indians and as described in
-Chapter 3.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 83
-
-ST. FRANCIS-ABNAKI CANOE FOR OPEN WATER, a type that became extinct
-before 1890. From Adney's drawings of a canoe formerly in the Museum of
-Natural History, New York. Details of Abnaki canoes are also shown.]
-
-In preparing the ribs, a common practice was the following: Assume, for
-example, that there are 10 ribs from the center to the first thwart
-forward; these are laid out on the ground edge-to-edge with the rib
-under the center thwart to the left and the rib under the first thwart
-to the right. On the rib to the left the middle thwart is laid so
-that its center coincides with that of the rib, and the ends of the
-thwart are marked on the rib. The same is done to the rib on the far
-right, over which the first thwart is laid as the measure. On each
-side of the centerline the points marking the ends of the thwarts
-are then joined by a line across the ribs, as they lie together, to
-mark the approximate taper of the canoe toward the ends, at the turn
-of the bilge. Each rib is taken in turn from the panel and with it
-is placed another from the stock on hand to be set in a matching
-position on the other side of the middle thwart, toward the stern; the
-pair, placed flat sides together, are then bent over the knee at, or
-outside of, the marks or lines. The ribs in the next portion of the
-canoe's length are shaped in the same manner, using the lengths of the
-first and second thwarts as guides. Thus, the ribs are given a rough,
-preliminary bend before being fitted inside the bark cover and stayed
-into place to season. This method allowed the bilge of the canoe to
-be rather precisely determined and formed during the first stages of
-construction. At the ends, of course, the ribs are sharply bent only
-in the middle. Since the full thwart length makes a wide bottom, by
-setting the length of the rib perhaps a hand's width less than that of
-the whole thwart, the narrow bottom is formed.
-
-The rough length of the ribs was twice the length of the thwarts
-nearest them. Hackmatack was used for thwarts by the St. Francis
-Indians, rock maple being considered next best. Cedar was first choice
-for ribs, then spruce, and then balsam fir. Longitudinals were cedar
-or spruce. All canoe measurements were made by hand, finger, and
-arm measurements. Basket ash strips were often used in transferring
-measurements.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 84
-
-MODEL OF A ST. FRANCIS-ABNAKI CANOE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, showing method
-of moulding ribs inside the assembled bark cover.]
-
-From what has been said, it will be seen that the construction practice
-of the St. Francis did not follow in all details that of their Malecite
-relatives. The intrusion of western practices into this group probably
-took place some time after the group's final settlement at St. Francis.
-As they gradually came into more intimate relations with their western
-neighbors and drifted into western Quebec, beyond the St. Lawrence,
-their canoe building technique became influenced by what they saw
-to the westward. As would be expected, the St. Francis Abnaki began
-early to use nails in canoe building, but, being expert workmen, they
-retained the good features of the old sewn construction to a marked
-degree up to the very end of birch-bark canoe construction in southern
-Quebec, probably about 1915. It should perhaps be noted that what has
-been discovered about the St. Francis Abnaki canoes refers necessarily
-to only the last half of the 19th century, since no earlier canoe of
-this group has been discovered. The changes that took place between the
-decline of the Penobscot style of canoe and that of the later Abnaki
-remain a matter of speculation.
-
-[Illustrations: Figure 85
-
-ST. FRANCIS-ABNAKI CANOE.]
-
-
-_Beothuk_
-
-The fourth group of Indians, classed here as belonging to the eastern
-maritime area, are the Beothuk of Newfoundland. Historically, perhaps,
-these Indians should have been discussed first, as they were probably
-the first of all North American Indians to come into contact with
-the white man. However, so little is known about their canoes that
-it has seemed better to place them last, since practically all that
-can be said is the result of reconstruction, speculation, and logic
-founded upon rather unsatisfactory evidence. The tribal origin of the
-Beothuk has long been a matter of argument; they are known to have
-used red pigment on their weapons, equipment, clothes, and persons. A
-prehistoric group that once inhabited Maine and the Maritime Provinces
-appears to have had a similar custom; these are known as the "Red Paint
-People," and it may be that the Beothuk were a survival of this earlier
-culture. But all that can be said with certainty is that the Beothuk
-inhabited Newfoundland and perhaps some of the Labrador coast when the
-white man began to frequent those parts. The Beothuk made a nuisance
-of themselves by stealing gear from the European fishermen, and by
-occasionally murdering individuals or small groups of white men. Late
-in the 17th century, the French imported some Micmac warriors and began
-a war of extermination against the Beothuk. By the middle of the 18th
-century the Newfoundland tribe was reduced to a few very small groups,
-and the Beothuk became extinct early in the 19th century, before
-careful investigation of their culture could be made.
-
-Their canoes were made to a distinctive model quite different from
-that of the canoes of other North American Indians. The descriptions
-available are far from complete and, as a result, many important
-details are left to speculation. Some parts of the more complete
-descriptions are obscure and do not appear to agree with one another.
-In spite of these difficulties, however, some information on the canoes
-is rather specific; by using this, together with a knowledge of the
-requirements of birch-bark canoe construction, and by reference to some
-toy canoes found in 1869 in the grave of a Beothuk boy, a reasonably
-accurate reconstruction of a canoe is possible.
-
-Captain Richard Whitbourne had come with Sir Humphrey Gilbert to
-Newfoundland in 1580 and revisited the island a number of times
-afterward. In 1612 he wrote that the Beothuk canoes were shaped "like
-the wherries of the River Thames," apparently referring to the humped
-sheer of both; in the wherry the sheer swept up sharply to the height
-of the oar tholes, in profile, and flared outward, in cross section.
-
-John Gay, a member of the Company of Newfoundland Plantation, wrote
-in 1612 that Beothuk canoes were about 20 feet long and 4½ feet wide
-"in the middle and aloft," that the ribs were like laths, and that
-the birch-bark cover was sewn with roots. The canoes carried four
-persons and weighed less than a hundredweight. They had a short, light
-staff set in each end by which the canoes could be lifted ashore. "In
-the middle the canoa is higher a great deale, than at the bowe and
-quarter." He also says of their cross section: "They be all bearing
-from the keel to portlesse, not with any circular, but with a straight,
-line."
-
-Joann de Laet, writing about 1633, speaks of the crescent shape of the
-canoes, of their "sharp keel" and need of ballast to keep them upright;
-he also states that the canoes were not over 20 feet long and could
-carry up to five persons.
-
-The most complete description of the Beothuk canoe was in the
-manuscript of Lt. John Cartwright, R.N., who was on the coast of
-Newfoundland in 1767-1768 as Lieutenant of H.B.M. Ship _Guernsey_.
-However, some portions are either in error or the description was
-over-simplified. For example, Cartwright says that the gunwales were
-formed with a distinct angle made by joining two lengths of the main
-gunwale members at the elevated middle of the sheer. This hardly
-seems correct since such a connection would not produce the rigidity
-that such structural parts require, given the methods used by Indians
-to build bark canoes. The three grave models show that the sheer
-was actually curved along its elevated middle. It is possible that
-Cartwright saw a damaged canoe in which the lashings of the scarf of
-the gunwales had slackened so that the line of sheer "broke" there.
-Cartwright is perhaps misleading in his description of the rocker of
-the keel as being "nearly, if not exactly, the half of an ellipse,
-longitudinally divided." The models show the keel to have been straight
-along the length of the canoe and turned up sharply at the ends to form
-bow and stern. Cartwright also states the keel piece was "about the
-size of the handle of a common hatchet" amidships, or perhaps 1 inch
-thick and 1½ inches wide, and tapered toward the ends, which were about
-¾ inch wide and about equally thick. The height of the sheer amidships
-was perhaps two-thirds the height of the ends.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 86
-
-A 15-FOOT BEOTHUK CANOE OF NEWFOUNDLAND with 42½-inch beam, inside
-measurement, turned on side for use as a camp. It gives headroom
-clearance of about 3 feet, double that of an 18-foot Malecite canoe
-with high ends. When the ends were not high enough to provide maximum
-clearance, small upright sticks were lashed to bow and stern. The
-shape of the gunwales would permit the canoe to be heeled to an angle
-(more than 35°) which would swamp a canoe of ordinary sheer and depth.
-(_Sketch by Adney._)]
-
-Nearly all observers, Cartwright included, noted the almost perfect
-~V~-form cross section of these canoes, with the apexes rounded off
-slightly and the wings slightly curved. From an interpretation of
-Cartwright's statements, it appears that after the bark cover had been
-laced to the gunwales, the latter were forced apart to insert the
-thwarts, as in some western Indian canoe-building techniques. The three
-thwarts are described as being about two fingers in width and depth.
-It is stated that the gunwales were made up of an inner and outer
-member and all were scarfed in the middle to taper each way toward the
-ends, the outer member serving as an outwale or guard. Cartwright also
-states that the inside of the bark cover was "lined" with "sticks"
-2 or 3 inches broad, cut flat and thin. He refers also to others of
-the same sort which served as "timbers" so he is describing both the
-sheathing and the ribs as being 2 or 3 inches wide. He does not say how
-the thwarts were fitted to the gunwales, how high the ends were, how
-the ends of the gunwales were formed, nor does he give any details of
-the sewing used. However, the grave models suggest the form of sewing
-probably used and the approximate proportions of sheer.
-
-An old settler told James Howley that the Beothuk canoes could be
-"folded together like a purse." Considering the construction required
-in birch-bark canoes, this is manifestly impossible; perhaps what the
-settler had seen was a canoe in construction with the bark secured to
-shaped gunwales, ready for the latter to be sprung apart by thwarts,
-as in opening a purse. Howley also obtained from a man who had seen
-Beothuk canoes a sketch which shows a straight keel and peaked ends,
-confirmed in all respects by the grave models or toys.
-
-The toy canoes so often referred to here were found by Samuel Coffin
-in an Indian burial cave on a small island in Pilley's Tickle, Notre
-Dame Bay (on the east coast of Newfoundland), in 1869. Among the graves
-in the cave, one of a child, evidently a boy, was found to contain
-a wooden image of a boy, toy bows and arrows, two toy canoes and a
-fragment of a third, packages of food, and some red ochre. With one of
-the canoes was a fragment of a miniature paddle. One of the canoes was
-32 inches long, height of ends 8 inches, height of side amidships 6
-inches, straight portion of keel 26 inches and beam 7 inches, as shown
-by Howley.
-
-In Newfoundland there was very fine birch but no cedar. There was,
-however, excellent spruce which would take the place of cedar. It seems
-certain, then, that all the framework of the Beothuk canoes was of
-spruce. It seems likely that they were never built of a single sheet
-of birch but were covered with a number of sheets sewn together, as in
-other early Indian birch-bark canoes. The canoe birch of Newfoundland
-grew to a diameter of 2 to 2½ feet at the butt, which would produce a
-sheet of birch of 6 to 7 feet width; the length would be decided by how
-far up the tree the Indian could climb to make the upper cut. As has
-been stated, the prehistoric Indians seemingly made little attempt to
-build birch-bark canoes of long lengths of bark, preferring to use only
-the bark obtainable near the ground and above the height of the winter
-snows.
-
-The form of the Beothuk canoes, particularly the lack of bilge and the
-marked ~V~-form, has caused much speculation. One writer assumed that
-the form was particularly suited for running rapids. Actually, the
-Beothuk appeared to have used canoes for river travel very rarely, as
-few rivers in their country were suited for navigation. Instead, they
-seem to have been coast dwellers and to have used canoes for coastal
-travel and for voyages from island to island.
-
-Their canoes were undoubtedly designed for open-water navigation, and
-the ~V~-form was particularly suitable for this. The draft aided in
-keeping the canoe on its course with either broadside or quartering
-winds, and if the Beothuks knew sail, the hull-form would have served
-them well. It is quite evident that the Beothuk canoes used ballast
-in the form of stones or heavy cargo. Stones would have been placed
-along the keel piece and covered with moss and skins. The strongly
-hogged sheer was useful in protecting cargo amidships from spray and,
-in picking up a seal or porpoise, the canoe could be sharply heeled
-without taking in water. The ~V~ sections fore and aft were suitable
-for rough-water navigation; because of its form and the weight of
-ballast, the canoe would pass partly over and through the wave-top
-without pounding. If a wave of such height as to overtop the gunwales
-just abaft the stem were met, the strongly flaring sides would give
-reserve buoyancy, causing the canoe to lift quickly as the wave reached
-up the sides.
-
-The small sticks in the ends, mentioned by John Gay, served not only
-for lifting the canoe but also as braces to support the canoe at a
-given angle when turned over ashore to serve as a shelter. The Beothuk
-canoe, because of its form, was not well suited for portaging, and it
-must be concluded that little of this was done. In coastal voyages, the
-canoe would be unloaded and brought ashore each night to serve as a
-shelter.
-
-It is believed that the gunwale lashing of these canoes was in groups,
-as in the Malecite. Howley questioned an old Micmac who had seen the
-Beothuk lashing; he likened it to the continuous lashing used by his
-own people, indicating some form of group wrapping, at least. It is
-probable that the group lashings were let into the gunwales by shallow
-notching at each group, a common Indian practice when no rail cap was
-used, to prevent abrasion from the paddle or from loading and unloading
-the canoe. The lacing of the ends appears to have been in the common
-spiral stitch, judging by the grave models. These, however, show a
-continuous wrapping at the gunwales, a common simplification found in
-Indian canoe models, representing either group or continuously wrapped
-gunwales indiscriminately.
-
-The paddle of the Beothuks had a long, narrow blade, probably with a
-pointed tip and a ridged surface. The shape is nearly spatulate. The
-handle is missing from the grave model but was perhaps of the usual
-"hoe-handled" form without a top cross-grip.
-
-From these descriptions and on the basis of common Indian techniques
-in birch-bark canoe construction, the form and methods of building the
-Beothuk canoe can be reconstructed. The drawing on page 97 shows the
-probable shape and appearance of the finished canoe. It seems likely
-that a level building bed was first prepared. The keel, probably
-rectangular in cross section, was then formed of two poles placed
-butt-to-butt, worked to shape, and scarfed. The fastening of the scarf
-was probably two or more lashings let into the surface of the wood.
-These lashings are assumed to have been of split-root material but may
-have been sinew. Possibly to strengthen the scarfs, pegs were also
-used, a technique consistent with the state of Beothuk culture. The
-keel probably had its ends split into laminae to allow the sharp bend
-required to form the bow and stern pieces; and it was probably treated
-with hot water and staked out to the desired profile. The main gunwales
-were similarly made and worked to the predetermined sheer which, in
-staking out, was hogged to a greater degree than was required in the
-finished canoe. The ends of the gunwales were apparently split into
-laminae to allow the shaping of the sharp upsweep of the sheer close to
-bow and stern. The outwales were probably formed in the same manner,
-after which the three thwarts were made and the material for ribs and
-sheathing prepared. The ribs were apparently bent to the desired
-shape, using hot water, and were either staked out or tied to hold them
-in form until needed.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 87
-
-BEOTHUK CANOE, APPROXIMATE FORM AND CONSTRUCTION]
-
-The keel was then laid on the bed and a series of stakes, perhaps
-4½ feet long, were driven into the bed on each side of the piece in
-opposing pairs at intervals of perhaps 2 or 3 feet. The stakes and
-keel piece were then removed and the bark cover laid over the bed.
-This may have been in two or three lengths, with the edges overlapped
-so that the outside edge of the lap faced away from what was to be the
-stern. The keel was then placed on the bark and weighted down with a
-few stones or lashed at the stem heads to the end stakes; then the bark
-was folded up on each side of the keel, and the stakes slipped back
-into their holes in the bed and driven solidly into place, perhaps with
-the tops angled slightly outward. The heads were then tied together
-across the work and battens placed along the stakes and the outside of
-the bark to form a "trough" against which the cover could be held with
-horizontal inside battens. These were secured by "inside stakes" lashed
-to each outside stake in the manner used in building eastern Indian
-canoes (see p. 45). The bark cover now stood on the bed in a sharp
-~V~ form, with the keel supported on the bed, the ends of the bark
-supported by the end stakes, and both held down by stones along the
-length of the keel. An alternative would have been to fix heavy stakes
-at the extreme bow and stern of the keel and to lash the stem-heads
-firmly to these in order to hold the keel down on the bark.
-
-Next the main gunwales, prebent to the required form, were brought
-to the building bed and their ends temporarily lashed to stem and
-stern. The bark was brought up to these, trimmed, folded over their
-tops, and secured by a few temporary lashings. Then the outwales were
-placed outside the bark with their ends temporarily secured, and a few
-pegs were driven through outwale, bark, and main gunwales, or a few
-permanent lashings were passed. The bark cover was next securely lashed
-to the gunwales and outwales combined, all along the sheer to a point
-near the ends. The excess bark was then trimmed away at bow and stern
-and the cover was laced to the end pieces to form bow and stern. This
-lacing must have passed through the laminations of the stem and stern
-pieces in the usual manner, avoiding the spiral lashing that held
-the laminae together. The ends of the gunwales and outwales were next
-permanently lashed together with root or other material and to the stem
-and stern pieces. This done, the gunwales were spread apart amidships,
-pressing the stakes outward still more at the tops. At this point the
-tenons may have then been cut in the main gunwales and the thwarts
-inserted. This method, incidentally, was used in building some western
-Indian bark canoes.
-
-The usual steps of completing a birch-bark canoe would then follow--the
-insertion of sheathing, held in place by temporary ribs, and then the
-driving home of the prebent ribs under the main gunwales, with their
-heads in the spaces between the group lashings along the gunwales and
-against the lower outboard corner of the main gunwale member, which was
-probably beveled as in the Malecite canoe. The sheathing may have been
-in two or three lengths, except close to the gunwale amidships where
-one length would serve. On each side of the keel piece a sheathing
-strake was placed which was thick on the edge against the keel but thin
-along the outboard edge, in order to fair the sheathing into the keel
-piece.
-
-At some point in this process, the bark cover was pieced out to
-make the required width, and gores were cut in the usual manner. In
-spreading the gunwales, the bow and stern would have to be freed
-from any stakes, as these would tend to pull inboard slightly as the
-gunwales were spread in the process of shaping the hull. The ribs
-could have been put in while green and shaped in the bark cover by use
-of battens and cross braces inside, as were those of the St. Francis
-canoes.
-
-The sewing of the bark cover at panels and gores would take place
-before the sheathing and ribs were placed, of course. A 15-foot canoe
-when completed would have a girth amidships of about 65 to 68 inches
-if the beam at the gunwales were 48 inches, and a bark cover of this
-width could be taken from a tree of roughly 20 inches in diameter.
-Hence, there may have been little piecing out of the bark for width.
-In the form of the Beothuk canoe as reconstructed there is nothing
-that departs from what is possible by the common Indian canoe-building
-techniques. The finished canoe would, in all respects, agree with most
-of the descriptions that have been found and would be a practical craft
-in all the conditions under which it would be employed.
-
-These were the only birch-bark canoes supposed to have made long runs
-in the open sea clear of the land. In them the Beothuk are supposed to
-have made voyages to the outlying islands, in which runs in open water
-of upward of 60 miles would be necessary, and they probably crossed
-from Newfoundland to Labrador.
-
-The ~V~-form used by the Beothuk canoe was the most extreme of all
-birch-bark canoe models in North America, although, as has been
-mentioned, less extreme ~V~-bottoms were used elsewhere. The Beothuk
-canoe may have been a development of some more ancient form of bark
-sea canoe also related to the ~V~-bottom canoes of the Passamaquoddy.
-The most marked structural characteristic of the Beothuk canoe was the
-keel; the only other canoe in which a true keel was employed was the
-temporary moosehide canoes of the Malecite.
-
-The Beothuk keel piece may have sometimes been nearly round in section
-like the keel of the Malecite moosehide canoe (p. 214). The two
-garboard strakes of the sheathing may have been shaped in cross section
-to fair the bark cover from the thin sheathing above to the thick keel
-and at the same time allow the ribs to hold the garboards in place.
-They could, in fact, be easily made, since a radial split of a small
-tree would produce clapboard-like cross sections. This construction
-would perhaps comply better with Cartwright's description of the keel
-than that shown in the plan on page 97.
-
-The sheer of the Beothuk canoe is an exaggerated form of the gunwale
-shape of the Micmac rough-water canoe but this, of course, is no real
-indication of any relationship between the two. Indeed, the probable
-scarfing of the gunwales of the Beothuk canoe might be taken as
-evidence against such a theory. On the other hand, the elm-bark and
-other temporary canoes of the Malecite and Iroquois had crudely scarfed
-gunwale members, as did some northwestern bark canoes.
-
-Most of the building techniques employed by Indians throughout North
-America are illustrated by these eastern bark canoes, yet marked
-variation in construction details existed to the westward, as will be
-seen.
-
-
-
-
-_Chapter Five_
-
-CENTRAL CANADA
-
-
-The Indians inhabiting central Canada were expert builders of
-birch-bark canoes and produced many distinctive types. The area
-includes not only what are now the Provinces of Quebec (including
-Labrador), Ontario, Manitoba, and the eastern part of Saskatchewan,
-but also the neighboring northern portions of Michigan, Wisconsin and
-Minnesota in the United States. The migrations of tribal groups within
-this large area in historical times, as well as the influence of a
-long-established fur trade, have produced many hybrid forms of bark
-canoes and, in at least a few instances, the transfer of a canoe model
-from one tribal group to another. It is this that makes it necessary
-to examine this area as a single geographic unit, although a wide
-variation of tribal forms of bark canoes existed within its confines.
-
-The larger portion of the Indians inhabiting this area were of the
-great Algonkian family. In the east during the 18th and 19th centuries,
-however, some members of the Iroquois Confederacy were also found, and
-in the west, from at least as early as the beginning of the French
-fur trade, groups of Sioux, Dakota, Teton, and Assiniboin. From the
-fur trade as well as from normal migratory movements there was much
-intermingling of the various tribes, and it was long the practice in
-the fur trade, particularly in the days of the Hudson's Bay Company, to
-employ eastern Indians as canoemen and as canoe builders in the western
-areas. These apparently introduced canoe models into sections where
-they were formerly unknown; as a result, the tribal classification of
-bark canoes within the area under examination cannot be very precise
-and the range of each form cannot be stated accurately. It was in this
-area, too, that the historical _canot du maître_ (also written _maître
-canot_), or great canoe, of the fur trade was developed.
-
-Most of central Canada, except toward the extreme north in Quebec
-and toward the south below the Great Lakes, is in the area where the
-canoe birch was plentiful and of large size. There the numerous inland
-waterways, the Great Lakes, and the coastal waters of James and Hudson
-Bays make water travel convenient, and natural conditions require a
-variety of canoe models. Hence, when Europeans first appeared in this
-area they found already in existence a highly developed method of
-canoe transportation. This they immediately adopted as their own, and
-in the long period lasting until very recent times, during which the
-development of the northern portion of this area was slow, the canoe
-remained the most important means of forest travel.
-
-In the northeastern portion of the area, including the Province of
-Quebec (with Labrador) from a line drawn from the head of James Bay
-eastwardly through Lake St. John and the Saguenay River Valley to the
-St. Lawrence and thence northward to the treeline in the sub-Arctic,
-dwelt the eastern branch of the far-ranging Cree tribe. Those living
-on the shores of Hudson and James Bays, along the west side of the
-Labrador Peninsula, were known as the Eastern, Swamp, or Muskeg Cree.
-To the north, at the Head of Ungava Bay, around Fort Chimo, and to the
-immediate southward, were the Nascapee, or Nascopie, supposedly related
-to the Eastern Cree. In southern Labrador and in Quebec along the north
-shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and for some distance inland, dwelt
-another related tribal group now known as the Montagnais.
-
-Although the most recent canoe forms employed by these three Indian
-groups were very much the same, this may not have been the case
-earlier. A common canoe model in this area was the so-called "crooked
-canoe," in which there was a very marked fore-and-aft rocker to the
-bottom without a corresponding amount of sheer; as a result the canoe
-was much deeper amidships than near the ends. Another common model
-had a rather straight bottom fore and aft, with some lift near the
-ends and a corresponding amount of sheer. Between these was a hybrid
-which had some fore-and-aft rocker in the bottom and a very moderate
-sheer. Not until the 1870's was any detailed examination made of the
-canoes in this area; then it appeared that the crooked canoe might be
-the tribal model of the eastern Cree only, while the Nascapee employed
-a straight-bottom model, but it is possible that the examination was
-limited and that Nascapee use of the crooked canoe was simply not
-observed. By 1900, however, the crooked model was in use not only by
-the eastern Cree and the Nascapee but also by the Montagnais.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 88
-
-MONTAGNAIS CROOKED CANOE. (_Canadian Geological Survey photo._)]
-
-In the area around Fort Chimo and at the northern ranges of the
-eastern Cree and of the Montagnais the lack of good birch bark made it
-necessary to make up the bark cover out of many small pieces. This not
-only was laborious but made a rough and rather unsightly cover. Hence,
-some of the northern builders, particularly the Nascapee, substituted
-spruce bark, which was available in quite large sheets. The use of
-the spruce bark, however, did not cause any of these people to depart
-markedly from the model or the method of constructing birch-bark
-canoes, as it did for the Indians in the maritime area.
-
-At the time (1908) when Adney was carefully observing the canoes
-in this area he found that both crooked and straight-bottom canoes
-were being used by all three tribal groups, but with a variation in
-midsection form among individual builders. Both types were built with
-a midsection that had a wide bottom and vertical sides, or, as an
-alternative, a narrow bottom and flaring sides. The end profile of
-all these canoes showed chin. In some crooked canoes the profile was
-apparently an arc of a circle, but in most canoes the form was an
-irregular curve. The stem met the gunwale in a marked peak rounded very
-slightly at the head, as the result of the method by which the stem
-was constructed, but in the hybrid model used by the Nascapee the ends
-were low and not much peaked and the quick upward rise of the sheer
-near the ends was lacking. In cross section all these canoes became
-~V~-shaped close to the ends, regardless of the midsection form. For
-the straight-bottom canoe and in the hybrid form this resulted in very
-sharp level lines, but the very great rocker of the crooked canoe
-brought the ends well above the normal line of flotation, so that this
-type was quite full-ended at the level line in spite of the ~V~-section.
-
-It is apparent upon examining the crooked canoe that there was actually
-less variation in its form, in spite of differences in midsection
-shape, than in that of the straight-bottom canoe, owing to its very
-great depth amidships in proportion to its width. This proportion
-made necessary a very moderate flare in the narrow-bottom midsection
-and resulted in a rather wall-sided appearance, even in this model.
-The hybrid form, which fell between the extremes of the crooked canoe
-and the straight-bottom canoe, had a narrow-bottomed flaring-sided
-midsection, and its relatively moderate depth made obvious the flare in
-the topsides and thus created a distinctive model.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 89
-
-BIRCH-BARK CROOKED CANOE, UNGAVA CREE. (_Smithsonian Institution
-photo._)]
-
-
-_Eastern Cree_
-
-The construction of canoes of the eastern Cree and related tribes
-seems generally like that of the Micmac craft. Instead of the gunwale
-method employed in the Maritime area, a building frame was used, and
-as a result the gunwales were longer than the bottom. In constructing
-the crooked canoe, the building frame must be heavily sheered, and
-there is evidence that the building bed was depressed amidships, rather
-than raised as was usual in the east. The great amount of rocker in
-the bottom in this form of Cree canoe made it necessary to block up
-the ends of the building frame to a very great height, and there was
-no need to raise the building bed at midlength, since the rocker
-extended the full length of the bottom. The bark cover had to be gored
-at closely spaced intervals to allow the rocker to be formed, and
-even in the straight-bottom model, the quick rise of the bottom near
-the ends required closely spaced gores there. In the straight-bottom
-model, however, the building bed was raised at midlength, as in eastern
-canoe-building, and the building frame was ballasted to a cupid's-bow
-profile, when on the bed, so as to achieve the combination of straight
-bottom amidships with sharply rising ends.
-
-The gunwales were formed of the main gunwale member and a light gunwale
-cap, no outwale being employed. They were joined at the ends and,
-after hot water had been applied, were staked out with posts under
-the ends to obtain the required sheer. The thwarts were then tenoned
-into the main gunwales, though occasionally a canoe was built with
-"broken" gunwales, that is, the thwart-ends were let flush into the
-top and covered by the caps. Some builders did not spread the gunwales
-and place the thwarts until after the bark cover was lashed at the
-sheer; others used the eastern methods of assembling the gunwale
-structure prior to securing the bark cover at sheer. The bark cover
-was attached to the main gunwales with a continuous lashing, as in
-the Micmac canoes, but the bark was not always brought over the top
-of the gunwales. As a result, some canoes had a batten placed under
-the lashing, near the edge of the cover, to prevent the lashing from
-tearing away. Due to the lack of good root material, the lashing was
-often of rawhide. For all horizontal seams in the side panels of the
-bark cover, rawhide sewing over a root batten was used. The ends of the
-gunwales were supported by sprung headboards; in some canoes these were
-bellied toward the ends to such a degree that they almost paralleled
-the end profiles.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 90
-
-NASCAPEE 3-FATHOM CANOE, EASTERN LABRADOR. Similar canoes, with slight
-variations in model and dimensions, were used by all Ungava Indians:
-the Montagnais and the Eastern, or Swamp, Crees.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 91
-
-MONTAGNAIS 2-FATHOM CANOE OF SOUTHERN LABRADOR AND QUEBEC, showing old
-decoration forms. Drawing based on small model of a narrow-bottom canoe
-built for fast paddling.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 92
-
-CROOKED CANOE, 2½-FATHOM, OF THE UNGAVA PENINSULA, used by the
-Ungava-Cree, Montagnais, and Nascapee. Also built with a wide bottom
-and a slight tumble-home in the topsides.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 93
-
-HYBRID MODEL OF THE NASCAPEE-CREE CANOE, 2-FATHOM, built of spruce or
-birch bark, with details of canoes and paddles.]
-
-The ends were formed by means of the same technique used for Micmac
-canoes; no inside stem-piece was employed and the bark cover was
-stiffened by outside battens covered by the lashing. In the Cree
-canoes, however, the stem battens were "broken" sharply at the sheer to
-form a slightly rounded peak where the end met the gunwale caps. The
-"break" in the battens was made by bending them very sharply, so that
-they were almost fractured. The Cree practice also differed from that
-of the Micmac, although not universally, by passing the lower end of
-the stem batten through the bark cover at the point where the stem met
-the bottom. The slit thus made was sealed with gum or, more recently,
-covered with cloth impregnated with gum. The stems were lashed in
-various ways; the most common was a spiral form up to the sheer. Near
-the gunwale caps crossed stitches or small, closely spaced wrappings
-were also employed. The tops of the battens, forming the peak of the
-stem, were brought along under the rail caps, in line with the gunwale
-lashings inboard, and secured with a continuous lashing for about 6
-inches. In the northern parts of the area under discussion the stem
-lashing was often of rawhide.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 94
-
-EASTERN CREE CROOKED CANOE of rather moderate sheer and rocker.
-(_Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo._)]
-
-Gunwale caps were wider than the gunwales and thus gave some protection
-to the lashing there. The ends of the gunwale caps were heavily tapered
-to allow the sharp bends necessary to carry them out on the stems. They
-were pegged or nailed to the gunwales, but at the ends were lashed;
-usually with two or three small group lashings over and under the stem
-battens, below the caps.
-
-The most recent canoes had canvas covers instead of bark. Nails, tacks,
-and twine for sewing were used; otherwise they were built as the
-Indians built birch- and spruce-bark craft, and not as white men built
-canvas canoes and boats.
-
-The framework of the canoes was usually spruce or larch. Toward the
-south and along the St. Lawrence some white cedar was used, and in the
-south maple was sometimes used for thwarts. The ribs of the canoes
-inspected by Adney were usually about 3 inches wide, and a short taper
-brought them to about 2 inches at the ends, where they were cut square
-across. They were spaced about 1 inch apart edge-to-edge amidships
-and somewhat further apart toward the ends of the canoe. The canoes
-usually had an odd number of ribs, as the first was placed under the
-thwart amidships. The last three ribs at the ends were "broken" at the
-centerline to allow them to take the necessary ~V~-section there; but
-the fourth rib from each end was only sharply bent. In some canoes the
-heel of the very narrow headboard was stepped on the sheathing against
-the endmost rib, in others it was stepped, as in the Micmac canoes, on
-a frog which rested against the endmost rib.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 95
-
-STRAIGHT AND CROOKED CANOES, EASTERN CREE.]
-
-In more recent times the sheathing was laid in one of two ways,
-according to the preference of the builder, but the existence of the
-two styles suggests that each was once a tribal-group method. One
-method of shaping the bottom sheathing was to employ a center, or
-keelson, piece in two lengths, the butts being overlapped amidships,
-parallel-sided except toward the stems, where it was tapered to fit the
-~V~-sections rather closely. The next strake outboard was short and
-was in the form of a shallow triangle with its base along the middle
-portion of the first strakes and about one-third the length of the
-bottom. Its apex was under the middle thwart. The next strake outboard
-was in two lengths lapped amidships, parallel sided along the arms of
-the triangular strake, and snied off at the ends to fit along the sides
-of the first strake. Another strake outboard of this was similar in
-form and position, but longer. Thus seven strake widths would complete
-the bottom sheathing. The side sheathing was narrow and slightly
-tapered; each strake in two lengths overlapped slightly amidships.
-The ends of the topside sheathing ran well into the ends, in most
-canoes, where they apparently served as stiffening. The second method
-of sheathing employed parallel-sided strakes throughout, laid side by
-side on the bottom, with the ends snied off to fit the form of the bark
-bottom. The existence of a model canoe made about 1850 (see p. 91)
-supports the theory that the first method was originally the Montagnais
-tribal construction and that the more primitive second method was
-probably Cree or Nascapee.
-
-The ribs were preformed and fitted to the canoe after drying out. They
-were bent to the desired shape in pairs and tied with a thong across
-the ends to hold their shape while drying. Some builders inserted a
-strut inside the bent ribs, parallel to the thong, protecting the
-surface of the inner rib by a pad of bark placed under each end of
-the strut. The pair of ribs might also be wrapped with a bark cord to
-help hold them together. To aid in handling, one pair of ribs might
-be nested inside another. As in eastern canoes the ribs under the
-gunwales were driven into place. At the ends they were canted toward
-the center, so that in the straight-bottom models they stood nearly
-perpendicular to the rocker of the bottom there; in the crooked canoe
-the ribs were all somewhat canted in this manner.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 96
-
-MONTAGNAIS CANVAS-COVERED CROOKED CANOE under construction. (_Canadian
-Geological Survey photo._)]
-
-The paddles used in this area were made with parallel-sided blades, the
-end of the blade being almost circular. The handle might be fitted with
-a wide grip at the head or it might be pole-ended. It is impossible to
-say how early sails were used to propel canoes, but it is probable they
-were introduced by the fur traders. Square sails were being used on the
-coastal canoes at the time the earliest reference was made to these
-canoes, in the 1870's.
-
-Little is known about the decorations employed by the eastern Cree. The
-Montagnais birch-bark model canoe of about 1850 (see p. 91) has three
-small circles placed in a triangular position on the bow and a band
-along the bottom of the side panels. The circles and the bands are in
-red paint, but may have been intended to represent the dark inner rind
-left after scraping the winter bark cover. The use of decoration in
-this area after 1850 has not been noted in any available reference.
-
-As a rule, the straight-bottom canoes were small, commonly between
-12 and 18 feet overall, and the most popular size was 14 to 16 feet
-overall. A canoe of this size was usually employed as a hunters' canoe
-for forest travel, though it might be used occasionally along the
-coasts. These canoes were light and, in this respect, resembled the
-Micmac models shown in Chapter 4.
-
-The original purpose of the crooked canoe is in question. Those
-travelers who saw this canoe in use on the Hudson Bay side of the
-Labrador Peninsula believed that it was designed for use in rough,
-exposed water. While it would be a desirable form for beach work in
-surf, the high ends would make paddling against strong winds very
-difficult. On the other hand the Montagnais used the crooked canoe for
-river navigation, particularly where rapids were to be run, and for
-this work it appears to have been well adapted. The crooked canoe was
-commonly built larger than the straight-bottom model, between 16 and
-20 feet in length overall, and was a vessel of burden rather than a
-hunting canoe. Canoes up to 28 feet in length have been mentioned by
-travelers in this area but investigation indicates strongly that these
-were not the tribal form but the _canot du nord_, or north canoe of the
-Hudson's Bay Company traders.
-
-Along the southern borders of their territory and to the westward
-the eastern Cree often built and used canoes modeled on those of
-their neighbors, the Têtes de Boule and the Ojibway. Hence the tribal
-classification does not hold good in these localities. Also, the
-eastern Cree were employed by the Hudson's Bay Company as builders of
-forms of the _maître canot_ and _canot du nord_ that are unlike their
-typical tribal model.
-
-
-_Têtes de Boule_
-
-The Têtes de Boule, particularly the western bands, were skilled canoe
-builders and had long been employed by the Hudson's Bay Company in the
-construction of large fur-trade canoes. Apparently made up of bands
-of Indians inhabiting lower Quebec, in the basin of the St. Maurice
-River and on the Height of Land, these bands had come down to the lower
-Ottawa River to trade with the local Algonkin tribe there in early
-times. They were known to the Algonkins, who had had some contact with
-civilization, as "wild Indians." They also came into close trading
-relations with the French colonists, as the Ottawa River was the early
-French canoe route between Montreal and Lake Superior. Because they
-cut their hair short, unlike the other Indians, these northern bands
-were nicknamed "Bull Heads," or "Round Heads," by the French traders,
-and the tribesmen soon came to accept this rather than their own
-designation of "White Fish People" as the tribal name. In more recent
-times, the name has been applied to groups of Indians living in western
-Quebec Province, near Lake Barrière and Grand Lake Victoria, but these
-do not consider themselves related to the St. Maurice bands.
-
-It seems apparent that the canoe models of all these groups had been
-altered as a result of long contact with other tribal groups. Although
-the St. Maurice and the western bands were apparently not of the same
-tribal stock, their relations with the Algonkin may have brought about
-the use of a standard model by all.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 97
-
-FIDDLEHEAD OF SCRAPED BARK on bow and stern of a Montagnais birch-bark
-canoe at Seven Islands, Que., 1915.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 98
-
-DISK OF COLORED PORCUPINE QUILLS decorating canoe found at Namaquagon,
-Que., 1898. Within the 4-inch disk may have been an 8-pointed star.]
-
-The Têtes de Boule lived in an area where very superior materials for
-birch-bark canoe construction were plentiful. This, with the need for
-canoes imposed by the numerous waterways and the demand for canoes
-from white traders, made many of the tribesmen expert builders. Their
-small canoes, ranging from the 8-to 12-foot hunter's canoes to the
-14-to 16-foot family canoes, were very similar in profile to the canoes
-of the St. Francis Abnaki. The Têtes de Boule canoes, however, were
-commonly narrower on the bottom, and in their construction a building
-frame was always used. The Têtes de Boule model was straight along the
-bottom for better than half the length and then rose rather quickly
-toward the ends. Similarly, the sheer was moderate amidships and
-increased toward the ends. The stems showed a chin and were much peaked
-at the gunwale ends. Most commonly the midsection had a flat bottom
-athwartships and a well-rounded bilge, giving the topsides, near the
-gunwale, a very slight outward flare. Some Têtes de Boule canoes had
-rather ~V~-section ends in which the endmost rib was "broken" at the
-centerline. As a result the lines were sharp and the canoes paddled
-very easily.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 99
-
-A FLEET OF 51 BIRCH-BARK CANOES of the Têtes de Boule Indians,
-assembled at the Hudson's Bay Company post, Grand Lake Victoria,
-Procession Sunday, August 1895. (_Photo, Post-Factor L. A.
-Christopherson._)]
-
-For construction of the Têtes de Boule canoe, which was marked by good
-structural design and neat workmanship, the building bed was slightly
-raised at midlength, as was the general practice of the St. Francis
-builders. The building frame was usually about 6 inches less in width
-amidships, inside to inside, than were the gunwales, and from 15 to 18
-inches shorter. The building frame was made quite sharp toward the ends
-so that, viewed from above, it rather approached a diamond form; this
-produced the very sharp lines that are to be seen in many examples of
-the Têtes de Boule canoes. The building frame was of course removed
-from the canoe as soon as the gunwales were in place and the bark cover
-lashed to them.
-
-The gunwale structure, comprised of main gunwale members, caps, and
-outwales, was the same as in the Malecite canoes. The main gunwales
-were rectangular in cross-section, some being almost square, with the
-lower outboard corner bevelled off. Compared to those of eastern canoes
-of equal length, the main gunwales were unusually light; their depth
-and width rarely exceeded 1 inch, and in very small hunter's canoes
-these were often only about ¾ inch. Toward the ends, they tapered to ½
-inch, or even slightly less. The ends of the main gunwales, usually of
-the common half-arrowhead form, were held together by rawhide or root
-thongs passed back and forth through horizontal holes in the members.
-After being thus lashed together, they were securely wrapped with
-thongs which usually went over gunwales and outwales and through the
-bark cover.
-
-The gunwale caps, also light, were usually between ¼ and ½ inch thick
-and from 1 to 1½ inches wide. At the ends they were tapered in width
-and thickness, often to ³⁄₁₆ by ½ inch, so as to follow the quickly
-rising sheer there. The ends of the gunwales, caps, and outwales
-required hot-water treatment to obtain the required curve of the sheer.
-The caps were pegged to the gunwales and were secured at each end with
-two or three groups of lashings which passed around the outwales as
-well, and through the bark cover.
-
-The outwales were likewise light battens between ¼ and ½ inch thick and
-from ¾ to 1¼ inches deep, the depth near the ends being tapered to ⅜ to
-¾ inch so as to sheer correctly.
-
-The bark cover had four or five vertical gores on each side of the
-middle thwart, the gore nearest each stem being commonly well inboard
-of the end thwarts. The side panels were usually deep amidships and
-narrowed toward the ends. A root batten was used under the stitching
-of the longitudinal seams of the side panels, which were sewn with a
-harness-maker's stitch. The top edge of the bark cover was brought
-over the top of the main gunwales, as in the Malecite canoes, and was
-secured by group wrappings passing over the gunwales and outwales,
-under the caps. These groups were not independent, the root thong being
-carried from group to group outside the bark in a long pass under the
-outwales. The groups of seven to nine turns were roughly an inch apart
-in many small canoes, and perhaps 1½ inches in the large craft. In the
-last birch-bark canoes in which no nails or tacks were used, wrappings
-of root thongs began with a stop knot, but this does not appear to have
-been the earlier practice.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 100
-
-TÊTES DE BOULE CANOE.]
-
-The Têtes de Boule canoes had inside stem-pieces split, according to
-the size of the canoe, in four to six laminations and lashed with a
-bark or root thong in an open spiral in some canoes but close-wrapped
-in others. The stem-piece was as in the Malecite canoes, except that it
-ended under the rail cap, and did not pass through it as in the Eastern
-canoes; the heel was notched to receive the heel of the headboard.
-The bark was usually lashed through the stem, as in the Malecite
-construction. However, in some Têtes de Boule canoes, the stem close to
-the heel was not laminated and the bark was lashed to the solid part by
-an in-and-out stitch passing through closely spaced holes drilled in
-the stem piece. Above this, the lashing was the usual spiral which, in
-at least a few instances, was passed through the bark just inboard of
-the stem piece. Near the top of the stem the lashings sometimes were
-rather widely spaced and passed inboard of the stem-pieces; at other
-times, however, these lashings were more closely spaced and passed
-through the stem.
-
-Ordinarily, at the ends of the canoe no _wulegessis_, or covers of
-bark, were used under the gunwale caps, although in one example
-examined a small cover had been inserted over the gunwale ends and
-under the caps, it did not extend below the outwales to form a
-_wulegessis_. In some canoes the bark cover was pieced up at the peak
-of the stems by a panel whose bottom faired into the bottom of the side
-panels.
-
-A variety of methods was used to fit the gunwale caps at the ends of
-the canoe. Some builders carried the cap out beyond the gunwale ends,
-flat, over the edges of the bark cover and the top face of the outwale,
-but others tilted the cap outboard and downward. The ends of the caps
-came flush with the face of the stems. In an apparently late variation,
-the gunwales, instead of ending in the half-arrowhead, were snied off
-the inside and a triangular block was inserted between the ends. The
-gunwales were then pegged or nailed to the block and the whole secured
-with a root wrapping around them, before the outwales were in place.
-The first turn began by passing the root through a hole in the block
-near its inboard end, with a stop knot in the root.
-
-The ends of the gunwales were supported by a narrow headboard sharply
-bellied toward the end of the canoe. The top of the headboard was
-notched to stand under the main gunwales; the center portion often
-was carried high and ended with a cylindrical top that was slightly
-swelled like the handle of a gouge or chisel. The heel was sometimes
-held in the stem-piece notch with a root lashing.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 101
-
-TÊTES DE BOULE CANOES.]
-
-The thwarts, spaced equal distances apart, were tenoned into the
-gunwales as in the old Malecite canoes, and were secured with a peg and
-lashing through the two holes in the thwart ends. The middle thwart
-was usually formed with a shoulder, viewed in plan, that started 6
-or 7 inches inboard of the inside face of the main gunwale. In form,
-this thwart usually swelled outward in a straight line from the tenon
-shoulder, then reduced in a curved line to about the width of the
-tenon tongue and, finally, increased again in a right-angle cut to the
-greatest width. From here it was reduced again in a long curve to the
-canoe's center line. The other thwarts usually had simple ends, wide
-at the tenon shoulder and reduced in a long curve to a narrow center.
-In elevation, all the thwarts were thin outboard and thick at the
-centerline of the canoe. The cross section of the center thwart at the
-centerline was square or nearly so, the first thwart on each side was
-rectangular in cross section at the center, and the end thwarts were
-similar, but very thin.
-
-The sheathing of the Têtes de Boule canoes was thin, particularly at
-the ends of the strakes. The bottom was laid with a parallel-sided
-center strake going in first. This strake was in two lengths in a small
-canoe and three lengths in a large, the butts overlapping slightly. The
-rest of the strakes in the bottom were tapered toward the ends of the
-canoe. At the extremities of the canoe, the narrow ends of the strakes
-were very thin and overlapped along their edges, the bottom sheathing,
-when in place, thus following the diamond form of the building frame.
-The topside sheathing was laid up in short lengths with overlapping
-butts and edges in an irregular plan, those strakes along the bilges
-being longer than above. Toward the ends of the canoe these strakes
-were slightly tapered and the edges were very thin. The sheathing ended
-irregularly, outboard of the headboards, in narrow butts as in most
-eastern canoes.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 102
-
-TÊTES DE BOULE HUNTING CANOE, 1½-FATHOM, with typical construction
-details and a paddle.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 103
-
-TÊTES DE BOULE CANOE, 2½-FATHOM, with some construction details.]
-
-The ribs, like the rest of the structure, were very light, usually ¼
-to ⅜ inch thick and from about 1¼ to 1¾ inches wide, depending upon
-the size of the canoe. A few examples had ribs 2 inches wide, and
-still fewer had ribs up to 2½ inches wide. The spacing was usually
-close, somewhat more than an inch edge to edge amidships and a little
-more between the end thwarts and the headboards. The spacing amidships
-would average perhaps 3¼ inches, center to center. The ends of the
-ribs, in the last 2 or 3 inches, were reduced in width very sharply in
-a hollow, curved taper to ½ to ¾ inch wide, and were usually beveled
-on the inside edge. The thickness was also reduced by a cut on the
-inside, so that the ends were chisel-pointed with a short bevel on the
-inboard side. The rib ends were forced between the main gunwales and
-the bark cover, coming home in the bevel of the lower outboard edge of
-the main gunwales between the group lashings of the bark cover as in
-the Malecite canoes. The ribs were not prebent but were placed in the
-canoe when green, treated with hot water, and then allowed to dry into
-place. In preparing the rib, it was first bent over the knee. It was
-the custom of some builders to place under the building frame the ribs
-that were to go near the ends of the canoe, and to mark the point where
-they would be bent. Sometimes the endmost ribs that were to be "broken"
-at the centerline to form the ~V~-section were split edgewise. A piece
-of the inner lamina was then cut out to one side of the center so that
-the inner laminae would lie flat against each other, and to prevent the
-inner half from buckling the rib was wrapped with a thong to one side
-of the "break."
-
-[Illustration: Figure 104
-
-TÊTES DE BOULE HUNTING CANOE, 2-FATHOM, with wide bottom, showing
-structural details.]
-
-It does not appear to have been the common practice of the Têtes de
-Boule to decorate their small canoes, though when building for white
-men they would decorate if the buyer requested it.
-
-The paddles used by the Têtes de Boule were somewhat like those of the
-eastern Cree but the blade was slightly wider near the tip than near
-the handle. The top grip was formed wide and thin, the taper from the
-lower grip to the upper one often being very long. The paddles were
-usually of white birch, but maple was used in a few of the examples
-examined.
-
-The gunwales, outwales, and caps of the Têtes de Boule canoes were
-usually of spruce; the ribs and stem pieces, white cedar; the thwarts,
-white birch; the headboards, white cedar in all but one of the canoes
-inspected (in this, birch had been used). Jack pine was used also for
-thwarts, and cedar was sometimes used for the gunwale members; as would
-be expected, the builders used the materials that were at hand near the
-building sites.
-
-Têtes de Boule fur-trade canoes, like those of the eastern Cree, appear
-to have had no relationship to the smaller tribal types, since they
-were constructed under supervision of white men. They will be discussed
-as a group on page 135.
-
-
-_Algonkin_
-
-The Algonkins were a tribe residing on the Ottawa River and its
-tributaries, in what are now the provinces of Quebec and Ontario,
-when the French first met them. They appear to have been a large and
-powerful tribe and were apparently competent builders and users of
-birch-bark canoes. They were not the same tribe as the Ottawa, who
-controlled the Lake Huron end of the canoe route between Montreal and
-Lake Superior, by way of the Ottawa River. These Ottawa were related
-to the Ojibway tribe and received their name from the French, who gave
-the name _Outaouais_, or "Ottaway," to all Indians, except the Hurons,
-who came from the west by way of the Ottawa. The Algonkins, because of
-their location, were much influenced by the French fur trade. Early
-in the 18th century they intermingled with certain Iroquois whom
-they allowed to settle with them, near Montreal, at the Lake of Two
-Mountains, later Oka. Thence they gradually spread out and lost tribal
-unity, until only small groups were left. These lived on the Golden
-Lake Algonkin Reserve, Bonshere River, Ontario; at Oka, Quebec; and
-elsewhere in western Quebec and eastern Ontario. It is possible that
-they were the first to build fur-trade canoes for the French, but
-evidence to support such a claim with any certainty is lacking.
-
-Due to intermixing with other tribal groups and to the influence of the
-fur trade, in which they were long employed as canoe men and builders,
-the Algonkins no longer used a single tribal model of canoe. However,
-one of their models, which had high ends resembling those of the large
-fur-trade canoe, may have been the tribal type from which the fur-trade
-canoe was developed, as will be seen.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 105
-
-OLD ALGONKIN CANOE.]
-
-The high-ended model, the oldest form known to have been used by this
-tribe, was narrow-bottomed, with flaring sides. The canoes seen were
-built with careful workmanship and in the old manner, without iron
-fastenings. They were light and easily paddled, yet would carry a heavy
-load. The ends were sharp at the line of flotation. The bottom was
-straight to a point near the ends, where it lifted somewhat. The sheer
-was rather straight over the middle portion of the canoe, then lifted
-slightly until close to the stem, where it rose sharply, becoming
-almost perpendicular at the ends of the rail caps. The midsection was
-slightly rounded across the bottom, with a well-rounded bilge and a
-gently flaring topside. The cross-section became ~V~-shaped close to
-the headboards. The most marked feature in the appearance of this
-canoe was the profile of the ends. The stem line, beginning with a
-slight angle where it joined the bottom, bent outward in a gentle
-curve, reaching the perpendicular at a point a little more than half
-the height of the end, and from there it tumbled home slightly. In
-most of the canoes examined the top of the stem then rounded inboard
-in a quick, hard curve, usually almost half a circle, so that the stem
-was turned downward as it joined the outwale and gunwale cap. In a
-variation of this stem form, the top of the stem was cut off almost
-square, forming a straight line that ran parallel to the rise of the
-bottom below the stems to the point where it would meet the upturned
-outwale and cap. The ends of the outwales and caps were thus 3 or 4
-inches inboard of the extremities. This form of stem, particularly when
-to top was rounded in a half-circle, approached the basic form of the
-ends of the fur-trade canoe.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 106
-
-OLD MODEL, OTTAWA RIVER, ALGONKIN CANOE, combining capacity with easy
-paddling qualities.]
-
-All the examples of this form of canoe that were examined were small,
-from 14 to a little over 16 feet in length overall, but this is not
-proof that larger canoes of this type had not existed earlier.
-
-The later and more common form of Algonkin canoe was the _wabinaki
-chiman_. A corruption of Abnaki, _wabinaki_ to the later Algonkin meant
-the Malecite as well as the St. Francis Indians. The _wabinaki chiman_
-was built in lengths from 12 to 18 feet.
-
-Iroquois living in the Algonkin territory during the period built this
-form of canoe as well as the older, high-ended form. The _wabinaki
-chiman_ was very much like the St. Francis and Malecite canoes in
-appearance, but it was not an exact copy. The Algonkin version was
-commonly a narrow-bottom canoe with flaring topsides. There was some
-variation in the end profiles; most had the rather high, peaked ends
-of the St. Francis canoe. The sheer was rather straight until near the
-end, where it rose rapidly to the stem. The stem was rounded and was
-faired into the bottom. The top of the stem was often rather straight
-and tumbled home slightly, but on some it raked outward, much as did
-the stem of some Malecite canoes.
-
-Another form of Algonkin canoe had a low sheer with only a slight lift
-toward the ends. In this canoe the stem might have a short, hard curve
-at the heel and an upper portion that was quite straight and slightly
-tumbled home; or the full height might be well rounded, with a slight
-tumble-home near the stem head.
-
-In appearance these canoes were very like the straight-stem Malecite
-models. The _wabinaki chiman_ was unquestionably copied from the
-eastern canoes that came into popularity among the Algonkin late in
-the 19th century, when white sportsmen were demanding canoes of the
-St. Francis and Malecite models. However, the Algonkin canoes differed
-somewhat from the eastern canoes not only in model but also in methods
-of construction.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 107
-
-ALGONKIN AND OJIBWAY STEM-PIECES, models of old forms made by Adney: 1,
-2, 3, Ojibway; 4, 5, 6, 7, Algonkin.]
-
-Algonkins used the same construction methods in both their canoe
-models, though the framework was not alike in all respects. The
-building frame was always used. For a 2-or 2½-fathom canoe this was
-made of two strips of cedar, 1½ inches wide and ¾ inch deep, that were
-bent edgewise, notched, and tied together at the ends with thongs of
-the inner bark of the basswood. These strips were held apart in the
-required shape by cedar crosspieces 1 inch wide and 1¾ inches deep,
-with the ends notched ¾ inch deep (the depth of the longitudinals) and
-the tops well rounded. The crosspieces, five in all, were fastened
-to the longitudinals with thongs passing through holes in the ends.
-The middle one was about 19½ inches between the inside faces of the
-longitudinals, those on each side of it were about 15½ inches long by
-similar measure, and the end ones were nearly 6 inches long and were
-located a foot or so from the extremities of the longitudinals. The
-outside width of the building frame amidships would thus be about 22½
-or 23 inches.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 108
-
-LIGHT, FAST 2-FATHOM HUNTING CANOE of the old Algonkin model.]
-
-The building bed was level, with a 6-inch-wide board, some 6 to 8
-feet in length, sunk into the earth flush with the surface to insure
-a true line for the bottom. The outside stakes were of the usual sort
-described in building the Malecite canoe (pp. 40-41). The wedge-shaped
-inside stakes, or clamp pieces, were 1½ inches wide, 1 inch thick, and
-20 to 25 inches long. The posts for setting the height of the gunwales
-at the ends and at the crosspieces were not cut off square at the top
-as for the Malecite canoe, but were notched on the outside to take the
-gunwales. The heights of the posts were graduated, of course, to form
-the required sheer in the gunwales. Like the canoes of the Têtes de
-Boule, these of the Algonkin were generally less deep amidships than
-the general run of eastern canoes.
-
-Building procedure was as follows: The gunwales were made, bent, and
-the ends fastened, but instead of being mortised and fitted with
-thwarts, they were spread by temporary crosspieces, or "spalls," made
-of a splint, or plank-on-edge, with the lower edge notched in two
-places to take the gunwale members. Sometimes the spalls were lashed,
-pegged or nailed to the gunwales as well. The stakes were set along the
-building frame and these were generally driven sloping, so that their
-heads stood outboard of the points. They were then pulled and laid
-aside, the building frame was removed, and the bark cover placed on the
-building bed. After the building frame has been reset in its original
-position and the bark cover turned up along the sides, the stakes
-were again driven in their holes. The cover was then pieced out with
-side panels as necessary and gored, and longitudinal strips of wood
-were set in place by means of the clamp pieces, about as in Malecite
-construction. The gunwales were then placed on the posts, which had
-been set to the required sheer, and the bark trimmed and fitted to
-them. The old method was to lash the bark to the main gunwale members
-and to peg on the outwales at intervals of about a foot. In earlier
-times most builders inserted along the gunwales an extra reinforcing
-strip of bark extending a little below the outwales, as in the St.
-Francis canoes, but in the nailed-and-tacked bark canoes built during
-the decadent period this was sometimes omitted.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 109
-
-HYBRID ALGONKIN CANOES: Eastern 2½ fathom (above) and northeastern
-2-fathom adaptation, with sketches of stems used in each.]
-
-Mortises for the thwarts were next cut and the middle thwart was forced
-into place, after the spall there had been removed. This required that
-the gunwales be spread slightly, thus increasing the amount of sheer
-somewhat. Much judgment was needed to do this correctly. The increase
-in the sheer lifted the ends slightly and put some rocker in the bottom
-toward the ends. The building frame was lifted out before the rest of
-the thwarts were placed; usually it was taken apart in the process. In
-forming the ends of the bark cover, the two sides were held together by
-a clothespin-like device made of two short, flat sticks lashed together.
-
-Increasing the beam at the gunwales by fitting the thwarts after the
-bark cover had been secured to the gunwales not only increased the
-sheer but decreased the depth of the canoe amidships as established by
-the posts placed under the gunwales in setting up. In order to retain
-the required sheer and the desired depth of side, the gunwales had been
-sheered up at the ends while being shaped, and had also been treated
-with hot water and hogged upward amidships by being staked out to dry
-into shape. The spreading of the gunwales tended to lift the ends of
-the bottom line, a condition that was controlled in two ways: the usual
-one apparently was to employ, in combination with a level bed, a
-building frame slightly wider than was desired for the finished bottom;
-the second way was to follow Malecite procedure and elevate slightly
-the middle of the building bed while employing a building frame the
-width of the finished bottom. The Algonkin procedure of spreading the
-gunwales during construction was that employed in the northwest and
-in the building of the fur-trade canoes, as will be seen. The amount
-of spread to be given the gunwales also affected the angle, or slope,
-at which the side stakes were driven on the building bed. Even so,
-some builders who spread the gunwales a good deal would set the stakes
-almost vertically, instead of at a slant, as this made sewing the side
-panels easier, particularly in large canoes and in canoes whose covers
-were made up of a large number of small pieces of bark.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 110
-
-ALGONKIN, 2-FATHOM HUNTER'S CANOE, without headboards. Details of
-building frame, stakes or posts, gauge, and stem.]
-
-The gunwales of the Algonkin canoes were made up of three members--main
-gunwales, outwales, and caps. The main gunwales, usually of cedar, were
-rectangular in cross section and bent on the flat. The lower outboard
-corner was bevelled off to take the rib ends, as in the Malecite
-canoes. The gunwales were rather light ranging in the examples found
-from about 1 inch square to 1 by 1⅝ inches, the ends being tapered
-to a lesser size. The outwales were light battens, rectangular in
-cross-section, about as deep as the main gunwales and about two-thirds
-their thickness or less; they tapered in depth toward the ends to ⅜
-or ½ inch in order to follow the sheer, while the thickness might be
-constant or only slightly reduced. The caps, which were pegged to the
-gunwales, were also light and were about equal to the combined width
-of the main gunwales and outwales and had a depth of about ⅜ to ½ inch
-amidships. At the ends they were tapered in both width and depth,
-becoming ½ inch wide and ⅜ inch deep. The amount of taper in the ends
-of the gunwale members depended upon the form of sheer; the Algonkin
-practice in the old form of canoe was to sheer the outwales and caps to
-the top of the stem, while the gunwales sheered less and met the sides
-of the stem piece at a lower point, as in the drawing (p. 116). In the
-_wabinaki chiman_, however, the gunwales and other members, as a rule,
-all followed the sheer of the ends of the canoe.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 111
-
-ALGONKIN CANOE, OLD TYPE.]
-
-The Algonkins used inside stem-pieces in both models, but the
-stem-piece of the old high-ended canoe was quite different from that of
-the _wabinaki chiman_, for it was built to give a profile in which the
-top of the high stem ended in a line straight across to the sheer. The
-piece consisted of a crooked stick, without lamination, worked out of
-a thin board, ⅜ to ½ inch thick. It was shaped to the desired profile
-inside and out, and was slightly sharpened, or sometimes rabbeted and
-sharpened, toward the outboard face. The headboard was mounted on this
-stem-piece by means of the usual notch but was not bellied; instead it
-stood approximately vertical and a short strut was tenoned into both
-the headboard and the inside face of the stem at a point about half the
-height of the stem. Sometimes two struts were used, side by side, with
-the outboard ends lashed at the sides of the stem. Thus the stem-pieces
-and headboards were placed as a single unit, not independently as
-in eastern canoes. The gunwale ends were lashed to the sides of the
-stem-piece, between the strut and the stem-head, at a height determined
-by the sheering of the main gunwale members. The outwales and caps
-did not touch the stem-piece, ending with a nearly vertical upward
-sweep, a few inches inboard. The ends of the outwales and caps were
-always higher than the top of the stem-piece so that, when the canoe
-was turned upside down, the bark cover over the stem-head was kept off
-the ground and thus preserved from damage. The top of the stem-piece
-was held rigid not only by the strut to the headboard but also by the
-ends of the main gunwale members lashed to it a little higher up.
-The headboard was in the form of a rounded ~V~ that was widest at
-midheight, at the gunwales, which were let into its sides.
-
-When the stem-head was rounded in the style of the fur-trade canoe, the
-stem-piece except near the heel was split into very thin laminations
-about ¹⁄₁₆ inch, or a little more, thick. The carefully selected cedar
-of which these were made was treated with boiling water, then bent to
-profile; the head was sharply bent over and down, inside the stem,
-then sharply up again so the end stood at about right angles to the
-face of the stem at midheight. The headboard was mounted as previously
-described, except that the end of the stem-piece was inserted into a
-hole in the headboard just above the strut. The laminations of the
-stem-piece were wrapped in the normal manner and the lashing was often
-brought around the strut as well, up against the outboard face of the
-headboard. The whole structure was thus made rigid and very strong. As
-in the other form, the main gunwale members did not follow the sheer
-near the ends of canoe but were secured at a point lower down on the
-sides of the stem-piece. In the round-head form, however, the outwale
-and cap ends were fastened on the after face of the stem-head where the
-laminations were curved downward as illustrated in the drawing (p. 116).
-
-The headboards for both models were thicker than those in the eastern
-canoes; this aided in holding the stem line in form. Tension on the
-bark cover was obtained by making the cover ~V~-formed toward the
-ends and then spreading the sides of the ~V~ with the headboard, thus
-bringing pressure on the strakes of the sheathing and forcing the sides
-outward in a slight curve.
-
-The stem-pieces of the _wabinaki chiman_ were either cut out of a
-thin board or laminated. In the straight-stem form, only the forefoot
-part was laminated, and no headboard was used. Ordinarily, however,
-the rigid headboard with a single strut was used. The head of the
-stem-piece was carried through the rail caps and showed above them;
-the ends of the caps and main gunwales were notched to permit this, but
-neither these nor the cap extended outboard of the face of the stem.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 112
-
-ALGONKIN "WABINAKI CHIMAN."]
-
-The bark cover was lashed to the gunwales with group lashings in which
-the thong was carried from group to group by a long stitch outside the
-cover, under the outwale. The turns in each group were passed through
-five or six holes in the cover and reinforcing piece, two turns of the
-thong going through each hole. The connecting stitch between groups,
-which were usually about 1½ inches apart, usually passed from the last
-hole in a group to the second hole in the next. Some builders laid a
-wooden measuring stick along the gunwales to space the lashings; this
-was perhaps the practice of many tribal groups.
-
-The lashing of the ends of the cover was passed through the stem
-pieces; when the latter were not laminated, holes through the soft,
-thin cedar were made by a sharp awl and an in-and-out or harness stitch
-was quite commonly used. On laminated stem pieces the form of lashing
-varied; in the _wabinaki chiman_ it was commonly some combination of
-spiral and crossed turns; in the old form of high-ended canoe multiple
-turns through a single hole (usually at the top of the stem-head)
-were also used in combination with closely spaced long-and-short
-turns in triangular groups near the top of the stem profile. Below,
-in the forefoot, spiral or crossed stitches were used. The ends of
-the outwales were lashed together with a close wrapping of turns in
-contact where they turned upward sharply, and the caps were secured
-there by two or more group lashings. The head of the headboard was
-lashed to each gunwale by passing the thong through holes each side
-of the headboard; these lashings were in a long group and were passed
-around gunwale and outwale before the caps were in place. With plank
-stem-pieces the ends of the bark cover were slightly inboard of the
-cutwater line, sometimes protected by a rabbet.
-
-The side panels were sewn on with in-and-out stitches, back stitches,
-or a double line of either. The gores were sewn spirally in the usual
-manner or were stitched with a closely spaced lacing.
-
-Some of the old Algonkin canoes examined had what appeared to be a
-_wulegessis_ just outboard of the headboards. No marking was found on
-these and they were too far aft to protect the ends of the gunwales.
-The bark was carried across the gunwales, under the caps, and hung down
-a little below the outwales. On top, it reached from the headboard out
-to the lashings of the outwales, forming between the headboards and
-the lashings a short deck that may have been intended to keep dirt
-and water out of the ends of the canoe. Sometimes a modern _wabinaki
-chiman_ has a _wulegessis_, copying the Eastern practice but without
-markings.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 113
-
-ALGONKIN CANOE DECORATIONS by Tommy Sersin (or Serzia), Golden Lake,
-Ont., showing four sides of stems of one canoe. Indian shown has the
-eastern headdress rather than that of the Plains Indian. Moose, bear,
-beaver, and goose are shown. (_Sketches by Adney._)]
-
-The thwarts were of various designs; a common one had parallel sides in
-plan. The old canoes had thwarts much like those of the Têtes de Boule.
-The end lashings of these were usually passed through three holes in
-the thwart ends, but some had only two holes.
-
-Sheathing was laid somewhat as in the Têtes-de-Boule canoe, with
-overlapping edges and butts. The end sheathing was short and was laid
-first; the centerline strake was parallel-sided to a point near the
-sharp end of the canoe. The strakes on each side of it were tapered
-and were laid with their wide ends toward the middle of the canoe and
-with the sides and narrow end lapped. In the middle of the canoe the
-strakes were parallel-sided and their butts were on top of those of
-the strakes in the end of the canoe. The sheathing was carried up to
-within about three inches of the gunwales. The edges were not thinned
-or feathered as much as were those in the Têtes de Boule canoe.
-
-Ribs were of cedar from 2 to 3 inches wide, closely spaced and, as
-usual, without taper until near the ends, which were formed with a
-narrow chisel edge as in the Têtes-de-Boule canoe. The ribs were first
-roughly bent, using the building frame as a general guide for length,
-in order to obtain a somewhat dish-shaped cross section; by this
-means the width of the bottom could be established to the builder's
-satisfaction.
-
-The foregoing description of building methods and construction is
-based largely upon what is known of the old canoes. In later times the
-Algonkin copied the eastern canoes and their procedure altered. Not
-only did they copy extensively the appearance of the St. Francis and
-Malecite canoes, but they built some canoes much like those of the
-Têtes de Boule and Ojibway. As a result, it has become difficult to
-determine what their tribal practices were.
-
-Their paddles were of the same design as those of the Têtes de Boule,
-round-pointed and with the blade parallel-sided for most of its length.
-In portaging, the Algonkin, like many forest Indians, placed a pair
-of paddles a foot or so apart fore-and-aft over the middle thwart and
-those on each side of it. These were lashed in place with the ends of
-a band of hide or the inner bark of a tree like the basswood or elm.
-This band had been first passed around the ends of the middle thwart,
-outside the shoulders, and hitched with ends long enough to secure the
-paddles in place. The shoulder on the middle, thwart, a few inches
-inside the gunwales, was placed there for just this purpose, not as a
-mere decoration, so that the line could not slide in along the thwart.
-The canoe was then lifted and turned over by raising one end, or by
-lifting the whole canoe, and was placed on the carrier's shoulders, so
-that the paddle handles were on his shoulders. This brought the middle
-thwart to just behind the carrier's head. The loop of the bark or hide
-cord was then placed around the forehead of the carrier in order to
-keep the canoe from slipping backward. In this fashion one man could
-carry a canoe for miles if the canoe were small--and all woods, or
-portage, canoes were small and light. The headband was known to white
-men as a "tump line." The Indians used it to carry not only canoes but
-other heavy or awkward loads (see p. 25).
-
-There is no certainty about the decorations of Algonkin canoes. Some
-of the older Indians claimed that the old form of canoe was often
-decorated with figures formed by scraping the winter bark; usually
-these depicted the game the owner hunted. Five-pointed stars, fish, and
-circular forms are known to have been used on the _wabinaki chiman_,
-but it is not known whether these were really Algonkin decorations or
-merely something that had been copied "because it looked good."
-
-The Algonkin called the large fur canoes _nabiska_, a name which the
-Têtes de Boule rendered as _rabeska_. The word may be a corruption of
-the Cree word for "strong." At any rate, the name _rabeska_ (sometimes
-pronounced ra-bas-ha), rather than the French maître canot, was long
-applied by white men in the fur trade to the large canoes built in the
-Ottawa River Valley for their business. In late years the rabeska was a
-"large" 2½-fathom high-ended birch-bark canoe, but originally it meant
-a fur-trade canoe, with the characteristic ends, of from 3 fathoms
-upward in length.
-
-
-_Ojibway_
-
-The Indian bands that were called "_Outaouais_" by the early French do
-not appear to have been an independent tribe, as has been mentioned,
-but were largely made up of Ojibway from the Great Lakes region.
-Perhaps some Têtes de Boule were among these bands before these people
-were given their nickname. The Ojibway were a powerful tribal group,
-made up of far-ranging bands, located all around Lake Superior and to
-the northwest as far as Lake Winnipeg. They had been in the process of
-taking over the western end of Lake Superior when the earliest French
-explorers reached that area; they pushed the Sioux from these forest
-lands into the plains area, joining with the western Cree in this
-movement. In the process they seem to have absorbed both some Sioux and
-some Cree bands. Within the Ojibway tribal group, later called Chippewa
-or Chippeway by the English and Americans, the bands had local names,
-or were given nicknames, such as the Menominee, Saltreaux, Pillagers,
-etc. All the important bands within the tribal group were expert
-canoemen and builders. As far as can be discovered now, the Ojibway
-added to their own tribal types the models of canoes they encountered
-in their expansion westward. It has long been true that the Ojibway
-canoe can be one of at least three forms, depending upon which area of
-their territory is being discussed.
-
-What is believed to be their old tribal form was a high-ended canoe
-in all respects very much like the high-ended Algonkin type. This was
-the model used by the Lake Nipigon Ojibway, north of Lake Superior in
-Ontario, and by those of the same tribe that once lived near Saginaw,
-Michigan, as well as by the Menominee of Wisconsin. At the late period,
-from the middle of the 19th century onward, for which information was
-available or in which investigation was possible, it appears that the
-Ojibway canoes of this high-ended model were built in larger sizes than
-contemporary Algonkin canoes of like design. The Ojibway canoes had the
-same end structure as these; the early examples found had "chin" in the
-end profiles and the tumble-home of the stem was straight, or nearly
-so, between the large curve of the forefoot and the very short hard
-curve at the stem head. The Ojibway used the same inner stem-piece,
-laminated and brought downward abaft the stem-head and then inboard so
-that the end fitted into a slot in the headboard a little above its
-midheight, at which point was fitted a strut from the headboard to the
-back of the stem-piece. The midsection of the Ojibway canoe was very
-much like that of the Algonkin; it had a narrow bottom somewhat rounded
-athwartships, a well-rounded bilge, and flaring topsides.
-
-A small Ojibway portage canoe built in the middle of the 19th century
-had an end profile somewhat different from that described above; the
-ends were well rounded and had a heavy chin, the stem was carried into
-the tumble-home with a full rounded curve all the way to the stem-head,
-where the stem piece was bent in and downward very sharply and then
-inboard sharply again, so that the end pierced the vertical headboard
-at sheer height. The ~S~-curve was so located that the main gunwales
-could be lashed to the stem piece at the point where they paralleled it
-well below the stem head. In these canoes the Ojibway followed Algonkin
-practice in ending the gunwales; there was, therefore, no strut. Where
-this canoe was built is uncertain.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 114
-
-OJIBWAY 2-FATHOM HUNTER'S CANOE, used by the eastern tribal groups.
-Probably the ancient model.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 115
-
-EXAMPLES OF THE OLD MODEL OJIBWAY 3-FATHOM rice-harvesting canoe
-(above), and 2-fathom hunter's canoe, showing the easy paddling form
-used.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 116
-
-OJIBWAY 3-FATHOM FREIGHT CANOE FROM LAKE TIMAGAMI, apparently a hybrid
-based on canvas canoes.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 117
-
-THE OLD FORM OF OJIBWAY 2½-FATHOM CANOE of the eastern groups (above),
-and the long-nose Cree-Ojibway canoe of the western groups.]
-
-At Lake Timagami, north of Georgian Bay in Ontario, the Ojibway used a
-low-ended canoe with a remarkably straight tumble-home stem profile;
-the forefoot had a very short radius ending at the bottom line with
-a knuckle, and the stem-head stood slightly above the gunwale caps.
-The stem-piece was made from a thin plank cut to profile; thus no
-lamination was necessary. The headboard stood straight, falling
-inboard slightly at the head. The midsection was dish-shaped, with
-a flat bottom athwartships and strongly flaring sides, the turn of
-the bilge being rather abrupt. The ends were strongly ~V~-shaped in
-cross-section; a number of the frames there being "broken" at the
-centerline of the bottom. A canoe of this design was seen by Adney at
-North Bay, Ontario, in 1925, indicating that the design may have been
-used in some degree outside the Lake area in later years.
-
-The most common Ojibway model used to the northwest and west of Lake
-Superior was the so-called "long-nose" form, a rather straight-sheered
-canoe. The bottom, near the ends, had a slight rocker, and the sheer
-turned up very sharply there, becoming almost perpendicular at the
-extremities, yet the ends were not proportionally very high. The
-end-profile came up from the bottom very full and round, then fell
-sharply inboard in a slightly rounded sweep to join the upturned
-sheer well inboard. The midsection was somewhat dish-shaped, but with
-well-rounded bilges, so that the flare of the topsides was rounded and
-not very apparent to the casual observer. The end section developed
-into a tumble-home form, so that a section through the top of the
-headboard was rather oval. As a result, these canoes appeared rather
-clumsy and unfair in their lines, but this apparently did not harm
-their paddling qualities or seaworthiness.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 118
-
-EASTERN OJIBWAY CANOE, OLD FORM. (_Canadian Pacific Railway photo._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 119
-
-OJIBWAY LONG-NOSE CANOE, RAINY LAKE DISTRICT.]
-
-These canoes had narrow headboards that were sharply bellied, somewhat
-like those in the crooked canoes, and the belly was sufficient to allow
-the heel of the end-board to pass under the bottom sheathing and inside
-the bark cover so that two end ribs served to hold the heel in place.
-The inside stem-piece was often no more than a light stick or rod bent
-to profile, with the head split and brought over the gunwale ends and
-down inside, between them. Each half of the split was then lashed to
-its neighboring gunwale member. A strip of bark was often placed over
-the end of the bark cover and carried down the face of the stem, under
-the sewing. The rail caps were then brought up over the tops of the
-gunwales and overlapped the top portion of the stem piece. The heel of
-the stem-piece was bevelled off on the inboard side so that it could be
-wedged under the headboard, inside the bark cover. These headboards,
-it should be noted, were no more than a thin, narrow batten, and in
-some canoes the head of this batten was lashed under the gunwale ends
-instead of coming up between them inboard, as usual. A variation in the
-fitting of the stem head was found in a canoe at Long Lake, Ontario;
-the stem head, instead of being split, was lashed between the gunwale
-ends and thus was brought inboard level with the top of the gunwales.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 120
-
-SMALL OJIBWAY CANOES OF THE TWO TRIBAL FORMS showing (above) early
-trend toward the long nose form, and the final Ojibway-Cree hybrid form
-combining flaring sides amidships with tumble-home sections at ends.]
-
-The cross section of the main gunwales was round or nearly so in nearly
-all long-nose canoes, and often a gunwale cap was fitted. The bark
-cover was secured to the gunwales by a continuous lashing, but in at
-least one example, from Minnesota, the gunwale wrappings were in groups
-over an outwale after the regular fashion to the eastward. The ends of
-the thwarts were wedge-or chisel-shaped and instead of being tenoned
-were forced into splits in the round gunwales. Many canoes had bark
-covers at the gunwale ends and vestiges of the _wulegessis_ were to be
-seen.
-
-All Ojibway canoes were built with a building frame, the bed being
-slightly higher at midlength than at the ends. The stakes were driven
-nearly perpendicular, instead of with heads slanted outward. It is
-apparent from observed examples that some canoes were built by the same
-procedure as the Algonkin, but that not all the long-nose canoes were
-built by spreading the gunwales; some were built using the methods of
-the St. Francis.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 121
-
-OJIBWAY CANOE BUILDING, LAC SEUL, 1918.
-
-Preparing a building site or bed; building frame in place.
-
-Bark set up; bark staked out on building bed.
-
-Bark cover being sewn on building bed.
-
-(See pp. 170-171 for more photos of Ojibway canoe building.) Gunwales
-being lashed.
-
-Securing gunwales.
-
-Pitch being applied to seams.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 122
-
-LONG LAKE OJIBWAY LONG-NOSE CANOE. (_Canadian Geological Survey
-photo._)]
-
-The lashing in the high-ended Ojibway canoes was about the same as that
-in the Algonkin canoes, but in the long-nose type the workmanship was
-often coarse. On many of the latter the stems were lashed by use of
-small groups in which two turns were taken through each of two closely
-spaced holes in the bark and the connection between the groups was
-made by a long spiral around the outside of the stem. This pattern was
-carried down from the stem-head to about the level of the midship sheer
-height; from there down around the forefoot the lashing consisted of a
-simple spiral. Another style was to use widely spaced groups made up of
-two or three turns through a pair of facing holes in the bark, one on
-each side and inboard of the stem. The turn went around the stem, and
-the last connected with the next pair of holes below. A few canoes of
-this style used closely spaced wrapping, as in the high-ended canoes.
-
-The long-nose Ojibway canoe is surprisingly primitive by comparison
-with the graceful and well-finished high-ended model built after the
-Algonkin style. Adney believed that the long-nose type originated
-with the Sioux Dakotas, before the combined Ojibway and Cree movement
-forced them out of the forest lands to the west of Lake Superior. He
-considered it possible that both the Ojibway and Cree adapted the
-Dakota model, modifying it somewhat to their methods of construction.
-It is true that the western Cree built a long-nose canoe, but it had
-less chin than the Ojibway model. On the other hand, the Ojibway
-prebent ribs in pairs like the eastern Cree, and used spreaders in the
-end ribs while drying them, in exactly the same manner. A picture taken
-in 1916 shows the gunwales of a Cree long-nose canoe being set; it was
-laid on the ground and weighted along the midlength by stones laid on
-boards placed across the longitudinals. The ends had been sheered up
-and were supported at each end by a thong made fast to the gunwale end
-and then brought over a post, or strut, a few feet inboard and made
-fast to the middle thwart.
-
-It is unnecessary to detail the construction of the Ojibway canoes, as
-they employed a building-frame, as the drawings on pages 123 to 127
-show plainly enough the pertinent details of fitting and construction.
-It is important to observe that the wide variation in model and in
-construction details of the Ojibway canoes produced a variety of
-building procedures that in the main were like those of the Algonkin
-and Cree. Hence the older tribal method of construction cannot now be
-stated with any accuracy.
-
-The paddle forms used by the Ojibway groups varied somewhat. Most were
-made with parallel-sided blades and oval tips. The hand grip at the top
-of the handle was rectangular and was large in comparison to the grip
-of the eastern Cree paddles. A few variations have been noticed; the
-blade of one was widest at the top, the tip was almost squared off, and
-the upper hand grip was much as in the factory paddle of today. This
-paddle, from an unknown locality, was used in 1849.
-
-As in the case of the Algonkin, the eastern Ojibway built fur-trade
-canoes under supervision. Though these canoes differed somewhat from
-those built by the Algonkins, it is now impossible to say whether
-or not there was any real relationship between them and the small,
-high-ended "old-form" canoe. Likewise, the Ojibway built a version
-of the _wabinaki chiman_ which seems to have influenced some types
-of their own, such as, for instance, the straight-stem Lake Temagami
-canoe.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 123
-
-NINETEEN-FOOT OJIBWAY CANOE with thirteen Indians aboard (1913).]
-
-
-_Western Cree_
-
-The western portion of the great Cree tribe appear to have occupied the
-western shore of James Bay and to have moved gradually northwestward
-in historical times. Their territory included the northern portion of
-Ontario and northern Manitoba north of Lake Winnipeg, and as early
-as 1800 they had entered northwestern Alberta. The line of division
-between the canoes of the eastern and western Cree cannot be strictly
-determined, but it is roughly the Missinaibi River, which, with the
-Abitibi River, empties into the head of James Bay at the old post of
-Moose Factory. The southern range of the Cree model was only a little
-way south of the head of James Bay, irregularly westward in line
-with Lake St. Joseph to Lake Winnipeg. To the west, the Cree type of
-canoe gradually spread until it met the canoe forms of the Athabascan
-in the Northwest Territories, in the vicinity of Lake Athabaska in
-northwestern Saskatchewan.
-
-The canoes of the western Cree, as has been noted, strongly resembled
-the long-nose Ojibway model except that they had less pronounced chin.
-But unlike those of the eastern Cree, their canoes employed an inside
-stem-piece that was sometimes a laminated piece and sometimes a piece
-of spruce root. The stem head was commonly bent sharply and secured
-between the gunwale ends at the point where the two longitudinals were
-fastened together, much as in some Ojibway long-nose canoes. The Cree
-canoe had basically the same dish-shaped midsection, but it had very
-full, round bilges and the flare was so curved in the topside that it
-was even less apparent than in the Ojibway model. The shorter chin of
-the Cree canoe also made tumble-home in the end sections unnecessary,
-and cross section near the headboards was given the form of a slightly
-rounded ~U~.
-
-The bottom had very little rocker at the ends, being straight for
-practically the whole length. The stem-piece if laminated (often in
-only two or three laminations) came up from the bottom in a fair round
-forefoot and then tumbled in by a gentle curve to the stem-head, where
-it was bent sharply to pass down between the gunwale ends as previously
-noted. But if the stem-piece was of spruce root, the profile was often
-somewhat irregular and the chin was more pronounced. In a common style
-the stem came fair out of the bottom in a quick hard curve, then curved
-outward slightly until the height of the least freeboard amidships
-was reached, at which height another hard turn began the tumble-home
-in a gentle sweep to the stem-head, where there was a very hard turn
-downward. The stem-head was often split, as in some Ojibway canoes,
-so that it came over the joined ends of the main gunwales and the two
-halves were then lashed to the inside faces of the gunwales.
-
-Birch bark was often poor or scarce in the territory of the western
-Cree, as in that of their eastern brothers. As a substitute, they
-employed spruce bark and in general seem to have achieved better
-results, for their spruce-bark canoes had a neater appearance. If the
-canoe was built when or where root material was difficult to obtain,
-the western Cree used rawhide for sewing the bark cover. When the stems
-were lashed with rawhide, a stem-band of bark under the lashing was
-common.
-
-The gunwales were round in cross section and were often spliced
-amidships. The bark cover was lashed to these with a continuous
-lashing, no caps or outwales being employed. As in the Ojibway
-long-nose canoe, the headboards were very narrow and much bellied.
-These canoes were built with four or five thwarts; the 4-thwart type
-was used for gathering wild rice, as was the Ojibway type, while the
-5-thwart canoe was the portage model. The thwarts were sometimes
-mortised into the gunwales, but some builders made the thwart ends
-chisel-pointed and drove them into short splits in the gunwales before
-lashing them, one or two holes being drilled in the thwart ends to take
-the lashing thongs. When the thwarts were tenoned into the gunwales,
-the builders of course made the inside of the gunwales flat.
-
-When spruce bark was employed, its greater stiffness made it possible
-to space the ribs as much as 10 inches on centers, but with birch
-the spacing was about 1 inch, edge to edge. The sheathing was in
-short splints and the inside of the canoe was "shingled" or covered
-irregularly without regard to lining off the strakes, a practice
-sometimes observed in Ojibway long-nose canoes. The much-bellied and
-narrow headboards were fitted as in the long-nose canoe, and the heel
-was secured under a piece of sheathing and held by it and the first two
-ribs.
-
-Western Cree canoes were built with a building frame, and the bed was
-raised in the middle. The sewing varied. The ends were lashed with
-combinations of close-wrapped turns, crossed turns, grouped, and spiral
-turns; the lashing commonly went around the inside stem piece rather
-than through it. Side panels were sewn with in-and-out stitches or
-back stitches, and the gores with the usual spiral. Gumming as a rule
-was done with clear spruce gum tempered by repeated meltings.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 124
-
-WESTERN CREE 2½-FATHOM CANOE, Winisk River District, northwest of James
-Bay. Built of either birch or spruce bark. Inside root stem piece,
-round gunwales, and much-bellied headboard are typical.]
-
-The woodwork varied with the building site; some builders could use
-much cedar, but spruce was most common and the thwarts were usually
-of birch. When spruce bark was used it was never employed in a single
-large sheet, since it would have been impossible to mold it to the
-required shape. Hence the bark cover was pieced up, whether birch or
-spruce, as an aid in molding the form. Before the spruce bark was
-sewed and gummed, the edges of the pieces had to be thinned to make a
-neat joint. Furthermore, in the continuous lashing it was desirable to
-take two or three turns through one hole in the bark cover to avoid
-weakening the material with closely spaced holes.
-
-The western Cree paddles had parallel-sided blades with rounded tips;
-the handle sometimes had a ball-shaped top grip and sometimes it was
-pole-ended. The blade did not have a ridge on its face near the handle.
-Old Cree paddles were often decorated with red pigment bands, markings
-in the shape of crosses, squares in series, and dots on the blades; the
-top grip might also be painted.
-
-Many tribal groups in the western portion of the area have been
-mentioned--Teton, Sioux, Assiniboine, Illinois, Huron, and many
-others--but no record of their canoe forms has survived and the
-assigning of any model to them is pure speculation. The fur trade alone
-brought about a period of tribal movement among the Indians long enough
-to erase many tribal distinctions in canoes and to cause types to move
-great distances.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 125
-
-AN OLD 6-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE, or "rabeska," used on the
-Montreal-Great Lakes run. Also called the Iroquois canoe, it
-approximates the canoes built for the French, at the Trois Rivières,
-Que., factory and is of the style used by the North West and Hudson's
-Bay Companies.]
-
-
-_Fur-Trade Canoes_
-
-Of all birch-bark canoe forms, the most famous were the _canots du
-maître_, or _maître canots_ (also called north canoes, great canoes, or
-_rabeskas_), of the great fur companies of Canada. These large canoes
-were developed early, as we have seen in the French colonial records,
-and remained a vital part of the fur trade until well toward the very
-end of the 19th century--two hundred years of use and development at
-the very least. A comprehensive history of the Canadian and American
-fur trade is yet to be written; when one appears it will show that the
-fur trade could not have existed on a large scale without the great
-_maître canot_ of birch bark. It will also have to show that the early
-exploration of the north country was largely made possible by this
-carrier. In fact, the great canoes of the Canadian fur trade must be
-looked upon as the national watercraft type, historically, of Canada
-and far more representative of the great years of national expansion
-than the wagon, truck, locomotive, or steamship.
-
-Little has survived concerning the form and construction of the early
-French-colonial fur-trade canoes. Circumstantial evidence leads to the
-conclusion that the model was a development, an enlargement perhaps,
-of the Algonkin form of high-ended canoe as described on pages 113 to
-116. The early French came into contact with these tribesmen before
-they met the Great Lakes Ojibway, the other builders of the high-ended
-model. It is known that the Indians first supplied large canoes to the
-French governmental and church authorities and that when this source of
-canoes proved insufficient, the canoe factory at Trois Rivières was set
-up and a standard size (probably a standard model as well) came into
-existence. As the fur trade expanded, large canoes may well have been
-built elsewhere by the early French; we know at least that building
-spread westward and northward after Canada became a British possession.
-
-In the rise of the great canoe of the fur trade, the basic model was
-no doubt maintained through the method of training its builders. The
-first French engaged in bark-canoe building learned the techniques, let
-us say, from the original Indian builders, the Algonkin. As building
-moved westward, the first men sent to the new posts to build canoes
-apparently came from the French-operated canoe factory. It would be
-reasonable to expect that as building increased in the west, local
-modifications would be patterned on canoes from around the building
-post, but that the basic model would remain. This may account for the
-departures from the true Ojibway-Algonkin canoes seen in the _maître
-canots_.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 126
-
-INBOARD PROFILE OF A 6-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE, and details of
-construction, fitting, and decoration.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 127
-
-SMALL 3-FATHOM NORTH CANOE of the Têtes de Boule model. Built in the
-19th century for fast travel, this Hudson's Bay Company canoe was also
-called nadowé chiman, or Iroquois canoe.]
-
-In model, all the fur-trade canoes had narrow bottoms, flaring
-topsides, and sharp ends. The flaring sides were rather straight in
-section and the bottom nearly flat athwartships. The bottom had a
-moderate rocker very close to the ends. In nearly all of these canoes,
-the main gunwales were sheered up only slightly at the ends and were
-secured to the sides of the inner stem-piece; the outwales and caps,
-however, were strongly sheered up to the top of the stem. The curvature
-and form of the ends, in later years at least, varied with the place of
-building.
-
-After the English took control of Canada and the fur trade, a large
-number of Iroquois removed into Quebec and were employed by the English
-fur traders as canoemen and as canoe builders. Though the aboriginal
-Iroquois were not birch-bark canoe builders, they apparently became so
-after they reached Canada, for the fur-trade canoes built on the Ottawa
-River and tributaries by the Algonkins and their neighbors became known
-after 1820 as _nadowé chiman_ or _adowe chiman_, names which mean
-Iroquois canoe. These "Iroquois canoes," however, were not a standard
-form. Those built by the Algonkin had relatively upright stem profiles,
-giving them a rather long bottom, and the outwales and caps stood
-almost vertical at the stem-heads; in contrast, the "Iroquois canoes"
-built by the Têtes de Boule had a proportionally shorter bottom than
-those of the Algonkin, because the end profiles were cut under more at
-the forefoot. Also, the outwales and caps of the Têtes de Boule canoes
-were not sheered quite as much as were those of the Algonkin.
-
-It is supposed that the Têtes de Boule were taught to build this model
-by Iroquois, who had replaced the French builders subsequent to the
-closing of the canoe factory at Trois Rivières, sometime about 1820.
-After the English took possession of Canada in 1763, the old canoe
-factory had been maintained by the Montreal traders (the "North West
-Company"), and it was not until these traders were absorbed by the
-Hudson's Bay Company that canoe manufacture at Trois Rivières finally
-came to a halt, although it is probable that the production of canoes
-there had become limited by shortages of bark and other suitable
-materials. However, the North West Company had built the large trading
-canoes elsewhere, for many of its posts had found it necessary to
-construct canoes locally, and when the Hudson's Bay Company finally
-took over the fur trade it continued the policy of building the canoes
-at various posts where material and builders could be found. This
-policy appears to have produced in the fur-trade canoe model a third
-variant in which the high ends were much rounded at the stem head;
-this was the form built by the Ojibway and Cree (see p. 139). It must
-be noted, however, that the variation in the three forms of fur-trade
-canoe was expressed almost entirely in the form and framing of the
-ends; the lines were all about the same, though small variations in
-sheer, rocker, and midsection must have existed.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 128
-
-MODELS OF FUR-TRADE CANOES, top to bottom: 2½-fathom Ottawa River
-Algonkin canoe, Hudson's Bay Company express canoe, 3½-fathom Têtes
-de Boule "Iroquois" canoe, 3¾-fathom Lake Timagami canoe, 5-fathom
-fur-trade canoe of early type, and 5-fathom Hudson's Bay Company canoe
-built in northwestern Quebec Province.]
-
-Although no regulations appear to have been set up by the fur companies
-to govern the size, model, construction or finish of these canoes,
-custom and the requirements of usage appear to have been satisfactory
-guides, having been established by practical experience. As a result,
-the length of canoes varied and the classification by "fathoms" or feet
-must be accepted as no more than approximate.
-
-The form of the canoe was determined by the use to which it was to
-be put, in trade or in travel. Fur-trade accounts often mention the
-"light canoe," or _canot léger_, often misspelled in various ways in
-early English accounts, and this class of canoe was always mentioned
-where speed was necessary. Commonly, the light canoe was merely a trade
-canoe lightly burdened. Due to the narrow bottom of these canoes,
-they became long and narrow on the waterline when not heavily loaded
-and so could be paddled very rapidly. It is true, however, that some
-"express canoes" were built for fast paddling. These were merely the
-common trade models with less beam than usual at gunwale and across
-the bottom. Some posts made a specialty of building such canoes, often
-handsomely painted, for the use of officials of the company, or of the
-church or government, during "inspection" trips. Not all of the highly
-finished canoes were of the narrow form, however, as some were built
-wide for capacity rather than for high speed.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 129
-
-"FUR-TRADE MAÎTRE CANOT WITH PASSENGERS." From an oil painting by
-Hopkins (_Public Archives of Canada photo_).]
-
-The fur traders used not only the so-called fur-trade canoes, of
-course, but they employed various Indian types when small canoes were
-required. And in the construction of the high-ended fur-trade models,
-they did not limit themselves to canoes of relatively great length.
-Each "canoe road" forming the main lines of travel in the old fur-trade
-had requirements that affected the size of the canoes employed on it.
-The largest size of fur-trade canoe, the standard 5½-fathom (bottom
-length), was employed only on the Montreal-Great Lakes route, in the
-days before this run was taken over by bateaux, schooners, sloops,
-and later, by steamers. At the western end of this route, a smaller
-4-or 4½-fathom canoe came into use. The latter was used on the long
-run into the northwest. Even smaller canoes were often employed by
-the northern posts; the 3-or 3½-fathom sizes were popular where the
-canoe routes were very difficult to operate. For use on some of the
-large northern lakes, the large canoes of the Montreal-Great Lakes
-run were introduced. Fur coming east from the Athabasca might thus be
-transported in canoes of varying size along the way.
-
-In judging the size of the canoe mentioned in a fur-trader's journal,
-it is often very difficult to be certain whether the measurement he
-is employing is bottom or gunwale length. In the largest canoes,
-however, the 5½-fathom bottom-length was the 6-fathom gunwale length,
-and the use of either usually, but not always, indicates the method of
-measurement. This is not the case in the small canoe however, where the
-matter must too often be left to guesswork. To give the reader a more
-precise idea of the sizes of the canoes last employed in the fur trade,
-the following will serve. The _maître canot_ of the Montreal-Great
-Lakes run was commonly about 36 feet overall, or about 32 feet 9 inches
-over the gunwales, and a little over 32 feet on the bottom. The beam
-at gunwale was roughly 66 inches (inside the gunwales) or about 68-70
-inches extreme beam. The width of the building frame that formed the
-bottom would be somewhere around 42 inches. The depth amidships, from
-bottom to top of gunwale might be approximately 30-32 inches and the
-height of the stems roughly 54 inches. These dimensions might be best
-described as average, since canoes with gunwale length given as 6
-fathoms were built a number of inches wider or narrower, and deeper or
-shallower. The earlier fur-trade canoes of the French and of the North
-West Company, for example, were apparently narrower than the above.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 130
-
-"BIVOUAC IN EXPEDITION IN HUDSON'S BAY CANOE." From an oil painting by
-Hopkins (_Public Archives of Canada photo_).]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 131
-
-OJIBWAY 3-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE, a cargo-carrying type, marked by
-cut-under end profiles, that was built as late as 1894.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 132
-
-THIS TYPE OF 5-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE was built at L. A.
-Christopherson's Hudson's Bay Company posts at Grand Lake Victoria,
-Lake Barrière, and Lake Abitibi. Called the Ottawa River canoe by
-fur-traders, it was used for fast travel and shows the upright stems of
-the northwest Quebec Algonkin.]
-
-The 5-fathom size that replaced the larger canoe at the close of the
-bark-canoe period was about 31 feet long over the gunwales or 30 feet 8
-inches in a straight line from tip of upturned rail cap at one stem to
-the other. The beam inside the gunwales was 60 inches. The width of the
-building frame would be between 40 and 45 inches, and the frame when
-formed would be about 26 feet 8 inches long. The depth of the canoe
-amidships, from bottom to top of gunwale, was approximate 30 inches and
-the height of the stems about 50 inches. The overall length of such a
-canoe was about 34 feet 4 inches. An express canoe of this size would
-be about 56 inches beam inside the gunwales or even somewhat less, and
-the depth amidships about 28 inches or a little less.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 133
-
-"HUDSON'S BAY CANOE RUNNING THE RAPIDS." From an oil painting by
-Hopkins (_Public Archives of Canada photo_).]
-
-A 4-fathom canoe measured 26 feet 8 inches over the tips of the
-upturned rail caps, and 29 feet 11 inches overall. The beam amidships
-was 57 inches inside the gunwales and the depth amidships to top of
-gunwales was 26 inches; the height of the stem was 53 inches.
-
-A 3-fathom canoe was 19 feet 2 inches overall, 16 feet 8 inches
-over the ends of the gunwale caps, 42 inches beam amidships inside
-of gunwales, the depth of the canoe from bottom to top of gunwale
-amidships was 19 inches, and the height of the ends was 38 inches. The
-building frame for this canoe was 15 feet 8 inches long and 27 inches
-wide.
-
-The canoes falling between the even-fathom measurements were often
-of about the same dimensions as the even-fathom size next below;
-a 3½-fathom canoe would have nearly the same breadth and depth as
-a 3-fathom; only the length was increased. The half-fathom rarely
-measured that--a canoe rated as 3½ fathom was actually only 20 feet 5
-inches overall. One express canoe rated 3½ fathoms measured 20 feet 1
-inch overall, 18 feet 3 inches over the gunwale caps, 44 inches beam
-inside gunwales amidships, and 21 inches deep, bottom to top of gunwale
-cap. The height of the ends was 39 inches. This example will serve to
-indicate how inexact the fathom classification really was. It should
-also be noted that the height of the ends varied a good deal in any
-given range of length, as this dimension was determined not by the
-length of the canoe but by the judgment and taste of the builder and
-his tribal form of end. Generally, however, small canoes had relatively
-higher ends than large canoes, in proportion to length, because, as
-will be remembered, one function of the end was to hold the upended
-canoe far enough off the ground to permit the user to seek shelter
-under it.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 134
-
-"REPAIRING THE CANOE." From an oil painting by Hopkins (_Public
-Archives of Canada photo_).]
-
-Extremes of dimension appear to have been rare in fur-trade canoes;
-none whose length overall exceeded 37 feet have been found in the
-records, and the maximum beam reported in a _maître canot_ was 80
-inches. When canvas replaced birch bark in the fur-trade canoes,
-the high-ended models disappeared; the canvas freight canoes were
-commonly of the white man's type having low-peaked ends, or a modified
-Peterborough type.
-
-Before discussing the methods of construction, the loading and
-equipment of the fur-trade canoes should be described from contemporary
-fur trade accounts. The goods carried in these canoes were packed into
-easily handled bundles, or packages, of from 90 to 100 pounds weight.
-Wines and liquor were carried in 9-gallon kegs, the most awkward of
-all cargo to portage. In some cases the furs were packed into 80-or
-90-pound bundles in the Northwest, and were repacked into 100-pound
-bundles before being placed on the large canoes of the Montreal-Great
-Lakes route, but bundles lighter than 90 pounds were made up for the
-shipment of small quantities of individual goods to isolated posts.
-The bundles, or packs, of furs were formed under screw presses so that
-500 mink skins, for example, were made into a package 24 inches long,
-21 inches wide and 15 inches deep, weighing very close to 90 pounds.
-Buffalo hides formed a larger pack, of course. In the canoe, packs were
-covered by a _parala_, a heavy, oiled red-canvas tarpaulin.
-
-Boxes called _cassettes_ were carried; these were 28 inches long and
-16 inches in width and depth, made of ¾-inch seasoned pine dovetailed
-and iron-strapped, with the lid tightly fitted. The top, and sometimes
-the bottom too, was bevelled along the edges. The lids were fitted
-with hasps and padlocks and the boxes were as watertight as possible.
-Each box was painted and marked; in these were placed cash and other
-valuables. Also carried was a travelling case--a lined box for
-medicine, refreshments for the officers, and what would be needed
-quickly on the road.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 135
-
-HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY 4½-FATHOM NORTH CANOE, of the type built by
-Crees at posts near James Bay in the middle of the 19th century, for
-cargo-carrying.]
-
-Provisions such as meat, sugar, flour, etc. were carried in tins and
-were stowed in baskets which were usually of the form known to woodsmen
-as pack-baskets. Baskets also served to carry cooking utensils and
-other loose articles. Bedrolls consisted of blankets or robes, made up
-in a tarpaulin or oilskin groundsheet and were used in the canoe as
-pads or seats. The voyageur's term for the canoe equipment--paddles,
-setting poles, sail, mast, and yard, and the rigging and hauling
-lines--was _agrès_, or _agrets_.
-
-The term _pacton_ was applied to packs made up ready for portage; they
-were ordinarily made up of two or more packages, so the weight carried
-was at the very least 180 pounds. No self-respecting voyageur would
-carry less, as it would be disgraceful to be so weak. The _pacton_ was
-carried by means of a _collier_, or tump-line similar to that used
-to portage canoes (see p. 122). It was made of three pieces of stout
-leather. The middle piece was of stout tanned leather about 4 inches
-wide and 18 inches long, tapered toward each end, to which were sewn
-pliant straps 2 or 2½ inches wide and 10 feet long. These were usually
-slightly tapered toward the free ends. The middle portion of this piece
-of gear was of thick enough leather to be quite stiff, but the straps
-were very flexible. Sometimes the middle portion and 2 or 3 feet of
-the end straps were in one piece with extensions sewn to the latter.
-The _pacton_ was lifted and placed so that it rested in the small of
-the carrier's back, with its weight borne by the hips. The ends of the
-_collier_ were tied to the _pacton_ so as to hold it in place, with
-the broad central band around the carrier's forehead. On top of the
-_pacton_ was placed a loose package, _cassette_, or perhaps a keg. The
-total load amounted to 270 pounds on the average if the trail was good;
-the maximum on record is 630 pounds. With his body leaning forward to
-support the load, the carrier sprang forward in a quick trot, using
-short, quick paces, and moved at about 5 miles an hour over a good
-trail. A carrier was expected to make more than one trip over the
-portage, as a rule.
-
-The traditional picture of the fur-trade voyageur as a happy, carefree
-adventurer was hardly a true one, at least in the 19th century.
-With poor food hastily prepared, back-breaking loads, and continual
-exposure, his lot was a very hard one at best. The monstrous packs
-usually brought physical injury and the working life of a packer was
-very short. In the early days, and during the time of the North West
-Company, the canoemen were allowed to do some private trading to add
-to their wages, but when the Hudson's Bay Company took over this was
-not allowed and discipline became far more harsh. As a result, the
-French Canadians deserted the trade, to be replaced with Indians and
-half-breeds. The paddling race against time, to reach the destination
-before the fall freeze, was labor comparable to that of a galley
-slave, but in a very harsh climate. Altogether, if the brutal truth is
-accepted, the life of the canoeman was far more hardship than romance.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 136
-
-FIVE-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE FROM BRUNSWICK HOUSE, one of the Hudson's
-Bay Company posts.]
-
-The cargo of a fur-trade canoe was not placed directly on the bottom;
-light cedar or spruce poles were first laid in the bottom of the canoe
-and then the cargo loaded aboard. The poles prevented damage to the
-canoe by any undue concentration of weight. The weight of cargo carried
-varied with the size of the canoe and with the conditions of the canoe
-route. The canoes were usually loaded deeply, except in the case of the
-light express canoe, in which the cargo was reduced for sake of rapid
-travelling.
-
-An account written in 1800 by Alexander Henry the younger gives the
-following list of cargo in a trade canoe on the run to Red River in
-the Northwest, where canoes under 4½ fathoms were generally used:
-General trade merchandise, 5 bales; tobacco, 1 bale and 2 rolls;
-kettles, 1 bale or basket; guns, 1 case; hardware, 1 case; lead shot,
-2 bags; flour, 1 bag; sugar, 1 keg; gunpowder, 2 kegs; wine, 10 kegs.
-This totaled 28 pieces: in addition the crew had 4 bales (1 for each
-paddler) of private property, 4 bags of corn of 1½ bushels each, and
-½ keg of "grease," plus bedrolls and the canoe gear. The trade goods
-carried to the posts included such items as canoe awls, axes, shot,
-gunpowder, gun tools, brass wire, flints (or, later, percussion caps),
-lead, beads, brooches, blankets, combs, coats, fire-steels, finger
-rings, guns, spruce gum, garters, birch bark, powder-horns or cartridge
-boxes, hats, kettles and pans, knives, fish line, hooks, net twine,
-looking glasses, needles, ribbons, rum, brandy, wine, blue and red
-broadcloth, tomahawks or hatchets, tobacco, pipes, thread, vermillion
-and paint, and false hair.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 137
-
-FUR-TRADE CANOES ON THE MISSINAIBI RIVER, 1901. (_Canadian Geological
-Survey photo._)]
-
-The tarpaulins used to cover the cargo were 8 by 10 feet, hemmed and
-fitted with grommets around the edges for lashings. The cloth was
-treated with ochre, oil, and wax to give it a dull red color and to
-waterproof it. One of the tarpaulins usually served as the sail. The
-fur bales were each sacked, that is, wrapped in a canvas cover that was
-sewed on and stenciled with identification and ownership marks.
-
-The cargo manifests were not always the same. Compare the previous
-list with this cargo, with which two light canoes were each loaded: 3
-_cassettes_, 1 travelling case, 2 baskets, 1 bag of bread, 1 bag of
-biscuits, 2 kegs of spirits, 2 kegs of porter, 1 tin of beef, 1 bag of
-pemmican for officers and 2 for the crew, 2 tents for officers, cooking
-utensils, canoe equipment, and 1 _pacton_ for each of the 9 men in each
-canoe.
-
-The rate of travel varied a good deal, depending upon the condition
-of the waterway and of the men. Perhaps, as an average, 50 miles a
-day would be the common expectation during a 3-month run into the
-northwest. Traveling fast with good conditions, an express canoe might
-average as much as 75 or 80 miles a day, but this was exceptional.
-
-The number of men required to man a fur-trade canoe varied with the use
-required of the canoe, with its load, and its size. There were rare
-occasions in which a _maître canot_ had 17 paddlers and a steersman,
-but normally such a canoe was manned by between 7 and 15 men, depending
-upon how much space aboard was required by cargo or passengers and
-upon the difficulties of the route. An express canoe, traveling light
-and at high speed, was manned by 4 to 6 paddlers, one of whom acted as
-steersman or stern paddler, and one as the equally important bowman in
-river work.
-
-The most valuable information on the construction methods of fur trade
-canoes was obtained in 1925 from the late L. A. Christopherson, a
-retired Hudson's Bay Company official. He had joined the Company in
-1874 and retired in 1919, after 45 years service, 38 of which he had
-spent in western Quebec at the posts on Lake Barrière and on Grand
-Victoria. These were canoe-building posts, and Christopherson had
-supervised the construction of both the 5-and 4½-fathom trade canoes.
-His posts had built the nearly vertical-ended _nadowé chiman_, the
-Iroquois, or Ottawa River, type of Algonkin canoe. The actual building
-was done by Indians, but the work was directed by the Company men.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 138
-
-FUR-TRADE CANOE BRIGADE, CHRISTOPHERSON'S HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY POST,
-about 1885. Christopherson in white shirt and flat cap, sitting with
-hands clasped. Five-fathom canoes, Ottawa River type.]
-
-In the building the eye and judgment of the builder were the only
-guides, aided by the occasional use of a measuring stick, and
-Christopherson made it abundantly clear that the Company had no
-rules or regulations that he knew of, regarding the size, model, and
-construction of the canoes, nor any standards for decoration. The model
-and appearance of the canoes were determined by the preferences of
-the builders and the size by the needs of the posts. For example, the
-5-fathom canoe had been built at the Grand Victoria post until it was
-decided there that a 4½-fathom canoe would serve. The decoration, if
-any, was apparently according to "the custom of the post."
-
-The method of construction described by Christopherson seems to be
-largely that of the Algonkin, modified slightly by Ojibway practices.
-The canoes were built on a plank building bed made of 2-or 2½-inch
-thick spruce; its middle was higher than the ends, as were the earthen
-beds used in the east, and holes were bored in it to take the stakes.
-A stake was placed near the end of each thwart and one between, along
-the sides of the canoe. The individual builders had their preferences
-as to the method of setting stakes; some set them vertically while
-others bored the bed so that the stakes stood with their heads pointed
-outward. A post might have two or more building beds, one for each
-size, or model.
-
-Canoes were always built by means of a building frame. This was made
-with four or five crosspieces that determined the fullness or fineness
-of the bottom of the canoe toward the ends. By altering the lengths
-of the end crosspieces, the degree of fullness in the lines of the
-finished canoe could be predetermined. As a result the bed, which was
-usually about 18 inches wider than the building frame, might have the
-shape of its frame marked on it twice, with two sets of holes for
-stakes. Otherwise, the alteration in the building frame would require
-a special bed to be used. In addition to the alteration in the ends
-of the building frame, there could also be variations in its width
-amidships. Christopherson's posts commonly built canoes intended for
-fast travel, so most of them were narrower in beam at the gunwale and
-across the bottom than were the fur-trade canoes of the period, and the
-building frame was likewise narrower.
-
-The length of the building frame used in these canoes was the same as
-the bottom length, or a little longer than the distance between the two
-headboards of the finished canoe. Thus, in a 5-fathom canoe the bottom
-length would be 30 feet, and in a 4½-fathom canoe, 27 feet; the beds
-would be some 6 feet longer than these lengths.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 139.
-
-FOREST RANGERS, LAKE TIMAGAMI, ONTARIO. (_Canadian Pacific Railway
-Company photo._)]
-
-As the canoes at Christopherson's were built for speed and rarely
-measured more than 48 inches beam between the gunwale members, the
-building frame was about 32 inches wide amidships, or approximately
-two-thirds the beam inside the gunwales in a 5-fathom canoe. The beam
-of his 4½-fathom canoes was less, say 42 inches inside the gunwales
-and 27 or 28 inches across the building frame, with a depth, bottom to
-top of rail cap, of between 19 and 21 inches. A 5-fathom canoe of this
-narrow model would carry nearly 2½ short tons with a crew of six, while
-the smaller model would carry nearly 2 tons. However, the capacity of a
-wide canoe was much greater. A 6-fathom canoe, the _Rob Roy_, built by
-another post about 1876 to bring in the bishop for the consecration of
-a church at the Lake Temiscaming post, was described by Christopherson
-as being about 6 feet beam on the gunwales. Considered a fine example
-of a freight canoe, the _Rob Roy_ was afterwards loaded with 75 bags of
-flour, totaling 3½ tons deadweight, and carried as well a crew of seven
-and their provisions and gear.
-
-The bark cover was commonly in two lengths on the bottom of the canoe,
-summer bark being used. The post maintained a supply of bark for canoe
-building and sheets 4 fathoms in length and 1 in breadth were not
-uncommon. Such sheets would have been ample for the cover of a small
-canoe but would not be expended so needlessly; hence, the canoes, large
-or small, had two lengths of bark in their bottoms. The lap was toward
-the stern. In what appears to have been a local characteristic of the
-canoes built at Christopherson's posts, the bows were indicated by
-making the thwarts toward that end slightly longer than those toward
-the stern, so that the forebody was fuller at sheer than the afterbody;
-the canoe master could thus instantly see which end was the bow
-without having to examine the bottom or the bark cover.
-
-The two pieces of bark sewn together were placed on the building bed
-and the building frame placed on it and weighted down, in the usual
-manner. The stakes were then set in the holes in the bed and the bark
-secured to them with the usual inside stakes, as well as with the
-clothespin-like clamps used by the Algonkin and other Indian canoe
-builders. The end stakes were set in a peculiar manner: a short pair
-were set with their heads sloping inboard, for use later to support
-the sheering of the outwales, and a long pair were set raking sharply
-outboard to help support the bark required for the high ends. As the
-bark cover was made up, pieces were worked into the ends to allow
-the high ends to be made. The side panels often seen on the eastern
-Indian bark canoe were used, and the bark doubled at the gunwales. The
-doubling pieces were put on about 6 inches wide and trimmed off after
-the outwales were in place. The pieces were widest amidships, and
-when trimmed would extend about two inches or a little more below the
-outwales, narrowing somewhat toward the ends. Longitudinal battens to
-fair the bark along the sides were placed as usual in canoe building.
-
-The main gunwales were originally made of white cedar, but when this
-became scarce at the posts, whipsawed spruce was used instead. The
-gunwales were rectangular in cross section, with the outer lower
-corner beveled off. The cross section of the inner gunwale member was
-smaller, in proportion, than the outwale, compared to a small eastern
-Indian canoe. The gunwales were bent "on the flat" in plan, and were
-sheered "edge bent." The tenons for the thwart ends were cut slanting,
-so that when the gunwales were made up they stood at a flare outward
-toward the top edge. The gunwales had much taper toward the ends as it
-was usual to work in some sheer in these members. The canoes built at
-Christopherson's posts, unlike some other trade canoes, had a good deal
-of sheer at the ends, as the main gunwales rose nearly to the top of
-the stem.
-
-The manner of forming the gunwales varied somewhat. If the stakes
-around the building frame had been set to stand vertically, it was
-necessary to assemble the gunwales with temporary crosspieces, or false
-thwarts, each shorter by several inches than would be the finished
-thwart in their place, or twice the amount of flare desired. After the
-gunwale assembly had been set above the building frame on the usual
-posts to determine its height above the building bed, the bark cover
-would be lashed to each gunwale member. This done, each crosspiece
-would be removed in turn and replaced with its corresponding thwart. By
-this means the gunwales would be spread and, in the process, lowered
-in proportion to the change in beam. This would usually make too much
-sheer. Therefore, if the gunwales were to be spread as a result of
-the side stakes standing vertically, they had to be formed with some
-reverse sheer amidships. This was done as usual, by first treating
-each member with hot water and then weighting it on a long plank, or
-unused building bed, over a block placed under it at midlength. The
-height of the block would determine the amount the sheer was "humped"
-in the middle, usually only an inch or so. The gunwale ends were
-also treated with hot water and sometimes were split horizontally to
-get the required sheer there; they were then bent up and held, while
-drying and setting, by a long cord that was stretched between them and
-placed under tension by means of a strut, about 4 feet long, placed
-under the cord at midlength and stepped on the gunwale member being
-bent. However, if the side stakes were set sloping outward, it was
-unnecessary to hump the sheer amidships.
-
-The reason why many builders preferred to set the stakes on the bed
-vertically was that it made easy the goring and the sewing of the bark
-cover side panels; if the bark available for the cover required little
-sewing, the sloping stakes might be preferred. It appears, however,
-that the usual procedure was to set the stakes vertically and to spread
-the gunwales, since good bark was usually available. A good deal of
-judgment was required to estimate the amount of hump or reverse to
-be worked into the gunwale members; too much would leave a hump in
-the sheer of the finished canoe and not enough would cause too much
-dip amidships. Before being bent to sheer, the gunwale members were
-worked smooth with a plane or with scrapers made of glass or steel. The
-building frame was taken apart and removed from the canoe after most of
-the thwarts were in place.
-
-The ribs Christopherson called "timbers" and the sheathing, "lathing."
-The ribs, commonly of cedar, were usually ¼ to ⅜ inch thick, and were
-2½ to 3¼ inches wide in most canoes, with a long taper so that near the
-ends the width was about half that at the middle, and at the ends they
-tapered almost to a point. Some large canoes had ribs 4 inches wide
-at the centerline, amidships, but these appear to have been unusual.
-The ribs were placed on the building frame at their proposed position
-and the width of the frame at that point was marked on each. After
-being cut to about the required length and tapered, the ribs were
-then treated with hot water, and were then usually bent over the knee
-in pairs, the marks determining where the bending was to be done. In
-a freight canoe the ribs amidships would be nearly flat across the
-bottom but in a fast canoe they would be slightly rounded. The parts
-of the rib nearest the ends were not bent, and thus the rib would
-appear dish-shaped when in form. Each pair while drying was sometimes
-held by cords tied across the ends, or the ribs might be inserted in
-about their proper location in the unfinished canoe and held in place
-by battens and struts until they took their final set. The ribs at
-the extreme ends were often "sprung" or "broken" at the centerline
-to get the ~V~-section required there, particularly in a sharp-ended
-express canoe.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 140
-
-FUR-TRADE CANOE STEM-PIECES, models made by Adney: 1, Algonkin type; 2,
-Iroquois type, Ottawa River, old French; 3, Christopherson's canoes.]
-
-The sheathing was about ¼-inch thick and was laid according to the
-tribal practice of the builder; Christopherson appears to have followed
-the Algonkin practices generally in this as in other building matters
-at his posts.
-
-Whereas Malecite practice was to lash the bark cover to both inwale
-and outwale, in the western type of canoe the cover was lashed to the
-main gunwale first, owing to the spread gunwales, and the outwale was
-then pegged to the gunwale and also lashed, the ends being wrapped
-with figure-eight turns. All gunwale lashing in fur-trade canoes was
-in groups. Because of the sheer at the ends, the outwales were split
-horizontally into four or more laminae, and the splitting extended
-almost to the end-thwart positions. In a few canoes outwales were
-omitted or were short and did not extend beyond the end thwarts, but
-this practice was relatively uncommon. The outwales were usually
-rectangular in cross section and much tapered toward the ends.
-
-The rail caps were also rectangular in cross section, but often they
-had the outboard upper edge rounded off or beveled. The caps were
-pegged at 1-foot intervals to the main gunwales, but at the ends they
-could only be lashed to the outwale, as both outwales and caps were so
-sharply upswept at the ends that they stood almost vertically. The ends
-were squared off and stood a little above the top of the stems, so that
-when the canoe was placed upside down as a shelter for the paddlers
-and packers it rested upon these members rather than on the sewing of
-the bark cover on the tops of the stems, as was usual with all the
-high-ended Algonkin and Ojibway canoes.
-
-The stem-pieces and headboards were assembled into single units,
-as shown on pages 149 and 151, before being installed during
-construction. The stem-pieces were of white cedar, about four fingers
-deep fore-and-aft and laminated, and about ¾ to 1¼ inches wide,
-depending upon the size of the canoe and the judgment of the builder.
-In Christopherson's area the stem-piece was relatively short, the
-head coming up and around and ending at a point far enough under the
-rail-cap ends for it to be securely lashed to these members and to
-the outwale ends. It was bent by use of hot water and the laminae
-were secured by wrapping the stem piece with fine twine. The stem was
-stiffened by stepping the headboard on its heel in the usual manner,
-and the two were held in the required position by two horizontal
-struts, the outboard ends of which were lashed to the sides of the
-stem piece well up above the heel; the inboard ends were pegged at
-the sides of the headboard, in notches, or were passed through the
-headboards in slots and the strut ends secured with wedges athwartships
-on the inboard face of the headboard. The result was a rigid and
-strong end-frame. More complicated bending was employed at some posts,
-where the building of fur-trade canoes followed Algonkin or Ojibway
-practices. In these, as has been mentioned, the stem-pieces were
-brought down and around under the stem-head to the back or inboard
-edge of the stem-piece and lashed, then brought inboard horizontally
-to end in a hole in the headboard, between struts placed as in the
-Christopherson-built canoes. Another method was to bring the stem-piece
-around the stem head and down and around outboard to the inboard face
-of the stem, where the end was split and each half lashed to the sides
-of the stem-piece. In this case there was a lashing between stem-piece
-and the headboard, placed where the reverse was made, inboard and
-below the top of the stem, well up on the headboard. The heel of the
-headboard and stem-piece were pegged together.
-
-Struts were not required with this construction, described earlier (on
-p. 123) as the Ojibway method. In bending the stem-piece, the reverse
-curve around the stem-head was formed over a short strut that was
-removed when the stem-piece was dried and set to shape. As a variety
-of forms were used in shaping these stem-pieces, it was the ingenuity
-of the builder that decided just how the end of the stem-piece was
-best secured and how the whole was to be braced. These details will be
-better understood by reference to the plans and illustrations on pages
-134 to 151.
-
-The headboards were not sprung or bellied, but stood nearly vertical
-in the canoes. The inboard face was often decorated; in the old French
-canoes and in those of the North West Company, the board was carved or
-painted to represent a human figure, _le petit homme_, which was often
-made in the likeness of a voyageur in his best clothes. In some canoes,
-only a human head was used, or the top of the headboard, or "button,"
-was decorated with a rayed compass drawn in colors.
-
-The thwarts were usually rather heavy amidships and were made in
-various forms to suit the taste of the builder. They were commonly of
-maple, but Christopherson's canoes had spruce or tamarack thwarts,
-the latter being his preference. These thwarts were not intended to
-be used as seats, though the sternman, or steersman, often sat on the
-aftermost one. The paddlers often used seats in the large canoes; these
-were planks slung from each end by cords made fast to the gunwales.
-These cords allowed the height of the seats to be adjusted; the
-paddlers usually knelt on the bottom of the canoe with hips supported
-by the seat. The seats were usually slung before the thwarts, except
-amidships, where the space was taken up by passengers or cargo.
-
-The factors often took great pride in the appearance of the canoes from
-their posts and many, like Christopherson, had the craft gaily painted
-in a rather barbaric fashion. Christopherson's canoes did not use any
-of the circular decoration forms; his canoes usually had painted on
-them, he recalled, such names as _Duchess_, _Sir John A. MacDonald_,
-_Express_, _Arrow_, and _Ivanhoe_. The ends were often painted white,
-with the figures or letters on this background. The Company flag was
-often painted on the stern with the initials of the Company, H.B.C.,
-said to mean "Here Before Christ" by disrespectful clerks. Many posts
-used such figures as the jackfish, loon, deer, wolf, or bear, on the
-bow. The rayed circular devices appear to have been long popular and
-were said to have been introduced by the French. There is no record
-of any device being officially required in any district but the
-_cassettes_ of certain districts were marked with distinctive devices
-at one time; Norway House used a deer's head with antlers, Saskatchewan
-two buffalo, Cumberland a bear, Red River a grasshopper, and Manitoba a
-crocus.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 141
-
-FUR-TRADE CANOE STEM-PIECES, models made by Adney: 1, Têtes de Boule
-type; 2, Ojibway form; 3, old Algonkin form.]
-
-During Christopherson's long service he knew the canoes built in
-his vicinity at such nearby building posts as Lake Abitibi, Lake
-Waswanipi, and Kipewa, in western Quebec; and Lake Timagami (Bear
-Island), Matachewan on Montreal River, Matagama (west of Sudbury), and
-Missinaibi, in nearby Ontario. These were but a few of the building
-posts, of course, for canoes were built at numerous posts to the west
-and northward.
-
-When portaged, the large canoes might be carried right side up or
-upside down, the former being more usual method. The _canot du nord_
-was often light enough to be carried by two paddlers, one under each
-end, with the canoe right side up and steadied by a cord tied to the
-offside gunwale and held in the carrier's hand. The _maître canot_
-required four men to carry it. Various methods were used. One was to
-lash carrying sticks across the gunwales near the ends and to carry
-the canoe right side up with a man on the end of each stick. Another
-way was for the men to distribute themselves along the bottom of
-the canoe, near the ends, and to use steadying cords. Or the canoe
-might be carried upside down with the men carrying it by placing one
-shoulder under the gunwales at convenient places. When a bad place
-in the portage was reached, the whole crew might have to turn to. The
-method of portaging had to meet the physical limitation of the portage
-path and the matter was not so much one of standard procedure as of
-improvisation of the moment.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 142
-
-PORTAGING A 4½-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE, ABOUT 1902, near the head of the
-Ottawa River. Shows an unusually large number of carriers; four would
-be the normal number. (_Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo._)]
-
-The voyageur was particular about his paddle; no man in his right mind
-would use a blade wider than between 4½ and 5 inches, for anything
-wider would exhaust him in a short distance. The paddle reached to
-about the users' chin, when he stood with the tip of the paddle on the
-ground in front of him. Longer paddles, about 6 feet long, were used by
-the bow and stern men, the two most skillful voyageurs in the canoe and
-the highest paid. These men had, also, spare paddles whose total length
-was 8 feet or more; these were used in running rapids only. The paddles
-were of hardwood, white or yellow birch or maple, as hardwood paddles
-could be made thin in the blade and small in the handle without loss of
-strength, whereas softwood paddles could not. The blades were sometimes
-painted white, the tips in some color such as red, blue, green or
-black, but other color combinations were often used.
-
-In Christopherson's service, sail was rarely used, as the canoemen
-were unskilled in handling it and loss had resulted. In early times,
-however, it appears to have been much used on the Great Lakes routes
-by the French and the North West Company. A single square-sail was the
-only rig employed; the canoes could not be worked to windward under
-fore-and-aft sails.
-
-During the great seasonal movements the trade canoes moved in fleets
-called brigades, the usual brigade in early times being three or four
-canoes, but later, when the needs of the individual posts had grown,
-the brigade could be of any necessary number of canoes to carry in the
-required supplies and goods or to bring out the season's catch of furs.
-The leader of the brigade was the _conducteur_ or _guide_; sometimes
-he was the post's factor. In French times the _maître canot_ would be
-loaded with 60 pieces, or packs, to the total of about 3 short tons
-and half a ton of provisions, and eight men, each with an allowance
-of 40 pounds for gear, so that the whole weight in the canoe would
-be something over 4 short tons. An example of such a canoe measured,
-inside the gunwales, 5½ fathoms long and 4½ feet beam. The usual
-brigade of four of these canoes would thus carry roughly 12 short tons
-of goods.
-
-The Company would send one brigade after another, at close intervals of
-time, until the whole seasonal movement was in progress. Those brigades
-going the greatest distance were started first. Although cargoes left
-the coast from early spring on to late summer, the great canoe movement
-took place towards the fall. Canoe travel north and northwestward
-from the Great Lakes had to be carefully timed, as goods had to be
-accumulated at the base posts on the Lakes and the brigades placed in
-movement at the last safe date which would permit them to reach their
-destination before the first hard freeze-up. The base posts were those
-where the run of the _maître canot_ ended and that of the _canot du
-nord_ began, the places where reloading for the individual trading
-posts in the Northland was necessary. The late start was usually
-desirable in order to await the arrival at the base posts of all the
-goods required, for movements of freight were uncertain before the days
-of railroads and steamers.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 143
-
-DECORATIONS: FUR-TRADE CANOES. (_Watercolor sketch by Adney._)]
-
-In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, before the whole canoe trade
-fell under the control of the Hudson's Bay Company, it was the custom
-to distribute 8 gallons of rum to each canoe for consumption during
-the run, and it was also the custom for all hands to see how much of
-this they could drink before starting out. This grandiose undertaking
-usually began as soon as the local priest, who gave his blessing to the
-canoemen, had left the scene. The magnificent drunk lasted one day and
-the next morning the crew had to be underway. The first day's run, old
-accounts repeatedly show, not only was short but was often beset by
-difficulties.
-
-The era of the bark trading canoe did not close with a dramatic
-change. Its ending was a long, slow process. By the last decade of
-the 19th century the bark trading canoe had disappeared from most of
-the old routes, and even in the Northwest it had been almost wholly
-displaced by York boats, scows, bateaux, and canvas or wooden canoes
-of white-man construction. By the beginning of the first World War,
-the _maître canots_ and _canots du nord_ were finished, except as
-curiosities--hardly even as these, for not one was preserved in a
-museum.
-
-Indeed, so complete was the disappearance of the fur-trade canoe that
-any attempt to record its design, construction, and fitting would have
-been almost hopeless, had it not been for the notes, sketches, and
-statements of such men as L. A. Christopherson, aided by a few models
-and pictures, and for the memories of a few Indian builders who had
-worked on the canoes.
-
-
-
-
-_Chapter Six_
-
-NORTHWESTERN CANADA
-
-
-Indians of the Northwest Territories and the Province of British
-Columbia in Canada, and the States of Alaska and Washington, built bark
-canoes that may be divided into three basic models.
-
-The first may be called the "kayak" model, a flat-bottom, narrow
-canoe having nearly straight flaring sides and either a chine or a
-very quick turn of the bilge. These bark canoes were low-sided and
-were usually partly decked. A number of tribal groups built canoes of
-this model, the variation being relatively minor. The rake and form
-of the ends varied somewhat as did the amount of decking; there were
-also some slight variations in structure and method of construction.
-While these bark canoes had some superficial resemblance in general
-proportions to the Eskimo kayaks, it is necessary to point out that
-they did not, particularly in Alaska, have the same hull form as the
-seagoing kayaks in that area. In fact, the single-chine form of the
-Alaskan version of this canoe appears only in the kayaks of northern
-Greenland and Baffin Island. The Alaskan seagoing skin kayaks are all
-multi-chine forms that approximate a "round-bottom" hull. It has been
-thought that the flat-bottom seagoing kayak form may have existed in
-the Canadian Northwest, at the mouth of the Mackenzie; a kayak so
-identified is in the collections of the U.S. National Museum (see p.
-202), but there is now doubt among authorities as to the correctness of
-this identification. As will be shown later, it seems probable that it
-has been improperly assigned to the Mackenzie delta and is, in fact, an
-eastern Eskimo model.
-
-The second model used in the Northwest area was a narrow-bottom
-flaring-sided bark canoe with elevated ends, having, perhaps, a faint
-resemblance to the Algonkin-Cree canoes of the old type. Here too
-there was some variation among the canoes of tribal groups, mostly
-in the shape and construction of the ends and in the fitting of the
-gunwales. Most of the canoes of this type had stem-pieces formed of a
-plank-on-edge, but in a few examples the stem-pieces were bent. This
-model was built by the same tribal groups in Canada that built the
-kayak form, the explanation being that the kayak form was the hunting
-while the second model was commonly the family or cargo canoe. In
-Alaska, however, only the kayak-form was used and the family, or cargo,
-canoe was merely an enlargement of it.
-
-The third model may be called the "sturgeon-nose" type; in this the
-ends were formed with a long, pointed "ram" carried well outboard
-below the waterline as an extension of the bottom line of the canoe.
-Primitive in both model and construction, it was built in a rather
-limited area in British Columbia and in the State of Washington. The
-last canoes built on this form were canvas-covered; in earlier times
-spruce or pine bark was usually employed.
-
-The birch in most of the Northwest is a small tree and the bark is of
-poor quality for canoe building; hence, in many areas spruce bark was
-commonly employed in its place; a single tribal group might build its
-canoes of either, depending upon what was available near the building
-site. However, near the Alaska coast, where kayak-form bark canoes were
-used and good birch was usually not available, some tribes used seal or
-other skins as a substitute. In the framework spruce and fir were most
-commonly employed, but occasionally cedar was available and was used.
-
-The canoe-building Indians in northwestern Canada were mostly of the
-Athabascan family and included the Chipewyan or "Chipewans," the Slave
-or "Slavey" (= Etchareottine), the Beaver (= Tsattine), the Dogrib (=
-Thlingchadinne), the Tanana (= Tenankutchin), the Loucheux, the Hare (=
-Kawchodinne), and others. Some of these tribal groups built not only
-bark canoes but also dugouts. There were also some Eskimo people who
-built bark canoes for river service, as well as skin canoes, on the
-same model as the bark kayak-form.
-
-In the vicinities of Lake Athabasca and Great Slave Lake, the Chipewyan
-employed not only their own models of canoes but also that of the
-western Cree. The latter had invaded Chipewyan territory before the
-arrival of the first white men in the Northwest and undoubtedly had
-influenced canoe-building technique during the long period of the fur
-trade that followed. It is therefore not possible to say where the
-influence of Chipewyan building techniques ends and that of the Cree
-and the eastern Indians, as introduced through the fur-trade canoes,
-begins. This raises the question whether the high-ended Athabascan
-canoe is itself the result of influence. One may infer from Samuel
-Hearne's description of his travels in this area, in his _Journey ...
-to the Northern Ocean_,[1] that only the kayak-form then existed, for
-this type is the only one he describes, and he describes it in great
-detail. However, Alexander Mackenzie, in an entry in his journal for
-June 23, 1789, refers to the "large canoe" in a manner indicating
-that it was a local type. It may well be that then, as later, the
-kayak-form and cargo canoe existed side by side, or it may be that
-Mackenzie was referring to a large kayak-form canoe like the family
-canoe of the Alaska Yukon Indians. Perhaps the reason that Hearne did
-not mention the "large canoe" is that the people he met on his way to
-the Coppermine River, and on his way back by way of Lake Athabasca to
-Hudson Bay, did not then use canoes of the second model.
-
-[1] See bibliography.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 144
-
-CHIPEWYAN 2-FATHOM hunter's canoe (top), with bent stem piece, and
-Athabascan 2½-fathom canoe with plank stem piece. Plank and bent stem
-pieces were both employed in Athabascan canoes. Spruce or birch bark
-were used without alteration of the design or basic construction
-methods.]
-
-
-_Narrow-Bottom Canoe_
-
-Because the variations in the second model, the Algonkin-Ojibway type,
-are relatively slight, it will be easiest to describe this first. The
-canoe is known to have been built extensively by the Chipewyan, Dogrib,
-and Slave. The sizes most common were 16 to 22 feet over the gunwales,
-with a beam of between 36 and 48 inches. The sheer was usually rather
-straight, the sharp upward turn to the end taking place very close
-to the gunwale ends. Most of the bottom was straight; the rocker, if
-existing, occurred close to the ends of the canoe and was moderate.
-The midsection was dish-shaped and nearly flat across the bottom, with
-a rather slack, well-rounded bilge and almost straight flaring sides,
-the amount of flare being usually great. The bottom apparently was
-never dead flat athwartships, for in all known examples it was somewhat
-rounded. Near the ends the sections were in the shape of a ~V~ with
-apex rounded; the form of the ends was sharp and without hollow either
-at the gunwale or at the level lines. The ends of the canoes were never
-lofty and many had end profiles that were very long fore-and-aft and
-showed a marked angularity. Inwales and outwales formed the gunwale
-structure; some canoes also had gunwale caps which stopped well short
-of the end profiles. The ends of the inwales were carried to the
-stem-pieces; they were sharply tapered and curved to sheer, and were
-elaborately cross-wrapped to secure them there. The end profiles were
-formed of a thin plank-on-edge in most canoes, but some had stem-pieces
-split into laminae in the usual fashion and bent. In all cases
-headboards were employed; the heads were forced under the inwale ends
-and against the inside face of the stem-piece. The gunwale lashings
-were in groups, although some canoes exist in which the outwale was
-omitted and the lashing was continuous; these canoes usually had
-laminated bent stem-pieces and their stem lashing was identical with
-that of the Algonkin-Ojibway fur-trade canoes. This departure, it
-is reasonable to assume, was the result of outside influence on the
-Athabascan technique. When the stem-piece was of thin plank, the bark
-was usually fastened to it by multiple turns of two thongs passed, one
-from each side, through the bark and through holes bored in the stem.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 145
-
-ATHABASCAN CARGO OR FAMILY CANOES WITH BENT STEM PIECES, Chipewyan
-2½-fathom (top) and Dogrib 3-fathom. These canoes were covered with
-spruce or birch bark.]
-
-The end profile varied with the tribe of the builder. Chipewyan canoes
-had a very long end profile fore-and-aft; the heel was angular, and the
-outline of the stem then swept forward in an easy curve to a height
-about two-thirds the depth of the canoe amidships, then began to tumble
-in a little, the curve becoming gradually sharper until the head was
-reached. The stem-head in its fore-and-aft length was almost one third
-the height of the ends and was roughly parallel to the bottom of the
-canoe directly beneath it. Because of the rocker of the bottom, the
-after end of the head was thus lower than the fore end. The sheer
-was faired up to the after end of the head in a short, quick curve.
-Usually the outwales were cut off short of this point, but in some
-canoes they were brought up along with the inwales to the stem-head.
-Wedges were used in making up the gunwale-end lashings in both the
-Chipewyan and Dogrib canoes; these served to tighten the lashings and
-formed a sort of breasthook. In a few examples of the Athabascan type,
-the stem-pieces were of cedar root without lamination; this use of
-the roots enabled the angular form of the plank-on-edge stems to be
-retained. It cannot be determined whether the root stem-pieces were
-part of the old Athabascan technique or were an importation from the
-western Cree. The lashing in these canoes followed the forms used
-in the fur-trade canoes--long-and-short turns in groups generally
-triangular in shape, with a spiral turn between groups.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 146
-
-PLANK-STEM CANOES OF HYBRID FORMS, 3-FATHOM Slavey (top) and 2½-fathom
-Algonkin-type Athabascan, probably the results of the influence of
-fur-trade canoe-building.]
-
-The canoes of the Dogrib were practically identical with those of the
-Chipewyan except that the end profiles were usually slightly deeper
-fore-and-aft; also the Dogrib canoes were perhaps more often of birch
-bark, judging from the remaining canoes and models. The form of the
-ends in the Dogrib canoes was such that they often appeared higher than
-they really were, as the stem-heads stood some distance above the ends
-of the sheer, an effect which was heightened by the small fore-and-aft
-depth of the stem-heads.
-
-The large canoes of the Slave had the same hull characteristics as
-the others but differed in end profiles and did not have rail caps.
-In the Slave canoe, the ends were formed of thin plank and in profile
-were almost upright and slightly curved. The stem line came out from
-the bottom in a sharp, almost angular curve and ascended with a slight
-sweep to a point about level with the gunwale amidships (in some, to
-within a few inches of the stem-head); from there a tumble-home carried
-it to the stem-head, which was short fore-and-aft and slightly crowned,
-the inboard end dropping vertically downward inside the gunwales. The
-headboards were under the gunwale ends. Inwales and outwales were both
-carried to the stems but the end lashings were quite short. There were
-no rail caps. The bark cover was lashed to the stem with an in-and-out
-stitch from side to side through holes in the plank. The sheer was
-brought up nearly to the top of the stem in a rather long, easy sweep
-beginning inboard at the endmost thwart.
-
-The gunwale members in all these Athabascan canoes were quite light
-compared with their Eastern counterparts. A reinforcing strip of bark
-was placed under the outwales so as to hang down below them some four
-inches or so amidships and less toward the ends; this was sometimes
-decorated with a painted zigzag stripe or with widely spaced circles.
-The end lashings of the gunwales were protected by short bark deck
-pieces inserted under the caps. The edges of these deck pieces
-were trimmed flush with the outboard edges of the caps, so that no
-_wulegessis_ resulted.
-
-In spruce-bark canoes, because the bark was stiff the ribs were spaced
-6 to 8 inches, whereas in birch-bark canoes the ribs were spaced about
-as usual, 1 to 2 inches edge to edge. In the Dogrib and Slave canoes
-the ribs were without taper; in the Chipewyan there was usually a
-slight taper from the bottom to the gunwale end. The ends of the ribs
-were forced under the gunwales in the usual manner employed in the
-east, the gunwales being rectangular in cross-section, with the lower
-outboard corner beveled.
-
-The thwarts were all parallel-sided, but tapered toward the ends, in
-elevation. The thwart ends were tenoned into the inner gunwale and
-usually had two holes in each end for the lashings.
-
-In the bark cover the horizontal sewing was often over root battens. In
-many canoes rawhide was used in much of the lashing and sewing, and in
-the last-built bark canoes the end lashings of the gunwales were often
-protected by a decking formed of a small triangular sheet of metal,
-obtained from a large can and crimped along its edges so as to clamp
-the bark and main gunwales. When this metal deck-piece was used, the
-cap and outwale ended against the inboard edge of it.
-
-For use in open water these canoes were often fitted with a blanket
-square-sail. The sapling serving as a temporary mast stood in a hole
-in the second thwart, and was stepped on a block, or board, pegged or
-lashed to the ribs.
-
-The sheathing of all canoes of this class was of the same form--wide,
-short strakes amidships, narrower short strakes afore and abaft. The
-midship strakes were often quite short and their ends were over the
-longer end strakes. The end strakes were, of course, tapered toward the
-stems. The placing of the strakes was often irregular, with the result
-that the butts were somewhat staggered. Some canoes had four strakes to
-the length, but three appears to have been most common.
-
-The large canoe was employed on the large lakes of the Mackenzie
-region; smaller canoes of the same general form, 14 to 16 feet in
-length and 30 to 40 inches in beam, were used on the large rivers
-and streams. In the smaller canoes of this class, the flare of the
-topsides was often less than in the larger craft. The Cree in this
-area, particularly to the south of Great Slave Lake, also employed the
-Athabascan form. This class of canoe, in general, appears to have been
-strongly affected by outside influence; consequently this description
-must be understood to cover existing canoes and models, not pure
-Athabascan canoe building.
-
-The usual construction methods were employed in building this class
-of canoe; the stakes around the building frame were set vertically,
-and when the bark cover was lashed to the gunwale members (inwale and
-outwale together) the gunwales were spread and the thwarts inserted in
-their tenons. Skill was required in preshaping the gunwale members,
-which, as in the fur-trade canoes, had to be arched in sheer amidships
-to allow for the change in sheer caused by spreading the gunwales in
-construction. The building bed was also arched at midlength to allow
-for the lifting of the ends that occurred in spreading the gunwales
-with the bark cover attached.
-
-A typical large Chipewyan canoe of this class was 21 feet 4 inches in
-overall length, 43 inches beam and 14 inches in depth amidships. A
-smaller Dogrib canoe of the same class was 14 feet 7 inches in overall
-length, 31¼ inches beam, and 11½ inches in depth. However, these
-smaller canoes appear to have been relatively uncommon, and the average
-large canoe was about 20 feet long.
-
-
-_Kayak-Form Canoe_
-
-The kayak-form canoe was widely employed in the Northwest and was
-highly developed in both model and construction. It was essentially a
-portage and hunting craft, ranging in length from 12 to 18 feet and in
-beam from about 24 to 27 inches, with a depth between 9 and 12 inches.
-In areas where the kayak form was used as a family and cargo canoe,
-the length would be as great as 20 or 25 feet and the beam might reach
-30 inches. Except in the family or cargo canoe, which had none, there
-was usually some decking at the ends, most of it forward. Some tribal
-groups built the kayak form with its greatest beam at midlength, but
-the most common form had its greatest beam abaft midlength and its
-greatest depth there likewise. Many of the kayak forms had unlike end
-profiles, so that there was a distinct bow in appearance as well as in
-fact.
-
-There was much variety in end profile, and the canoes of each tribal
-group were usually identifiable by this means. The kayak-form bark
-canoes of the lower Yukon and neighboring streams had a short
-overhang, formed in a curved rake and alike or very nearly so, at bow
-and stern. On the upper Yukon and adjoining streams the canoes had much
-rake at both ends, the rake being straight from the bottom outward for
-some distance, then curving rather markedly. The bow rake was usually
-greatest, but the stern might be higher by one or two inches. The
-bottom was without rocker, being straight or even slightly hogged in
-most of these canoes. The sheer was straight to the point where the
-rake began, then rose in a easy sweep to the ends. The end decks on
-the upper Yukon canoes were short, those on lower Yukon canoes were
-much longer; on the latter the bow deck was nearly a third the length
-of the canoe, on the former about a fifth. In the Mackenzie Basin,
-the kayak-form canoes had a moderate rake, curved in profile, at bow
-and stern and a rather low stem-head; the depth at the stern was
-noticeably greater than at the bow, and the deck forward was commonly
-a little less than a fourth the length of the canoe. In these canoes
-the greatest beam in most cases was abaft midlength, and this was also
-true of the lower Yukon canoes. On the upper Yukon and in some of these
-canoes on the lower Mackenzie, the greatest beam was amidships and the
-depth at bow and stern were equal.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 147
-
-ESKIMO KAYAK-FORM BIRCH-BARK CANOE FROM ALASKAN COAST, with long
-foredeck batten-sewn to the gunwales, no afterdeck, and rigid bottom
-frame.]
-
-The variation in depth at bow and stern in some of the kayak-form
-canoes seems to have been related to the position of the greatest beam;
-when the beam was abaft the midlength, the greatest depth was aft,
-whereas when the greatest beam was amidships, the depth at the ends was
-equal. With the beam abaft midlength, the weight of the paddler trimmed
-the canoe by the stern somewhat, hence greater depth aft than forward
-was necessary to make the canoe run easily and turn readily in smooth
-water. In the sea kayaks of the eastern Eskimo, on the other hand, the
-depth and the draft were greatest forward, to bring them head to the
-sea when paddling ceased. The Alaskan sea kayaks were commonly of equal
-draft at bow and stern or might have a slightly greater draft aft than
-forward.
-
-A third variation of the kayak form existed in British Columbia in
-early times, and apparently was employed by the Beaver, Nahane, and
-Sekani. It was an undecked bateau-shaped canoe having a fair sheer in
-a long sweep from end to end, the stem profiles were nearly straight,
-the ends were raked rather strongly, and the bow was somewhat higher
-than the stern. The beam was greatest slightly abaft midlength. It is
-estimated that canoes of this type, which has long been extinct and now
-can only be reconstructed from a model, were about 14 feet 8 inches
-long and 30 to 36 inches in beam, and probably were built of both
-spruce and birch.
-
-The gunwales of the kayak-form canoes were formed by inwales and
-outwales; no caps were employed. In the Alaskan types and in the
-extinct British Columbia bateau variation, the gunwale lashings were
-continuous, but in the Mackenzie models the lashings were in groups.
-Inwales and outwales in all the kayak forms ran to the stem-pieces,
-which were plank-on-edge of a thickness that varied according to
-tribal practice. No headboards were employed. The gunwale members were
-rectangular in cross-section and were bent square with the flare of the
-sides. The ends sometimes were swelled and rounded, and in the bateau
-variation the gunwales, in cross section, appear to have been rounded.
-Six thwarts appear in most of the kayak forms but the Loucheux model
-had five and the bateau variation seems to have had but three.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 148
-
-ATHABASCAN HUNTING CANOES OF THE KAYAK FORM, showing characteristic
-hull shape. These canoes were light, handy, and fast.]
-
-Reinforcing bark was placed under the outwales in all Mackenzie Basin
-canoes, but not in the Alaskan or in the bateau variation. The ribs in
-all these canoes were small, usually about ½ inch square, and widely
-spaced, about 9 to 14 inches on centers. No ribs were placed in the
-rake of the ends. The ends of the ribs were chisel-pointed and were
-forced between the inwale and outwale, against the inside of the bark
-cover. In some canoes, however, the ribs near the ends of the canoe
-were forced into short splits on the underside of the inwale. The
-thwart ends might also be forced into short splits on the inside face
-of the inwales or might be tenoned there; in any case a single lashing
-was used at the thwart ends. Thwarts were parallel-sided in plan and
-slightly tapered toward the ends in elevation; no shoulders were used.
-In the bateau variation, a heavy thwart was placed directly under the
-middle thwart with its ends against the side battens, apparently to
-act as a spreader. Each end was notched over the side battens and was
-held by two lashings to the bottom crosspiece below it. This structure
-was probably made necessary by the fragile construction of this form
-of canoe. In all kayak forms there was no complete sheathing--the one,
-two, or three narrow battens to a side above the chine were held in
-place only by the sprung ribs (without lashings); in the bateau form,
-however, the side batten was lashed to each frame after the manner of
-of an Eskimo sea kayak.
-
-The characteristic detail in the structure of the bark kayak-canoe,
-including the bateau variation, was the bottom framing. It was
-variously formed, according to tribal designation. The bottom framing
-was made up of five or six longitudinal battens (four in one extinct
-form of canoe). In the Yukon canoes six rectangular battens, all of
-about the same cross section, were used with the narrow edge outboard.
-These battens were held rigidly to form by thin crosspieces, or
-splints, about ¼ by 1 inch forced athwartships through short splits
-in the battens and pegged at the ends on the chine battens. The ends
-of the four inner longitudinals were cut off on the snye to bear on
-the inside face of the chine battens (in some instances they were cut
-short of this). The chine ends were beveled together or lashed to the
-sides of the stem-pieces. But in the Mackenzie form of canoe, the
-longitudinals had no cross-members and, like the side battens, were
-held in place by the pressure of the sprung ribs against the bark
-cover. There was a difference in the form of midsection: in the Yukon
-canoes the bottom athwartships was flat, but in the Mackenzie canoes
-there had to be some rounding there. At least one exception existed in
-the Mackenzie Basin, where the Loucheux canoe was formed on the Yukon
-bottom. Another is to be seen in an old model of an extinct Athabascan
-kayak form, which has only four longitudinals and chine members that
-are very wide and rounded only on the outboard face. Between the chine
-battens are two light rectangular battens. These are all held together
-by a few splints and by lashings which pass around each individual
-batten, thus serving both as lashing and spreader. This canoe has what
-is apparently a very narrow bottom compared to known types. In some of
-the Eskimo-built birch kayak forms, the separators between the bottom
-battens were rectangular blocks held in place by a thong threaded
-through two holes in each batten and block, to make a round turn, and
-tied at one chine.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 149
-
-EXTINCT FORMS OF CANOES RECONSTRUCTED FROM OLD MODELS, showing
-variations in the bottom frame construction and the effects of hull
-form. Dimensions are estimated from the sizes of canoes in the area of
-each example.]
-
-In some bateau variations of the kayak-form canoe, the longitudinals
-were secured by crosspieces, the ends of which were tenoned into the
-inside faces of the chine battens. The three inner battens were below
-the cross pieces. As a result, their bottoms were slightly below the
-bottom of the chine members, so that in this canoe two chine lines show
-through the bark cover on each side of the canoe.
-
-From tribe to tribe the method of building the kayak-form canoe varied
-somewhat, but generally the following procedure was employed. On a
-smooth, level piece of ground the form of the canoe was staked out
-in the usual manner, using a building frame, with the stakes sloped
-outward at the top to match the desired flare of the sides.
-
-Stem and stern posts were shaped of cedar by charring and scraping.
-The gunwales were made in the same manner and were then lashed at the
-desired heights on the stakes. Next, the bark cover was formed, usually
-of two or more sheets sewn together. This was placed inside the stakes
-and the building frame was forced down on it and weighted with stones.
-The ends were then trimmed and the sides were gored, sewn, and trimmed
-to fit the gunwales, to which the bark was laced. The stem and the
-stern post were then placed and lashed to the gunwales and secured to
-the bark by lashing, in some instances through holes in the posts. The
-bark at this stage was usually quite dry and stiff and the gunwales
-could be freed from the side stakes.
-
-The bottom frame, assembled before other construction had started, was
-hogged; the middle was placed on a log or block and the ends weighted.
-Hot water was often applied to set the bottom frame.
-
-Next, the bark cover was thoroughly wetted with boiling water to make
-it pliable and elastic. The building frame and stones were now removed,
-the bottom frame was substituted, and its ends fastened or engaged
-to the heels of the stem and stern posts. The bottom frame was then
-forced flat and held there by stones. This stretched the bottom bark
-longitudinally, and increased the sheer slightly toward bow and stern.
-The hogged bottom frame was known as a "sliding bottom" by some Indians.
-
-The transverse frames, or ribs, had been prebent in the usual manner
-before assembly began; a few of these were now put in place, the ends
-being forced under the gunwales between their outer faces and the bark,
-or into a groove on the underside of the gunwale. This stretched the
-bark transversely and vertically. Once the bark had been forced into
-form by this method, the remaining ribs were added, and these now held
-the hogged bottom down so that the weights or stones could be removed.
-The canoe was then turned over, the seams gummed, and any tears or
-rents repaired.
-
-This method of building usually produced a slight hogging in both
-bottom and in the sheer amidships, but when the canoe was afloat
-and loaded the light, flexible construction caused the hogging to
-disappear. The kayak-form canoes of the Dènè tribe appear to be the
-most highly developed of all in this type.
-
-The decks of many of the kayak-form canoes were made of a triangular
-sheet of bark cut with the grain of the bark running athwartships, so
-that it could be held in place by the curl of its edges, which clamped
-under the outwales, as well as by three lashings. The edges were curled
-by passing a glowing brand along them. One lashing was around the
-stem-head and two were at the inboard end of the deck, around inwale
-and outwale. If the inboard end of the deck was not on a thwart it was
-stiffened by a batten lashed on top of the deck athwartship, at the
-deck end, to serve as an exterior deck beam and breakwater in one. If
-the deck end was on a thwart, a batten might be pegged athwartship on
-top of the deck; sometimes this batten was rolled in a sheet of bark
-first. Another method was to use a small sheet of bark tightly rolled,
-with its free edge tucked under the deck end and secured at the ends
-of the roll by the deck-gunwale lashings there. Some canoes had their
-decks lashed over battens for a short distance along the gunwales. In
-some Mackenzie Basin kayak forms, the end of the deck at the stem-head
-was protected by a small paddle-or leaf-shaped piece of bark placed
-under the lashing there and shaped to reach a little over onto the stem
-piece so as to seal the seam.
-
-The fitting of the bark cover of the kayak-form canoes was not the same
-in all types. In the Mackenzie canoes the bottom, which might be in
-three, four, or five pieces sewn together, was alike on both sides; to
-it the side pieces were sewn at, or just above, the chines. The sides
-were made up of deep panels, five to nine to a side. There were no
-horizontal seams other than the one near the chines.
-
-In some Yukon canoes, however, the bottom sheet was often made of three
-pieces and covered not only the bottom but also a portion, such as
-the after two-thirds, of one side. The forward portion of that side
-would then be covered by a single large panel or perhaps two, so that
-the horizontal seam on that side would run from the stem aft to the
-inboard end of the foredeck and would be just above the chine. On the
-opposite side a sheet would cover the bottom there and the bow topside
-from the stem aft for a short way. Deep panels would then cover the
-rest of that side to the stern, so that the horizontal seam there began
-forward at the sheer, some feet abaft the bow, and swept downward in a
-gentle curve to near the chine and then ran aft to the stern in a long
-sheered line just above the turn of the bilge, rising slightly as it
-neared the stern. Hence the foremost of the panels on that side was
-nearly triangular and the others were nearly rectangular. Inside, at
-the chine, was placed a reinforcing strip of bark wide enough to reach
-3 inches beyond both sides of each chine longitudinal and running the
-length of the bottom; or if a seam near the chine permitted, the side
-and bottom pieces were overlapped. As has been noted, in the Yukon
-canoes a reinforcing piece at the outwale was not used, but was in the
-Mackenzie canoes; it extended down the side about 3 inches below the
-underside of the outwale amidships and ran to the ends of the canoe, or
-nearly so, tapering with the outwales to a width of about 1½ inches at
-bow and stern. In these canoes much of the lashing at stem and stern
-was double-thong; the longitudinal sewing was often over a batten in
-the usual spiral stitch, and a simple spiral stitch was also used to
-join the panels, although in-and-out stitching might also be seen in
-some canoes.
-
-In many of the kayak-form canoes two ribs often stood noticeably close
-together amidships, and the rest stood parallel to the rake of the end
-on their side, respectively, of the middle ribs. However, not all
-these canoes had such double ribs; some were framed out in the usual
-manner, with the ribs widely spaced and canted toward their respective
-ends of the hull, away from the midship of the canoe.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 150
-
-KAYAK-FORM CANOES OF THE ALASKAN ESKIMOS and Canadian Athabascan
-Indians: chine form of Eskimo birch-bark canoe (above) and the
-dish-sectioned form of the Canadian Athabascans.]
-
-In most of these canoes the paddler sat on a sheet of bark secured on
-the bottom; this was held in place by one or two false ribs having
-their ends under the inner gunwales and their middle forced down
-against the bark on the bottom framework. In place of bark, some Eskimo
-builders of the type used thin splints of wood laced together by two or
-three lines of double-thong stitching athwartships, which was passed
-through two holes in each splint. This might be loose or held in place
-by a false frame.
-
-The paddle was single-bladed and the same as that used with the second
-class of Mackenzie Basin canoe (fig. 151). The blade was parallel-sided
-with the point formed in a short straight-sided ~V~-form; The blade
-of Yukon paddles was often taper-sided toward the point, which was
-a rounded ~V~. Other variations in blade form existed, however, and
-the narrow leaf-shaped blade was used in some areas in Alaska. In the
-Mackenzie paddles the handle ended in a knob, but in Alaskan versions
-it ended in a cross-grip like those of paddles used with some Alaskan
-sea kayaks. The Eskimo double-blade paddle was used with the kayak-form
-canoe by some paddlers; Hearne mentions its use.
-
-Some of the kayak-form canoes were decorated; in Alaska this decoration
-often took the form of a line of colored beads sewn along each side
-of the afterdeck at the gunwale, or it consisted of a few oval panels
-of red, blue, or black paint along the sides or centerline of the
-afterdeck. In some Mackenzie kayak forms the decks were painted in
-various designs; a rather common one seems to have been two or more
-bands of paint around the deck edges, along the gunwales, ending at bow
-and stern with a full round sweep. Painted disk designs appeared on
-some of the large Algonkin-Ojibway canoes of the second type.
-
-A number of kayak forms became extinct before any accurate, detailed
-records of their shape and construction had been made; models of some
-of these canoes exist but are not to scale and are untrustworthy
-as to detail, since they are often simplified. One model of the
-extinct British Columbia bateau form, for example, showed but three
-longitudinals in the bottom, though the probable size of the canoe
-undoubtedly would have required a greater number. On the other hand,
-the model may have represented a spruce-bark canoe constructed for
-temporary use, in which case a simplified construction might have
-been employed. One can only speculate which it was. Models of some
-kayak-form Yukon canoes show the decks lashed to the gunwales with
-a very coarse spiral stitch not recorded for any of the observed
-full-size canoes; thus it may be a model-maker's method of securing
-the decking firmly rather than an actual practice used on full-size
-canoes.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 151
-
-KAYAK-FORM CANOE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and upper Yukon valley. Shows
-hogged bottom, usual in the type with a rigid bottom frame, which
-becomes straight or cambered when canoe is afloat and manned. Original
-in the Museum of the American Indian, New York.]
-
-It now remains only to give short descriptions of the various
-kayak-form canoes that have been observed.
-
-The ends of the Eskimo-built canoes of the lower Yukon had a short
-rake, the heel of the end profile breaking out of the bottom line at
-a slight angle and sweeping upward and outward in a gentle curve,
-often becoming almost straight near the stem head. The bow and stern
-were nearly the same height, the bow being a little higher, about half
-the midship depth above the sheer amidships. The sheer at each end
-was almost dead straight until within a few inches of the end; thence
-it swept up sharply with the inner gunwale ends, broadened, resting
-on the inboard side of the stem piece. The extreme ends of the inner
-gunwales were thus at the extreme stem-head. The stem-pieces were of
-plank, the cutwater portion outside the bark cover being sharpened
-the full height of the stems. These lower Yukon canoes had three side
-battens above the chine piece, but not all ran the full length in one
-piece; some were in two, in which case the ends merely ran past one
-another for a few rib-spaces and were neither butted nor lapped. The
-forward deck extended nearly one-third the canoe's length and had a
-batten across the inboard deck-end; the after deck reached to the after
-thwart. Adney's model of such a canoe shows the after deck lashed to
-the gunwales with spiral turns over a batten along the deck edges and
-finished toward the stern with chain stitching, but no such arrangement
-was seen in any full-sized canoe.
-
-The form of these Eskimo-built canoes was nearly that of a double-ended
-flat-bottom skiff; the bottom being flat athwartships and without
-rocker fore-and-aft. The sides flared and were nearly straight. The
-turn of the bilge was quite sharp, the chine having a very short
-radius. In plan, the canoe showed no hollow in the ends, which were
-convex both at gunwale and on the bottom frame. In some of the
-full-sized canoes inspected there appeared to be a slight hog ranging
-from ¼ to ⅜ inch in the bottom, but there was no evidence to suggest
-that this was a result of the drying and shrinkage of the canoe
-structure with age. Hearne's drawing of a kayak-form canoe shows an
-impossible amount of hog in the bottom, and he indicates that some hog
-was intentional in building. This would disappear when the canoe was
-loaded afloat owing to the light and flexible structure, and it is
-evident that the builders usually sought to have the bottom slightly
-hogged.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 152
-
-CONSTRUCTION OF KAYAK-FORM CANOE of the lower Yukon, showing rigid
-bottom frame. (_Smithsonian Institution photo._)]
-
-The kayak-form canoes of the lower Yukon and neighboring streams all
-appear to have been small canoes "tailored" to their owner's weight
-and height: 14 to 15 feet in overall length, 2 to 2¼ feet wide, and
-10 to 12 inches deep. The bottom frame was from 12 to 14 inches wide
-amidships.
-
-The kayak-form canoes of the upper Yukon Valley and those used in
-northern British Columbia and in Yukon Territory had ends with a
-long rake that came up in a straight line from an angular break at
-the bottom line to the height of the sheer amidships or thereabouts;
-there a gradual upward curve continued to the stem-head. The stern was
-2 inches or so higher than the bow, and the rake of the latter was
-usually about an equal distance longer than that of the stern. The
-sheer was nearly straight, with only about 2 inches of sag from the
-heel of the stem to that of the stern. Beyond the heels, the sheer
-lifted in a fair sweep, becoming sharper toward the ends, where the
-broadened inwales were secured on top of the stem and stern pieces.
-There was no rocker in the bottom, and some examples showed as much
-as ⅜ inch of hog amidships. The bottom was flat athwartships and the
-almost straight sides flared a good deal. The turn of the bilge was on
-a very small radius and in some canoes appeared angular. The bow deck
-was usually just under one-fifth the length of the canoe. Most of the
-canoes did not have a stern deck, at least on the Yukon headwaters,
-but on those that did, it was about one-ninth the length of the canoe.
-The greatest beam was abaft amidships and the canoe was usually about
-1½ inches deeper at the heel of the sternpost than at the heel of the
-stem. In plan, the ends (at gunwale and bottom frame) were convex; the
-gunwale ends alone might appear slightly hollow close to the posts in
-some examples. The canoes in Alaska and British Columbia and at the
-headwaters of the Yukon had a rigid bottom structure, with the splint
-spreaders usually numbering five.
-
-The 1-man hunting canoes were commonly 18 to 19 feet long, 24 to 27
-inches beam, and usually 10 to 11 inches deep amidships. The single
-example of a family or cargo kayak-form that has been measured from
-this area was 20 feet 1 inch overall and 30¼ inches beam over the
-gunwales. It was 18 inches wide on the bottom frame, 13 inches deep
-amidships, 14 inches deep at heel of stem, and 16 inches at heel of
-stem-post. Height of the stem was 29 inches, of the stern 30½ inches,
-the after rake was 38 inches, and the fore rake 40½ inches. The canoe
-had no decks and was rather sharp-ended.
-
-The kayak-form canoe of the Athabascan Loucheux had a rigid
-bottom-frame; the bottom was flat athwartships and it had no
-fore-and-aft rocker. The sides were flaring and slightly curved. Both
-ends were alike, and the canoe was unusual in having only five thwarts,
-with one amidships. The stem was short in rake and curved; the stem
-profile came out of the bottom line in a fair, quick curve which became
-vertical at a height of little more than two-thirds the depth amidships
-of the canoe. The height of the stem was almost twice the midship
-depth. Between the end thwarts the sheer was straight, thence it swept
-upward in a gradually sharpening curve to the inboard stems; the inwale
-ends stood vertical on the face of the stem, with their ends brought
-to the top of the stem-head. The stem-pieces were of unusually thick
-plank, with the head broadened and the cutwater part outside the bark
-cover sharpened until near the head, where it gradually became as wide
-as inboard. The gunwales were lashed with continuous turns, as in the
-Alaskan canoes. In plan, the gunwales and bottom frame were full-ended
-and convex. These canoes were decked equally at both ends. The deck
-extended inboard far enough to just cover the end thwart, to which,
-in the example seen, it was lashed with four simple in-and-out passes
-of rawhide thong. The chine-pieces of the bottom were lashed to the
-sides of the stem-pieces. The covering was birch bark. Two battens on
-each side were employed with the usual six longitudinals in the bottom
-frame. These canoes were well-built and their ends resemble those of
-the seagoing kayaks used at the mouth of the Mackenzie, but these
-for at least the last 70 years of their use were round-bottomed. The
-Loucheux canoes were small, usually about 15 feet long, 30 inches wide,
-and about 12 inches deep amidships.
-
-The Chipewyan kayak-form canoe was of loose-batten bottom frame
-construction, with its beam well aft of amidships. Its bottom was
-slightly rounded athwartships, with a slight rocker fore-and-aft;
-the sides flared outward and were nearly straight; and the turn of
-the bilge was almost angular. The bow and stern were of the same
-general shape; the end profile came out of the bottom line with a
-quick hard curve and then fell outboard in a long sweep that gradually
-straightened near the head. The rakes were short, however, and the
-stem was noticeably lower than the stern, the difference being as much
-as 6 inches in some canoes. The sheer was nearly straight to the end
-thwarts and thence it curved up in an easy sweep to the ends of the
-canoe. The canoes were markedly deeper at the stern than at the bow;
-the difference being as much as 1½ inches in some examples.
-
-This kayak-form was very sharp-ended; the gunwales in plan often showed
-a slight hollow and the chine members came to the posts in an almost
-straight ~V~. As a result, the end ribs were often intentionally
-"broken" to form a narrow-based, angular ~U~. In some Eskimo-built
-kayak forms, a similar result in hull section was obtained in the
-endmost frames by stepping short struts in splits, or tenons, on
-top of the chine members and on the underside of the main gunwales.
-This construction was occasionally found in some of the lower Yukon
-kayak forms. The Chipewyan kayak forms were decked at both ends. The
-fore deck was slightly more than one-fourth the length of the canoe
-and extended inboard to the second thwart; the after deck was about
-one-tenth, and came inboard to the end thwart. No breakwater batten
-or bark was employed. There were two battens on the sides, above the
-bilges.
-
-The gunwale wrappings were in groups. The bark cover was not folded
-over the top of the inner gunwale but, as usual in the Northwest
-canoes, was trimmed evenly with the top of the inwale and outwale.
-Reinforcing bark along the gunwales extended downward about 1½ inches
-below the bottom of the outwales amidships and about 1 inch at the
-ends. Of the bottom longitudinals, the keel and chine-pieces were
-roughly rectangular in cross-section, laid on the flat, and the
-intermediate two battens were round; the ends of the keel piece were
-merely butted against the stems, no lashing being used. The stem piece
-was thick plank and was sharpened outside the bark cover to form a
-cutwater. The stem lashing was of the usual two-thong form, and a
-batten was used in the longitudinal seams of the bark cover. The
-thwarts, six in number, were tenoned through both inwale and outwale
-and pegged between them. No thwart lashings were used. The decks often
-were not lashed into place, being held only by the curling of the edges
-of the bark sheets.
-
-This canoe was a very good one; it was light and was fitted to the
-owner's build. In size it would be between 12 and 14 feet long and 20
-and 24 inches wide over the gunwales, and the width of bottom over the
-chine members amidships would be 11 to 12 inches. The greatest beam
-would occur 7 to 8¼ feet abaft the stem. The depth at heel of stem
-would be 8½ to 9½ inches and at heel of stern, 10 to 11 inches. The
-amount of bottom rocker would be between ¾ and 1 inch, with its low
-point about amidships. The cover was usually birch bark, but sometimes
-spruce bark was used.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 153
-
-MODEL OF AN EXTINCT FORM OF BIRCH-BARK CANOE, Athabascan type, of
-British Columbia. In Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
-Mass.; entered in the museum catalog as of 1849.]
-
-Another kayak-form canoe of unknown tribal designation from the
-Mackenzie Basin was 13 feet 3 inches long, 27 inches beam over the
-gunwales, 8½ inches deep amidships, 8¾ inches deep at heel of stem, 10
-inches deep at the aftermost thwart, and with about ⅜ inch of rocker in
-the forebody, none in the afterbody. The greatest beam occurred 7 feet
-2 inches from the stem. The width amidships of the bottom framework of
-loose longitudinals was 13 inches. The length of the rake foreward was
-12 inches and aft, 12 inches. The fore deck extended inboard to the
-second thwart, where a roll of bark formed a breakwater. The after deck
-extended inboard to the aftermost thwart. Between the end thwarts the
-sheer was practically straight; at the ends it rose gently, becoming
-almost a straight line as it came to the stem and stern, and without
-the usual upward hook in the ends of the gunwales.
-
-This was a very light and well-built canoe with a birch-bark cover, a
-slightly rounded bottom athwartships, slack bilge, and flaring sides
-showing some curve in cross-section. The ends were rather sharp, the
-gunwales coming in to them almost straight, in plan, as did the chine
-members. The stem and stern pieces were of wide plank sharpened along
-their outboard edge outside the bark cover, for their whole height,
-to form cutwaters. The stem and stern profiles were about the same as
-those of the Chipewyan canoes.
-
-An old model in the Peabody Museum of an undecked kayak-form canoe of
-Athabascan construction represents a high-ended canoe having ends with
-a slight rake and a straight cutwater. This form of canoe has long been
-extinct, and no description of an actual canoe of the form exists.
-Judging by the model it had a very narrow flat-bottom and rounded
-flaring sides.
-
-The extinct bateau variant has already been described (pp. 159-161);
-it might be considered a primitive form of the kayak-form bark canoes,
-were it not that no intermediate type, between the bateau and the later
-and highly developed bark kayak-form, has been found; as a result, any
-such statement can be no more than speculation.
-
-
-_Sturgeon-Nose Canoe_
-
-In southern British Columbia and in northern Washington, the ram-ended
-or sturgeon-nose canoes were built. These were the canoes of the
-Kutenai, also spelled "Kootenay," and of the Salish tribal groups.
-Used on rivers and lakes, they were constructed of the bark of birch,
-spruce, fir, white pine, or balsam, whichever was available at the
-building site. Wherever possible a panel of birch bark was worked in
-along the whole length of the gunwales. The hull form of these canoes
-varied somewhat, perhaps by decision of the builder, or perhaps by
-local tribal custom. The ends were formed with a marked "ram," the stem
-profiles running down and out to the "nose" in a straight or nearly
-straight line. In some examples the stem profiles were in a hollow
-curve, starting down from the gunwales rather steeply and then curving
-outward more gently to the nose. Most examples had a bottom that was
-straight or slightly hogged, while those with the hollow curve in
-the ram often had a slight rocker. It is believed that the intention
-was always to have the bottom straight but that in construction the
-center of the canoe lifted somewhat, thus showing a slight hog in the
-bottom line. The effects of loading and use on the light and flexible
-structure of these canoes would cause the bottom to rocker and the
-outboard ends to lift, thus causing the hollow in the ram profiles.
-These effects of loading are confirmed by tests with models of this
-form of canoe.
-
-The midsection was usually quite round, almost ~U~-shaped, on the
-bottom, but some canoes showed the bottom slightly flattened and the
-sides flared out somewhat. Toward the ends, the ~U~-shape became
-marked, and near the gunwale ends the sides of the ~U~ fell inboard
-slightly as they came to the gunwales, the bottom of the ~U~ having a
-hard turn. In plan, the gunwales approached the stems without hollow,
-being nearly straight or even slightly convex. The ram was long and
-sharp in its lower level lines and this, with the form of midsection,
-made this model a fast-paddling canoe, though rather unstable. Most of
-these canoes had but one thwart, placed at midlength, but some have
-been found with three thwarts and a thong tie across the gunwales,
-close to the stems, as well.
-
-No stem-pieces were used; the bark ends were closed by two outside
-battens, one on each side, whose heads were carried some 3 inches above
-the gunwales. A cutwater batten was placed over the edges of the bark
-between the battens, and the three were lashed together, with the bark,
-by a coarse spiral wrapping or by group ties. The bark cover was not
-sheathed inside; instead, six battens, ⅜ by 1½ inches, were placed on
-each side of the keel piece, which measured about ½ by 3 inches and
-tapered toward the ends. The battens, widely spaced, ran well into the
-ram ends, and were held in place, like sheathing, by the pressure of
-the ribs. The ribs, spaced 8 to 12 inches on centers, were often split
-saplings; sometimes they were shaped to approximately ¼ by ¾ inch. The
-batten nearest the gunwale on each side was lashed to every rib. In
-some canoes the heads of the ribs were brought up between the inwale
-and outwale, inside the bark cover, with their ends against the cap.
-The stitching of the longitudinal seam of the topside panel was passed
-around these frames and so helped to secure them. In one example, the
-ribs were passed through the bark cover just below the horizontal seam
-of the topside panel; there a turn of the stitching was passed around
-each rib; then the rib was brought inboard again in the seam by being
-passed between the edges of the bark cover and the panel. In many
-canoes there were no ribs in the ram ends, but this was not universal
-practice; small light ribs were sometimes placed there, with their
-heads caught in the closure lashing of the end.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 154
-
-BARK CANOE OF THE KUTENAI AND SHUSWAP, about average in size and
-proportion. Original in the Museum of the American Indian, New York.]
-
-The canoes had 3-part gunwales consisting of inwale, outwale, and cap,
-but in many the arrangement of these was such that this nomenclature is
-misleading. In the latter construction, a lower inwale was used, as in
-the above drawing; rather small in cross section, it was almost square,
-with rounded edges. The rib ends, after passing through slits in the
-bark cover below the lower inwale, continued upward past it, outside
-the bark cover. Above the lower inwale and inside the bark cover was a
-larger upper inwale; this was flat on the outboard and bottom sides,
-the top and inboard sides being rounded into one another. The outwale,
-roughly rectangular in cross section, clamped the bark cover and heads
-of the ribs between it and the upper inwale. The ribs and bark were
-trimmed off flush with the tops of the outwale and upper inwale. The
-thwart amidships was caught, at the ends, between the lower and upper
-inwales. The gunwale members and bark cover were secured by group
-lashings of small extent and rather widely spaced.
-
-The methods of fitting the thwarts differed in this class of canoe,
-and it cannot be determined with certainty whether this variation was
-tribal or the choice of the individual builder. In canoes having the
-lower inwale arrangement there was but one thwart amidships. As has
-been said, its ends were caught between the upper and lower inwales.
-Directly beneath it was a rib whose head was not brought up outside
-the bark cover but, after being secured to the uppermost sheathing
-batten, was brought around inboard in a quick hard turn and secured
-along the underside of the thwart with a close spiral lashing. Under
-this rib at the topmost batten was secured a short false rib head by
-forcing the beveled foot of the false rib between the batten and the
-true rib, after lashing; the head of the false rib was then brought
-up through and outside the bark cover in the customary manner, or it
-might be forced under the lower inwale, inside the bark cover. In this
-construction, the endmost ribs were at the gunwale ends, and the heads
-of these were lashed to the stem battens outside the gunwale ends, on
-the outside of the bark cover.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 155
-
-OJIBWAY CANOE CONSTRUCTION. (See pp. 122-131.)
-
-Peeling bark.
-
-Staking out bark.
-
-Assembling bark over on building site.
-
-(_Canadian Geological Survey photos._)
-
-Making root thongs.
-
-Setting ribs inside bark cover with a mallet.
-
-Fitting gunwale caps on new canoe.]
-
-In canoes having the usual gunwales of inwale, outwale, and cap, the
-inwale and outwale were roughly rectangular, with their top sides
-horizontal, and the cap, very small and light, was flat on the bottom
-and rounded on top. In this construction, the rib heads usually were
-clamped between the inwale and outwale, inside the bark cover.
-
-The ribs of the ends were lighter than those of the main body and
-more closely spaced, say 2 or 3 inches apart. These began about 8 or
-9 inches inboard of the gunwale ends; the heads did not reach the
-gunwales, but instead were caught in the horizontal seam of the side
-panel and then cut off. Usually three ribs were so fitted. The rest of
-the end ribs, usually eight in number, either had their heads caught in
-the stem lashings or were made up as hoops with the heads overlapped
-and lashed together, the ribs being placed so that the overlap came to
-one side or the other of the canoe. Each hoop was usually caught by a
-turn in the end-closure lashing.
-
-To strengthen the ram, the lower ends of the three stem battens were
-lashed to the extremities of the inside keel-piece, which was brought
-through the bark cover at this point. The opening resulting from this
-was sealed with gum or pitch. Minor variations in construction have
-been noted in the canoes exhibited in museums; in one, for example,
-only every fourth rib was caught in the topside panel stitching.
-
-In canoes having the usual arrangement of gunwale members, with the
-cap over the ends of the ribs, the ends of the thwart were sometimes
-carried some 6 to 8 inches beyond the gunwales, at each end, and much
-reduced in thickness by cutting away about half the depth of the
-thwart. This part was then wrapped tightly around the inwale, brought
-inboard along the underside of the thwart, and there lashed. Examples
-show that the amount of end brought inboard under the thwart varied
-with the builder. It should be added that the thwarts were usually no
-more than barked saplings and were obviously installed in the canoe
-when green and treated with hot water so they would not break when
-wrapped around the inwales. In canoes having three thwarts, all were
-fitted in this manner, but often the thwarts on each side of the middle
-were also wrapped in a long spiral with a thong whose ends were tied
-to each gunwale. In 3-thwart canoes, there was commonly a cross tie,
-located roughly 12 inches from the gunwale ends and consisting of three
-or more turns of cord, or thong, around the gunwale members on each
-side and athwartships, secured by turns of the ends around the cross
-tie. In one canoe there was a thwart amidships and one at one end,
-about halfway between the middle thwart and the gunwale ends; at the
-other end were two cross ties, one replacing the thwart and another a
-foot inboard of the ends of the gunwales. In this canoe the ribs at the
-gunwale ends were hoops and there were only three hoop ribs in the ram
-ends.
-
-One canoe, from Stevens County, Washington, had a peculiar double
-framing. The sheathing battens, instead of being on the inside of the
-bark cover, rested on light ribs, spaced about 6 inches apart, that ran
-only far enough up the sides to have their ends caught in the stitching
-at the bottom of the topside birch-bark panel along the gunwales. The
-longitudinal battens were placed inside these, with the batten nearest
-the gunwale lashed to the light ribs. Inside these battens and spaced
-about a foot apart was another set of ribs whose heads were secured
-between the inwale and outwale inside the bark cover; each of these
-inside ribs was also lashed to the uppermost batten. Only the keel
-batten was under the small ribs. The thwart ends were wrapped around
-the main gunwale members, and the stem battens were secured to the
-birch topside panels by but one group lashing, near the gunwales. The
-bottom cover was stiff pine bark.
-
-The topside panel of birch bark was placed in these canoes so that its
-grain was horizontal instead of the usual vertical. Presumably this was
-done as a maintenance solution: the panel was much easier to repair or
-replace than the bottom bark; and by having the panel placed in this
-weak mode, it would split before the bottom bark if too much pressure
-were brought on the framework in loading.
-
-These canoes paddled well in strong winds and in smooth water, and
-worked quietly in the marshes where they were much used. Canvas canoes
-of the same model replaced the bark canoes, indicating that the model
-was suitable for its locality and use. These sturgeon-nose canoes were
-so different from other North American bark canoes that they have been
-the subject of much speculation, particularly since ram-ended canoes,
-though of different construction, existed in Asia.
-
-The size of the Kutenai-Salish sturgeon-nose canoes varied; the most
-common size appears to have been between 14 and 20 feet over the ends
-of the rams, 24 to 28 inches beam, and with a depth ranging from 12
-to 13 inches amidships and from 14½ to 17½ inches at the ends of the
-gunwales. However, records exist that show rather large canoes were
-built on this model, 24 feet over the rams, 48 inches beam and 24
-inches depth.
-
-The building methods of this type of canoe have never been reported.
-Probably some kind of a rough building frame was used. Perhaps this
-was comprised of a couple of the battens and the keel piece, weighted
-with stones. The building bed was probably level. The main gunwale
-members were apparently made up temporarily and the bark cover shaped
-and staked out. From that point the work may have followed the usual
-canoe-building practices except that the ends could not be closed until
-the framing there was complete, otherwise it would have been impossible
-to fasten the small ribs in the rams. The structure of these canoes
-appears to have been almost entirely cedar, except for the bark and
-lacings which, in some instances, were partly some bark fiber as well
-as roots. In general, the construction of this class of canoe did not
-match in quality that of the other bark canoes of the Northwest.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 156
-
-INDIANS WITH CANOE at Alert Bay, on Cormorant Island, B.C.]
-
-
-
-
-_Chapter Seven_
-
-ARCTIC SKIN BOATS
-
-                                                    _Howard I. Chapelle_
-
-
-Among the three primitive watercraft of North America (the others being
-the dugout and the bark canoe of the American Indians), the Arctic
-skin boats of the Eskimos are remarkable for effective design and
-construction obtained under conditions in which building materials are
-both scarce and limited in selection. The Arctic skin boat is almost
-entirely to be found in the North American Arctic from Bering Sea to
-the East Coast of Greenland. In Russian Siberia, only in a small area
-of the eastern Arctic lands adjacent to the North American continent
-are any employed.
-
-These craft, an important and necessary factor in the hunting lives
-of most Eskimo tribal groups, have long attracted the attention of
-explorers and ethnologists, and many specimens have been deposited
-in American and European museums. Like bark canoes, they have
-unfortunately proved difficult to preserve under conditions of museum
-exhibit. As a result, examples of once numerous types have become
-so damaged that they no longer give an accurate impression of their
-original form and appearance, and some have so deteriorated that they
-have had to be destroyed. Among the latter may have been examples
-of types long since out of use. One such type was represented by a
-single kayak, now destroyed; as a result this form has become extinct,
-and only a poor scale model remains to give a highly unsatisfactory
-representation of it.
-
-In 1946 the late Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who was then projecting his
-_Encyclopedia Arctica_, asked me to prepare for it a technical article
-on the Arctic skin boat. The decision of the sponsors to discontinue
-the publication, after the first volume had appeared, prevented
-appearance of the article, but in 1958, through the kindness of Dr.
-Stefansson, it was returned to the author for publication by the U.S.
-National Museum. I have since revised and added to it, after receiving
-criticisms and suggestions from Henry B. Collins, of the Smithsonian's
-Bureau of American Ethnology, from John Heath, and from other
-authorities.[2]
-
-[2] For their aid to him the author takes this occasion to extend
-particular thanks. He also thanks his Smithsonian Institution
-colleagues in the Division of Ethnology, U.S. National Museum; members
-of the staffs of The American Museum of Natural History and The Museum
-of the American Indian in New York, of the Peabody Museum at Harvard,
-and of the Stefansson Library at Dartmouth; and the Washington State
-Historical Society and Museum, and others in the Northwest who gave
-both aid and encouragement.
-
-The object of the study, as will be seen, was to measure the skin boats
-and to make scale drawings that would permit the construction of a
-replica exact in details of appearance, form, construction, and also in
-working behavior. Special regard was given to the diversity of types
-with respect to hull form and construction methods; but questions of
-ethnic trends, tribal migrations, and such matters, being outside the
-scope of the study, were not considered. Wherever possible, full-size
-craft were used as the source, but where only fragments existed, these
-had to be supplemented by reference to and interpretation of models of
-the same type.
-
-In spite of the difficulty of locating skin boats of some Arctic areas,
-examples of most of those mentioned by explorers since 1875 have been
-found and recorded, so that, as far as possible, every distinctive
-tribal type of Arctic skin boat which in 1946 was represented by museum
-exhibits in the eastern United States is represented in plans here.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 157
-
-EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY LINES DRAWING of a kayak, from Labrador or southern
-Baffin Island (according to Dr. Kaj Birket-Smith of the Danish National
-Museum). Note the long stem that is characteristic of present day
-kayaks from Labrador. The lettering apparently reads:
-
-  From Strait's Sⁿᵗ. David
-  A Canoe--N.B. The sections are 2 feet asunder from forward
-  Length 21'-6"
-  Breadth 2'-1½"
-  Depth 0'-8¼"
-
-(_Courtesy National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, England._)]
-
-With the material available it was not possible, of course, to explore
-all the individual types and forms in full; hence, the geographical
-range of a type can be stated only approximately, owing to the
-overlapping of tribal groups and the almost constant migratory movement
-of the Eskimo. Originally the 2-and 3-cockpit kayaks of Russian
-colonial Alaska had been omitted as being probably the results of
-Russian influence. John Heath, however, believing attention should be
-given to this type, has very kindly prepared for me a fine draught of
-such a kayak, or "baidarka" (other spellings of this name are common);
-this is shown on page 197.
-
-Although the scale drawings accurately represent the form and details
-of construction, they necessarily idealize somewhat the primitive boat
-design. Also, in showing the hull-form, the usual method of projecting
-the "lines" of the hull was discarded as unsuitable. Instead structural
-features have been emphasized, with the result that "round"-bottom
-kayaks appear as multi-chine hulls, as they properly are. In view
-of the fluid state of design in Eskimo craft it is obvious that the
-examples shown represent the stage of development at the given date,
-though the alteration in most designs has been so gradual that the
-representation could serve to illustrate with reasonable accuracy a
-tribal or area type for a decade or more.
-
-The Eskimos have produced two types of skin boats that have proved
-remarkably efficient craft for small-boat navigation in Arctic waters:
-an open boat ranging from about 15 to approximately 60 feet in length
-for carrying cargo and passengers for long distances, and a small
-decked canoe developed exclusively for hunting. With few exceptions
-these Arctic skin boats are wholly seagoing craft.
-
-The open boat, called the umiak, is propelled by paddles or oars or
-sail or, in recent years, by an outboard gasoline engine, or it may be
-towed. While fundamentally a cargo carrier the umiak has been employed
-by some Eskimo in whaling and in walrus hunting. For these purposes a
-faster and more developed design is used than that used only to carry
-families, household goods, and cargo in the constant Eskimo search
-for new hunting grounds. To a far greater degree than any other boat
-of similar size, this Eskimo boat is characterized by great strength
-combined with lightness.
-
-The decked hunting canoe, the kayak, is propelled by paddle alone
-when used for hunting and fishing, but is occasionally towed by the
-umiak when the owner travels. The kayak is perhaps the most efficient
-example of a primitive hunting boat; it can be propelled at high
-speed by its paddler and maneuvered with ease. These hunting kayaks
-are commonly built to hold but one person, though one group of Eskimo
-built the kayaks to carry two or three. The kayak, remarkable for its
-seaworthiness, lightness and strength, has been perhaps one of the most
-important tools in the Eskimo fight for existence. Few tribes have been
-unacquainted with its use. Because of its employment, the kayak often
-has to be designed to meet very particular requirements and so there is
-greater variation in its form and dimensions than in the umiak.
-
-Seagoing skin boats have not been common outside the Arctic in
-historical times. In fact only the European Celts are known with
-certainty to have used such craft. The Irish, in particular, employed
-large seagoing skin boats as late as the reign of Queen Elizabeth
-of England; a drawing of one preserved in the Pepysian Library was
-reproduced in the _Mariner's Mirror_ (vol. 8, 1922, facing p. 200).
-Although there can be little doubt that large seagoing skin craft had
-been more widely used in prehistoric times, the perishable nature of
-the skin covering and the light framework probably account for the
-lack of any archeological remains that would indicate its range. The
-availability of the materials required in its construction, however,
-suggest that its use could have been very widespread. The long voyages
-made by the Irish, in the dawning of recorded history, could well have
-made its design and construction known to others.
-
-There are still many skin boats in use by primitive people and even a
-few survivals in Europe, but with the exception of the Irish "curragh,"
-these craft are designed for inland waters and are either rather
-dish-shaped, or oval in plan, like half a walnut shell. In design they
-are related to the coracle of ancient Britain rather than to a seagoing
-skin boat of the Irish or Eskimo type. Both the Irish curragh and the
-British coracle, now, of course, are covered with canvas rather than
-hide.
-
-Traditions of long voyages by the ancient Irish in the skin-covered
-curragh make it apparent that such voyages were relatively common,
-and the design and construction of existing models of the curragh and
-umiak indicate that these voyages could have been made with reasonable
-safety. Compared to the dugout canoe, the skin boat was far lighter
-and roomier in proportion to length and so could carry a far greater
-load and still retain enough freeboard to be safe. The size of the
-early skin boats cannot be established with certainty; the modern Irish
-curragh is probably debased in this respect, but early explorers of
-Greenland reported umiaks nearly 60 feet in length and there is no
-structural reason why the curragh could not have been as large or even
-larger.
-
-Compared with the curragh, the umiak is lighter, stronger, and more
-resistant to shock. The curragh was built with closely spaced bent
-frames and longitudinal stringers to support the skin cover, whereas
-the umiak has very widely spaced frames and few longitudinals, giving
-the skin cover little support. The difference in construction is
-undoubtedly a result of the type of covering used, for the curragh
-was covered with cattle hides, which were less strong than the seal
-or walrus skins used by the Eskimo. The strong and elastic skin cover
-of the umiak and the lack of a rigid structural support gives this
-boat an advantage in withstanding the shocks of beaching or of working
-in floating ice; and because of its relatively light framework and
-the method of securing the structural members, its frame is far more
-flexible than that of the curragh, adding to this ability.
-
-The skin cover of the curragh was made watertight by rubbing the hides
-with animal fat, and the sewn seams were payed with tallow. The Eskimo
-soak the skin cover of the umiak with animal oil and pay the seams
-with blubber or animal fat. Both treatments produced a cover initially
-watertight but requiring drying and reoiling to remain so. Under
-most climatic conditions in the North Atlantic or Pacific the oiled
-skins remain watertight from four days to a week. This period can be
-lengthened by various methods; skin boats travelling in company can be
-dried out in turn by unloading one and placing it aboard a companion
-craft. There is evidence of other methods of treating the skin
-covering; waterproofing it with melted tallow, for example, or with
-a vegetable gum or a resin such as pitch, would enable it to remain
-watertight for a much longer time, though such treatments would make
-the covering less elastic. Pitch was also used at one time in curragh
-building, and it would be unwise to assume that the oil treatment used
-by the Eskimo was their only method of producing watertight skin covers
-in the period before they were first observed by Europeans.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 158
-
-WESTERN ALASKAN UMIAK with eight women paddling, Cape Prince of Wales,
-Alaska, 1936. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 159
-
-WESTERN ALASKAN UMIAK being beached, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska,
-1936. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 160
-
-REPAIRING UMIAK FRAME at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, 1930. (_Photo by
-Henry B. Collins._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 161
-
-ESKIMO WOMAN SPLITTING WALRUS HIDE to make umiak cover, St. Lawrence
-Island, Alaska, 1930. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)]
-
-The fundamental difference between the construction of the curragh and
-that of the umiak lies in the type of longitudinal strength members and
-the transverse framing used. The curragh, like the birch-bark canoe,
-depended entirely upon its gunwales for longitudinal strength, whereas
-the umiak has a strong keel, or, properly, a keelson since the keel was
-inside the skin cover. The curragh used longitudinal battens to support
-the skin cover. The umiak, on the other hand, has in its chine timbers
-rather strong longitudinal members that give additional strength to
-the bottom. Its transverse frames, unlike those of the curragh which
-were continuous from gunwale to gunwale, are in three sections, two
-side pieces and a floor, or bottom, member and the frame members are
-joined to gunwale, chines and keelson by lashings of sinew, whalebone,
-or hide, a method that, together with three-part frames, gives great
-flexibility to the framework. The frame of the early curragh may have
-been lashed, but because of the other fundamental differences in design
-and construction it was less flexible than that of the umiak.
-
-The basic features of the umiak frame are not found in the kayak, the
-structure of which in most types approaches that of the curragh. The
-gunwale is the strength member in the kayak, and some types have a
-rather extensive longitudinal batten system as well. In only a few
-types of kayak is the keelson an important strength member, and even
-here the gunwales are of primary importance. The hypothesis has been
-offered that this indicates a different parentage for the kayak than
-for the umiak, and that the umiak represents the earlier type, it being
-argued that this type of boat was the one more required in migratory
-periods, and so would be first developed. Such theories should be
-accepted with caution, however, as the fundamentally different use
-requirements for the two types of craft might readily explain the
-variation in their principles of construction. Hunting would also have
-been necessary during migrations, as existence depended upon food;
-the earlier appearance of the umiak cannot be assumed on such limited
-grounds.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 162
-
-FITTING SPLIT WALRUS-HIDE COVER to umiak at St. Lawrence Island,
-Alaska, 1930. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 163
-
-OUTBOARD MOTOR INSTALLED ON UMIAK, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, 1936.
-(_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 164
-
-LAUNCHING UMIAK IN LIGHT SURF, with crew of 12 men. (Note outboard
-motor attached), Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, 1936. (_Photo by Henry
-B. Collins._)]
-
-Eskimo skin boats possess remarkable advantages for their employment
-and conditions of use. Their hulls are light in weight, simple to
-build, and relatively easy to repair, yet they are highly shock
-resistant. They can carry large loads, yet are fast, they are capable
-of being propelled by more than one means, and they are exceptionally
-seaworthy.
-
-Floating ice is considered a major hazard to craft of all sizes, but
-the umiak, for example, can resist the shocks of ramming the ice to a
-degree beyond the tensile strength of the skin covering, by reason of
-the method of attaching the skin cover to the framework of the hull,
-and to some extent the form of the boat itself. The skin cover of the
-umiak is not rigidly attached to the frame in a number of places, but
-rather is a complete unit secured only at the gunwales and to the heads
-of stem and stern. This permits the skin cover to be greatly distorted
-by a blow, so that the elasticity of the material at point of impact is
-assisted by the movement of the whole skin cover on the frame. Also,
-the frame itself is flexible and allows distortion and recovery not
-only within the limits of the elasticity of the wooden frame but also
-by the movement of the lashed joints in the transverse frames. Some
-kayaks have similar characteristics, though their small size and the
-light weight of both boat and loading make its resistance to shock of
-far less importance than that of the umiak.
-
-Light weight is a highly desirable characteristic for small craft in
-the Arctic, since it permits the boat without the aid of skids or
-other mechanical contrivances to be removed from the water and carried
-over obstructions, and to be transported either by sledge or by manual
-portage over long distances. Lightness is obtained in the Eskimo skin
-boats by the small number and small size of the wooden structural
-members used in their construction. The resulting light weight hull
-permits heavy loading in proportion to the size of the boat, and it
-allows building with a minimum of material, in a country where such
-materials as wood are scarce and hard to obtain.
-
-For all small craft in Arctic waters, where distances between sources
-of supply may be great and the time that the water is open to
-navigation is relatively short, speed is an important and desirable
-attribute that permits movement with a minimum of effort. The
-exigencies of Arctic travel make it further desirable that small craft
-be capable of propulsion under paddle, oars, sail, or low-powered
-gasoline motors. The umiak, because of its form and weight, can be
-modified to meet this requirement without loss of other desirable
-attributes, and to a slightly lesser degree, the same may be said of
-the kayak.
-
-Simplicity in construction and repair are also basic requirements in
-the Arctic, where an emergency may make it necessary to repair or
-rebuild a damaged boat out of materials available nearby with the
-minimum of tools and under adverse weather conditions. The Eskimo
-has produced a boat construction that, as will be seen from the
-descriptions that follow, to a high degree meets this requirement.
-
-Exceptional seaworthiness is required, as most Arctic waters are
-subject to violent storms; the Arctic skin boats have been developed
-with forms and proportions to meet this condition. In this matter, the
-light and flexible hull structure gives a special advantage. The kayak,
-in its highest state of evolution and in skillful hands is perhaps
-the most seaworthy of all primitive small craft. The umiak is a close
-second, but of the two, the kayak is safer under all conditions of
-Arctic travel.
-
-The load-carrying capacity of skin boats has been mentioned. The Eskimo
-umiak is notable in this respect, exceeding the curragh and even craft
-produced by modern civilization. The umiak possesses this advantage
-because of its very light hull weight in combination with a nearly
-flat bottom and flaring sides. The resulting hull-form allows heavy
-loading with relatively little increase in draft, as the flaring sides
-cause the displacement to increase rapidly with the slightest increase
-in draft. Though a similar form exists in the lumberman's drive boat,
-the greater hull weight of this type makes it inferior to the umiak.
-Light draft when loaded has very definite advantages in the Arctic,
-for it allows loading and unloading on the beach or afloat, and allows
-the boat to be beached at points where this would not be possible with
-a deeper hull. The light draft also makes the umiak easy to propel
-manually.
-
-The imperative need for very efficient watercraft has made the Eskimo
-seek improvements, and as his needs altered, so have his skin boats.
-Consequently the designs of these craft have gone through numerous
-changes since the first of the types were placed in American museums.
-It is noticeable that, among other changes, the amount of freeboard of
-umiaks has been altered as their owners met new conditions imposed by
-longer voyages, heavier cargo, and the outboard motor. The high-sided
-umiak, while suited for heavy loads and very seaworthy, was almost
-impossible to paddle or even row against a strong gale. When this
-condition had to be met, the freeboard and flare were reduced to
-minimize the windage. In recent years umiaks have appeared with round
-bottoms to give greater speed under paddle, the resulting boat being
-an enlarged kayak in construction. These changes to meet differing use
-requirements are not necessarily basic improvements, for they result in
-the sacrifice of some of the other qualities of the type. Nevertheless,
-they indicate the fluid state of primitive boat design in the Arctic,
-a condition that has been accentuated in most areas by the increasing
-influence of white men, their boats and their motors.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 165
-
-UMIAKS ON RACKS, in front of village on Little Diomede Island, July 30,
-1936. (_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)]
-
-
-_The Umiak_
-
-The umiak was undoubtedly more widely employed by the Eskimo before
-the coming of the white man than existing records indicate. It was
-a type of boat most necessary for family migration by sea, and with
-it the early Eskimos could establish themselves on islands far from
-the mainland and could cross large bodies of water. From some areas
-where early explorers mention having seen the type, the umiak has
-disappeared; this suggests the possibility that tribes now unacquainted
-with the umiak had at some time in the past reached a location where
-such a boat was no longer necessary.
-
-The umiak was common in open waters and was found from Kodiak Island
-through the Aleutians and north and eastward along the west and north
-coast of Alaska to the mouth of the Mackenzie River. On the Siberian
-coast, opposite Alaska and for a short distance westward, the umiak was
-also employed. From the Mackenzie eastward to Hudson Bay the umiak has
-not been employed in recent times, though it is highly probable that it
-was used in the migrations that populated this part of the Arctic coast
-with Eskimo. Early explorers found umiaks in use along the northwestern
-coast of Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin; the umiak disappeared from these
-areas during the last century, but its use continued in Hudson Strait
-and in Greenland, where it became highly developed.
-
-Among the various tribes of Eskimo known to have employed the umiak
-in the last century, the form of the hull varied a good deal, as
-did its dimensions. In general its form was something like that of
-the lumberman's "drive boat," except that most umiaks had a slight
-~V~-bottom and were quite different from it in the shape of the
-bow and stern. The size of the umiak does not seem to have been
-established by a set of measurements as distinct as that used in the
-building of kayaks, but rather as the result of utilizing material
-available locally, with due regard to the intended use of the craft for
-relatively heavy transport. Such matters as the flare of the sides,
-rake and shape of bow and stern, and width varied from tribe to tribe.
-The Asiatic and Alaskan umiaks were usually rather sharp-ended, with
-little spread to the gunwales at bow and stern; one of the Asiatic
-types has the gunwales brought round in a full curve at the ends of the
-boat. In the East the umiaks have rather upright bows and sterns and
-the gunwales are often rather wide apart to form square ends to the
-hull. Some of the western umiaks were navigated with paddles only; with
-others, before the appearance of the Russians in the area, both oar and
-sail may have been used. In the East the umiaks were being paddled,
-rowed, and sailed when white men reached the Arctic in the 17th century.
-
-The Greenland umiak frame is much heavier and more rigid than the
-Alaskan. In comparing eastern and western umiaks the frame of the
-eastern umiak seems to be somewhat better finished, but the models
-of the western umiak are undoubtedly the better. The eastern umiak
-is not intended for use in hunting but is primarily a cargo carrier;
-its use has been confined to women and its chief employment is moving
-the family and household effects from one hunting ground to another.
-While it is highly probable that this condition is the result of the
-disappearance of whaling in this region, the use of the umiak as a
-hunting boat ceased so long ago that the eastern umiak model may have
-degenerated to a great degree. It has been otherwise in the western
-Arctic where the use of the umiak in hunting has continued and the
-boats have been managed, to a very great extent, by the men. As a
-result, the boats are held in greater respect by their builders and
-the better models have survived. The tribal distinctions between the
-western umiaks are therefore more marked than in the east; including
-Siberia, at least three basic models and a very large variety of tribal
-variations, are to be found, as can be proved by existing models. In
-the east only two basic and distinct umiak models are known to have
-existed, the Baffin Island type used on both the north side and on the
-Labrador side of Hudson Strait, and the Greenland type. In the latter,
-there were slight tribal distinctions it is true, but these were minor.
-
-The Asiatic umiaks may be classed into two types, the Koryak type of
-Eastern Siberia and the Chukchi model of the Siberian side of Bering
-Strait. The Koryak umiaks illustrated by Jochelson show a highly
-developed boat, rather lightly framed compared to boats on the American
-side. In profile the bow has a long raking curve and the stern much
-less; as a result the bottom is rather short compared to the length
-over the gunwales. Viewed in plan, the gunwales are rounded in at bow
-and stern to form almost a semicircle. At the bow the gunwales are bent
-around a horizontal headboard tenoned over the stem head but at the
-stern there is no headboard. The sheer is moderate and very graceful.
-The flare of the sides is great and there appears to be a little ~V~
-in the bottom transversely. There is also a slight fore-and-aft rocker
-in the bottom. The construction is similar to that of the Alaskan
-umiaks except that the Koryak umiaks have double-chine stringers and
-also a double riser, or longitudinal stringer, halfway up the sides.
-The riser is not backed with a continuous stringer, as is the chine;
-instead three short rods are lashed inside the side frame members. The
-side stringers do not reach bow and stern. The four thwarts are located
-well aft, and between the first and second thwarts is a larger space
-than between the others, for cargo. The boats are rowed, two oarsmen
-to a thwart. The cover was formerly walrus hides split and scraped
-thin but more recently the skin of the bearded seal has come into use.
-A rectangular sail of deer skin is sometimes lashed to a yard and set
-on a tripod mast about amidships. Two legs of the mast are secured to
-the gunwale on one side, the remaining leg is lashed to the opposite
-gunwale. Judging by the drawing made by Jochelson[3] this umiak is
-perhaps the most graceful of all those known today.
-
-[3] Reproduced in JAMES HORNELL, _Water Transport_ (Cambridge:
-University Press, 1946), p. 160.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 166
-
-UMIAK COVERED WITH SPLIT WALRUS HIDE, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska. The
-framework can be seen through the translucent hide cover. (_Photo by
-Henry B. Collins._)]
-
-The Asiatic Chukchi umiak is somewhat similar to that used on the
-American coast but with less beam in proportion to its length and less
-flare to the sides. The skin cover is of bearded seal. Bogoras measured
-an example and found her 35 feet 9 inches long, 4 feet 6 inches wide
-amidships, 2 feet 6 inches wide on the bottom over the chines. (An
-Alaskan umiak measured 34 feet 9 inches long, 8 feet 2 inches wide at
-gunwales and 2 feet 8 inches over the chines.) The Chukchi also use a
-very small hunting umiak, 15 to 18 feet long and having two or three
-thwarts, much like the small hunting umiaks once used in the Aleutians.
-The larger Chukchi umiaks have rectangular sails set on a pole mast;
-some boats carry a square topsail. The sails are lashed to their yards
-and the lower sail, or "course," is controlled by sheets and braces.
-The topsail, when used, has braces only. The sails were formerly of
-reindeer skins, but now drill is used. These umiaks were formerly
-paddled, as indicated by their narrow beam, but since the advent of the
-white man oars have come into use, and it is quite certain that the
-topsail also is the result of white man's influence, if not the whole
-rig.
-
-In stormy weather some of these umiaks and also some of those in
-Alaska employ weather cloths, 18 or 20 inches high above the gunwales,
-raised on short stanchions lashed to the hull frames. The ends of the
-stanchions are inserted in slits in the top of the weather cloth, and
-in fair weather the cloths are folded down inside the gunwale out of
-the way. Also in some of these Asiatic and Alaskan umiaks, inflated
-floats, of seal skin, are lashed to the gunwales to prevent capsizing
-in a heavy sea.
-
-The Alaskan umiaks varied much in size but are rather similar in form.
-The small hunting umiaks used by the Aleuts are about 18 feet long,
-while the large cargo carrying umiaks range up to about 40 feet long,
-so far as available records show. They are marked by heavily flared
-sides and often have a rather strong sheer; a few, however, are rather
-straight on the gunwales. Nearly all existing models and boats were
-built since 1880; and no information is now available on the forms and
-dimensions of earlier craft.
-
-On page 184 is a drawing of a small umiak, used in walrus hunting, from
-the Alaskan coast in the neighborhood of the Aleutians. In the U.S.
-National Museum are the remains of a similar boat obtained in 1888 from
-Northern Alaska. This type of small umiak is also employed in fishing
-and is rather widely used as a passage boat for short voyages along
-shore. These craft, propelled by paddles, are primarily fast, handy
-hunting canoes rather than boats for migration or cargo-carrying. For
-this reason they are quite sharp-ended and shallow. The construction of
-this example will serve to illustrate the methods common to this type.
-
-The umiak shown is 20 feet 8½ inches over the headboards, 4 feet 9½
-inches extreme beam and 17⅜ inches depth--apparently an average-sized
-boat of her class. The width of the bottom over the chine members
-is 2 feet 7 inches. The keelson is rectangular in section and in two
-pieces, hooked-scarphed together; each piece is shaped out of the
-trunk of a small tree with the root knees employed to form the bow and
-stern posts. The floor timbers are quite heavy and support the chine
-members by having the floor ends tenoned into the chine pieces. At bow
-and stern the chines are joined to the keelson in a notched scarph; at
-these places the keelson is sided rather wide to give good bearing. It
-is evident that this portion of the boat's structure is the first built
-and forms a rigid bottom to the hull. The floor timbers are lashed to
-the keelson by lacings of sinew, whalebone, or hide, passed through
-holes bored in both, as indicated in the plan. The ends of the floors
-are pegged where they tenon into the chines and the ends of the chines
-are pegged to the keelson, but this was evidently not a universal
-practice, as there are models showing lashings at floor ends and at
-chine ends. The headboards are carved out of blocks in a ~T~-shape and
-are stepped on top of the stem and stern posts and lashed. The fit is
-extremely accurate. The bow headboard is narrower athwartship than the
-stern headboard. The detail of the hook scarph in the drawing shows a
-method of lashing that is widely used.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 167
-
-SMALL UMIAK FOR WALRUS HUNTING, west coast of Alaska, 1888-89.
-Reconstructed from damaged umiak formerly in U.S. National Museum, and
-from models.]
-
-Because of the manner in which the keelson is cambered and the floor
-fitted, the bottom of the covered hull shows in cross section a slight
-~V~, reducing toward the bow and stern, that is typical of the Alaskan
-umiak. The amount of deadrise seems to have been determined by the
-manner of fitting the floor timbers and it helps the boat to run
-straight under paddle and oars. In present day umiaks the amount of
-~V~ in the bottom is slight; too much would make the boat difficult to
-sledge overland without employing chocks to steady the hull. Perhaps in
-the past, where sledging was not required, the deadrise was greater, as
-indicated by some old models.
-
-After the chines and floor are fitted to the keelson, the frames at
-the thwarts are made and set up at the desired flare and height, being
-held in place by temporary spreaders lashed or braced. These are
-sometimes stiffened by thongs from frame head to keelson at each pair,
-to steady the frame while the gunwale is being bent. As the lengths of
-the thwarts are controlled by the fairing of the gunwales, the thwarts
-are not fitted until after the latter are in place. As shown in the
-figure above, the gunwales are round poles, slightly flattened on the
-lower side at the headboards, where they are secured by lashings. In
-building, the gunwales are shaped and secured by lashing them to those
-side frames selected to shape the hull. The lashings that secure the
-side frames to both gunwale and chine are passed through holes in each
-member and are hove taut by means of a short lever with a hole bored
-in it to take the end of the lashing, which is also wrapped around the
-lever to give temporary purchase. The side frames have saddle notches
-to bear on the chine and gunwale. All lashings in the frame, it will be
-noted, pass through holes bored in the members and in some cases the
-lashings are let in, so that the sinew is flush with the surfaces of
-the members, to prevent the lashing from being damaged by chafing.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 168
-
-UMIAKS NEAR CAPE PRINCE OF WALES, ALASKA, showing walrus-hide cover
-and lacing. Frame lashings are walrus-hide thongs. (_Photo by Henry B.
-Collins._)]
-
-With the gunwales faired, the remaining frames are then put in position
-and lashed to the gunwales and chines. An outside batten is run along
-each side and lashed by turns of sinew over the batten and around the
-side frames, with the lashings let into each member to prevent slipping
-and chafing. The batten is lashed at bow and stern in some umiaks, but
-in many it is stopped just short of coming home on the posts. Next, the
-short frames at bow and stern are put in place and the risers secured
-inside the side frames, then, with the thwarts fitted and lashed to
-the risers, and the ends of the gunwales are lashed together at bow
-and stern, the boat is ready to be covered. When ready to cover, the
-frame is stiffened by diagonal thong ties, each of which has one end
-secured by turns around the gunwale, with the other end passed through
-holes in the keelson and secured. These are commonly found in western
-umiaks; the small umiak has but one pair placed amidships. The timber
-used in such craft is fir, spruce, and willow, and is usually driftwood
-obtained at river-mouth.
-
-When this umiak was examined, the skin cover was in such a condition
-that the number of hides used could not be determined, but it probably
-is comprised of three sea-lion skins sewn together. New skin covers
-are made by removing the hair and fat from the skins and then sewing
-them together by the method illustrated on page 186, to obtain proper
-dimensions. Green skins are generally preferred, since they stretch
-into shape better than partly or wholly cured ones. Once stretched
-to shape and cured, the cover can be readily removed and replaced,
-without resewing. In fitting a new skin cover the skins are first
-thoroughly soaked in seawater. The cover is then stretched over the
-frame and worked taut by lacings. It is wide enough to reach from
-gunwale to gunwale and a little down inside the boat on each side, and
-is laced to the rising batten with turns of rope spaced 3 to 5 inches
-apart amidships and closer together in the ends of the hull. At the
-headboards the cover is laced around the gunwales and through holes
-in the headboards, two independent lacings of two turns each being
-used on each side. At the extreme bow and stern the cover is laced
-to the gunwale lashings. Where the cover will not stretch smooth in
-fitting, gores appear to have been cut out and the skin resewn. After
-being laced, the cover is allowed to shrink until it becomes smooth
-and tight, then it is heavily oiled and the seams rubbed with tallow
-or blubber. This treatment is repeated at regular intervals. While the
-boat is in service care is taken to dry out the skin cover once a day,
-if possible.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 169
-
-UMIAK, WEST COAST OF ALASKA, King Island, 1886. Taken off umiak at
-Mariner's Museum.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 170
-
-MAKING THE BLIND SEAM: two stages of method used by the Eskimo to join
-skins together. The edge of the skins are placed flesh side to flesh
-side with one overlapping the other about 2 inches. Then, by means of
-a thin needle and slender sinew, the skins are sewn together, with an
-over-and-over stitch, care being taken not to penetrate through the
-lower skin. When this is completed the skins are opened out and the
-second seam made on the grain side to complete a double seam without
-penetration of either skin. The width of the seam varies somewhat.]
-
-The sequence of construction described is not followed universally;
-sometimes spreaders are fixed between the gunwales, which are then
-sheered by thongs to the keelson, after which the side frames are put
-in and the side and rising battens, and finally the thwarts, are added.
-Judging by the numerous models seen, the small hunting umiaks varied a
-good deal in the rake and sweep of the bow and stern, even in the same
-village. These hunting umiaks worked with kayaks in Aleutian walrus and
-sea-lion hunting; a practice that seems to have once been common along
-the Western Alaskan coast and among the islands.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 171
-
-NORTH ALASKAN WHALING UMIAK of about 1890. Drawn from damaged frame,
-formerly in a private collection, now destroyed.]
-
-The drawing on page 186 represents a large Alaskan umiak from King
-Island. Two boats of this model, but with modern metal fastenings, are
-in the Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Virginia, but the drawing shows
-the methods of fastenings used in 1886. The plan is of a burdensome
-model, such as is used for travel or other heavy cargo work. The boat
-is 34 feet 2½ inches over the gunwales, 8 feet ½ inch extreme beam, 2
-feet 3⅜ inches deep and 2 feet 10 inches beam on the bottom over the
-chines. The construction follows the general plan of the small umiak
-just described, except that another method of fitting the floor timbers
-to the chines is employed. Due to the size and use of the umiak, two
-side battens are employed with a single riser. The thwarts are not
-notched over the frames, but instead fall between them. As diagonal
-thong braces from gunwale to keelson would be ineffective in this
-situation, two sets of wooden braces that resist not only tension but
-also compression are used to take the thrust off the thwart lashings.
-These brace-frames are staggered slightly to allow room to fit them at
-the keelson. The drawing, which requires no additional explanation,
-shows the plan of construction and the important lashings, and the
-method of fitting oars with thong thole loops.
-
-Boats such as these carried a square sail lashed to a yard, the mast
-being stepped in a block on the keelson. No mast thwart is used;
-instead stays and shrouds of hide rope supported the mast, a method
-that made it easy to step or unstep the mast in a seaway. Early umiaks
-in this area are said to have had mat sails; later ones used sails of
-skin and drill. Modern umiaks of this class often have rudders hung on
-iron pintles and gudgeons and the floors fastened to the keelson with
-iron bolts or screws. The scarphs are also bolted, but the remaining
-fastenings are lashings in the old style, to obtain flexibility in the
-frame.
-
-A North Alaskan whaling umiak, supposed to have been built about 1890,
-is represented in the drawing of figure 171. The remains of the boat
-were sufficient to permit reconstruction of the frame. This umiak is
-about the size of, and in profile greatly resembles, a New Bedford
-whaleboat. However, the model is that of the umiak, rather sharp-ended
-and strongly sheered. The boat is 29 feet 4¾ inches over the
-headboards, 5 feet 10½ inches extreme beam, and 2 feet 1¾ inches deep.
-Umiaks of this model were used at Point Barrow and vicinity in offshore
-whaling, and were also used for travel and cargo carrying. Paddles were
-used in whaling, but in more recent times sail, oars, and outboard
-engines have been employed. The boats of this class appear to have been
-marked by a very graceful profile and strongly raking ends. Despite
-the resemblances of this type of umiak to the whaleboat, it is highly
-doubtful that its model was influenced by the white man's boat. In
-fact, it might just as well be claimed that since the whaleboat appears
-to have been first employed in the early Greenland whale fishery, the
-latter had been influenced by the umiaks found in that area. However,
-one might also point to the fact that the model of the early European
-whaleboat is much like that of a Viking boat, from which will be seen
-the danger in accepting chance similarities in form or detail as
-evidence of relationship, particularly when it is not impossible that
-similarities in use and other requirements have produced similar boat
-types, the users never having come into contact.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 172
-
-BAFFIN ISLAND UMIAK. Drawn from model and detailed measurements of a
-single boat.]
-
-The whaling umiak has been much used in the western Arctic by explorers
-and Arctic travellers, who regarded highly its lightness and strength,
-and its ability to be easily driven. It is much wider than the Chukchi
-umiak and has far more flare. From a study of models and numerous
-photographs it can be said that the amount of fore-and-aft camber in
-the bottom varies greatly between individual umiaks, some of which
-are almost straight on the bottom. The light framework and elastic
-construction often cause these umiaks to camber a good deal when
-heavily loaded; when sledged, they are sometimes fitted amidships with
-a support for a line from bow to stern, that forms a "hogging-brace,"
-to prevent the boat from losing its camber. It is also apparent
-that there is no standard practice in fitting floors to the chines;
-Murdock[4] shows a rough sketch that indicates the floor ends are
-often tenoned into the chines, as in the small umiak. Tree-nailing of
-the floors and chines, and the keelson, is common, and sometimes both
-treenails and lashings are used in scarphs. In some umiaks both the
-single side batten and the riser are at the same height, but only the
-riser has its ends secured to the posts, the side battens being cut
-short and their ends lashed to the riser a few inches inside the posts.
-
-[4] See bibliography.
-
-The skin cover of the north Alaskan whaling umiak is made of bearded
-seal or of walrus hide, which has to be split, because of its weight.
-Occasionally polar-bear skins are used. Lashings of the frame are of
-whalebone, sinew, and hide. The skins are treated with seal oil and
-caribou fat, and when the whaling umiak is taken ashore it is usually
-stored on a stage to keep dogs from destroying the skin cover. In
-travelling, however, it is sometimes propped upside down on one edge
-and used as a shelter. In winter the skin is removed and stored; when
-it is necessary to be replaced on the frame, the skin cover is soaked
-in sea water for three to five days, after which it is laced on in
-the usual manner, dried, and then thoroughly oiled. Low, rather wide
-sledges are sometimes built to carry the umiak overland, or on the
-ice, but often the regular sledge is used. The boats cannot be sledged
-against a strong gale because of their windage.
-
-The north Alaskan umiak is usually propelled by paddles, like the
-Chukchi umiak. These paddles range in length from about 50 to 76
-inches, and as a rule have a rather long narrow blade, though a short
-and wide blade is occasionally found, particularly at Kotzebue Sound
-and Point Hope. Oars for the Alaskan umiaks range in length from 6 feet
-3 inches to 8 feet 6 inches, and also have rather long narrow blades, 3
-to 4 inches wide.
-
-The three examples of Alaskan umiaks serve to show the features that
-are most common in the area. However, models in the U.S. National
-Museum suggest that there was a greater variety of form and appearance
-in the past. One model shows the gunwale ends lengthened by pieces
-shaped very much like the projecting gunwales of the Malay prah. Some
-show extreme rake at the bow like that of the Koryak umiak but without
-the rounded gunwale ends. It is impossible to estimate how far the
-western Alaska umiak model has been affected by the early Russian
-traders in this area, but it is quite certain that the use of oars can
-be traced to this influence. The full-sized umiaks, and models and
-photographs, from the Bering Strait area give no real clues to the
-possible parentage or direction of spread of the Alaskan umiak types.
-Occasional details in fittings or construction, such as the gunwale
-extensions mentioned, seem to duplicate details in primitive Asiatic
-craft, but the evidence is too scanty to allow a hypothesis based on
-design and construction alone.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 173
-
-EAST GREENLAND UMIAK, drawn from measurements taken off by a U.S. Army
-officer in 1945.]
-
-No models or photographs have been found of the extinct types of umiaks
-once used in the northern part of Hudson Bay and the sketches of early
-explorers are too crude to allow useful discussion. From such slight
-evidence it is impossible to say whether the umiaks in this area were
-of the western or eastern type.
-
-The drawing of a Baffin Island umiak on page 188 is based on measured
-dimensions of a single boat and upon a small model in the U.S. National
-Museum. This model conforms in most respects with the drawings and
-sketches made by Boas.[5] The umiak is a small one, 24 feet 7¼ inches
-long, 5 feet 8⅜ inches extreme beam, 3 feet 10 inches wide over the
-chines, and 1 foot 10½ inches deep. These measurements show that the
-bottom of this type of umiak is wider than that of western types. The
-bottom is flat, and sheer and camber are both slight. The stem and
-stern are practically upright and are not formed of knees; rather,
-they are made by fitting the post into the keelson with an open tenon.
-Instead of the carved block headboards seen in the Alaskan umiaks, the
-Baffin Island boat has very wide headboards, and these are tenoned over
-the posts as in the Asiatic Koryak umiaks. The details of the rest of
-the framing are not dissimilar from those of the Alaskan umiaks, except
-that the Baffin Island umiak does not employ any short frames in the
-end of the hull. The framework is rather heavy and the square-ended
-appearance of this class of umiak makes it appear more clumsy than is
-actually the case. The side battens and risers stop short of the posts,
-and the risers used in this umiak are notched into the side frames,
-whereas in the Alaskan umiak only the lashings of the riser are let
-into the frames. The Baffin Island umiaks carry a square sail lashed
-to a yard, and the mast is placed right up in the eyes of the boat.
-Boas shows that some of these umiaks have rudders hung on metal pintles
-and gudgeons, a result of the influence of the white traders, whalers,
-and sealers who had operated in these waters long before Boas made his
-investigations. The umiak is rowed in the usual manner, using thong
-loops as tholes, and is usually steered with an oar or long paddle.
-
-[5] See bibliography.
-
-The ends of the gunwales of the Baffin Island umiak are cut off a
-little inside the forward edges of the headboards, making this the
-only American type that does not have projecting gunwales at bow and
-stern. The projection of the gunwales undoubtedly serve a practical
-purpose in lifting the boat out of water, but obviously this is of
-minor importance. Probably the real reason for these projections is
-that they originally made building easier by providing space for a
-retaining lashing when the gunwales were being bent. As the headboards
-became wider and the spring of the gunwales, in plain view, became
-less acute, less strain was put on the lashings of the gunwales at the
-headboards, but by then the projecting gunwales and their retaining
-lashings were being utilized in lashing on the skin covering at bow and
-stern. Thus, beginning as a practical solution of a building problem,
-the projecting gunwales may have eventually become a traditional tribal
-feature of the umiak in many localities.
-
-The drawing of an eastern Greenland umiak on page 189 was made from
-measurements taken off during World War II and checked against
-dimensions, photos, and descriptions of boats from the same territory.
-In general design and in construction this umiak differs little from
-umiaks of the southwest coast of the same island. The eastern Greenland
-boats are, on the average, much smaller than those on the southwest
-coast due to the more severe ice conditions met in the east. Some of
-the Greenland umiaks have flat bottoms like the Baffin Island boats,
-but the ~V~-bottom appears to be more common. The chief characteristics
-of the Greenland umiaks are the slight rake in the bow and stern, the
-moderate sheer and camber, and the conservative flare of the sides.
-The drawing shows the important structural details seen in most of the
-Greenland umiaks. The floor timbers are on edge instead of on the flat
-as in Alaskan boats and this seems to be characteristic of all eastern
-umiak construction, as is the arching of the underside of the floors.
-Another common structural detail is the passing of the risers through
-the side frames; in some, however, the risers lie in deep notches
-fashioned in the inside of the frames. The eastern Greenland umiaks
-generally have rather wide headboards and somewhat more projection
-to the gunwales. Like the Baffin Island umiaks, the side battens and
-risers of the Greenland boats are cut short of the posts, but the ends
-of these members are commonly supported by frames placed very far fore
-and aft, and often these frames form brace-supports to the headboard,
-as in the drawing. The headboards of these umiaks are always tenoned
-over the top of the posts. Some of the Greenland umiaks have curved
-side frames which cause the side battens to form knuckles in the skin
-cover. The eastern Greenland umiaks rarely if ever carry sail, but this
-is common on the western and southwestern coasts, where a square-sail
-on a yard is popular, with the mast usually well forward. Hans Egede in
-1729[6] found Greenland umiaks fitted with sails of seal intestines and
-also saw boats about 10 fathoms (60 feet) long; another early writer,
-Crantz[6] states that umiaks were commonly 36, 48, and even 54 feet
-long. In the larger umiaks two side battens were employed. The thongs
-and brace-frames seen in many Alaskan umiaks do not seem to have been
-used in eastern waters, the use of bracing-frames from stem or stern
-post to the gunwales probably serving the purpose, but it is noticeable
-that pictures of Greenland umiaks preserved in some European museums
-show that the hulls have a tendency to twist not seen in Alaskan
-boats. The old Greenland umiaks were built with lashed joints combined
-with pegging, or treenailing. In recent times the use of pegging has
-increased and iron fastenings are now quite common. Rigid fastenings
-of the peg and metal types are used only in scarphs and in securing
-the chines and keelson to the floors timbers, as in the modern Alaskan
-umiaks.
-
-[6] See bibliography.
-
-
-_The Kayak_
-
-The Eskimo hunting boat, the kayak, is more widely employed in the
-Arctic than the umiak, and its variations in model, construction, and
-appearance are more distinct and numerous. The kayak is a long, usually
-narrow, decked canoe and is commonly very well finished. In Alaska a
-few undecked skin-covered canoes, used in rivers, are built on kayak
-proportions, but the model of these is quite different from that of the
-Alaskan sea-kayaks; the river canoes are ~V~ or flat bottomed, much
-like the Greenland kayaks. A similar kayak-type canoe, flat bottomed
-but birch-bark covered, is used by the Yukon Indians. Undoubtedly a
-number of such types once existed but most of these became extinct
-before any attempt was made to preserve models or canoes in museums.
-
-Few Eskimo tribes are without kayaks, only those living inland or where
-the sea is rarely open are unacquainted with these hunting craft. In
-very recent times some tribes have ceased to use kayaks, employing
-purchased canoes instead. The kayaks of the Asiatic Eskimos, and those
-from the Mackenzie to Hudson Bay, are now crudely built and of inferior
-design. Both the Greenland and the Alaskan kayaks are highly developed.
-The Greenland kayaks are undoubtedly given more intricate equipment in
-the way of weapons and accessories than the Alaskan craft, but it would
-be difficult to decide which is superior in construction and design.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 174
-
-FRAME OF KAYAK, Nunivak Island, Alaska, with young owner beneath.
-(_Photo by Henry B. Collins._)]
-
-The basic models used in Eskimo kayaks are the multi-chine, the
-~V~-bottom and the flat bottom. The multi-chine models, except for the
-river kayak-canoe just mentioned, which probably should be classed as
-a true open canoe rather than a kayak, are employed throughout Alaskan
-waters. The geographic boundaries of each basic hull form are rather
-ill-defined. The multi-chine kayak appears as far eastward as the
-northwest coast of Hudson's Bay. In this area, however, a ~V~-bottom
-kayak, now extinct, seems to have been in use on Southampton Island.
-A flat-bottom kayak, with the chines snied off much like a Japanese
-sampan, is in use in Hudson Strait, along the shores of Baffin Island
-and Labrador; a flat-bottom kayak shaped like a sharpie is used on
-the northwest coast of northern Greenland; and a ~V~-bottom hull is
-employed on the eastern, southwest, and south coasts of Greenland.
-
-  +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
-  |                                                                 |
-  |     According to the Danish classification of the coasts of     |
-  |  Greenland, "Polar" is north of Cape York, "Northern" is above  |
-  |    Disko Island, "Central" is from Frederikshaab to north of    |
-  |  Disko Bay, "Southern" is from Julianhaab to Cape Farvell, and  |
-  |               "East" is Angmagsalik and vicinity.               |
-  |                                                                 |
-  +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
-
-There are variations in each of the basic models, of course, as the
-tribal designs used vary a good deal. On the whole, the kayak is very
-carefully built to meet the local conditions of hunting, sea, and
-land or ice portaging. As a result, some types are far more seaworthy
-than others and the weight of hull varies a great deal, even within
-a basic model. The appearance of all the kayaks models, by tribal
-classifications, show the influence of tradition and, in many cases
-display, in either shape or decoration, a tribal totem or mark.
-
-The basic requirements in nearly all kayaks are the same; to paddle
-rapidly and easily, to work against strong wind and tide or heavy head
-sea, to be maneuverable, and to be light enough to be readily lifted
-from the water and carried. The low freeboard required makes decking
-a necessity. In general, the kayak is designed to carry one paddler,
-but in Alaska are kayaks that can carry two or three paddlers, each in
-a manhole or cockpit, or a paddler and one or two passengers. It is
-generally conceded that the kayak built to carry three in this fashion
-is the result of Russian influence. Nunivak Island kayaks had large
-manholes that carried two people back-to-back. Where it is desirable
-to portage the kayak over ice or land for a great distance the boat
-is very light and is capable of being carried like a large basket, by
-inserting one arm under the decking at the manhole or cockpit, but
-where such a requirement is not an important factor, the kayaks are
-often rather large and heavy. In the majority of types, the degree of
-seaworthiness obtained is very great. Some types are built very narrow
-and sharp-ended; these usually require a skillful paddler. Others are
-wide and more stable, requiring less skill to use. In areas where
-severe weather is commonly met, the kayaks are usually very strong and
-well-designed. Where ice or other conditions do not allow a heavy sea
-to make up, the kayaks are often light, narrow and very low sided--more
-like racing shells than working canoes. Most Alaskan kayaks come stern
-to the wind when paddling stops, but most of the eastern craft come
-head to the wind. Nearly every type has been developed by long periods
-of trial and error, to produce the greatest efficiency in meeting the
-conditions of use in a given locality. This has made the kayak a more
-complicated and more developed instrument of the chase than is to be
-found in any other form of hunting canoe, due in part, perhaps, to the
-great craftsmanship of the Eskimo.
-
-The construction of the kayak follows a basic plan. In all kayaks the
-gunwales are the main strength members, longitudinally. A few designs
-employ, in addition, a stiff keel member, but most have rather slender
-and light longitudinal batten systems having little longitudinal
-strength value, but which in combination with very light frames, give
-transverse support to the skin cover. Even in the flat-bottom models,
-the kayaks, unlike the umiaks, depend entirely upon the gunwales for
-longitudinal strength. The frames are bent and in one piece from
-gunwale to gunwale in all but a few flat-bottom kayaks, of the sampan
-cross section; these employ bent frames. The longitudinal batten
-systems show great variety. The eastern kayaks of the flat-bottom and
-V-bottom models have three longitudinal battens (including the keel
-or keelson) in addition to the heavy and often deep gunwale members;
-these are supported at bow and stern either by stem and stern post
-of shaped plank on edge as in the Greenland ~V~-bottom kayaks, or
-by light extensions of the keelson and small end-blocks as in the
-northern Greenland, Baffin Island, and Labrador types. The multi-chine
-types of the western Arctic have from seven to eleven longitudinals
-(including the keelson) in addition to the gunwales. In some of these
-kayaks there are no stem and stern posts, the battens and keelson
-coming together at a blunt point in small head blocks; but many types
-have rather intricate stem-pieces, carved from blocks of wood, and
-plank-on-edge stern posts. The Asiatic kayaks, curiously enough,
-exhibit the construction of both eastern and western Arctic kayaks,
-the crude, small Koryak kayak having a 3-batten ~V~-bottom, while the
-Chukchi kayak is built like the kayaks on the east side of the Bering
-Strait. The decking of kayaks is of very light construction; usually
-there are two heavy thwarts to support the manhole and from one to
-three light thwarts afore and abaft these. The Alaskan kayaks from
-Kotzebue Sound southward have ridged decks supported by fore-and-aft
-ridge-battens from the ends of the hull to the manhole. Elsewhere the
-deck of the kayak is flat athwartship except at the manhole, where
-there is some crown or ridging to increase the depth inside the boat,
-particularly forward of the manhole. In the majority of these kayaks
-short fore-and-aft battens are laid on the thwarts forward of the
-manhole to support the skin cover in its sweep upward to the manhole.
-The transverse frames do not come into contact with the skin cover,
-to avoid transverse ridges being formed in it; and the longitudinal
-battens which support the skin cover form longitudinal ridges, or
-chines, in it.
-
-The timber used in the Eskimo kayak building is usually driftwood. Fir
-and pine, spruce or willow are available in much of the Arctic for
-longitudinals. Bent frames are commonly of willow. Scarphing in the
-framework of kayaks was far less common than in umiaks; the scarphs
-when found are only in the gunwales. All scarphs are of the hooked type
-and are usually quite short (the hooked scarph is the best one when
-the fastenings are lashings). Sinew is generally used in all lashings
-and for sewing material. The heads of frames are commonly tenoned into
-the underside of the gunwales and are then either lashed or pegged
-with treenails of wood or bone to hold them in place. In the joining
-of frames and longitudinals, the lashings are commonly individual,
-but in some types of kayak continuous lashings (connections in series
-using one length of sinew) are occasionally found. Where possible,
-the lashings are turned in so that the turns cross right and left. In
-some parts of the framework two pieces of timber are "sewn" together;
-holes are bored along the edges to be joined and a lacing run in with
-continuous over-and-over turns. These laced joints are common in the
-stems of the Alaskan kayaks. Gunwales and battens are most commonly
-lashed through holes bored in them and in the bow and stern members.
-Care is taken that all lashings are flush on the outside, so that the
-skin cover is smooth and chafing will be avoided. Bone knobs at stem
-and stern heads are used in the Coronation Gulf kayaks in the west and
-in many Greenland models. Bone stem bands are more widely employed,
-however, being in use at Kodiak and Nunivak Islands, in the Aleutians,
-at Norton Sound in Alaska, and in Greenland and Baffin Island in the
-east. It is probable that these bands were once in wider use than thus
-indicated. Strips of bone are also used to prevent chafing at gunwale
-in paddling and for strengthening scarphs in the manhole rim.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 175
-
-FRAME OF KAYAK AT NUNIVAK ISLAND, Alaska, 1927. _Photo by Henry B.
-Collins._]
-
-It will be noted that all Eskimo skin boats have a complete framing
-system, which is first erected and then fitted with the skin cover.
-This is a method of construction very different from that of the
-birch-bark canoes of the Indians living to the southward of the
-American Eskimo. The birch-bark canoe is built by forcing a framing
-system into an assembled cover and holding it in place there by a
-rigid gunwale structure, to which the bark cover is lashed. This
-basic structure is used even in the Alaskan area, where there are
-birch-bark canoes that in hull form and proportions strongly resemble
-the flat-bottom kayak. The basic difference between the two craft is
-illustrated by the fact that whereas the removal of the skin cover of
-the kayak leaves the frame intact, the removal of the bark cover of
-the kayak-like birch-bark canoes would result in the collapse of the
-framework, except for the gunwale-thwart structure or, in a few, the
-chine-floor structure. Because of this basic difference the superficial
-resemblance of some Indian bark canoes to kayaks has no meaningful
-relationship to the possibility of the influence of the kayak on the
-bark canoe, or vice-versa. Some Indian tribes have in fact built
-skin-covered canoes, as will be seen in chapter 8, but the framework
-and structural system used is always that of the bark canoe, never that
-of the Eskimo skin boat. Nor is there evidence that the Eskimo ever
-used the bark canoe frame-structure in their kayaks or umiaks. Hence,
-in spite of contact between these peoples, the watercraft of each
-remains basically different in structural design.
-
-The almost universal method of constructing the kayak is first to shape
-and fasten together the gunwales and thwarts, with stem and stern
-pieces fitted as required, then to fit and place a few transverse
-frames to control the shape of the craft. Next the longitudinals are
-fitted and, finally, the remaining transverse frames are put in place.
-In some types the manhole rim is now fitted but in others the manhole
-rim is put on after the skin cover is in place, as some kayaks (the
-Alaskan) have the skin cover placed over the manhole rim and others
-have it passed under. The skin cover is stretched and sewn over the
-frame and is rarely secured to it by lashings except at the manhole.
-Due to the shape of bow and stern, in some types, difficult and tedious
-sewing is required to stretch the skins over the ends of the hull.
-Much of the sewing is completed after the skins are stretched over the
-hull and held by temporary lacings. The blind seam is used but in many
-kayaks the lap is very short, about ⅜ inch being common.
-
-The covering most widely used in Alaskan kayaks was the bearded seal
-skin and with the Aleuts the skin of the sea lion was the most popular.
-Throughout the eastern Arctic seal skin was the preferred covering
-though caribou skin was occasionally used by the caribou Eskimos in the
-central Arctic. The heavy, thick hides were first piled and "sweated,"
-until the hair became loose then the skins were scraped until they were
-clean. They were thin and light and could be air dried and stored until
-ready for use. The skins had to be well soaked before being stretched
-over the frame of a kayak or umiak. When dried out on the boat frame
-they were oiled in the usual manner. It is claimed by the Eskimos that
-walrus skin, though strong, is not as good as the bearded seal or the
-sea-lion skin for boat covers, as the latter two held the oil longer
-and did not become water soaked as quickly as the walrus hide.
-
-The paddler's seat in most kayaks consists of a portion of heavy skin
-with fur attached. Sometimes this is supported by a few short, thin
-battens laced loosely together. These, and the fur seat sometimes are
-as long as the paddler's legs. No back rest is known to be used. The
-seat, and any batten supports, are loosely fitted and are not part of
-the permanent kayak structure.
-
-The kayak is usually entered by floating the boat near a stone or low
-bank and stepping into it with one foot, which has first been carefully
-wiped. With the body steadied by placing the paddle upright on the
-shore, or outside the kayak, the other foot is then wiped and placed
-in the boat. The paddler then slides downward and works his legs under
-the deck until he is seated with his hips jammed into the manhole rim.
-Getting out of a kayak is almost the reverse of this process. Great
-care is exercised to avoid getting dirt into a kayak, as it might chafe
-the hide cover. Hence the care in wiping the feet before entering. The
-practice of entering the boat ashore and throwing man and kayak into
-the water, undoubtedly very rare, is said to have been practiced not
-only at King Island but in some parts of Greenland. Both Alaskan and
-Greenland hunters often lashed two kayaks together, in order to rest in
-rough weather. Many kayakers using the narrow models laid the paddle
-athwartships across the deck to help steady the kayak when resting or
-throwing a weapon; this is basically the same as holding the sculls of
-a racing shell in the water, to steady the boat. Lashing two kayaks
-side by side, or parallel with spacing rods, was commonly done to
-enable the craft to ferry persons or cargo across streams. Some Alaskan
-Eskimo thus converted kayaks into catamarans and then fitted a mast and
-sail, but such an arrangement was never used in rough water.
-
-The methods used by a paddler to right a capsized kayak, without aid
-and while he was still in the cockpit, have aroused the interest of
-many canoeists. It was used by the King Islanders, some of the Aleuts,
-and the Greenlanders, who at times, it is said, would deliberately
-capsize their kayak to avoid the blow of a heavy breaking sea, then
-right it when the sea had passed. The Eskimo are reported to be
-gradually losing this skill, but in late years European and American
-kayakers have learned this method, called the "kayak roll," of
-righting a decked canoe with paddler in place. It follows in general
-the Greenland method. In the Appendix (p. 223) is an illustrated
-description of the kayak roll, supplied by John Heath.
-
-Traditionally, the weapons used by kayakers were darts and harpoons,
-the bow not being employed, since wetting would damage the weapon.
-Various forms were used, and many were thrown with the "throwing-stick"
-to increase the range and force. An inflated bladder or skin was
-often carried to buoy the harpoon line and tire the game. Bolas and
-knives were also carried. All eastern kayaks appear to have been
-propelled with the double-blade paddle, but folklore suggests that the
-single-blade kayak paddle may have once been used. Greenland kayaks
-have been reported as carrying a small square sail, but this was
-actually a hunting screen, or camouflage, to hide the paddler and cause
-the seal to mistake the canoe for a cake of ice. It was a 19th-century
-addition, as was a fin attached to the kayak to counteract the effect
-of the screen in a beam wind. Any effect it had as a sail in a kayak
-was unintentional, of course: it was dismounted in strong winds or when
-not required for hunting.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 176
-
-KORYAK KAYAK, drawn from damaged kayak in the American Museum of
-Natural History, 1948.]
-
-Shown above is the plan of an Asiatic Koryak kayak. This type, used
-in the Sea of Okhotsk and on the Siberian coast of Bering Sea, is the
-only distinctive Asiatic type; the Chukchi of the Siberian side of
-Bering Strait uses a kayak that is on the same model as the one found
-at Norton Sound, in Alaska. The Chukchi kayak differs only in the ends,
-which are wholly functional and without the handgrips that distinguish
-the Alaskan type. There is also a crude Chukchi river kayak, covered
-with reindeer skin, but its design is not represented in an American
-museum.
-
-The Koryak kayak is a hunting boat well designed for use in protected
-waters, but is rather weakly built. In general form it is much like the
-hunting and fowling skiffs formerly used in America. The plan idealizes
-the kayak somewhat, for the boat is crude in finish. The only example
-available for study, in the American Museum of Natural History, is in
-poor condition. The hull is short, wide and shallow, rather ~V~ in
-cross section, and there is a slight camber in the deck. The length
-of the Koryak kayak rarely exceeds 10 feet, the beam is from 24 to 26
-inches, and the depth between 8 and 9½ inches. The manhole rim is of
-large diameter, high and without rake. The gunwales, although rather
-slight, are the strength members. The keelson, a thin, flat batten,
-forms the stem and stern posts; it is stiffened amidships by a short
-batten lashed inside the frames. The chine battens are also slight
-and do not reach the stem and stern. The frames are widely spaced
-and are wide and thin, in one piece from gunwale to gunwale. There
-are but two thwarts; these are strong and support the manhole rim,
-showing inside the cockpit. Two thin longitudinal battens afore and
-abaft the manhole, support the deck, in addition to a light centerline
-ridge-batten. On the kayak illustrated the outboard battens appear to
-have had additional support at one time from two pairs of stanchions
-standing on frames at the chines, with their heads secured to the deck
-battens; a pair being placed before and abaft the manhole. A small
-plank seat appears to have been used and the boat was propelled by
-two short one-hand paddles, secured to the manhole rim by lanyards
-made of thongs; these would be only efficient in smooth water. The
-cover is made from bearded seal skins and passes under the manhole
-rim being sewn to the rim on the inside at the top, by coarse sewing
-passed through holes bored in the manhole rim. There are two thong
-lifting handles or loops, one at bow and stern. This kayak is the most
-primitive of all types and the smallest as well. The Koryaks are not
-daring canoemen and do not venture into rough water. Nevertheless, this
-type of kayak is said to be fast and highly maneuverable.
-
-Compared to the Koryak, the Alaskan kayak is tremendously advanced.
-The Aleuts are daring and accomplished kayakers, and their craft are
-among the finest in the Arctic. The Kodiak Island kayak of 1885, shown
-above, represents one type used in this area and that from Unalaska,
-shown below, the other. The Kodiak boat is rather short and wide,
-measuring 15 feet 1 inch in length, 29 inches beam and 14 inches depth
-to ridge batten of the deck just forward of the manhole. The boat has
-the humped sheer found in many Alaskan kayaks and is intended for use
-in stormy waters. Its large manhole, also a feature of the Nunivak
-Island kayak, permits two persons to be carried, one facing forward to
-paddle and the passenger facing aft, or the space can be used to carry
-cargo. The drawing shows the construction and requires no detailed
-explanation. Kayaks from the Aleutian Islands eastward to Kodiak use
-rod battens; only the gunwales and keelson are rectangular in section.
-The frames are thin flat strips bent in one piece from gunwale to
-gunwale. The ridge-batten of the deck is laminated, in two pieces. The
-deck beams and thwarts are notched into the ridge-batten and lashed.
-The bow piece is carved from a block, and the longitudinals are lashed
-to it, each in a carefully fitted notch. The sternpost is formed of a
-plank. The skin cover passes over the manhole rim and a line passed
-outside the rim holds the skin down enough to form a breakwater. The
-skin cover is sewn to the inside lower edge of the rim, thus covering
-it almost completely.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 177
-
-KODIAK ISLAND KAYAK, 1885, in U.S. National Museum (USNM 76285). The
-identification of this kayak has been questioned by Henry B. Collins
-and John Heath, but it may represent an old form out of use in the
-twentieth century.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 178
-
-ALEUTIAN KAYAK, Unalaska, 1894, in U.S. National Museum (USNM 76282).]
-
-The Unalaska kayak of 1894 (below) is a better known type. This design
-is used throughout the Aleutians and on the adjacent mainland as far
-east as Prince William Sound. It was also employed in the Pribilof
-Islands and at St. Matthew, having been used by Aleuts engaged in
-sealing expeditions there. All kayaks of this type do not have the same
-bow and stern profiles as the example; some have the bifid bow built
-with the portion above the slit arched upward higher than the outer
-stem-piece and so more prominent; there are also minor variations in
-the stern. The shape of the hull, however, is consistently maintained
-throughout the area in which this type is used. Though the deck is
-ridged, it is relatively low compared to that of the Kodiak kayak, and
-the thwarts supporting the manhole are heavily arched and in one piece
-from gunwale to gunwale. The construction is like that of the Kodiak
-kayak, but the gunwales and upper longitudinal battens, instead of
-meeting the stern post, end on a crosspiece well inside the stern to
-give the effect of a transom stern. However, some Aleut kayaks have the
-normal sharp stern after the fashion of the Kodiak kayak, but without
-the projecting tail or handgrip, and nearly all have two thwarts
-between the after manhole thwart and the stern and three forward of
-the fore manhole thwart. The skin cover passes over the manhole rim
-as in the Kodiak type. The bow block is sometimes built up of two
-blocks sewn or laced together. Strengthening pieces of light plank are
-sometimes fitted from the bow block aft; these are laced to the top
-inside edge of the gunwales and pinned to the stem block to form long
-breast-hooks. In some kayaks with the square stern, only the gunwale is
-supported by the crosspiece on the stern, the two battens on each side
-being supported by the last frame only, about 6 inches inboard of the
-crosspiece.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 179
-
-KAYAK FROM RUSSIAN SIBERIA, 2-hole Aleutian type, in Washington State
-Historical Society and Museum. Taken off by John Heath, 1962.]
-
-This type of kayak is the only one known to have been built with more
-than one manhole. The two-hole kayak is an Aleut development used in
-whaling and sea-otter hunting, so far as is known; the paddler sits
-in the after manhole. Measurements of a two-hole kayak in the United
-States National Museum show it to be 20 feet 7¼ inches long, 23 inches
-beam, and 9½ inches deep to top of gunwale. The manholes are about 46
-inches apart edge to edge and the foremost is about 8 feet from the bow.
-
-The three-holer, commonly believed to have been introduced by the
-Russians, was used by Russian officers, inspectors, and traders in
-their explorations and travels on the Alaskan coast. One of these boats
-measures 24 feet 8⅜ inches long, 30 inches beam, and 10½ inches deep
-to top of gunwale. The center manhole is commonly larger in diameter
-than the other two and is used for either a passenger or cargo. The
-fore edge of the fore manhole is 8 feet to 8½ feet from the bow and
-the other manholes are from 4 to 4½ feet apart edge to edge. A large
-example of this class of kayak measures 28 feet 1½ inches long, 38½
-inches beam and 12 inches deep to top of gunwale. Probably none exceed
-30 feet in length. Both the single-and the double-blade paddle are used
-by the Aleuts, but the double blade is preferred in hunting. The paddle
-blades are rather narrow and leaf-shaped, with pointed tips.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 180
-
-NUNIVAK ISLAND KAYAK, ALASKA, 1889, in U.S. National Museum (USNM
-160345), showing painted decoration of the mythological water monster
-Palriayuk.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 181
-
-KING ISLAND KAYAK, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National Museum (USNM 160326),
-collected by Capt. M. A. Healy, U.S. Revenue Steamer _Bear_.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 182
-
-NORTON SOUND KAYAK, Alaska, 1889, U.S. National Museum (USNM 160175).]
-
-The plan of a kayak from Nunivak Island (about due north of Unalaska
-and roughly halfway to St. Lawrence Island) is shown on page 198
-(fig. 180). This type of kayak is obviously related to that of Kodiak
-Island, for it has approximately the same lines and proportions. Only
-the profiles of bow and stern exhibit marked differences. Perhaps the
-most striking feature of the Nunivak kayak is its bow, which might
-represent a seal's head; a hole through the whole bow structure forms
-the eyes and also serves functionally as a lifting handle. The stern
-profile is simpler than that used in the Kodiak kayaks. The example
-shows the mythological water monster Palriayuk, a painted totem that
-once distinguished the Nunivak kayaks; missionary influence has long
-since erased such decorations from Alaskan kayaks. Whereas the Kodiak
-kayak has eleven battens (including the keelson) in its frame, the
-Nunivak kayak has nine, and all the longitudinals in it are rectangular
-in section. Differences in dimensions of Nunivak and Kodiak kayaks are
-remarkably slight, the greatest length reported for either type is
-about 15 feet 9 inches and the greatest beam is about 32 inches. Both
-types have a large manhole and carry a passenger back-to-back with
-the paddler. The single-bladed paddle is used. The kayak is sometimes
-transported over ice by means of a short sledge, by one man, but it is
-otherwise rather heavy to portage. Highly regarded by all who have had
-contact with it, this is generally considered one of the safest and
-most useful of the Alaskan kayaks.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 183
-
-NUNIVAK ISLAND KAYAK with picture of mythological water monster
-Palriayuk painted along gunwale. (Photo by Henry B. Collins.)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 184
-
-NUNIVAK ISLAND KAYAK in U.S. National Museum (USNM 76283) with cover
-partly removed to show framework. Collected by Ivan Petroff, March 30,
-1894.]
-
-King Island, at the entrance to Bering Strait, is the home of the
-kayak shown on page 198 (fig. 181). The King Islanders are noted
-as skillful kayakers and their kayak generally follows the Nunivak
-pattern, but is narrower and more ~V~-shaped in cross section, and
-the stem and stern are also distinctly different. The King Island
-craft has a bold upturned stem ending in a small birdlike head, with
-a small hole through it to represent eyes and to serve for a lifting
-grip; the stern is low and without the projections seen in the Nunivak
-type. The fitting of the cockpit rim of the U.S. National Museum kayak
-is unusual; the rim is not supported by thwarts but rather is made
-part of the skin cover and therefore can be moved. This seemed to be
-intentional, for there is no evidence of broken or missing members,
-but John Heath considers this not typical. A watertight jacket with
-the skirt laced to the manhole rim is worn by the kayaker to prevent
-swamping. This practice was common among Eskimo working in stormy
-waters. A warm-weather alternate was a wide waistband, with its top
-supported by straps over the shoulders and the bottom laced to the
-manhole.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 185
-
-WESTERN ALASKAN KAYAK, Cape Prince of Wales, 1936. (_Photo by Henry B.
-Collins._)]
-
-A somewhat similar but slightly smaller kayak was used at Cape
-Espenberg; in these the upturned bow ended in a simple point. The
-sterns were alike in both types. The Cape Espenberg kayak had a fixed
-cockpit rim however, as in the Nunivak type. Both types employed the
-single-bladed paddle.
-
-A little to the South, in Norton Sound, the long narrow kayak shown on
-page 198 (fig. 182) is popular. These are somewhat like the Nunivak
-kayaks in cross section but with far less beam. They have a slight
-reverse, or humped, sheer and are very sharp ended. The peculiar
-handgrips at bow and stern are characteristic, though the shape and
-size of the grips vary among the villages; the style shown is that of
-St. Michaels. A single-bladed paddle is used. This type is very fast
-under paddle, but requires a skillful user in rough water. The Norton
-Sound kayaks are very well finished and strongly built.
-
-From Kotzebue Sound, at Cape Krusenstern, along the north coast
-of Alaska to near the Mackenzie Delta, the kayaks are very low in
-the water, long, narrow, and spindle-shaped at the ends. They are
-distinguished by a very strong rake in the manhole rim, with an
-accompanying prominent swell in the deck forward of the manhole. They
-are built with seven longitudinal battens (including the keelson) in
-addition to the gunwales. In several examples seen, the latter are
-sometimes slightly channelled on the inside, but this may have been the
-result of shrinkage in the pith of the timber used and not intentional.
-These kayaks are very light and easily carried. Both single-and
-double-blade paddles are employed; the single blade is usually used in
-travelling.
-
-On page 201 are shown a kayak from Cape Krusenstern (fig. 186) and one
-from Point Barrow (fig. 187). It is reported that these types have
-now gone out of use. In these boats no stem or stern posts exist,
-these usually being replaced by small end blocks. The only important
-difference in the two types shown is in the style of crowning the
-deck, which is ridged in the Cape Krusenstern kayak but more rounded
-in the Point Barrow kayak. In spite of their narrow beam and obviously
-unstable form, these kayaks are said to have been used by rather
-unskillful paddlers. In general, they were not employed in rough
-weather but were seaworthy in skillful hands.
-
-Though the North Alaska type of kayak, as illustrated by the Point
-Barrow model (fig. 187), may be said to represent the structural design
-of kayaks to the eastward as far as Foxe Basin, the Mackenzie Delta
-kayaks are on an entirely different model. Due to migration of numerous
-groups of Eskimo to this area in the last seventy years, the design of
-kayaks here has undergone a great change. In figure 188 appears the
-plan of a modern Mackenzie Delta kayak.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 186
-
-KOTZEBUE SOUND KAYAK (Cape Krusenstern), Alaska, formerly in U.S.
-National Museum, now in Mariner's Museum.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 187
-
-POINT BARROW KAYAK, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National Museum (USNM 57773).]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 188
-
-MACKENZIE DELTA KAYAK, in Museum of the American Indian, Heye
-Foundation.] The design is marked by a very narrow flat bottom or a
-wide keel combined with the ~V~-bottom. These boats are well-built
-and are light and graceful. The wide keel is formed by a thick plank
-keelson which narrows at bow and stern and is bent up to form the stem
-and stern. The chine pieces run fore and aft and are lashed to the
-stem and stern thus formed. The gunwales are about ¾ by 1⅛ inches. The
-frames are about ¼ by ⅝ inch bent in a strongly ~U~-shaped form, with
-their ends tenoned into the bottom of the gunwales. The keelson is
-only about ⅜ inch thick and the chines are rather wide thin battens;
-about ⁵⁄₁₆ by 1¼ inch. Some kayaks have an additional batten in the
-sides above the chines. The deck is slightly ridged for nearly the
-length of the boat. The stem and stern are carried up above the sheer
-to form prominent posts; some builders carry them higher than shown.
-The construction is neat and light and the boat is very easily paddled.
-Its narrow beam makes it somewhat treacherous, however, in unskilled
-hands. A double-bladed paddle is generally used with this kayak. While
-the form appears to vary little among individuals of this class, the
-construction varies, particularly in the number and dimensions of the
-longitudinals. Frames are spaced rather consistently 5 to 6 inches
-apart.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 189
-
-KAYAK FROM POINT BARROW, Alaska, in U.S. National Museum (USNM 57773).
-Collected by Capt. M. A. Healy, U.S. Revenue Steamer _Bear_, 1888.
-(_Smithsonian photo_ MNH-399-A.)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 190
-
-COCKPIT OF KAYAK from Point Barrow (USNM 57773), showing method of
-lashing skin cover to manhole. (_Smithsonian photo_ MNH-399.)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 191
-
-KAYAK IN U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM (USNM 160325) cataloged as from Mackenzie
-River area, 1885, but apparently an eastern kayak of unidentified
-origin.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 192
-
-CORONATION GULF KAYAK, Canada, partially reconstructed from a damaged
-privately owned kayak (now destroyed).]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 193
-
-CARIBOU ESKIMO KAYAK, Canada, in American Museum of Natural History.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 194
-
-NETSILIK ESKIMO KAYAK, King William Island, Canada, in the American
-Museum of Natural History.]
-
-The foregoing design differs greatly in every respect from the
-example in figure 191, collected by the U.S. Fish Commission in 1885
-and identified as a Mackenzie River kayak. It is a large heavy boat
-compared to the one just described. The model of this old kayak,
-and the construction too, is on the eastern pattern, such as is
-used in Hudson Strait. The strongly upturned stern and less rising
-bow resembles the old Greenland kayaks. The ~V~-bottom and 3-batten
-construction combined with heavy deep gunwales is not to be found in
-any of the known Alaskan kayaks. There is unfortunately no record of
-the exact location where this kayak was found, nor any information
-on the builders; if it is from the Mackenzie, the type now appears
-to be wholly extinct and there has been nothing in recent times in
-the vicinity faintly resembling it. The kayak is a well-built, safe,
-strong boat; the high stern would aid it in coming head to sea and wind
-when paddling stopped; and it resembles, more than most, the early
-explorers' drawings of Arctic kayaks. The very high ends indicate that
-it was not used where high winds are common, despite the otherwise
-seaworthy design and construction, and regardless of the documentation,
-it now seems certain that this kayak came from somewhere in the eastern
-Arctic.
-
-To the eastward of the Mackenzie, the kayaks are narrow, spindle-shaped
-and very low sided, in the manner of the northern Alaskan boats.
-The drawing of figure 192 was made from the remains of a kayak from
-Coronation Gulf and to insure accuracy was compared with photographs
-and measurements of some Copper Eskimo kayaks. This kayak is
-characterized by a rather marked reverse sheer and a strongly raked
-manhole rim. The deck forward of the manhole sweeps up very sharply,
-but with a different profile than is seen on the north coast of Alaska;
-the deck of these eastern kayaks sweeps up in a very short hollow
-curve instead of the long convex sweep popular in Alaska. The ends of
-the hull finish in small bone buttons; the skin cover passes under
-the manhole rim, as in the Cape Krusenstern and Point Barrow types. A
-two-bladed paddle is commonly used. The hull design is more stable than
-that at Point Barrow and the ends are somewhat fuller, giving the boat
-a rather parallel sided appearance; it has longitudinal battens from
-the bottom of the hull, one the keelson; the gunwales are channelled
-on the inside and are very light and neatly made. The frames are split
-willows, round on the inside.
-
-The Caribou Eskimo kayak preserved in the American Museum of Natural
-History is the best example of the type found. The drawing of figure
-193 shows the features of this particular type; the construction is
-about the same as that of the Point Barrow kayak but is much lighter
-and weaker. The peculiar projecting stem is formed of a stem block,
-scarphed to the gunwales; to it the beak piece is attached with a
-lashing. The sharply turned-up stern is formed in a similar manner by
-two pieces joined together at the tip and lashed to the stern block;
-this stern construction is similar to that of the eastern Arctic kayak
-shown in figure 192. Both caribou hides and seal skins are used to
-cover the Caribou Eskimo kayak. The seams are rubbed with fish oil and
-ochre, a method also used extensively along the north coast of Alaska
-to paint the framework of both kayaks and umiaks.
-
-The Netsilik Eskimo kayak is related to the Caribou, but is less stable
-and has different bow and stern profiles. The example shown in the
-drawing of figure 194 requires little discussion; the cover is of seal
-skin. These kayaks are used only in hunting caribou at stream crossings
-and are not employed in sealing. The very narrow bottom and narrow beam
-make this the most dangerous of all kayaks in the hands of a paddler
-unaccustomed to such craft. Neither the Caribou nor the Netsilik
-kayaks are very seaworthy and their construction is inferior. They are
-characterized by rather heavy gunwales but the other members of their
-structures are very slight.
-
-No examples remain of the old kayaks once used on the Gulf of Boothia,
-at Fury and Hecla Strait, and on the west side of Foxe Basin. Early
-explorers in this area found kayaks, but the types used have been long
-extinct. One kayak, supposed to have been built at Southampton Island,
-had been preserved by a private collector, but when measured was in
-a damaged state. Shown in figure 195, it does not conform with the
-old description of kayaks from the Melville Peninsula but does agree
-reasonably well with the Boas model of a kayak from Repulse Bay in the
-U.S. National Museum (USNM 68126). On this basis it would appear that
-in Boas' time this form of kayak was also used on the east side of the
-Melville Peninsula. The design resembles to some extent the kayaks
-from the southwest coast of Greenland, but the stern is like that
-used in some Labrador craft. This old kayak was very light and sharp,
-rather slightly built, but very graceful in model so far as could be
-determined from the remains of the craft. The foredeck camber is ridged
-and carried rather far forward. If the identification of this kayak
-should be correct, it is apparent that the eastern model of the kayak
-once extended as far west as the west side of Foxe Basin.
-
-The kayak of lower Baffin Island, in figure 196, is flat-bottomed,
-long, and rather heavy. The gunwale members are very deep and the
-keelson and chine battens are quite heavy. This type has a slight
-side-batten between chine and gunwale--in all, five longitudinal
-members besides the gunwales--hence this example is the sole exception
-to the 3-batten construction that may be said to mark the eastern
-kayaks. The Baffin Island kayak is rather roughly built and the
-two examples found had many frames cracked at the chines. However,
-this kayak has many excellent features, being easily paddled, very
-stable, and seaworthy. The double-blade paddle used is like that of
-the Labrador kayak, very long with narrow blades. When the paddler
-is seated, these kayaks, like many of their eastern sisters, draw
-more water forward than the illustration would indicate (it should be
-remembered that the trim of the kayaks in the water is not indicated by
-the base lines used in the plans). The deeper draft at the bow, which
-allows the kayak to hold her course into the wind and to come head
-to the wind when at rest, gives a long easy run in the bottom toward
-the stern. The slight rocker in the bottom shown in the drawing is
-thus misleading. The stem is formed by the extension of the keelson,
-producing the "clipper-bow" seen in many eastern boats. The stern is
-shaped by a stern block of simple form into which the gunwales, keelson
-and chines are notched. The batten between chine and gunwale stops a
-little short of both bow and stern.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 195
-
-OLD KAYAK FROM VICINITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ISLAND, Canada. Plan made from a
-much damaged kayak, now destroyed, once privately owned.]
-
-A somewhat similar kayak is used on the Labrador side of Hudson Strait
-but, as shown in figure 197 on page 207, the appearance of the craft is
-distinctive. The kayak is flat-bottomed, with the snied-off chines seen
-in the Baffin Island boat, giving a cross section form like that of
-many Japanese sampans. The 3-batten system is used in construction, and
-the gunwales are very heavy and deep, standing vertical in the sides
-of the boat. The sheer is slightly reversed and there is little rocker
-in the bottom. One of the most obvious features of the Labrador kayak
-is the long "grab" bow, which is formed by a batten attached to the
-end of the keelson. The stern is formed with a very small block inside
-the gunwales, and to this the keelson is laced or pegged. It will be
-noticed that the rake of the manhole is very moderate. These kayaks are
-heavy and strong, paddle well, particularly so against wind and sea.
-Shown in the drawing is the type of long-and narrow-bladed paddle used.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 196
-
-BAFFIN ISLAND KAYAK, from Cape Dorset, Canada, in the Museum of the
-American Indian, Heye Foundation.]
-
-This example illustrates better than the Baffin Island kayak the
-combination of deep forefoot and the greatest beam well abaft the
-midlength that marks many eastern models. When paddled, the craft
-always trims so that the kayak draws most water at the fore end of the
-keelson and the bottom of the stern is usually just awash. This makes
-the bottom sweep up from the forefoot in a very slight gradual curve
-to the stern, when the boat is afloat. As a result, the kayak may be
-said to be of the "double-wedge" form that has been popular in fast
-low-powered motor boats, since having the beam far aft gives to the
-bow a wedge shape in plan, while the deep forefoot and shallow stern
-produce an opposite wedge in profile. It would appear that this form
-had been found by trial and error to produce a fast, easily paddled
-rough-water kayak in an otherwise heavy hull. The North Labrador kayaks
-are the largest in the Arctic for a single person; some are reported as
-long as 26 feet. The long-and narrow-bladed paddle may be explained by
-the fact that the Eskimo never produced a "feathered" double paddle,
-with blades set at right angles to one another. To paddle against
-strong winds, he developed a blade that was very long and very narrow
-for a double-paddle, and therefore offered less resistance to the wind,
-yet could be dipped deep so that little propulsion effect was lost.
-
-The kayak used on the northeast coast of Labrador, shown in figure
-198, differs slightly from that of Hudson Strait. The northeast-coast
-kayak has a very slight ~V~-bottom and a strong concave sheer with
-relatively great rocker in the bottom. While the craft trims by the
-bow afloat, the rocker probably makes it more maneuverable than the
-Hudson Strait kayak, though less easily paddled against strong winds.
-The ~V~-bottom is formed by using a keelson that is heavier and deeper
-than the chines. The latter are thin, wide battens, on the flat. The
-V-bottom appears to help the boat run straight under paddle and may be
-said to counteract, to some extent at least, the effect of the strongly
-rockered bottom.
-
-The Polar coast of Greenland is the home of sharpie-model kayaks having
-flat bottoms and flaring sides; the kayaks in figures 199 and 200 are
-representative of those used in the extreme north. These have "clipper"
-bows, with sterns of varying depth and shape, concave sheer and varying
-degrees of rocker in the bottom. Most have their greatest beam well
-aft and draw more water forward, as do the Labrador and Baffin Island
-types. The chief characteristic of the construction of this type is
-that the transverse frames are in three parts, somewhat as in the
-umiak. However, these kayaks depart from umiak construction in having
-the frame heads rigidly tenoned into the gunwales. This is done to give
-the structure a measure of transverse rigidity which would otherwise
-be lacking, since light battens are used for the keelson, stem, and
-chines. Figure 199 shows the details of the construction used.
-
-These kayaks are highly developed craft--stable, fast, and
-seaworthy--and the construction is light yet strong enough to withstand
-the severe abuse sometimes given them. The cap on the fore part of
-the manhole is a paddle holder, for resting the paddle across the
-deck. Some Eskimos used this as a thole, and when tired, "rowed" the
-kayak with the paddle, to maintain control. It will be noted that
-oval or circular manholes are seldom found in the eastern types of
-kayaks already described; ~U~-shaped manholes, or bent-rim manholes
-approaching this form, appear in those very stable types which do not
-require to be righted at sea by the paddler and in which the watertight
-paddling jacket or waistband is not used.
-
-Farther south, on the northern coast of Greenland, and apparently also
-on the opposite coast of Baffin Island, a modified design of kayak is
-used. This type, illustrated in figure 205, shows relationship to both
-the flat-bottom kayak of northern Greenland and to the northeastern
-Labrador type. In this model the "clipper" bow is retained but the
-stern and cross section resemble those of the Labrador kayaks. The
-construction, however, is fundamentally that employed in northern
-Greenland. As in the Labrador type, the deadrise in the bottom is
-formed by using in the keelson members that are deeper than those in
-the chine. The gunwales do not flare as in the Greenland model, but
-stand vertical in the side flaring slightly at bow and extreme stern.
-The frame heads are rather loosely tenoned and are commonly secured
-to the gunwales with lashings. Transverse stiffness is obtained in
-this model by employing a rather heavy, rigid keelson fixed to the
-stern block, and by a tripod arrangement forward consisting of the
-stem batten and a pair of transverse frames placed at the junction of
-stem and keelson with their heads firmly lashed and tenoned into the
-gunwales. The construction, though strong, is rather rough compared
-to that of other Greenland types. The manhole rim in this type is
-not bent, but is made up of short straight pieces, as shown in the
-drawing; and the double-bladed paddle shown resembles that used in
-Labrador. This is a rather heavy kayak of very good qualities but not
-as maneuverable as some of the flat-bottom kayaks found farther north.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 197
-
-KAYAK FROM NORTH LABRADOR, Canada, in the Museum of the American
-Indian, Heye Foundation.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 198
-
-LABRADOR KAYAK, Canada, in the U.S. National Museum (USNM 251693).]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 199
-
-NORTH GREENLAND KAYAK, in the Museum of the American Indian, Heye
-Foundation.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 200
-
-NORTH GREENLAND KAYAK, in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass. Taken off by
-the late Norman L. Skene, 1921.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 201
-
-PROFILE OF GREENLAND KAYAK from Disko Bay, in the National Museum (USNM
-72564). Collected by Maj. Wm. M. Beebe, Jr., 1882. (_Smithsonian photo
-15726-D._)]
-
-Ross found that the Greenland Eskimos north of Cape York had ceased to
-use kayaks in 1818. Not until about 1860 was the kayak reintroduced
-here, by Eskimos from Pond Inlet, north Baffin Island, who walked over
-the sea ice. This fact probably accounts for the various sharpie and
-modified sharpie forms used along the northern and Polar coasts of
-Greenland.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 202
-
-DECK OF GREENLAND KAYAK from Disko Bay (USNM 72564). (_Smithsonian
-photo 15726-C._)]
-
-The model of the kayak used on much of the central and southern coasts
-of Greenland has changed rather extensively since 1883, and this
-change has apparently affected the kayaks used on the east coast as
-well. In this part of the Arctic, the Eskimo are notable kayakers and
-the boat is not only well designed but also carries highly developed
-equipment and weapons for its work. The basic model used is a graceful
-~V~-bottom one, with raking ends and rather strong sheer. In the old
-boats represented by the drawings of figures 206 and 207, the sheer
-is strong at bow and stern, but this form has been gradually going
-out of favor. The kayaks are narrow but their shape gives them much
-stability. Pegged to the bow and stern are plates of bone to protect
-them from ice; in rare cases these bone stem bands, or bang plates, are
-lashed in place. The first drawing shows the construction used: light
-strong gunwales and a 3-batten longitudinal system with bent transverse
-frames. The keelson and chines--light, rectangular in section and
-placed on edge--are shaped slightly to fair the sealskin covering. The
-cover passes under the manhole rim. Bow and stern are made of plank
-on edge, shaped to the required profile. The gunwales are strongly
-tapered in depth fore and aft. Eight to twelve thwarts, or deck beams,
-are used in addition to the two heavy thwarts supporting the manhole;
-usually there is one more forward of the manhole than there is aft,
-and all are very light scantlings. The thwart forward of the manhole
-stands slightly inside the cockpit and is strongly arched; the after
-one is clear of the cockpit opening and has very little arch. Two
-light, short battens, or carlins, 24 to 36 inches long support the
-deck, where it sweeps up to the raked manhole, and usually there are
-two abaft the manhole as well. Lashings are used as fastenings except
-at the ends of the hull, where pegs secure the keelson to the stem and
-stern; at this point, on some kayaks examined, sinew lashings are also
-found. The whole framework is strong, light, and neatly made. In a few
-instances the gunwales do not flare with the sides the whole length
-and, thus, near the stern, a knuckle is formed in the skin cover, as
-in figure 207, opposite. The exact amount of flare and deadrise varies
-village to village. The old kayaks used in eastern Greenland had more
-rake in the bow than the examples illustrated, and also were marked
-by a sheer almost straight from the bow to within a foot or so of the
-stern, where it turned up sharply to a high stern, as in the drawing
-(fig. 191, p. 203.) These kayaks also had less flare and deadrise than
-most of the southwestern Greenland models. The amount of rocker in the
-keelson varies a good deal, that shown in figure 206, opposite, appears
-to have been about the maximum; a straight keelson does not seem
-ever to have been used. The manholes are fitted to allow use of the
-watertight paddling jacket; the projecting rim shown at the after-side
-of the manhole in the drawing is primarily to strengthen the manhole
-rim, but may also serve to prevent the drawstring holding the skirt
-of the jacket to the rim from slipping over the top. This old form of
-Greenland kayak, which has been widely described and much admired,
-was a fast and handy hunting boat; but it has become obsolete in most
-areas, and seems to have gone out of use more rapidly on the east coast
-than the west, where the type represented in the drawing was built as
-late as 1959 at Umanak Fjord.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 203
-
-COCKPIT of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay. (USNM 72564). (_Smithsonian
-photo 15726._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 204
-
-BOW VIEW of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay (USNM 72564). (_Smithsonian
-photo 15726-A._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 205
-
-NORTHWESTERN GREENLAND KAYAK, in the U.S. National Museum (USNM
-160388).]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 206
-
-SOUTHWESTERN GREENLAND KAYAK, 1883, in the U.S. National Museum (USNM
-160328).]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 207
-
-SOUTHWESTERN GREENLAND KAYAK, in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass. Taken
-off by the late Norman L. Skene, 1921.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 208
-
-SOUTH GREENLAND KAYAK, in the American Museum of Natural History.]
-
-Since the 1880's it has been gradually replaced by the type shown
-above. The modern version has the same construction as the old but,
-as can be seen, the model has undergone much alteration. The rake of
-the bow and stern have become much greater; the sheer is now almost
-straight. The flare of the sides has been increased and the deadrise
-in the bottom has been reduced. The new model is undoubtedly an
-improvement over the old type, being faster (particularly against a
-headwind) and quicker turning. However, it would probably be found
-to be somewhat harder than the old model to right when capsized. And
-although the new model is more stable than the old, it is not suited
-for unskilled users; a few American soldiers drowned during World War
-II through rashly venturing into rough water before becoming practiced
-in the use of these kayaks.
-
-The intricate arrangement of deck lashings shown are required to hold
-weapons and accessories. Just ahead of the paddler a stand or tray on
-low legs holds the coiled harpoon line; and under the deck lashings are
-held such weapons as the lance, darts, and harpoons. Toggles of bone
-or ivory, often carved, are used to tighten and adjust these lines.
-The Greenland kayaks carry deck fittings and gear that are far better
-developed than those seen in any of the western types.
-
-
-
-
-_Chapter Eight_
-
-TEMPORARY CRAFT
-
-
-Use of temporary craft seems to have been confined to the Indians, who
-for the most part built them of bark, although some tribes used skins.
-However, very little in the way of information exists on the forms
-used by the individual tribes, for early travelers did not always have
-opportunities to see these emergency craft, and when they did they
-rarely took the trouble to record their construction and design.
-
-
-_Bark Canoes_
-
-There is ample evidence to support the belief that a great many of
-the tribes building birch-bark canoes also used temporary canoes of
-other barks such as spruce and elm, as has been mentioned in earlier
-chapters. Invariably, the qualities of these other barks, particularly
-spruce, were such that their use was often somewhat more laborious and
-the results less satisfactory than with birch; but the necessities of
-travel and the availability of materials were controlling factors, and
-with care spruce bark could be used to build a canoe almost as good as
-one of birch bark. The forms of these canoes do not appear to have been
-as standardized as the tribal forms of the better-built bark canoes;
-rather, the model of the temporary canoe was entirely a matter to be
-decided by the individual builder on the basis of the importance of
-the temporary canoe to his needs, the limitation on time allowed for
-construction, and the material available.
-
-The reasons for using substitute material are fairly obvious. In forest
-travel it was not always possible or practical to portage a canoe for
-a long distance simply to make a short water passage somewhere along
-the route. War parties and hunters, therefore, often found it necessary
-to build a temporary canoe, one that could be utilized for a limited
-water passage and then abandoned. Since such a limited use did not
-warrant expenditure of much time or labor on construction, the canoe
-was prepared quickly from readily available material and in order
-to meet these requirements many Indian tribes developed canoe forms
-and building techniques somewhat different from the more elaborate
-construction using birch or spruce bark.
-
-It is obvious that much time and work could be avoided by use of a
-single large sheet of bark that was reasonably flexible and strong. But
-many of the barks meeting this specification had a coarse longitudinal
-grain that split easily, so forming a canoe by cutting gores was out of
-the question. This difficulty was avoided by folding, or "crimping,"
-the bark cover along the gunwales at two or more places on each side of
-the canoe; this permitted the bottom to be flattened athwartships and
-the keel line to be rockered, both desirable in a canoe.
-
-The problem of closing the ends also had to be solved. This was done
-by clamping the ends of the bark between two battens and, perhaps, a
-bark cord as well, and then lashing together the battens, bark ends,
-and cord with wrappings of root thongs. Cord made from the inner bark
-of the basswood and other trees could also be used for this purpose.
-The ends of the canoe could then be made watertight by a liberal
-application of gum or tallow, while grass, shavings, moss, or inner
-bark mixed with gum or even clay could be used to fill the larger
-openings that might appear in hurried construction.
-
-Obviously, a simple wood structure was required by the specifications.
-Therefore, the gunwales were usually made of saplings with their butts
-roughly secured together or spliced. This allowed length to be obtained
-without the necessity of working down large poles to usable dimensions,
-a laborious and time-consuming undertaking with primitive tools. The
-thwarts were commonly of saplings with the ends cut away so that the
-thin remainder could be wrapped around the main gunwales and lashed
-underneath the thwarts inboard. Ribs were usually of split saplings,
-but there is some evidence that in very hurriedly built canoes the
-whole small sapling was used. The kind of sheathing employed in these
-canoes during the pre-Columbian era is a mystery. It would be quite
-unlikely that time was taken to split splints such as were used in the
-late elm-and spruce-bark canoes, when steel tools were available. The
-writers believe that for small canoes it may have been the practice
-to use a second sheet of stiff bark inside the first and extending
-only through the middle two-thirds of the length, across the bottom
-and up above the bilge but short of the gunwales. This, with the
-ribs and a few poles lashed to each rib along the bottom, would have
-given sufficient longitudinal strength and a stiff enough bottom for
-practical use. However, in large canoes of the type reputedly employed
-by Iroquois warriors, a stronger construction seems necessary, and
-these canoes may have had a number of split or whole poles lashed to
-the ribs along the bottom.
-
-With small variations in details, the general construction outlined
-above was employed by many North American Indians for building
-temporary canoes for emergency use. In at least one case, however, it
-was also used in canoes of somewhat more permanent status within the
-boundaries of the powerful Iroquois Confederation. On large bodies
-of water within their territory, the Iroquois used dugouts, but for
-navigating streams and for use in raiding their enemies they employed
-bark canoes. While some birch bark was available there, it was probably
-widely scattered; therefore these great warriors used elm or other bark
-for their canoe building.
-
-Early French accounts show that the Iroquois built bark canoes of
-greater size than ordinary; Champlain wrote that their canoes were of
-oak bark and were large enough to carry up to 18 warriors; later French
-accounts, as we shall see, indicate that the Iroquois used even larger
-canoes than these. Champlain may have been in error about the Iroquois
-use of oak bark, as suggested earlier (p. 7), for experiments have
-shown that the inner bark of this tree is too thin and weak for the
-purpose; the canoes Champlain saw may have been built of white or red
-elm bark. The barks of the butternut, hickory, white pine, and chestnut
-might also have been employed, as they were usually suitable.
-
-It was noted by the early French writers that the Iroquois built their
-bark canoes very rapidly when these craft were required by a war party
-in order to attack their enemies or to escape pursuit. In one case at
-least the canoes for a war party were apparently built in a single day.
-This was accomplished, it seems, by the excellent organization of their
-war parties, in which every man was assigned a duty, even in making
-canoes.
-
-When it was deemed necessary to build a canoe, certain warriors were to
-search out and obtain the necessary materials in the order required for
-construction. To do this effectively, they had to know the materials in
-order of their suitability for a given purpose, for the most desirable
-material might not be available at the building site. Other warriors
-prepared the materials for construction, scraping the bark, making
-thongs, and rough-shaping the wood. Others built the canoe, cutting and
-sewing the bark, and shaping and lashing the woodwork. These duties,
-too, required intimate knowledge of the different materials that could
-be used in canoe construction. It would be natural, of course, to find
-that the methods used to construct a temporary craft for a war-party
-would also be employed at home by the hunter or fisherman, even when a
-rather more permanent canoe was desired. These were smaller craft and
-easily built. Only when a long-lasting watercraft was desired would
-the bark canoe be unsatisfactory; then the dugout could be built. The
-early French observers agree that though the Iroquois occasionally used
-birch-bark canoes, these were acquired from their neighbors by barter
-or capture and were not built by the tribesmen of the Confederation.
-
-The details of the construction of elm canoes (and of other bark than
-birch) by the Iroquois are speculative, since no bark canoe of their
-construction has been preserved. This reconstruction of their methods
-is, therefore, based upon the incomplete accounts of early writers and
-upon what has been discovered about the construction of spruce-and
-elm-bark temporary canoes by other Eastern Indians.
-
-In view of what has been reported, it must be kept in mind that the
-construction was hasty and that a minimum of labor and time was
-employed; hence, the appearance of the elm-bark canoe of an Iroquois
-war-party had none of the gracefulness that is supposed to mark the
-traditional war canoe of the Indians. The ends are known to have been
-"square," that is, straight in profile, and the freeboard low. The
-use of saplings for the gunwales would cause an uneven sheer, and
-its amount must have been small; the high, graceful ends seen in some
-birch-bark canoes did not exist in the Iroquois model. The rocker of
-the bottom profile was not a fair curve, but was angular, made of
-straight lines breaking under the folds, or "crimps," in the bark cover
-at the gunwales. The amount of bark in each crimp and the location
-of the crimps fore-and-aft would determine the shape of the bottom
-profile and the amount of rocker, as well as the flatness of the bottom
-athwartships in the midbody. It appears that two crimps to the side
-were employed in most of these canoes, but perhaps more, say four to
-a side, might have been employed in a very large canoe. The tendency
-in forming these canoes must have been toward an almost semicircular
-midsection, a condition which would have produced an unstable craft if
-not checked.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 209
-
-MALECITE AND IROQUOIS TEMPORARY CANOES. The Iroquois 3-fathom elm-bark
-canoe, below, is designed to carry ten to twelve warriors.]
-
-The early French writers agree that the canoes of Iroquois war parties
-were sluggish under paddle. This was due to the fact that the hull
-form of these canoes was not good for speed, and also because the
-bulges at the bottom of the crimps caused them to be markedly unfair
-at and near the waterline. This handicap in their canoes may have been
-an inducement for the Iroquois to waylay their victims at portages
-when the travellers were usually spread out and easily cut down while
-burdened with goods. The Algonkin tribes countered by moving in very
-large numbers when within striking distance of Iroquois raiders. Hence
-there were very few recorded instances of battles in canoes; these took
-place only when sudden meetings occurred without preparation on either
-side, such as when war parties surprised canoemen in narrow waters. The
-shortcomings of their canoes did not seriously affect the deadliness of
-the Iroquois warriors, for their usual practice was to raid in winter,
-when they could travel rapidly on snowshoes and surprise their enemies
-in winter camps wholly unprepared for defense, a most pleasing prospect
-for the attacking warrior.
-
-It would be a mistake, however, to assume that these factors made the
-Iroquois poor canoemen; the French repeatedly stated that they were
-capable in handling their craft and ran rapids with great daring and
-skill, showing that the apparently crude and weak elm-bark canoes were
-far better craft than they first appeared.
-
-The theory that the Iroquois type of canoe was very like the emergency
-or temporary elm-and spruce-bark canoes of neighboring tribes is
-supported by some statements of the early French writers, as well as by
-a comparison of the rather incomplete descriptions of Iroquois canoes
-by later travellers with what is known about the spruce and other
-temporary bark canoes used in more recent times by the eastern Indians.
-M. Bacqueville de la Poterie, writing of the adventures of Nicholas
-Perrot in the years 1665 to 1670, tells of an instance in which
-Perrot's Potawatomi mistook the emergency canoes of some Outaouais
-(Ottawa) for Iroquois canoes.
-
-LaHontan (1700) gives some general information as well as specific
-opinions on the speed and seaworthiness of Iroquois canoes, saying
-that--
-
-  the canoes with which the Iroquois provide themselves are so
-  unwieldy and large that they do not approach the speed of those
-  which are made of birch bark. They are made of elm bark, which is
-  naturally heavy and the shape they give them is awkward; they are
-  so long and so broad that thirty men can row in them, two-by-two,
-  seated or standing, fifteen to each rank, but the freeboard is so
-  low that when any little wind arises they are sensible enough not
-  to navigate the lakes [in them].
-
-LaFiteau, writing before 1724, stated definitely that the Iroquois
-did not build any birch-bark canoes, but obtained them from their
-neighbors, and that the Iroquois elm-bark canoes were very coarsely
-built of a single large sheet of bark, crimped along the gunwales, with
-the ends secured between battens of split saplings. He noticed that the
-gunwales, ribs, and thwarts were of "tree branches," implying that the
-bark was not removed from them. The most detailed description was by a
-Swedish traveller, Professor Pher Kalm, who gave extensive information
-on the construction of an elm-bark canoe in 1749; this account is
-particularly useful when interpreted in relation to the spruce-and
-elm-bark canoes of the eastern Indians. It is upon the basis of Kalm's
-account that the procedures used to build an Iroquois war canoe have
-been reconstructed.
-
-The bark most favored by the Iroquois was that of the white elm.
-Next most favored was red elm, and then other barks--certain of the
-hickories and chestnut are mentioned in various early references.
-It was necessary to find a tree of sufficient girth and height to
-the first limbs to give a sound and fairly smooth bark sheet in the
-length and breadth required. If possible the bark was stripped from
-the standing tree; even after steel tools were available, felling was
-avoided for fear of harming the bark. Great care had to be taken in
-the operation, to avoid splitting or making holes in the bark, and
-often two or more trees had to be stripped before a good sheet of
-bark was obtained. In warm weather the bark could be removed without
-much difficulty, but in the spring and fall it might be necessary to
-apply heat; this was apparently done by means of torches or by the
-application of hot water to the tree trunk.
-
-When the bark was removed from the tree, the rough outer bark was
-scraped away; if the builder was hurried this scraping was confined to
-the areas to be sewn or folded. The bark was then laid on a cleared
-piece of ground, the building bed, with the outside of the bark up,
-so that it would be inside the finished boat. The building bed does
-not appear to have required much preparation; apparently not raised at
-midlength, it was merely a plot of reasonably smooth ground, located in
-the shade of a large tree if building was to be done in summer.
-
-It is not wholly clear from the descriptions whether the gunwales were
-shaped before or after being secured to the bark. However, extensive
-experiments in building model canoes show very plainly that it would
-be easiest to assemble the main gunwale frame and use it in building,
-after the fashion of eastern birch-bark canoe construction. With the
-main gunwales assembled, the stakes would be placed on the bed, the
-bark replaced, the frame laid on it and weighted, and the stakes then
-redriven in the usual way and their heads lashed together in pairs.
-
-Each gunwale was formed either of two small saplings or of split poles,
-with the butts scarfed at the canoe's midlength. The canoe of an
-Iroquois war party would probably have gunwales of split saplings so
-that inwale and outwale for half the length of one side of the canoe
-would be from a single pole; this would allow the flat sides to be
-placed opposite one another, on each side of the edge of the bark, to
-form a firm gunwale structure. However, when a rather permanent craft
-was being built, the poles might be split twice, or quartered, to give
-pieces to make half of the gunwales of a canoe; these too might be
-worked nearly round before assembly.
-
-That the gunwale joints were scarfed is reasonably certain. The
-elm-bark canoes of the St. Francis Indians are known only from a
-model, as are the spruce-bark hunters' canoes of the Malecite, but the
-testimony of old St. Francis and Malecite builders support the evidence
-of the models; therefore it is probable that the use of scarfed
-gunwales was common in these canoes, and, hence, also in the canoes of
-the Iroquois, who dwelt nearby. The manner of scarfing is not certain.
-Probably the butts were snied off so that the lap would be flat face,
-as was usual in the Malecite spruce-bark canoes of this same class. The
-butts were secured together by lashings--apparently let into shallow
-grooves around the members. In a very hastily built canoe the butts
-might be merely lapped for a short distance, one butt above the other,
-and lashed; this, of course, would make a jog in the sheer, but do no
-harm, as the jog would occur in both inwale and outwale, and the bark
-would lay up between these and be trimmed to suit.
-
-The thwarts were described in old accounts as very small saplings, or
-tree branches, with their ends sharply reduced in thickness so that
-they were thin and pliable enough to be bent around the gunwales and
-brought inboard under the thwart, as done by some Kutenai in the West
-(see p. 169). The thwart ends might be lashed or, as in some eastern
-spruce-bark canoes, brought up through a hole in the thwarts to the
-top where it could be jammed or lashed. In the Iroquois canoe it seems
-probable that the thwart ends passed around the main gunwales only and
-were secured under the thwarts for, as noted, the evidence strongly
-suggests that the main gunwale members were preassembled, a procedure
-that requires the thwarts to be in place. In the small hunters' canoes,
-however, some eastern builders apparently put in a temporary spreader
-in place of a single thwart until the canoe was completed to the point
-where the outwales were in place, then the thwarts were added, the ends
-passing over and around both inwale and outwale and through the bark
-cover below, to the underside of the thwart.
-
-One requirement in building these canoes was to crimp the edges of the
-bark at the gunwales in such manner that the bottom of the canoe would
-be rockered and at the same time would be moulded athwartships. First
-steps in the process were to set into the building bed two heavy stakes
-on each side of the stems, a little inboard of the ends, and to tie
-the heads of each pair together with a heavy bark cord or a rawhide
-thong. Then a sling was made, the bight of which went under the bottom
-of the bark cover near its ends, and the ends of the sling were made
-fast to the heads of the stakes. By taking up on these slings, the ends
-of the bark cover were sharply lifted and then the folding of the bark
-along the gunwales could be easily accomplished, as they then formed
-naturally, without strain. The crimps were commonly located a fourth to
-a fifth the length of the canoe inboard of the ends, about where the
-end thwarts would be located. In small hunters' canoes the end thwarts
-were often replaced by twisted cords across the gunwales, but in the
-large Iroquois canoes there were probably five or seven or perhaps as
-many as nine thwarts according to length.
-
-The ends of the gunwales were simply lashed together with cords or
-thongs in shallow grooves to prevent slipping. They were raised by a
-small inside post, its heel placed on the bark near the stem and its
-head brought under the gunwales, so that it served the purpose of a
-headboard in sheering the gunwales.
-
-The procedure in building to this point, then, appeared to follow the
-general plan used in birch-bark construction. Next, the stakes were
-redriven in the bed around the gunwale frame, which was weighted on
-the bark with stones, and the sides of the bark cover were brought
-upright. Apparently only a few stakes were considered necessary--three
-or four to a side and two pairs of end stakes to raise the stems. The
-gunwale frame was then lifted to the required height of side and lashed
-temporarily to the side stakes, the ends of the bark cover were creased
-to form bow and stern, and the headboard posts were inserted to support
-the ends of the inwales and to sheer the canoe. Before this, of course,
-the ends of the bark cover had been raised by means of the slings to
-the end stakes.
-
-The outwales of split saplings were now put into place, with the edges
-of the bark cover lashed between the flat surfaces of the inwale and
-outwale, the gunwales having been assembled with the flat face of
-the longitudinal members outboard. The lashings were in small groups
-spaced 5 to 7 inches apart so as not to split the bark, and these not
-only secured the bark in place but also held the inwales and outwales
-tightly together, to clamp the edges of the bark cover. At the thwarts,
-the outwales were notched on their inboard face to allow them to come
-up against the bark pressed against the face of the inwales (in some
-eastern canoes the bark cover was notched at the thwart ends to lay
-up smoothly there, and this may have also been done in the Iroquois
-canoes). In placing the outwales, the crimps were carefully formed and
-held by the clamping action of the inwale and outwale, and reinforced
-by a lashing through the crimp or by two lashings close to the sides of
-the fold. The fold of the bark forced the outwale away from the inwale,
-and although this was counteracted to some extent by the lashings, the
-gunwales were unfair at these points. The crimps were formed so that
-the maximum fold in the bark took place at the gunwales; below this the
-fold tapered away to nothing, ending low in the side with an irregular
-bulge in the bark. Such a bulge could only be avoided by goring, which
-is impractical with elm, pine, chestnut, or hickory barks.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 210
-
-HICKORY-BARK CANOE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, showing the sling with which
-the ends are elevated and the crimp which takes up the slack in the
-sides of the bark. Excess bark above the gunwales to be trimmed off.
-Completed model in The Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Va.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 211
-
-DETAIL OF THWART used in Malecite temporary spruce-bark canoe.]
-
-The ends of the canoe were closed, as has been mentioned, by use of
-split-sapling battens on the outside of the bark. The Iroquois and some
-other builders also employed at the stems a thong or a twisted cord
-made of the inner bark of some such tree as the basswood; this was
-wrapped around the ends of the bark cover abreast the headboard posts
-inside the canoe, so that the lashing stood vertically. Then the split
-battens were placed on each side of the bark cover, just outboard of
-the cord, and the whole was secured by a coarse spiral lashing of root
-or rawhide, which passed inboard of the cord lashing and the headboard
-post, as well as around them and the split battens outside of the bark
-cover. Some builders apparently added a split-root batten over the
-edges of the bark cover, as a sort of stem-band; this was secured by
-the turns of the stem closure lashing, which passed around them as
-well as the edges of the bark and the split side battens. It can be
-seen that this closure formed a strong stem structure. Watertightness
-was insured by merely forcing clay into the stems from the inside,
-or by forcing in a wad of the pounded inner bark of a dead red elm
-which would swell when damp. Still other methods included the use of
-grass or moss impregnated with warm tallow from the cooking pot. If
-available, the stems would be liberally smeared with spruce or other
-gum, of course.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 212
-
-IROQUOIS ELM-BARK CANOE, after a drawing of 1849, equipped with paddles
-for a crew of six, with owners' personal marks on blades. Length
-of canoe 25 feet, with capacity for a war party of a dozen or more
-men. Note supporting piece of cord tied in with the end battens. Far
-gunwales are improperly sketched.]
-
-While the ribs were customarily tree branches or small saplings, in
-some canoes the saplings were split and bent so their flat face was
-against the bark. In the East, hunters' canoes were often given the
-lath-like ribs of the birch-bark canoes, for when steel tools became
-available such ribs were easily made during the winter for use in the
-spring, when the temporary canoe would be needed.
-
-According to the early reports, the ribs were placed some 6 to 10
-inches apart in the bark cover, with the heads forced under the inwales
-against the bark, and were supported there by the outwales as well. No
-mention is made of any sheathing; Kalm refers to a piece of bark and
-some saplings or tree branches laid over the ribs to protect the bottom
-inboard. In the large Iroquois canoes it would have been possible and
-practical to employ a piece of bark inside the main bark cover, as
-noted on page 213; this inside piece needed to be only long enough to
-reach to the end thwarts, or abreast the crimps, and wide enough to
-cover the bottom and bilges up to 3 or 4 inches short of the inwales.
-With the ribs over this inner sheet, a stiff bottom would result. In a
-long canoe, split poles could be laid lengthwise inside the bottom of
-the canoe and fastened there by lashing them to a few ribs; these would
-serve to protect the bottom in loading and to stiffen the bark cover.
-However, in a small canoe the stiffness of elm bark when the rough
-outside layer was not fully scraped off would make sheathing of any
-kind unnecessary, and the bark mat inside the ribs, mentioned by Kalm,
-would be sufficient.
-
-The difficulty in reconstructing the building methods of the large
-Iroquois canoes on the same basis is that Kalm's description is of a
-rather small canoe; the information on the temporary canoes of the
-eastern Indians also deals with short craft. It is evident, however,
-that poles were not usually placed between the bark and the ribs, as
-in temporary skin canoes built by Indians. It is also apparent that
-splints were not used by the Iroquois for sheathing large canoes.
-
-The ends of the outwales in the Iroquois canoes seem to have been
-secured by snying them off on the outside face and holding these thin
-ends by the cord around the ends, as well as by the closure battens
-of the stems. In some eastern canoes, notably the elm-bark canoes of
-the St. Francis, the outwale ends projected slightly outboard of the
-stems and were lashed across them by a simple athwartship lashing which
-passed through the bark cover and under and over the lashing at the
-inwale ends.
-
-In a drawing of an Iroquois canoe made about 1849, the cord around the
-stems is shown together with the outside stem battens and lashing; the
-ends of the outwales are apparently under the cord and perhaps under
-the stem battens. The stem batten is in one piece sharply bent under
-the stems in ~U~-form. The end lashing shown seems to be in groups and
-the bottom, for a little distance inboard of the stems, is also shown
-as lashed. Three thwarts are shown. It may be that this drawing was
-made not from a full-size canoe but from a model, for the proportions
-are obviously incorrect. This possibility casts some doubt on the
-picture as evidence of the building practices, for in Indian-built
-models simplified construction details not used in actual canoe
-building are often found.
-
-According to early accounts and the statements of eastern Indians,
-these emergency canoes were often heavy and unsuitable for portaging.
-By 1750, at least, the Iroquois were using blanket square-sails in
-their elm-bark canoes.
-
-
-_Skin Boats_
-
-Among the other forms of temporary or emergency canoes used by North
-American Indians, the most widespread was some form of skin boat.
-These would not require description here were it not for the fact
-that the Indian skin boats were usually built by bark-canoe methods
-of construction rather than by methods such as used by the Eskimo. To
-build their skin boats--kayaks and umiaks--the Eskimo first constructed
-a complete framework, and this was then covered with skins sewn to fit.
-This process of building required a rigid framework capable of not only
-standing without a skin covering but also of giving both longitudinal
-and transverse strength sufficient to withstand loading, without the
-slightest support from the skin covering. Hence, the framework of
-the Eskimo craft was made with the members rigidly lashed and pegged
-together. The majority of Indian skin canoes, however, required the
-covering to hold the framework together, as in a birch-bark canoe.
-An example is the Malecite skin-covered hunters' canoe. According to
-available information, the Malecite hunter would leave two or three
-moose skins on stretchers for use in building a skin canoe in the early
-spring. Sometimes the hair was removed from the hides and sometimes it
-was not. Spare time during the winter hunt might be spent in preparing
-the wooden framework, but if this were not done the delay would not be
-very great.
-
-The gunwale frame was first made of four small sapling poles roughly
-scarfed at the butts. From a small sapling a middle thwart was made
-in the manner of the elm-bark canoe thwarts, the ends tapered enough
-to allow them to be wrapped around the gunwales and secured under
-the thwart by lashings. The ends of the gunwales were merely crossed
-and lashed. Where end thwarts would be placed, it was usual to use a
-cross tie made of twisted rawhide or cords of bark fiber. Holes were
-then drilled at intervals in the underside of the gunwale to take the
-heads of the ribs. Stem-pieces about 3 feet long were prepared of
-short saplings and bent to the desired profile; one builder used a
-full-length keel-piece, instead of the short stem-pieces. The ribs were
-usually of small saplings that could be bent green without the use of
-hot water. For sheathing a number of small saplings were also gathered,
-and from them were made poles in lengths about equal to three-quarters,
-or a little more, of the intended length of the canoe, which would be
-determined by the size of the skins available. The average canoe was
-about 12½ feet long, roughly 40 inches beam, and 14 to 19 inches in
-depth.
-
-The skins were sewn together lengthwise, lapped about 6 inches or a
-little less, and secured by a double row of stitching. If the hair had
-not been removed, it had to be scraped away along the sewn edges. In
-such a case the hair would usually be on the outside of the finished
-canoe. Also, before work was started on assembling a canoe, the skins
-were worked pliable, and tallow and gum were accumulated.
-
-When an emergency canoe was ready to be assembled a smooth place was
-prepared; either an open bit of ground or the floor of the hunter's
-hut, if large enough, might be used. The outlines of the gunwales were
-fixed by a few stakes temporarily driven around it and then pulled
-up. The skins were then laid on the bed and the gunwale frame placed
-on them and weighted with stones. Then the skins were left to dry for
-awhile until they became somewhat stiff; the proper condition was
-indicated by the curling of the edges.
-
-When the skin was sufficiently stiff, the gunwale frame was lifted and
-temporarily secured to the stakes redriven in the bed, the sides of the
-skin were turned up, the skin was gored, and sometimes the ends of the
-gunwales were sheered up slightly at the end stakes; this latter was
-not always done, for in some canoes the sheer was quite flat.
-
-The skins were now trimmed to the sheer of the gunwales and the edges
-lashed to these members with rawhide, the gores also having been
-sewn. Next the stem-pieces were put into place and the stem heads
-lashed inside the apex formed by the ends of the gunwales. Some ribs
-were then bent and forced down on the stiff skin cover, the rib ends
-being worked into the holes prepared for them on the underside of the
-gunwales. These ribs usually stood approximately square to the curve,
-or rocker, of the bottom. Now the skin could be trimmed to the stem
-profiles and sewn. The stitching was usually done so as to be outside
-the stem-pieces, with an occasional turn going around inside them to
-help hold the structure in place. Some builders first put in the stems
-temporarily and then trimmed the skins to match; after this was done
-the stem-pieces were removed to allow easy sewing. When they were
-replaced and secured permanently, a few more stitches were added along
-the stems to secure the woodwork.
-
-The next step was to sheath the canoe inside with the small poles;
-these were placed a few inches apart transversely and their ends worked
-under the most inboard of the ribs on the stem-pieces, then held in
-place, while the necessary adjustments were made, by a few temporary
-ribs. Then the ribs were forced into place, one by one, each prebent to
-the desired section, just as in birch-bark canoe construction. In this
-final shaping, the skin cover might have to be wetted again to soften
-the material and to allow stretching. The seams were then payed with
-gum or tallow, and the canoe was ready for launching.
-
-The description is for canoes of minimum finish; builders often used
-split and shaped gunwales, split ribs, and splint sheathing if these
-could be prepared during the winter. The construction of a skin canoe
-was not a specialized process in which a hunter consistently built
-this one type; the selection was determined by natural conditions.
-If he were to come out of the woods too early in the spring to make
-the construction of a spruce-bark canoe easy, then he would resort to
-skin construction; the statements of old Malecite hunters leads to the
-conclusion that as emergency craft they used spruce-bark canoes most
-often.
-
-Perhaps the most primitive of the skin boats built by the North
-American Indian was the so-called bull-boat of the Plains Indians.
-These were not canoes but coracles--bowl-shaped and suitable only for
-use on streams, where ferrying would be the main requirement. The boats
-were covered with buffalo-hides and their framework was usually made of
-the willow shoots found along the streams. The framework followed, to
-some extent at least, the basketwork principle, a circular gunwale or
-rim being used. The ribs were set in two groups, half at right angles
-to the other half in very irregular fashion. This construction formed
-a sort of rough grating in the bottom. The ribs were lashed together
-with rawhide and apparently the craft was built up on the skin as were
-the Malecite skin canoes. Battens in circular form were used on the
-sides to fair the cover. The form of the bull-boat varied somewhat
-among individual builders; sometimes it assumed almost a dish shape
-with shallow flaring sides, but more commonly the sides were nearly
-upright; the bottom was always flat, or nearly so. These bull-boats
-appear always to have been small. Judging by the examples preserved,
-a bull-boat 5 feet over the rim or gunwale, or made of more than one
-skin, was extremely rare, and most examples are nearer 4 feet and
-built on a single skin. Many were too small to carry a person; these
-were intended to be loaded with cargo to be kept dry and towed by a
-swimmer. When they were large enough to be paddled, the paddler worked
-over the "bow," as in a coracle. Probably all the Plains Indians living
-near streams once used the bull-boat, but existing records show only
-the Mandan, Omaha, Kansas, Hidatsa, and Assiniboin to have used it.
-The Blackfoot (Siksika) and Dakota are said to have used some kind of
-a skin boat in which their tepee poles were employed as a temporary
-frame, but nothing is recorded of their form.
-
-The use of spruce bark as a building material in the Northwest and
-throughout the extreme northern range of the birch-bark canoe has been
-discussed in earlier chapters (pp. 155 to 158). In these areas, the
-emergency canoe was usually built of caribou skin. On the Alaskan coast
-seal skin may also have been used, but generally it was used for the
-permanent kayak-type canoe and not for a hastily built temporary craft.
-The caribou-skin canoe was also built as a permanent type, in either
-kayak form or somewhat on the model of the spruce-or birch-bark canoe
-of the area. However, although references to temporary craft covered
-with caribou skin exist in early accounts of the fur trade, there is
-no record of their form or details of their construction. Early in the
-present century some of the Indians of the Mackenzie River country
-built skin canoes much like the modern canvas-covered freight canoes.
-Also, some of these skin canoes were built so that they resembled York
-boats or the whaleboats of the white man. No observer has described the
-methods used to construct the emergency canoe of the Northwest; we do
-not know whether they resemble those used in the Indian bark canoe or
-in the Eskimo skin boat.
-
-
-
-
-_Retrospect_
-
-
-In view of the inclusion of skin boats in this discussion of bark
-canoes, it may be well to emphasize again the fact that the North
-American Indian's method of constructing bark canoes and of temporary
-skin canoes was on an entirely different principle than that used by
-the Eskimo in building their skin boats. This is even true of the
-kayak-form bark canoes of the Northwest, despite their superficial
-similarity in design and proportions to the Eskimo skin kayak.
-
-As has been stated, the Eskimo construction required a rigid frame,
-with all members fastened together with lashings and pegs, the skin
-cover being merely the watertight envelope and not a strength member.
-This system of construction marks primitive skin-boat design in most
-parts of the world. The Indian bark construction, on the other hand,
-did not have a rigid frame, and all but a few of the structural members
-were held in place by pressure alone: the sheathing was held against
-the bark cover by pressure of the ribs; the stem-pieces, in most cases,
-were held in place by pressure of the ribs, gunwale sheering, or
-headboards. In fact without the bark cover in place, the greater part
-of the wooden structure of the bark canoe would collapse. Not only was
-the bark cover the fundamental basis of construction, it was to a great
-extent a strength member, though by clever design the loading of the
-bark was minimized.
-
-This fundamental difference in construction must be recognized in
-comparisons of Eskimo and North American Indian watercraft. Here, too,
-it might be observed that one should view with skepticism any claim
-that widespread similarity of certain structural practices is evidence
-of some ancient connection between types of canoes. In most cases
-these similarities were imposed by the working characteristics of the
-materials employed. Similarly, limitations in materials available for
-construction have their effect upon building techniques.
-
-The practice of employing pressure members in bark-canoe construction,
-particularly where birch bark was employed, was the result of the need
-to stretch this material by gentle and widespread pressure, whereas the
-skin cover could be stretched by the concentrated pull of stitching
-alone, or by force applied in a small area. Bark canoes built in areas
-where skin-kayak construction is carried on nearby show a greater
-rigidity of structure. Thus, in the lower Yukon Valley in Alaska the
-bottom frame of the canoes built there was a rigidly constructed unit,
-even though the side longitudinals were held in place by rib pressure
-alone. And it is reasonable to theorize that the Malecite, who through
-habit still employed bark-canoe construction practices in building
-their skin craft, would have eventually come to the Eskimo method of
-construction had conditions required them to use skins exclusively.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 213
-
-LARGE MOOSE-HIDE CANOE of upper Gravel River, Mackenzie valley.
-(_Photo, George M. Douglas._)]
-
-
-
-
-_Appendix_
-
-  The Kayak Roll                                         _John D. Heath_
-
-
-The most extraordinary feat of kayak handling is the ability to right
-the craft after a capsize. This maneuver, called "rolling," is usually
-practiced by capsizing on one side and recovering on the other. Under
-emergency conditions, a kayaker will recover on whichever side is
-more convenient. When rolling, a kayaker wears a waterproof jacket
-having long sleeves and a hood. The waist, face, and wrist openings
-are fitted with drawstrings, so that when the waist opening is fitted
-over the cockpit rim, the kayak and kayaker become a waterproof unit.
-Thus equipped, the kayak is the most seaworthy craft of its size, this
-quality being limited only by the skill and stamina of the kayaker.
-
-The art of kayak rolling was highly developed in Alaska and Greenland.
-Eskimos in both of these regions depended upon seal hunting by kayak
-as a major part of their economy, hence the ability to roll was an
-important means of survival. Very little detailed information exists
-regarding Alaskan kayakers, but the Greenlanders have been the object
-of intensive study by ethnographers and explorers. The earliest
-detailed record of rolling was that of David Crantz, a European
-missionary, who in 1767 enumerated ten methods of rolling in his
-_History of Greenland_.[7] His description follows.
-
-[7] See bibliography.
-
-  1. The Greenlander lays himself first on one side, then on the
-  other, with his body flat upon the water, (to imitate the case of
-  one who is nearly, but not quite overset) and keeps the balance
-  with his _pautik_ or oar, so that he raises himself again.
-
-  2. He overturns himself quite, so that his head hangs perpendicular
-  underwater; in this dreadful posture he gives himself a swing with
-  a stroke of his paddle, and raises himself aloft again on which
-  side he will.
-
-  These are the most common cases of misfortune, which frequently
-  occur in storms and high waves; but they still suppose that the
-  Greenlander retains the advantage of his _pautik_ in his hand, and
-  is disentangled from the seal-leather strap. But it may easily
-  happen in the seal-fishery, that the man becomes entangled with
-  the string, so that he either cannot rightly use the _pautik_, or
-  that he loses it entirely. Therefore they must be prepared for this
-  casualty. With this view
-
-  3. They run one end of the _pautik_ under one of the cross-strings
-  of the kajak, (to imitate its being entangled) overset, and
-  scrabble up again by means of the artful motion of the other end of
-  the _pautik_.
-
-  4. They hold one end of it in their mouth, and yet move the other
-  end with their hand, so as to rear themselves upright again.
-
-  5. They lay the _pautik_ behind their neck, and hold it there with
-  both hands, or,
-
-  6. Hold it fast behind their back; so overturn, and by stirring it
-  with both their hands behind them, without bringing it before, rise
-  and recover.
-
-  7. They lay it across one shoulder, take hold of it with one hand
-  before, and the other behind their back, and thus emerge from the
-  deep.
-
-  These exercises are of service in cases where the _pautik_ is
-  entangled with the string; but because they may also quite lose it,
-  in which the greatest danger lies, therefore,
-
-  8. Another exercise is, to run the _pautik_ through the water under
-  the kajak, hold it fast on both sides with their face lying on the
-  kajak, in this position overturn, and rise again by moving the oar
-  _secundum artem_ on the top of the water from beneath. This is of
-  service when they lose the oar during the oversetting, and yet see
-  it swimming over them, to learn to manage it with both hands from
-  below.
-
-  9. They let the oar go, turn themselves head down, reach their hand
-  after it, and from the surface pull it down to them, and so rebound
-  up.
-
-  10. But if they can't possibly reach it, they take either the
-  hand-board off from the harpoon, or a knife, and try by the force
-  of these, or even splashing the water with the palm of their hand,
-  to swing themselves above water; but this seldom succeeds.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 214
-
-THE STANDARD GREENLAND ROLL
-
-The solid lines represent the starting position for a clockwise
-roll (disregard the phantom lines until later). The paddle is held
-blade-on-edge along the starboard gunwale, with one end near the right
-hip, and the other end toward the bow. The kayaker leans forward and
-faces slightly to starboard. His left forearm is against, or near, the
-foredeck, and his left hand reaches across the starboard gunwale to
-grasp the paddle near, but short of, the middle. The right hand holds
-the paddle near the end, about even with the hip. The palms of both
-hands pass over the paddle, so that the knuckles are outboard. The
-kayaker takes a deep breath, leans to starboard and capsizes.
-
-(Now turn the page upside down)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 214
-
-The same lines which represented the starting position now represent
-a fish-eye view of the fully capsized position. The phantom lines
-represent the upright position, or goal. To right himself, the kayaker--
-
-(1) Flicks his wrists to swing his knuckles toward his face, thus
-causing the outboard edge of the paddle to assume a slight planing
-angle (not shown) with the water surface. The remaining steps
-constitute one continuous movement, to be done as quickly as possible.
-
-(2) With his hips and right hand serving as pivot points, he sweeps his
-forward paddle blade, and his torso, outward in a 90-degree planing arc
-on the water surface, as shown from position (1) to (3), while pulling
-down on his left hand and pushing up on his right, thus lifting himself
-to the surface.
-
-(3) Completes the roll by flicking his wrists to flatten the blade
-angle, then sharply increasing his opposing hand pressures, thus
-raising himself in a chinning attitude as the paddle blade sinks and is
-drawn inward. The roll is now completed.] Since Crantz's time, various
-authors have described kayak rolling. At least 30 methods of rolling
-have been known in Greenland. There are possibly many more, because the
-variations and combinations are numerous.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 215
-
-THE CRITICAL STAGE OF A CAPSIZE RECOVERY
-
-The start (solid lines) and finish (phantom lines) of a planing sweep
-are shown head-on. Success is almost certain if the kayaker has
-surfaced by the time he has completed the 90-degree sweep. Some minor
-refinements of rolling are apparent. The left forearm is shown right
-against the foredeck (a convenient means of orientation), the leading
-shoulder is nearer the surface (to gain lift when the torso is swung
-outward), and the hips right the kayak as far as possible while the
-torso is still partly submerged (to avoid having to lift torso and
-kayak at the same time).]
-
-Although kayaking as a sport first became popular in the 1860's, it was
-not until the 1920's that the value of learning to roll began to be
-fully realized by the recreational kayaker. Interest has grown steadily
-since that time, and rolling instruction has been included as a regular
-part of many club training courses. A preliminary step in mastering
-the roll consists of using the paddle to prevent a capsize, by turning
-the blade parallel to the water surface and pressing down sharply on
-the side toward which the kayak is capsizing, while exerting an upward
-pressure with the other hand. This produces a rotary movement which
-restores the kayak to an even keel. Recreational canoeists call this
-maneuver a "paddle brace."
-
-Most kayak rolls are based upon one or more of three basic movements.
-These are the paddle brace, the "sculling" stroke, from which lift
-is obtained by moving the paddle back and forth through a small arc
-with the leading edge of the blade at a slight planing angle, and the
-"sweep," from which lift is obtained by sweeping the blade through a
-large arc at a slight planing angle. The method of rolling shown in the
-sketches is the standard Greenland roll, so called because it is the
-most common roll encountered in Greenland. A slightly modified version
-of this roll is called by recreational canoeists the Pawlata roll in
-honor of the European who introduced it to them. Many skillful kayakers
-could not roll, and sometimes a highly skilled roller would fail to
-recover. Such men could be rescued by their companions by either of
-two common methods. One method was executed by placing the bow of the
-rescue craft within reach of the capsized paddler's hand, so that he
-could pull himself up by a one-handed chinning motion. The other method
-was executed by bringing the rescue kayak alongside the capsized kayak
-so that the two craft were parallel and about two feet apart. The
-rescuer then laid his paddle across both craft and holding it with
-one hand, reached down and grabbed the capsized paddler's arm. He then
-pulled him up between the two kayaks. This method enabled an enfeebled
-or unconscious kayaker to be rescued.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 216
-
-Hand positions used with the standard roll:
-
-(1) The extended paddle position is the common method, and it gives
-maximum leverage. It is similar to the "Pawlata Roll" position used by
-recreational kayakers.
-
-(2) The normal paddling position is more convenient, but gives less
-leverage. This is called the "Screw Stroke" position.
-
-(3-6) Difficult trick positions demonstrated by Enoch Nielsen of
-Igdlorssuit, West Greenland, to Kenneth Taylor, a Scottish canoeist, in
-1959.]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 217
-
-Kayak rescue, bow-grab method]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 218
-
-Kayak rescue, paddle-grab method]
-
-Both of the above methods of rescue were completed with the capsized
-victim still in his craft. This prevented his kayak from swamping and
-also protected him from exposure, since his waterproof kayak jacket
-remained tied to the cockpit hoop. Little detailed information has
-been recorded on the methods of rolling known outside of Greenland,
-but there are many photographs of Bering Strait kayakers rolling with
-the single bladed paddle. A study of Alaskan rolling methods is now in
-progress, and it is hoped that much information can be recovered and
-preserved.
-
-[Illustration: Figure 219
-
-PREPARING FOR DEMONSTRATION. Jonas Malakiasen puts on his tuvilik (a
-waterproof kayak jacket, pronounced in English "tooey-leek"). When
-it is fastened tightly about his face, wrists, and the cockpit hoop,
-he can capsize without getting water in the kayak. Igdlorssuit, West
-Greenland, summer 1959. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 220
-
-GETTING ABOARD. Enoch Nielsen, best kayak roller in the village of
-Igdlorssuit, West Greenland, wriggles into his kayak on the beach
-before embarking on a kayak rolling exhibition. Note that he is leaving
-the harpoon line stand and gun bag in place. (_Photo by Kenneth
-Taylor._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 221
-
-PAUSING ON SURFACE. Kayaker supports himself on the surface of the
-water by a sculling stroke before starting the roll. Note that Enoch
-Nielsen's body is twisted so that his shoulders are parallel with the
-surface, thus submerging as much of the body as possible in order to
-gain buoyancy. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 222
-
-FULLY CAPSIZED, view from forward quarter, looking aft. Enoch Nielsen
-prepares to roll up by the standard method. Note the planing angle of
-his paddle blade as he prepares for the next step, the planing sweep of
-the blade across the surface. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 223
-
-EMERGING FROM ROLL, view from forward quarter, looking aft. From the
-position of Enoch Nielsen's hands, this appears to be the standard
-roll. He has just completed the planing sweep and is halfway up. The
-inboard hand is a pivot point for the sweep and a fulcrum for the lift.
-(_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)]
-
-[Illustration: Figure 224
-
-RIGHTING THE KAYAK. Enoch Nielsen emerges from roll with a final
-downward thrust of the paddle blade. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._)]
-
-
-
-
-_Bibliography_
-
-
-  ADNEY, EDWIN TAPPAN. _Klondike stampede._ New York: Harper & Bros.,
-    1900.
-
-  ----. How an Indian birch-bark canoe is made. _Harper's Young
-    People_ (July 29, 1890). Supplement.
-
-  BEARD, DANIEL CARTER. _Boatbuilding and boating._ New York: C.
-    Scribner's Sons, 1911. (Chapter 6, pages 48-61, is a revision of
-    Adney's articles on canoe building.)
-
-  BEAUCHAMP, WILLIAM M. Aboriginal use of wood in New York. (New York
-    State Museum Bulletin 89.) Albany, 1905, pp. 139-149.
-
-  BIRKET-SMITH, KAI. _Ethnography of the Egedesminde district._ (Vol.
-    66 of Meddelelser om Grønland, 1879-1931.) Copenhagen: C. A.
-    Reitzel, 19?
-
-  BOAS, FRANZ. _The Central Eskimo._ (Pp. 409-669 in U.S. Bureau of
-    American Ethnology, Sixth Annual Report, 1884-85.) Washington:
-    Smithsonian Institution, 1888.
-
-  BOGORAS, VLADIMIR. _The Chukchi._ New York: G. E. Stechert,
-    1904-09. [Also as Memoir of the American Museum of Natural
-    History, vol. 11; and as publications of the Jesup North Pacific
-    Expedition, vol. 7, issued in three parts.]
-
-  CARTIER, JACQUES. _The voyages of Jacques Cartier._ (Canadian
-    Archivist Publications No. 11.) Transl. H. P. Biggar. 1914.
-    (Another edition: Ottawa: F. A. Acland, 1924.)
-
-  CARTWRIGHT, CAPTAIN GEORGE. _Captain Cartwright and his Labrador
-    journal._ Edit. Charles W. Townsend. Boston: D. Estes & Co., 1911.
-
-  ----. _A journal of transaction and events, during a residence
-    of nearly sixteen years on the coast of Labrador_ ... 3 vols.
-    Newark, England: Allin and Ridge, 1792.
-
-  CHAMPLAIN, SAMUEL DE. _Les Voyages de la nouvelle France._ Paris:
-    C. Collet, 1632.
-
-  ----. Oeuvres de Champlain. 5 vol. in 6. Quebec: G. E. Desbarats,
-    1870.
-
-  CRANTZ, DAVID. _The history of Greenland._ Ed. and transl. [of
-    part] John Gambold. 2 vols. London: Moravian Brethren Society,
-    1767.
-
-  DAWSON, GEORGE MERCER. Notes on the Shuswap people of British
-    Columbia. _Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of
-    Canada for the year 1891_ (Montreal, 1892), vol. 9, sec. 2, pp.
-    3-44.
-
-  DENYS, NICOLAS. _The description and natural history of the coasts
-    of North America._ Transl. and edit. W. F. Ganong. Toronto: The
-    Champlain Society, 1908.
-
-  DUNBAR, SEYMOUR. _A history of travel in America._ 2 vols. New
-    York: Tudor Publishing Co., 1937.
-
-  DURHAM, BILL. _Canoes and kayaks of Western America._ Seattle:
-    Copper Canoe Press, 1960.
-
-  _Early narratives of the Northwest, 1634-1699._ Edit. L. P.
-    Kellogg. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1917.
-
-  ECKSTROM, [Mrs.] FANNIE HARDY. _The handicrafts of the modern
-    Indians of Maine._ (Lafayette National Park Museum Bulletin.) Bar
-    Harbor, 1932.
-
-  EGEDE, HANS. _A description of Greenland._ Transl. from the Danish.
-    London: C. Hitch, 1745.
-
-  ELLIOTT, HENRY WOOD. _The Seal Islands of Alaska._ Washington
-    (Government Printing Office), 1881.
-
-  FRANQUET, Col. Voyages et mémoires sur le Canada, par Franquet.
-    _Institut canadien de Québec_, Annuaire (1889), pp. 29-129.
-
-  GODSELL, PHILLIP H. The Ojibwa Indian. _Canadian Geographical
-    Journal._ (January 1932).
-
-  HADLOCK, WENDELL S. and DODGE, ERNEST S. A canoe from the Penobscot
-    River. _American Neptune_ (October 1948), vol. 8, no. 4, pp.
-    289-301. (Detailed description of early birch-bark canoe, with
-    lines and numerous drawings of construction details.)
-
-  HEARNE, SAMUEL. _A journey from Prince of Wales fort in Hudson's
-    Bay to the Northern Ocean, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772._ Dublin: P.
-    Byrne and J. Rice, 1796.
-
-  HENRY, ALEXANDER, Jr. _New light on the early history of the
-    greater Northwest. The manuscript journals of Alexander Henry
-    ... and of David Thompson ... 1799-1814._ Ed. Elliott Coues. New
-    York: F. P. Harper, 1897.
-
-  ----. _Travels and adventures in Canada and the Indian
-    territories._ Ed. James Bain. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
-    1901.
-
-  HOFFMAN, WALTER JAMES. _The Menomini Indians._ Part 1, (pp. 3-328
-    of U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology: 14th Annual Report, pt. 1,
-    1892-93.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1896.
-
-  HOLM, GUSTAV FREDERIK. _The Ammassalik Eskimo, contributions to the
-    ethnology of the East Greenland natives._ Vol. 1. Ed. William
-    Thalbitzer. Copenhagen: B. Luno, 1914. [Also as vols. 39-40,
-    Meddelelser on Grønland.]
-
-  HORNELL, JAMES. _British Coracles and Irish Curraghs._ London:
-    Society for Nautical Research, 1938.
-
-  ----. _Water transport, origins & early evolution._ Cambridge: The
-    Cambridge University Press, 1946.
-
-  HOWLEY, JAMES PATRICK. _The Beothucks, or red Indians._ Cambridge:
-    Cambridge University Press, 1915. (A very complete study.)
-
-  JENNESS, DIAMOND. _The Indians of Canada._ (Bulletin 65,
-    Anthropological Series No. 15, National Museum of Canada.) 5th
-    ed. 1960.
-
-  _The Jesuit relations and allied documents, 1610-1791._ Ed. R. G.
-    Thwaites. Cleveland: Burrows Bros. Co., 1896-1901.
-
-  JOCHELSON, WALDEMAR [VLADIMIR]. _The Koryak._ New York: G. E.
-    Stechert, 1908. [Also as Memoir of the American Museum of Natural
-    History, vol. 9; and as Publications of the Jesup North Pacific
-    Expedition, vol. 6, published in two parts, 1905-08.]
-
-  KALM, PEHR. _Travels into North America._ Transl. John R. Forster.
-    2 vols. London, 1770-71.
-
-  KROEBER, ALFRED LOUIS. The Eskimo of Smith Sound. _Bulletin of the
-    American Museum of Natural History_ (Feb. 19, 1900), vol. 12,
-    art. 21, pp. 265-327.
-
-  LAFITEAU, JOSEPH FRANÇOIS. _Moeurs des sauvages Ameriquains._
-    Paris: Saugrain, 1724.
-
-  LAHONTAN, LOUIS ARMAND, BARON DE. _Nouveaux voyages de M. le baron
-    de LaHontan, dans l'Amerique septentrionale._ La Haye: Chez les
-    Frères l'Honore, 1703.
-
-  LECLERQ, Father CHRÉTIEN. _Nouvelle relation de la Gaspesie._
-    Paris, 1691.
-
-  LYON, GEORGE FRANCIS. _The private journal of Captain Lyon of N. M.
-    S. "Hecla."_ Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1824.
-
-  MACKENZIE, Sir ALEXANDER. _Voyages from Montreal, ... to the frozen
-    and Pacific Oceans; ... 1789 and 1793._ 2 vols. From York: New
-    Amsterdam Book Co., 1903.
-
-  MASON, OTIS T. and HILL, MERIDEN S. _Pointed bark canoes of the
-    Kutenai and Amur._ (Pp. 523-537 of Report of U.S. National Museum
-    for 1899.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1901.
-
-  MITMAN, CARL WEAVER. _Catalogue of the watercraft collection in the
-    United States National Museum._ (U.S. National Museum Bulletin
-    127.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1923.
-
-  MORGAN, LEWIS HENRY. _League of the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee, or Iroquois._
-    New York: M. H. Newman & Co., 1851.
-
-  MURDOCH, JOHN. _Ethnological results of the Point Barrow
-    expedition._ (Pp. 3-441 of U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology, 9th
-    Annual Report, 1887-88.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution,
-    1892.
-
-  MURRAY, ALEXANDER HUNTER. _Journal of the Yukon, 1847-48._ Ottawa
-    (Government Printing Bureau), 1910.
-
-  NANSEN, FRIOTJOF. _The first crossing of Greenland._ 2 vols.
-    Transl. Nubert M. Gepp. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1870.
-
-  ----. _The Norwegian north polar expedition, 1893-1896._ 6 vols.
-    London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1900-06.
-
-  ----. _In northern mists._ Transl. Arthur G. Chater. 2 vols. New
-    York: Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1911.
-
-  ----. _Farthest north._ 2 vols. New York: Harper Brothers, 1897.
-
-  NELSON, EDWARD WILLIAM. _The Eskimo about Behring Strait._ (Pp.
-    3-518 of U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology, 18th Annual Report,
-    1896-97.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1899.
-
-  PARIS, EDMOND. _Essai sur la construction navale des peuples
-    extra-européens._ Paris: A. Bertrand, [n.d.].
-
-  PARRY, Sir WILLIAM EDWARD. _Journal of a second voyage for the
-    discovery of a northwest passage._ London: J. Murray, 1824.
-
-  PATTERSON, Rev. GEORGE. The Beothiks or red Indians of
-    Newfoundland. _Proceedings and transactions of the Royal Society
-    of Canada for the year 1891_ (Montreal, 1892), vol. 9, p. 137.
-
-  POTERIE, CLAUDE CHARLES LE ROY BACQUEVILLE DE LA. _Historie de
-    l'Amerique septentrionale_ ... 2 vols. Paris, 1722.
-
-  RICHARDSON, Sir JOHN. _Arctic searching expedition: A journal of
-    a boat voyage ... in search of discovery ships ... of Sir John
-    Franklin._ London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1851.
-
-  RITZENHALTER, ROBERT EUGENE. The building of a Chippeway Indian
-    birch-bark canoe. _Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City
-    of Milwaukee_ (November 1950), vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 53-90. (The
-    modern method of building.)
-
-  ROSIER, JAMES. _A true relation of the most prosperous voyage made
-    this present year, 1605, by Captain George Waymouth in the land
-    of Virginia._ Londini; 1605.
-
-  ROSS, ALEXANDER. _The fur hunters of the Far West._ London: Smith,
-    Elder and Co., 1855.
-
-  SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY ROWE. _Information respecting the history
-    conditions and prospects of the Indian tribes of the United
-    States._ 6 vols. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, 1852-57.
-
-  SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY ROWE. _The Indian tribes of the United States._
-    2 vols. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1884.
-
-  SKINNER, ALANSON BUCK. Notes on the eastern Cree and northern
-    Saulteaux. (_Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
-    Natural History_, vol. 9, pt. 1). New York, 1911.
-
-  SNELL, GEORGE F., Jr. Pine country Hiawatha. _Sports Afield_
-    (August 1945), vol. 120, no. 2. (Describes modern Ojibway canoe
-    building.)
-
-  STEFANSSON, VILHJALMUR. _My life with the Eskimo._ New York: The
-    Macmillan Company, 1913.
-
-  ----. _Ultima Thule._ New York: Macmillan Company, 1940.
-
-  TURNER, LUCIEN MCSHAW. _Ethnology of the Ungava District: Hudson
-    Bay Territory._ Edit. John Murdoch. (Pp. 159-350 of U.S.
-    Bureau of American Ethnology, 11th Annual Report.) Washington:
-    Smithsonian Institution, 1894.
-
-  WARREN, WILLIAM WHIPPLE. _History of the Ojibways._ St. Paul:
-    Minnesota Historical Society Collections, 1885. Vol. 5, pp.
-    21-394.
-
-  WHITBOURNE, Sir RICHARD. _Westward hoe for Avalon in the
-    new-found-land._ Edit. and illus. T. Whitburn. London: S. Low and
-    Marston, 1870.
-
-  WILLOUGHBY, CHARLES CLARK. _Antiquities of the New England
-    Indians._ Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum of American
-    Archaeology, Harvard Univ., 1935.
-
-  WISSLER, CLARK. _Indians of the United States._ New York:
-    Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1940.
-
-  _Wood: A manual for its use in wooden ships._ Washington: U.S.
-    Department of Agriculture, 1945.
-
-  _Wood handbook._ Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1955.
-    (Basic information on wood as a material for construction.)
-
-
-
-
-Index
-
-
-  Abitibi, Lake, Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
-
-  Abitibi River, 132
-
-  Abnaki (Indians), 12
-    canoe, 88-89;
-      dimensions, 89, 114-115
-
-  Admiralty Collection of Draughts, 12, 13
-
-  Adney, Edwin Tappan, 4-5, 57, 100;
-    papers, 4, 5, 6;
-    parents, 4;
-    wife, 4;
-    work and career, 4-5
-
-  Adney, Glenn (son of E. T. A.), 4
-
-  Adney, H. H. (father of E. T. A.), 4
-
-  Adney, Minnie Bell Sharp (wife of E. T. A.), 4
-
-  Adney, Ruth Shaw (mother of E. T. A.), 4
-
-  Adney papers, 4, 5, 6
-
-  Alaska, 5, 181, 182
-
-  Alaskan canoe, 55
-
-  Alaskan kayak, 154, 190, 191, 192, 195, 196
-
-  Alaskan umiak, 182, 183, 187 ff.
-
-  Albany boat, 13
-
-  Alberta, 132
-
-  Aleutian Islands, 181, 183, 194 ff.
-
-  Aleutian kayak, 195 ff.
-
-  Algonkian Family, 99
-
-  Algonkin (Indians), 99, 107, 113;
-    canoe, 113-122
-
-  _America_ (44-gun ship, RN), 65
-
-  _American Neptune_ (periodical), 74
-
-  American Museum of Natural History, 89, 195, 204
-
-  Androscoggin (Indians), 88
-
-  Anson, Lord, 12
-
-  Art Students' League of New York, 4
-
-  ash, white, 17;
-    black, 17;
-    splitting qualities, 17
-
-  Asiatic kayak, 192, 195
-
-  Assiniboine (Indian tribe), 132
-
-  Athabaska, Lake, 132, 155
-
-  Athabascan Indians, 154, 156
-
-  awl, bone, 19;
-    steel (canoe), 21
-
-  axe, steel, 20, 21;
-    cedar, 21
-
-
-  Baffin Island, 82, 189, 191, 192, 204, 206, 208;
-    umiak, 189, 190;
-    kayak, 204 ff.
-
-  baidarka (Russian kayak), 175
-
-  bang plate, 208
-
-  bark, basswood, 15
-    birch, 9, 55, 60, 63, 96, 120, 132, 147, 148, 154;
-      description, 14-15;
-      selection and preparation, 24-26;
-      handling, 29-31;
-      use in building canoes, 41-51
-    butternut, 213
-    chestnut, 15, 213
-    cottonwood, 15
-    elm, 15, 212 ff.
-    hickory, 15, 213, 217
-    spruce, 15, 17, 24, 132, 158, 212, 213, 216
-    white pine, 213
-
-  bark cover, piecing, 42, 43, 45, 55;
-    Micmac, 63;
-    Beothuk, 98;
-    Algonkin, 120;
-    Western Cree, 132, 133;
-    fur-trade, 147, 148;
-    kayak-form, 162
-
-  Barrière, Lake, 107, 146
-
-  basket (pack), in fur trade, 143
-
-  basswood, bark, 15
-
-  bateau, 13
-
-  bateau-shape canoe, 159-161
-
-  batten (in skin boat construction), 186, 188 ff., 195 ff., 199,
-    204 ff., 208
-
-  Beard, Daniel, 4
-
-  Beaver (Indians), 154;
-    kayak-form canoe, 159
-
-  Beothuk (Indian tribe), 6, 94-98
-    canoe, 94, 95;
-      dimensions, 94, 98;
-      form, 96;
-      keel, 96, 97, 98;
-      reconstruction of, 96 ff.
-
-  Bering Sea, 195
-
-  Bering Strait, 182, 189, 199
-
-  bifid bow, 196, 197
-
-  big river canoe, 58, 65
-
-  birch bark, 9, 55, 60, 63, 96, 120, 132, 147, 148, 154;
-    description, 14-15;
-    selection and preparation, 24-26;
-    handling, 29-31;
-    use in building canoes, 41-51
-
-  bladder, skin (float), 194
-
-  Boas, Franz, 189, 204
-
-  boat, Arctic skin, 174-212;
-    Viking, 187;
-    temporary skin, 219-220;
-    bull, 220
-
-  Bogoras, Vladimir, 183
-
-  bola (hunting), 194
-
-  bone fittings, kayak, 193, 204, 208, 211
-
-  Bonshere River, Ontario, 113
-
-  bottom-frame, kayak-form canoe, 160 ff.
-
-  bow drill, 19, 20
-
-  breakwater, canoe, 162, 166, 167;
-    kayak, 196
-
-  British Columbia, 5;
-    kayak-form canoe, 165;
-    sturgeon-nose canoe, 168
-
-  bucksaw, 23
-
-  building bed, locating, 37;
-    preparation of, 37;
-    stakes, 40, 41, 45 ff., 146, 148;
-    repair to, 41;
-    of plank, 56, 146, 147;
-    Micmac, 62, 63;
-    Malecite, 72, 73, 74;
-    St. Francis, 91, 92;
-    Beothuk, 96, 97;
-    Eastern Cree, 101;
-    Algonkin, 116;
-    Ojibway, 127;
-    Western Cree, 132;
-    fur-trade, 146, 147;
-    narrow-bottom, 158;
-    kayak-form, 161;
-    sturgeon-nose, 173;
-    temporary canoe, 216, 219
-
-  building frame, 26, 37, 54 ff.;
-    Eastern Cree, 101;
-    Algonkin, 115, 116;
-    Ojibway, 127;
-    Western Cree, 132;
-    fur-trade, 140, 141, 146, 147;
-    narrow-bottom, 158;
-    kayak-form, 161;
-    sturgeon-nose, 173
-
-  bull-boat, 220
-
-  butternut bark, 213
-
-
-  camber (rocker of bottom), 28, 37, 38, 41 (see also rocker)
-
-  canoe, birch bark, Adney on, 4 ff.;
-      scale models of, 4, 5;
-      plans of, 5, 6;
-      speed of, 7, 29, 137;
-      origin of name, 13;
-      requirements for, 27;
-      types, 27;
-      forms discussed, 27-36 ff., 59 (see also under tribal types);
-      tribal classification, 27 ff. (see under tribal names);
-      effects of bark characteristics on, 29 ff.;
-      construction discussed, 36-57 (see also under tribal types);
-      compared with Eskimo skin boat, 193
-    elm bark, 212, 219
-    hickory bark, 213, 217
-    skin, 219-221;
-      moosehide, 72, 219;
-      temporary, 219-221
-    spruce bark, 132, 158, 212, 213, 216
-    temporary, 219-221
-
-  canoe awl, 21
-
-  canoe birch (see under bark)
-
-  canoe brigade, 152
-
-  canoe building, Trois Rivières factory, 13, 135, 136;
-    for fur trade, 135, 136, 146 ff., 148 ff.;
-    at Hudson's Bay Company Posts, 151
-
-  canoe ends, details of construction, 34, 35, 36;
-    Micmac, 58, 59;
-    Malecite, 70, 76, 77, 155, 156;
-    Chipewyan, 156, 157;
-    Dogrib, 156, 157;
-    slave, 157, 158;
-    kayak-form, 158, 159;
-    sturgeon-nose, 168
-
-  canoe loading, fur-trade, 144, 145, 152, 153
-
-  canoe portaging, 122, 151, 152
-
-  canoe roads, 138
-
-  canoe sails (see sails)
-
-  canoe shoes, Malecite, 79, 80
-
-  canoe types,
-    Abnaki, 88-89
-    Alaskan, 55
-    Algonkin, 113-122
-    Beaver, 159
-    Beothuk, 94-98
-    Big River, 58, 65
-    bateau-shape, 159-161
-    British Columbia, 165, 168
-    Chipewyan, 155-158
-    Cree, Central, 34;
-      Eastern, 101-106;
-      Western, 132-134, 155
-    crooked, 99, 100, 106
-    Dogrib, 155-158
-    express, 137, 141
-    fur-trade (see under fur-trade)
-    hunting (Micmac), 58, 65, 70
-    kayak-form (see under kayak-form)
-    light, 137, 141
-    long nose, 125, 130, 132
-    Loucheux, 161, 166
-    Mackenzie Basin, 159, 161, 162
-    Montagnais, 34, 99, 100, 106
-    Malecite, 34, 36-57, 70-93, 114, 115, 219, 221
-    Micmac, 12, 27, 34, 58-69
-    Nahane, 159
-    narrow-bottom, 113, 114, 135, 154-158
-    Northwest, 154, 155-157 (narrow-bottom);
-      158-168 (kayak-form)
-    Ojibway, 122-131
-    one-piece, 212
-    open-water, 58, 64, 65
-    Passamaquoddy, 74, 75, 82, 83
-    Peterborough, 65
-    porpoise hunting, 74, 75
-    portage, 58, 65, 123
-    Restigouche, 65
-    river (Malecite), 70-79
-    St. Francis, 88-93, 114, 115
-    skiff-canoe, 65
-    Slave, 155-158
-    straight-bottom, 100, 101, 106, 155
-    sturgeon-nose, 154, 168-173
-    temporary, 212-219
-    Têtes de Boule, 34, 107-112, 116, 122
-    ~V~-bottom, 74 ff., 89, 96, 98, 100, 107, 113
-    war, 10, 58, 65, 70
-    wide-bottom, 54
-    woods, 58, 65
-    Western Cree, 72, 132-134, 155
-    Yukon River, 159, 164, 165, 166, 190
-
-  _canot_ (canoe), 13;
-    _du maître_ (see fur-trade canoe), 99, 106, 135;
-    _du nord_ (see fur-trade canoe), 151, 153;
-    _léger_ (see light canoe), 137
-
-  Cape York, 208
-
-  Carib Indians, 13
-
-  Caribou Eskimo kayak, 204
-
-  caribou-skin boat, 220
-
-  Cartier, Jacques, 7, 68
-
-  Cartwright, Lieut. John, 94, 95
-
-  cedar, northern white, roots, 16;
-    splitting qualities, 17, 18
-
-  Celts, 176
-
-  Champlain, Samuel de, 7, 10, 213
-
-  Champlain, Lake, 7
-
-  Chatham dockyard, 12
-
-  chestnut bark, 15, 213
-
-  chine, 164, 166, 184, 187, 188, 195, 202, 204, 205, 206
-
-  Chippewa (Chippeway; Indian tribe), 122
-
-  Chipewyan (Indian tribe), 154, 155
-    canoe, 155-158;
-      ends, 156, 157;
-      spreading gunwales, 158;
-      dimensions, 158;
-      kayak-form, 166, 167
-
-  chisel, 23
-
-  Christopherson, L. A. (Hudson's Bay Company Factor), 145, 146;
-    on fur-trade canoe construction, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151
-
-  Chukchi umiak, 182, 183, 188;
-    kayak, 195
-
-  cockpit, kayak, 175, 176, 192, 195 ff., 197, 199, 200, 204, 205, 208, 211
-
-  Coffin, Samuel, 95
-
-  Collins, Henry B. (Bureau of American Ethnology), 174
-
-  _Colliers_ (magazine), 4
-
-  construction methods, Malecite, 36-57, 72-74;
-    Micmac, 58, 59-64;
-    St. Francis, 90-93;
-    Beothuk, 96-98;
-    Eastern Cree, 104-106;
-    Têtes de Boule, 108-112;
-    Algonkin, 115-122;
-    Ojibway, 125, 127 ff.;
-    Western Cree, 132, 133;
-    fur-trade, 146-151;
-    narrow-bottom, 155 ff.;
-    kayak-form, 160 ff.;
-    sturgeon-nose, 168-172;
-    umiak, 176 ff., 182, 184-187;
-    kayak, 192-194;
-    temporary canoes, 212-218;
-    temporary skin boats, 218-220
-
-  Copper Eskimo kayak, 204
-
-  Coppermine River, 155
-
-  coracle, 176
-
-  Coronation Gulf, 193, 204
-
-  Coronation Gulf kayak, 204
-
-  cottonwood bark, 15
-
-  Cowassek (Coosuc; Indian tribe), 88
-
-  Crantz, David (missionary), 190, 223
-
-  Cree Indians, central, 34;
-    eastern, 99, 101-106;
-    western, 132-134, 155
-
-  crew, fur-trade canoe, 145
-
-  crimping bark (in canoe building), 29, 30, 212, 214, 216, 217
-
-  crooked canoe, 99, 100, 106
-
-  crooked knife (tool), 21, 23
-
-  curragh, 176, 178;
-    waterproofing skins for, 176;
-    compared with umiak and kayak, 178
-
-  Coosuc (Indian tribe), 88
-
-
-  dart (for hunting), 194
-
-  deck, kayak-form canoe, 159, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167;
-    kayak, 176, 195 ff., 199, 202, 204, 211
-
-  decorations, 53;
-    Micmac, 67, 68;
-    Malecite, 82 ff.;
-    St. Francis, 90, 91;
-    Têtes de Boule, 112;
-    Algonkin, 122;
-    fur-trade, 146, 150, 151;
-    kayak-form, 163;
-    kayak, 197, 199
-
-  Dènè (Indian tribe), 162
-
-  Denys, Nicolas, 57, 68, 69
-
-  Dibble, Lt. Col. Herbert, 75
-
-  dimensions, canoe (see under tribal type); old canoes, 7 ff.
-
-  Dogrib Indians, 154, 155;
-    canoe, 155-158
-
-  drill (tool), 19
-
-  dugout, 10, 213
-
-
-  eastern canoe construction, 54
-
-  Eastern Cree Indians, 99, 100, 101-106
-    canoe, 101-106;
-      dimensions, 106
-
-  Eastport (Maine), 75
-
-  Egede, Hans (missionary), 190
-
-  elm bark, 8, 15, 212, 213, 214, 215
-
-  _Encyclopedia Arctica_, 6
-
-  ends (canoe), 31, 32, 55, 56, 70, 72, 76, 77, 155 ff., 168, 217
-
-  engine, outboard gasoline, 175, 187
-
-  Eskimo, 154, 159, 175, 176, 182, 190, 191, 195
-
-  Eskimo roll, 194, 223-227
-
-  Eskimo skin boat (see kayak, umiak)
-
-  Espenberg, Cape, kayak, 200
-
-  express canoe, 137, 141
-
-
-  Fort Chimo, 99, 100
-
-  Foxe Basin, 182, 204
-
-  frames (ribs), 19, 32;
-    number of, 51;
-    making and bending, 51;
-    fitting, 51, 52, 56;
-    temporary, 51, 52;
-    Micmac, 60, 62;
-    Malecite, 73, 77;
-    St. Francis, 90, 91, 92;
-    Eastern Cree, 104, 105, 106;
-    Têtes de Boule, 110, 112;
-    Algonkin, 122;
-    Ojibway, 130;
-    Western Cree, 132;
-    fur-trade, 148, 149;
-    narrow-bottom, 158;
-    kayak-form, 160, 162 ff.;
-    sturgeon-nose, 168, 172;
-    umiak, 184 ff., 189, 190;
-    kayak, 192, 194 ff., 202, 204 ff., 211;
-    rough construction of, 213;
-    for temporary bark canoe, 218;
-    for temporary skin canoe, 219
-
-  Franquet, Colonel (French military engineer-in-chief), 13
-
-  froe (steel tool), 20, 21
-
-  "frog" (headboard support), 35, 61
-
-  fur trade, canoe cargoes in, 142, 145, 147, 152, 153;
-    handling furs, 142;
-    pack loads, 142 ff.;
-    bundles and boxes, 142, 143;
-    brigades, 152, 153
-
-  fur-trade canoe, 5, 10 ff., 36, 37, 99, 112, 113, 118, 119, 122, 130,
-      135-153, 156;
-    described, 135, 153;
-    names applied to, 135, 147, 150;
-    forms and categories, 136;
-    dimensions of, 138, 141, 142;
-    construction methods, 146 ff.;
-    gunwales, 136, 148, 150;
-    sheathing, 149;
-    stem-pieces, 150;
-    headboards, 150;
-    paint, 150, 151
-
-  Fury Strait, 204
-
-
-  Gay, John, 94, 96
-
-  Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, 94
-
-  gimlet (tool), 21
-
-  Golden Lake Algonkin Reserve (Canada), 113
-
-  gores (bark canoes), 30, 31, 41, 42, 48, 50;
-    spacing, 57;
-    Micmac, 60;
-    Eastern Cree, 101;
-    Têtes de Boule, 108;
-    Algonkin, 117;
-    fur-trade, 148;
-    in umiak, skin cover, 186
-
-  Grand Victoria Lake, 107, 146
-
-  great canoe (see fur-trade canoe), 135
-
-  Great Lakes, 5, 8, 10, 12
-
-  Great Slave Lake, 155
-
-  Greenland, 176, 181, 187, 191, 194
-
-  Greenland kayak, 190 ff., 195, 202, 205;
-    206 (northern coast, Polar coast), 208 (southern coast), 211  (modern)
-
-  Greenland roll, 223 ff.
-
-  Greenland umiak, 182, 190
-
-  Gulf of Boothia, 204
-
-  gum, 17;
-    spruce, 17, 24, 25;
-    tempering, 24, 25;
-    repairs with, 25, 26;
-    paying seams with, 50, 53
-
-  gunwale, making, 19, 38;
-    profile of, 28, 29;
-    plan view of, 29;
-    forms of, 31;
-    ends of, 31, 38;
-    inner, 31;
-    outer, 31, 47 ff., 55, 60, 72, 73, 118, 119, 150, 155, 156, 169;
-    lashing, 31 ff., 44, 45, 48, 60, 108, 109, 120, 149, 155, 156, 159,
-      169 (see also under lashing);
-    securing bark to, 31, 33;
-    setting up, 37;
-    use as building frame, 37, 38, 40, 41;
-    size of, 38;
-    variations in construction of, 55;
-    Micmac, 60, 61;
-    hogged, 55, 59, 62, 63;
-    Malecite, 72 ff.;
-    St. Francis, 89;
-    Beothuk, 97, 98;
-    Eastern Cree, 101;
-    Têtes de Boule, 108, 112;
-    spreading, 117, 118, 127, 148, 158;
-    Algonkin, 116, 117, 118, 119;
-    Ojibway, 127;
-    Western Cree, 132;
-    fur-trade, 136, 148, 150;
-    narrow-bottom, 155, 156;
-    kayak-form, 159, 160, 164 ff.;
-    sturgeon-nose, 168, 169, 172;
-    umiak, 182, 184 ff., 190;
-    kayak, 192 ff., 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 211;
-    temporary canoe, 212, 213, 216, 219, 220
-
-  gunwale cap, making and fitting, 52, 53;
-    Micmac, 60, 61;
-    Malecite, 73;
-    Eastern Cree, 104;
-    Têtes de Boule, 108, 109;
-    Algonkin, 118, 119;
-    fur-trade, 136, 150;
-    narrow-bottom, 155;
-    sturgeon-nose, 172
-
-
-  handgrip, 197, 199, 200
-
-  Hare (Indian tribe), 154
-
-  _Harper's Weekly_, 4
-
-  _Harper's Young People Magazine_, 4
-
-  harpoon (hunting weapon), 194
-
-  headboard, 35, 36;
-    support, 35, 61;
-    making and fitting, 52;
-    Micmac, 61;
-    Malecite, 74, 78, 79;
-    St. Francis, 89;
-    Eastern Cree, 101;
-    Têtes de Boule, 109, 110;
-    Algonkin, 113, 119;
-    Ojibway, 123, 125, 127;
-    fur-trade, 150;
-    narrow-bottom, 155, 157;
-    umiak, 182, 184, 186, 189, 190;
-    post used as, 217
-
-  Hearne, Samuel (explorer), 155, 164
-
-  Heath, John, 174, 175, 194, 199, 223
-
-  Hecla Strait, 204
-
-  Henry, Jr., Alexander, 13
-
-  hickory bark, 15, 213
-
-  Hill, Frederick (Director, Mariners' Museum), 4
-
-  hogged bottom (center upcurved lengthwise), 30, 161, 162, 164, 165, 168
-
-  hogged gunwale, 55, 59, 62, 63
-
-  hogging brace, umiak, 188
-
-  hot water, use of in bending wood, 20, 117
-
-  Howley, James Patrick, 95, 96
-
-  Hudson Bay, 5, 181, 182, 189, 191
-
-  Hudson Strait, 182, 191, 202, 205
-
-  Hudson's Bay Company, 4, 13, 99, 107, 136, 144, 151
-
-  hunting canoe, Micmac, 58, 65, 70;
-    kayak-form, 165
-
-  hunting screen, kayak, 195
-
-  Huron Indians, 132
-
-  Huron, Lake, 113
-
-
-  Indian migrations, 5, 27 (see also under tribal names)
-
-  ice, skin-boats in, 180
-
-  Illinois Indians, 132
-
-  Irish, 176;
-    curragh, 176, 178
-
-  "Iroquois canoe," in fur trade, 136 (see fur-trade canoe)
-
-  Iroquois Indians, 7, 10, 99, 114
-    canoe (temporary), 213-219
-
-
-  jack pine roots (for canoe lashings), 16
-
-  jacket, watertight, 199, 211
-
-  James Bay, 99, 132
-
-  Japanese sampan, 191, 192, 205, 211
-
-  Jochelson, Waldemar, 182
-
-  Joliet, Louis, 8
-
-
-  kayak, 174, 176, 190-211;
-    multi-chine hull, 175, 191, 199;
-    cockpit, 175, 176, 192, 195 ff., 199, 200, 205, 208, 211;
-    deck, 176, 192, 195 ff., 199, 204, 211;
-    structure, 178, 180;
-    keelson, 178, 192, 195, 200, 204, 206, 211;
-    gunwales, 178, 192 ff., 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 211;
-    geographic distribution, 190, 191;
-    v-bottom, 190 ff., 195, 202, 206, 208, 211;
-    risers, 190;
-    flat bottom, 190 ff., 204 ff.;
-    Alaskan, 190 ff., 195, 196;
-    distribution, 190, 191;
-    design, 191, 192;
-    handling and use, 191, 194, 195, 199;
-    portaging, 191, 199;
-    construction, 192-194;
-    keel, 192;
-    frames, 192, 194 ff., 202, 204 ff., 211;
-    bone fittings, 193, 204, 208, 211;
-    seat, 194;
-    skin cover, 194;
-    paddle, 194, 195, 197, 202, 204, 205;
-    as catamaran, 194;
-    righting, 194, 223-227;
-    hunting screen, 195;
-    thwarts, 195 ff., 199, 208;
-    Koryak, 195;
-    Kodiak Island, 195, 196;
-    breakwater, 196;
-    decorations, 197, 199;
-    Aleutian, 196, 197;
-    Unalaska, 196, 197;
-    two-passenger, 197;
-    three-passenger, 197;
-    Nunivak Island, 197, 199;
-    King Island, 199, 200;
-    Cape Krusenstern, 200;
-    Cape Espenberg, 200;
-    Point Barrow, 200;
-    Norton Sound, 200;
-    Mackenzie Delta, 200, 202;
-    Kotzebue Sound, 200;
-    sheer, 200, 204 ff., 208, 211;
-    Copper Eskimo, 204;
-    Coronation Gulf, 204;
-    Caribou, 204;
-    Netsilik, 204;
-    Baffin Island, 204, 205;
-    Labrador, 205, 206;
-    rocker (camber) of bottom, 205, 206, 211;
-    Greenland, 206, 208, 211;
-    flare, 206;
-    rake of ends, 208
-
-  kayak-form canoe, 154, 158-168;
-    Sekani, 159;
-    Nahane, 159;
-    bateau-shaped, 159;
-    rake of ends, 159, 164;
-    Loucheux, 161, 166;
-    bottom frame of, 160 ff.;
-    paddler's seat, 163;
-    hunting, 165;
-    British Columbia, 165;
-    family, 165, 166;
-    keel, 166;
-    Chipewyan, 166, 167
-
-  keel, Beothuk canoe, 96, 97, 98;
-    kayak-form canoe, 166;
-    kayak, 192
-
-  keelson, umiak, 184, 186, 188;
-    kayak, 192, 195, 200, 202, 204, 206, 211
-
-  keg (in fur trade), 142
-
-  Kennebec Indians, 70
-
-  King Island kayak, 194, 199, 200
-
-  King Island umiak, 187
-
-  Kipewa Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
-
-  knife, stone, 19;
-    crooked, 21, 23
-
-  Kodiak Island, 181, 192
-
-  Kodiak Island kayak, 195, 196, 197, 199
-
-  Koryak umiak, 182, 189
-
-  Koryak kayak, 192, 195
-
-  Kotzebue Sound, 188, 200;
-    kayak, 200
-
-  Krusenstern, Cape, 200, 204
-
-  Krusenstern kayak, 200, 204
-
-  Kutenai (Kootenay) Indians, 168, 172
-
-
-  Labrador, 99, 191, 192, 205, 206
-
-  Labrador kayak, 205, 206
-
-  Laet, Joann de, 94
-
-  LaFiteau, 12, 215
-
-  LaHontan, Baron de, 8, 10, 215
-
-  larch, splitting qualities, 17
-
-  La Salle, Robert Cavalier de, 8
-
-  lashing, canoe gunwale, 31 ff., 44, 45, 48;
-    Micmac, 60;
-    Têtes de Boule, 108, 109;
-    Algonkin, 120;
-    fur-trade, 149;
-    narrow-bottom, 155, 156;
-    kayak-form, 159, 160-166;
-    sturgeon-nose, 169
-
-  lashing skin cover, 186, 188, 190 (see also sewing, stitching)
-
-  lathing (see sheathing)
-
-  light (express) canoe, 137, 141
-
-  _London Chronicle_, 4
-
-  long-nose canoe, 125, 130, 132
-
-  longitudinal strength (see gunwale, keelson chine, keel, stringers, etc.)
-
-  Loucheux Indians, 154;
-    kayak-form canoe, 161, 166
-
-
-  MacKenzie, Alexander, 13
-
-  MacKenzie Basin canoe, 159, 161, 162
-
-  Mackenzie River, 154, 181, 191
-
-  Mackenzie River kayak, 202, 204
-
-  _maître canot_ (see fur-trade canoe), 99, 106, 122, 135, 138, 151, 153
-
-  Malecite Indians, 4, 10;
-    composition of tribe, 70;
-    canoe, 114, 115;
-    sheathing, 34;
-    construction, 36-57;
-    bark covers over gunwale ends, 48;
-    described, 70-88;
-    ends, 70, 76, 77;
-    of spruce bark, 72;
-    temporary (skin), 219, 221;
-    dimensions of, 73 ff., 78, 79
-
-  Manitoba, 99, 132
-
-  maple, hard, splitting qualities, 17
-
-  Marquette, Father Jacques, 8
-
-  Mariners' Museum (Newport News, Va.), 4, 5, 187
-
-  mast, Micmac, 65, 66, 67;
-    tripod, 182
-
-  Matachewan Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
-
-  Matagama Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
-
-  maul, 19, 23
-
-  McGill University Museum, 4
-
-  measurement, of canoes, early, 7, 8, 9;
-    units of (French), 8, 36;
-    Indian, 36, 37, 50, 51, 92, 93
-
-  Melville Peninsula, 204
-
-  Memphremagog, Lake, 88
-
-  Menominee Indians, 122, 123
-
-  Micmac Indians, 10, 12, 58
-    canoe, 12, 27;
-      sheathing, 34;
-      described, 58-69;
-      ends, 58, 59;
-      form, 59;
-      construction, 62, 63;
-      range, 65
-
-  migrations, Indian, 5;
-    effect on canoes, 27
-
-  Missinaibi River, 132
-
-  Missinaibi Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
-
-  Mohigan Indians, 88
-
-  Montagnais Indian canoe, 34, 99, 100, 106
-
-  Montreal, 8, 10, 13
-
-  Moose Factory (Hudson's Bay Company Post), 132
-
-  moosehide canoe, 72, 219
-
-  multi-chine hull, kayak, 154, 175, 191, 199
-
-
-  nabiska (rabeska; see fur-trade canoe), 122, 135
-
-  _nadowé chiman_ (see fur-trade canoe), 136
-
-  Nahane Indian kayak-form canoe, 159
-
-  nail, in canoe construction, 66, 69, 117
-
-  narrow-bottom canoe, 113, 114, 135, 154-158;
-    Northwest, 155, 157;
-    spruce bark, 158
-
-  Nascapee Indians, 99, 100
-
-  National Maritime Museum (Greenwich, England), 12
-
-  Netsilik kayak, 204
-
-  New Bedford whaleboat, 187
-
-  Nipigon, Lake, 123
-
-  North Alaskan whaling umiak, 187, 188
-
-  North Bay (Ontario), 125
-
-  north canoe (see fur-trade canoe), 135
-
-  North West Company, 136, 138, 143, 152
-
-  North West narrow-bottom canoe (see narrow-bottom), 155-157
-
-  Norton Sound kayak, 200
-
-  Nunivak Island kayak, 192, 197, 199, 200
-
-
-  Oar, umiak, 182, 183, 187 ff.
-
-  Ojibway Indians, 122
-    canoe, sheathing, 34;
-      construction, 122-131, 171
-
-  Oka, Lake, 113
-
-  one-piece bark canoe, 212
-
-  open-water canoe, 58;
-    sails, 64;
-    dimensions, 65
-
-  Ossipee Indians, 88
-
-  Ottawa River, 12, 113
-
-  _Outing Magazine_, 4
-
-  outwale (see gunwale)
-
-  owner's mark, 83, 84, 85
-
-  overhang, in ends of kayak-form canoe, 159
-
-
-  paddle, material and manufacture, 53;
-    Micmac, 66, 67, 69;
-    Malecite, 80, 81, 82;
-    Beothuk, 96;
-    Eastern Cree, 116;
-    Têtes de Boules, 112;
-    Algonkin, 122;
-    Ojibway, 130;
-    Western Cree, 133;
-    fur-trade, 152;
-    kayak-form, 163;
-    umiak, 182, 183, 187 ff.;
-    kayak, 195
-
-  paddle guard, Micmac, 64
-
-  paddler's seat, kayak-form canoe, 163;
-    kayak, 194
-
-  paint (on canoes), Malecite, 77;
-    fur-trade, 150, 151
-
-  Passamaquoddy Indians, 70
-    canoe, 74, 75, 82, 83
-
-  Peabody Museum (Salem, Mass.), 5, 74, 168
-
-  peg, outwale, 48, 117;
-    keel, 96
-
-  Peterborough canoe, 65
-
-  Pennacook Indians, 88
-
-  Penobscot Bay, 7
-
-  Penobscot Indians, 70
-
-  Pepysian Library, 176
-
-  Pequawket Indians, 88
-
-  Perrot, Nicholas, 215
-
-  Pillagers (Indian tribe), 122
-
-  pine, white, bark, 213
-
-  plane, smoothing (tool), 21
-
-  planking (see sheathing)
-
-  Plains Indians, 220
-
-  Point Barrow (village), 187
-
-  Point Barrow kayak, 200, 204
-
-  Point Hope (village), 188
-
-  Pond Inlet, 206
-
-  porpoise-hunting canoe, 74, 75
-
-  portage canoe, 58, 65, 123 (Ojibway)
-
-  portaging, canoe, 122, 151, 152;
-    Umiak, 188;
-    kayak, 191, 199
-
-  Poterie, Bacqueville de la, 12, 215
-
-  prah, Malay, 189
-
-  Pribilof Islands, 196
-
-  Prince William Sound, 196
-
-
-  quill decoration, Micmac, 68
-
-
-  rabeska (see fur-trade canoe), 122, 135
-
-  rake of ends, kayak-form canoe, 159, 164;
-    umiak, 182, 187, 190;
-    kayak, 208
-
-  ram-form, 34, 168
-
-  Ramezay, chateau de, 78
-
-  rawhide, sewing with, 132, 158 (see sewing; stitching; lashing)
-
-  Red Paint People (Indian tribe), 94
-
-  Repulse Bay, 204
-
-  Restigouche canoe, 65
-
-  ribs (see frames)
-
-  risers, umiak, 182, 187 ff.,
-    kayak, 190
-
-  river canoe, Malecite, 70-79
-
-  Rivière du Loup, 78
-
-  rocker (camber; convex lengthwise curve of keel), 28, 37, 38, 41;
-    effect of gores on, 57;
-    Micmac, 59, 63:
-    Labrador, 99, 100;
-    Eastern Cree, 101;
-    Algonkin, 113;
-    Ojibway, 125;
-    Western Cree, 132;
-    fur-trade, 136;
-    Northwest, 155;
-    kayak-form, 159, 164;
-    umiak, 182, 184, 188, 189;
-    kayak, 205, 206, 211;
-    elm-bark canoe, 214
-
-  roots, for sewing, 15, 16;
-    varieties used, 16;
-    splitting and peeling, 20
-
-  Ross, Sir James Clark, 208
-
-  rudder, umiak, 187, 189
-
-  Russian influence on skin boat design, 175, 189, 192, 197
-
-
-  Saginaw (Michigan), 123
-
-  Saguenay River, 99
-
-  sails, canoe, Micmac, 65, 66, 67;
-      Passamaquoddy, 75;
-      Malecite, 75;
-      Eastern Cree, 106;
-      fur-trade, 152;
-      narrow-bottom, 158;
-      blanket (Iroquois), 219;
-      umiak, 175, 182, 183, 187, 189
-    kayak, 195
-    umiak, 175, 182, 183, 187, 189, 190
-
-  St. Croix River, 70
-
-  St. Francis Abnaki Indians, 88
-    canoe, 88-93;
-      dimensions, 89, 114, 115
-
-  St. John Lake, 99
-
-  St. John River, 70
-
-  St. Joseph Lake, 132
-
-  St. Lawrence Island, 197
-
-  St. Lawrence River, 5, 13, 70, 78
-
-  St. Matthew (Alaska), 196
-
-  St. Maurice River, 107
-
-  St. Michaels kayak, 200
-
-  Salish Indians, 168, 172
-
-  Saltreaux (Indian tribe), 122
-
-  sampan, 191, 192, 205, 211
-
-  scale-model canoe, 4, 5
-
-  Schenectady boat, 13
-
-  scow, 13
-
-  scraper (tool), 19
-
-  sea otter hunting, 197
-
-  seal, bearded, 188, 195
-
-  Sekani Indians, kayak-form canoe, 159
-
-  setting up canoe (on building bed), 37, 38, 40, 44, 45
-
-  Seton, Ernest Thompson, 4
-
-  sewing (stitching, lashing), 15, 29, 30;
-    on building bed, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50;
-    Micmac, 63;
-    Malecite, 79;
-    St. Francis Abnaki, 91;
-    Eastern Cree, 101;
-    Têtes de Boule, 108, 109;
-    Algonkin, 120;
-    rawhide, 132, 158;
-    narrow-bottom, 158;
-    kayak-form, 162;
-    sturgeon-nose, 168;
-    skin cover, 186, 188, 190;
-    kayak, 193, 194, 196;
-    temporary canoe, 220
-
-  Sharp, Minnie Bell (Mrs. Edwin Tappan Adney), 4
-
-  Sharpie (boat type), 191, 206, 208
-
-  shaving horse (tool), 22
-
-  sheathing, 19, 73, 77;
-    fitting of, 32 ff., 51, 52;
-    Malecite, 50, 51, 75;
-    Micmac, 63, 64;
-    St. Francis, 90;
-    Eastern Cree, 105;
-    Têtes de Boule, 110;
-    Algonkin, 121, 122;
-    fur-trade, 149;
-    narrow-bottom, 158;
-    sturgeon-nose, 168, 172;
-    temporary canoe, 218, 220
-
-  sheer (rise in lengthwise line of gunwale), 47, 52, 56;
-    hogged, 55, 62, 63;
-    Micmac, 59;
-    Malecite, 70;
-    Beothuk, 94, 96 ff.;
-    Algonkin, 114, 117;
-    fur-trade, 136, 148;
-    Northwest, 155, 156;
-    kayak-form, 159, 164, 165, 166, 167;
-    umiak, 182, 183, 187, 189, 190;
-    kayak, 200, 204 ff., 208, 211
-
-  shelter, Malecite canoe as, 71, 72
-
-  Sioux (Dakotas), 122, 130, 133
-
-  skiff-canoe (3-board), 65
-
-  skin boat arctic, 174-211;
-    seagoing, 174, 175;
-    voyages, 176;
-    shape and size, 176;
-    in ice, 180;
-    loading, 180, 181;
-    umiak, 181-189;
-    kayak, 190-211;
-    compared with bark canoe, 193, 221;
-    temporary, 219, 221;
-    caribou skin, 220
-
-  skin cover, umiak, 176, 178, 186, 188;
-    kayak, 192 ff., 197, 199, 200, 204;
-    for temporary canoe, 219
-
-  skin canoe, temporary, construction of, 219-221
-
-  Siberia, 181
-
-  Slave Indians, 154, 155;
-    canoe, 155-158
-
-  sledge, for transporting umiak, 188;
-    for transporting Nunivak Island kayak, 199
-
-  Sokoki Indians, 88
-
-  Southampton Island, 191, 204
-
-  Spars, Micmac, 65, 66, 67
-
-  Spruce, black, bark, 15, 17, 24, 212, 213;
-      roots for sewing, 15, 16;
-      splitting qualities, 17, 19;
-      in kayaks, 192
-    red, 17
-
-  spruce-bark canoe, Malecite, 72;
-    Western Cree, 132;
-    narrow-bottom, 158
-
-  spruce gum, 17;
-    preparation, 24;
-    tempering, 24, 25
-
-  stakes, building bed, 40, 41, 45 ff., 146, 148
-
-  stanchion, 195
-
-  Stefansson, Vilhjalmur, v, 174
-
-  stem-piece, 34, 35, 36;
-      construction, 48, 49;
-      root as, 55, 132;
-      Micmac, 60;
-      Eastern Cree, 101, 104;
-      Têtes de Boule, 109;
-      Algonkin, 113, 114, 119
-    Ojibway, 123, 125, 127;
-      plank, 125, 155, 156, 160, 164;
-    Western Cree, 132;
-      fur-trade, 150;
-      narrow-bottom, 156, 157;
-      kayak-form, 164;
-      sturgeon-nose, 168, 169;
-      temporary skin canoe, 218
-
-  stitching bark cover, 43, 44;
-    temporary canoe, 220 (see also sewing, lashing)
-
-  stone tools, 17-20;
-    use of, 18;
-    cutting edge, 18
-
-  straight-bottom canoe, 100, 101, 106, 155
-
-  Strut (headboard brace), 123, 150
-
-  sturgeon-nose canoe, 154, 168-173;
-    British Columbia, 168;
-    ends, 168;
-    size, 172, 173
-
-  Superior, Lake, 113, 122, 123, 125
-
-
-  Taconnet Indians, 88
-
-  tamarack (hackmatack), in canoe construction, 16
-
-  Tanana Indians, 154
-
-  tapering wooden members, 19, 118
-
-  tarpaulin (in fur trade), 142, 143
-
-  Temiscaming, Lake, 147
-
-  temporary canoe, 212-219
-
-  Têtes de Boule Indians, 107
-    canoe, 107-112, 116, 122;
-      sheathing, 34;
-      described, 107-112;
-      dimensions, 107;
-      construction, 108 ff., 112
-
-  Teton Indians, 133
-
-  thong braces, umiak, 186, 187, 190
-
-  throwing stick, 194
-
-  thwarts, 19, 38, 40;
-    fitting of ends, 32, 56;
-    location, 32, 37, 40;
-    supporting on building bed, 46, 47;
-    Micmac, 61, 62;
-    St. Francis, 90;
-    Eastern Cree, 101;
-    Têtes de Boule, 110;
-    Algonkin, 117, 121;
-    Ojibway, 127;
-    Western Cree, 132;
-    fur-trade, 147, 150;
-    narrow-bottom, 158;
-    kayak-form, 160, 162, 166, 167;
-    sturgeon-nose, 169;
-    umiak, 182, 187;
-    kayak, 195 ff., 199, 208;
-    rough construction of, 213, 216;
-    temporary skin canoe, 219
-
-  Timagami (Ontario), Lake, 125, 131, 151
-
-  tomahawk, 21
-
-  tongs, wooden, 20
-
-  topsail, umiak, 183
-
-  Tonti, Chevalier Henri de, 8
-
-  tools, primitive, 17-20;
-    modern, 20-24
-
-  tree felling, 18
-
-  treenail, 190, 192
-
-  Trois Rivières, 13
-
-  tumble-home (incurving of upper sides of canoe), Micmac, 60;
-    Malecite, 73, 75, 78
-
-  tump line, 122, 143
-
-  Two Mountains, Lake of, 113
-
-
-  Umiak, Eskimo, 174, 181-190;
-    qualities, 175, 176, 178;
-    use, 175, 176;
-    design, 176, 178, 182-183;
-    compared with curragh, 176, 178;
-    skin cover, 176, 178, 186, 188;
-    construction, 176, 178, 180, 182, 183-187, 188;
-    oars and paddles, 182, 183, 187 ff.;
-    headboards, 182, 184, 186, 189, 190;
-    flare of sides, 182, 183, 188;
-    sheer, 182, 183, 187, 189, 190;
-    rake of ends, 182, 187, 190;
-    rocker of bottom (camber), 182, 184, 188, 189;
-    thwarts, 182, 187;
-    risers, 182, 187 ff.;
-    v-bottom, 182, 184, 189;
-    gunwales, 182, 184 ff., 190;
-    Alaskan, 182, 183, 187 ff.;
-    Chukchi (Asiatic), 182, 183, 188;
-    Koryak, 182, 189;
-    Greenland, 182, 189;
-    frames (ribs), 184 ff., 189, 190;
-    keelson, 184, 186, 188;
-    thong brace, 186, 187, 190;
-    rudder, 187, 189;
-    whaling, 187, 188;
-    King Island, 187;
-    hogging brace, 188;
-    portaging, 188;
-    Baffin Island, 189, 190
-
-  Unalaska kayak, 196
-
-  United States Fish Commission, 202
-
-  United States National Museum, 183, 188, 189, 197, 199, 204
-
-
-  ~V~-bottom canoe, Malecite, 74, 75, 76, 77;
-      St. Francis, 89;
-      Beothuk, 96, 98, 100;
-      Têtes de Boule, 107;
-      Algonkin, 113
-    kayak, 190 ff., 195, 202, 206, 208, 211
-    umiak, 182, 184, 189
-
-  ~V~-Form (see ~V~-bottom)
-
-  Viking boat, 187
-
-  voyageur, 143;
-    loads carried by, 143, 144;
-    number required for a canoe, 145;
-    paddle requirement, 152
-
-
-  wabinaki chiman (Algonkin canoe), 114, 119, 131
-
-  walrus skin, for umiak, 183;
-    for kayak, 194
-
-  war canoe, 10;
-    Micmac, 58, 65;
-    Malecite, 70
-
-  war party, Malecite, 71;
-    traveling, 212;
-    Iroquois, 214
-
-  Waswanipi, Lake, Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
-
-  water, Indian methods of boiling, 20
-
-  weapons, for kayaks, 194, 211
-
-  weather cloth, 183
-
-  wedge, 38, 156
-
-  Western Cree Indians, 132, 155;
-    canoe, 72, 132-134, 155
-
-  Wewenoc Indians, 88
-
-  Weymouth, Captain George, 7
-
-  whaleboat, 187
-
-  whaling umiak, 187, 188
-
-  Whitbourne, Captain Richard, 94
-
-  White Fish People (Indian tribe), 107
-
-  wide-bottom canoe, 54
-
-  willow, 17
-
-  Winnipeg, Lake, 132
-
-  wood (for kayaks), 192, 200, 204
-
-  wood bending, by hot water, 20;
-    over a fire, 69
-
-  wood splitting, 17, 18, 19
-
-  woods canoe, 58, 65
-
-  Woodstock, New Brunswick, 4, 75
-
-  wulegessis, 72, 73, 77, 82, 90, 120, 121
-
-
-  York boat, 220
-
-  Yukon Indians, 190
-
-  Yukon River canoe, 159;
-    kayak-form, 164, 165, 166, 190
-
-                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 O--491-230
-
-
-
-
-      *      *      *      *      *      *
-
-
-
-
-Transcriber's note:
-
-  Silently corrected simple spelling, grammar, and typographical
-  errors.
-
-  Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed.
-
-
-
-***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BARK CANOES AND SKIN BOATS OF
-NORTH AMERICA***
-
-
-******* This file should be named 50828-0.txt or 50828-0.zip *******
-
-
-This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
-http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/0/8/2/50828
-
-
-Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
-be renamed.
-
-Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
-law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
-so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
-States without permission and without paying copyright
-royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
-of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
-concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
-and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
-specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
-eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
-for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
-performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
-away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
-not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
-trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
-
-START: FULL LICENSE
-
-THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
-PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
-
-To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
-distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
-(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
-Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
-www.gutenberg.org/license.
-
-Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-
-1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
-and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
-(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
-the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
-destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
-possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
-Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
-by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
-person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
-1.E.8.
-
-1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
-used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
-agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
-things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
-paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
-agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
-
-1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
-Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
-of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
-works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
-States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
-United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
-claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
-displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
-all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
-that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
-free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
-works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
-Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
-comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
-same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
-you share it without charge with others.
-
-1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
-what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
-in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
-check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
-agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
-distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
-other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
-representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
-country outside the United States.
-
-1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
-
-1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
-immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
-prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
-on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
-phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
-performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
-
-  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
-  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
-  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
-  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
-  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
-  are located before using this ebook.
-
-1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
-derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
-contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
-copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
-the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
-redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
-either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
-obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
-trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
-with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
-must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
-additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
-will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
-posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
-beginning of this work.
-
-1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
-work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
-
-1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
-electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
-prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
-active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm License.
-
-1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
-compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
-any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
-to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
-other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
-version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
-(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
-to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
-of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
-Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
-full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
-
-1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
-performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
-unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
-access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-provided that
-
-* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
-  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
-  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
-  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
-  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
-  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
-  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
-  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
-  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
-  Literary Archive Foundation."
-
-* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
-  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
-  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
-  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
-  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
-  works.
-
-* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
-  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
-  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
-  receipt of the work.
-
-* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
-  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
-
-1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
-are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
-from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
-Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
-trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
-
-1.F.
-
-1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
-effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
-works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
-Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
-contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
-or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
-intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
-other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
-cannot be read by your equipment.
-
-1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
-of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
-liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
-fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
-LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
-PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
-TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
-LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
-INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
-DAMAGE.
-
-1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
-defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
-receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
-written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
-received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
-with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
-with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
-lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
-or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
-opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
-the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
-without further opportunities to fix the problem.
-
-1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
-in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
-OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
-LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
-
-1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
-warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
-damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
-violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
-agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
-limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
-unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
-remaining provisions.
-
-1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
-trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
-providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
-accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
-production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
-including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
-the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
-or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
-additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
-Defect you cause.
-
-Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
-electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
-computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
-exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
-from people in all walks of life.
-
-Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
-assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
-goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
-remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
-and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
-generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
-Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
-www.gutenberg.org 
-
-Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary 
-Archive Foundation
-
-The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
-501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
-state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
-Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
-number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
-U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
-
-The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
-mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
-volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
-locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
-Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
-date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
-official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
-
-For additional contact information:
-
-    Dr. Gregory B. Newby
-    Chief Executive and Director
-    gbnewby@pglaf.org
-
-Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
-spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
-increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
-freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
-array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
-($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
-status with the IRS.
-
-The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
-charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
-States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
-considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
-with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
-where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
-DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
-state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
-have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
-against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
-approach us with offers to donate.
-
-International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
-any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
-outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
-
-Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
-methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
-ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
-donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
-
-Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
-freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
-distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
-volunteer support.
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
-editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
-the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
-necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
-edition.
-
-Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
-facility: www.gutenberg.org
-
-This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
-including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
-subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
-
diff --git a/old/50828-0.zip b/old/50828-0.zip
deleted file mode 100644
index 1dff588..0000000
--- a/old/50828-0.zip
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h.zip b/old/50828-h.zip
deleted file mode 100644
index 6f66e36..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h.zip
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/50828-h.htm b/old/50828-h/50828-h.htm
deleted file mode 100644
index 2337501..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/50828-h.htm
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,18838 +0,0 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
-    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
-<head>
-<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
-<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America, by Edwin Tappan Adney and Howard Irving Chapelle</title>
-    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
-    <style type="text/css">
-
-body {
-    margin-left: 10%;
-    margin-right: 10%;
-}
-
-    h1,h2,h3 {
-    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
-    clear: both;
-}
-
-p {
-    margin-top: .51em;
-    text-align: justify;
-    margin-bottom: .49em;
-}
-
-.p6       {margin-top: 6em;}
-
-/* Easy Epub/HRs */
-
-hr {
-    width: 33%;
-    margin-top: 2em;
-    margin-bottom: 2em;
-    margin-left: 33.5%;
-    margin-right: 33.5%;
-    clear: both;
-}
-
-hr.tb   {width: 45%; margin-left: 22.5%; margin-right: 22.5%;}
-hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;}
-
-ul, ul#index { list-style-type: none; display: inline-block;}
-li.ifrst { margin-top: 1em; }
-li.indx { margin-top: .5em; }
-li.isub1 {text-indent: 1em;}
-li.isub2 {text-indent: 2em;}
-li      {text-align: left;}
-
-/* Case Study: Tables */
-
-table {
-    margin-left: auto;
-    margin-right: auto;
-    text-align: left;
-    display: inline-block;
-}
-
-    .tdr      {text-align: right;}
-    .tdp      {text-indent: 1em;}
-
-th {text-align: center;}
-
-strong {font-family: Charcoal, sans-serif;}
-
-caption {font-weight: bold;}
-
-.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
-    /*  visibility: hidden;  */
-    position: absolute;
-    left: 92%;
-    font-size: smaller;
-    text-align: right;
-} /* page numbers */
-
-.blockquot {
-    margin-left: 5%;
-    margin-right: 10%;
-}
-
-.hangindent {
-    text-indent: -5%;
-    margin-left: 10%;
-    margin-right: 10%;
-}
-
-.bbox     {border: solid thin; padding: 1em;}
-
-.center   {text-align: center;}
-
-.right   {text-align: right;}
-
-.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
-
-/* Images */
-.figcenter   {
-    margin: auto;
-    text-align: center;
-}
-
-.caption, .caption p {font-weight: bold;}
-
-.figright {
-    float: right;
-    clear: right;
-    margin-left: 1em;
-    margin-bottom:
-    1em;
-    margin-top: 1em;
-    margin-right: 0;
-    padding: 0;
-    text-align: center;
-}
-@media handheld
-{
-  .figright
-  {
-    float: none;
-    text-align: center;
-    margin-left: 0;
-  }
-}
-
-/* Footnotes */
-.footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
-
-.footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}
-
-.fnanchor {
-    vertical-align: super;
-    font-size: .8em;
-    text-decoration:
-    none;
-}
-
-/* Transcriber's notes */
-#transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA;
-    color: black;
-     font-size: smaller;
-     padding: 0.5em;
-     margin-bottom: 5em;
-     font-family: Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", serif}
-
-/* Easy Epub/Headings */
-
-.ph1, .ph2 { text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; font-weight: bold; }
-.ph1 { font-size: xx-large; margin: .67em auto; }
-.ph2 { font-size: x-large; margin: .75em auto; }
-
-.medium  {font-size: medium;}
-.large   {font-size: large;}
-
-/* Case Study: Title Pages */
-
-div#titlepage {
-  text-align: center;
-  page-break-before: always;
-  page-break-after: always;
-}
-div#titlepage p {
-  text-align: center;
-  text-indent: 0em;
-  font-weight: bold;
-  line-height: 1.5;
-  margin-top: 3em;
-}
-
-div.chapter {page-break-before: always;}
-
-div#halftitle
-{
-  text-align: center;
-  page-break-before: always;
-  page-break-after: always;
-}
-@media screen
-{
-  #halftitle
-  {
-    margin: 6em 0;
-  }
-}
-@media print, handheld
-{
-  #halftitle
-  {
-    page-break-before: always;
-    page-break-after: always;
-    margin: 0;
-    padding-top: 6em;
-  }
-}
-
-/* Easy Epub/Cover */
-
-.covercaption {font-weight: bold; font-size: small;}
-@media handheld {
-  .covercaption { display: none; }
-}
-
-div.tnotes {background-color: #eeeeee; border: 1px solid black; padding: 1em;}
-.covernote {visibility: hidden; display: none;}
-@media handheld {
-  .covernote {visibility: visible; display: block;}
-}
-
-    hr.full { width: 100%;
-              margin-top: 3em;
-              margin-bottom: 0em;
-              margin-left: auto;
-              margin-right: auto;
-              height: 4px;
-              border-width: 4px 0 0 0; /* remove all borders except the top one */
-              border-style: solid;
-              border-color: #000000;
-              clear: both; }
-    </style>
-</head>
-<body>
-<h1>The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North
-America, by Edwin Tappan Adney and Howard Irving Chapelle</h1>
-<p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
-and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
-restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
-under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
-eBook or online at <a
-href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>.  If you are not
-located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the
-country where you are located before using this ebook.</p>
-<p>Title: The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America</p>
-<p>Author: Edwin Tappan Adney and Howard Irving Chapelle</p>
-<p>Release Date: January 2, 2016  [eBook #50828]</p>
-<p>Language: English</p>
-<p>Character set encoding: UTF-8</p>
-<p>***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BARK CANOES AND SKIN BOATS OF NORTH AMERICA***</p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<h3>E-text prepared by<br />
-    Richard Tonsing, Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper,<br />
-    and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team<br />
-    (http://www.pgdp.net)</h3>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div class="tnotes covernote">
-  <p>The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.</p>
-</div>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<hr class="full" />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[Pg i]</a></span></p>
-<div id="halftitle">
-
-<p class="ph1">SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION<br />
-
-UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM</p>
-
-<div class="figright" style="width: 606px;">
-<img src="images/i001.jpg" width="606" height="606" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p class="center">BULLETIN 230</p>
-
-<p class="center">WASHINGTON, D. C.</p>
-
-<p class="center">1964</p></div>
-</div>
-</div>
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[Pg ii]</a><br /><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span></p>
-<div id="titlepage">
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<p class="large">MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY</p>
-
-
-
-
-<h1>The<br />
-Bark Canoes and Skin Boats<br />
-of<br />
-North America</h1>
-
-
-<p class="large"><em>Edwin Tappan Adney</em><br />
-<span class="medium">and</span><br />
-<em>Howard I. Chapelle</em></p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Curator of Transportation</span></p>
-
-<p>B031222CA</p>
-
-<p class="large">SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D. C.<br />
-1964
-</p>
-</div>
-
-<p class="p6"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[Pg iv]</a></span></p>
-
-<p class="ph2"><cite>Publications of the United States National Museum</cite>
-</p>
-
-<p>The scholarly and scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series,
-<cite>Proceedings of the United States National Museum</cite> and <cite>United States National Museum Bulletin</cite>.</p>
-
-<p>In these series the Museum publishes original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work
-of its constituent museums&mdash;The Museum of Natural History and the Museum of History and Technology&mdash;setting
-forth newly acquired facts in the fields of Anthropology, Biology, History, Geology, and Technology.
-Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries, to cultural and scientific organizations, and to specialists
-and others interested in the different subjects.</p>
-
-<p>The <cite>Proceedings</cite>, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers from
-the Museum of Natural History. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of
-each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume.</p>
-
-<p>In the <cite>Bulletin</cite> series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting
-of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects.
-<cite>Bulletins</cite> are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 papers
-relating to the botanical collections of the Museum of Natural History have been published in the <cite>Bulletin</cite>
-series under the heading <cite>Contributions from the United States National Herbarium</cite>, and since 1959, in <cite>Bulletins</cite>
-titled "Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology," have been gathered shorter papers
-relating to the collections and research of that Museum.</p>
-
-<p>This work, the result of cooperation with the Mariners' Museum, the Stefansson Library, the Museum of
-the American Indian, Heye Foundation, and the American Museum of Natural History, forms number 230
-of the <cite>Bulletin</cite> series.</p>
-
-<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Frank A. Taylor</span></p>
-
-<p class="right"><em>Director, United States National Museum</em></p>
-
-<p class="center p6">U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE<br />
-WASHINGTON: 1964</p>
-
-<hr class="tb" />
-
-<p class="center">For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office<br />
-Washington, D.C. 20402&mdash;Price $6.75
-</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Special acknowledgment</em></h2>
-
-
-<p><em>Is here gratefully made to The Mariners' Museum,
-Newport News, Virginia, under whose auspices was
-prepared and with whose cooperation is here published
-the part of this work based on the Adney papers;
-also to the late Vilhjalmur Stefansson, for whose</em>
-<span class="smcap">Encyclopedia Arctica</span> <em>was written the chapter
-on Arctic skin boats.</em></p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</a><br /><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Contents</em></h2>
-
-
-<div class="center">
-<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Contents">
-  <tr>
-    <th></th>
-    <th></th>
-    <th><em>Page</em></th>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td>Introduction</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">1.</td>
-    <td>Early History</td>
-    <td class="tdr">7</td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">2.</td>
-    <td>Materials and Tools</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_14">14</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">3.</td>
-    <td>Form and Construction</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_27">27</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Form</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_27">27</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Construction</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_36">36</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">4.</td>
-    <td>Eastern Maritime Region</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_58">58</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Micmac</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_58">58</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Malecite</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_70">70</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">St. Francis</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Beothuk</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_94">94</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">5.</td>
-    <td>Central Canada</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_99">99</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Eastern Cree</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_101">101</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Têtes de Boule</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_107">107</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Algonkin</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_113">113</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Ojibway</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_122">122</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Western Cree</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_132">132</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Fur-trade Canoes</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_135">135</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">6.</td>
-    <td>Northwestern Canada</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_154">154</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Narrow-Bottom Canoe</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_155">155</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Kayak-Form Canoe</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_158">158</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Sturgeon-Nose Canoe</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_168">168</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">7.</td>
-    <td>Arctic Skin Boats: by <em>Howard I. Chapelle</em></td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_174">174</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">The Umiak</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_181">181</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">The Kayak</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_190">190</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">8.</td>
-    <td>Temporary Craft</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_212">212</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Bark Canoes</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_212">212</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td class="tdp">Skin Boats</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_219">219</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td>Retrospect</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_221">221</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td>Appendix: The Kayak Roll, by <em>John D. Heath</em></td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_223">223</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td>Bibliography</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_231">231</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td></td>
-    <td>Index</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_235">235</a></td>
-  </tr>
-</table></div>
-<div class="chapter"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[Pg viii]</a></span></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Illustrations</em></h2>
-
-
-
-<div class="center">
-<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Illustrations">
-  <tr>
-    <th><em>Figure</em></th>
-    <th></th>
-    <th><em>Page</em></th>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">1</td>
-    <td>Fur-trade canoe on the Missinaibi River, 1901. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_2">2</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">2</td>
-    <td>Page from a manuscript of 1771, "Observations on Hudsons Bay," by Alexander Graham, Factor. (In archives of Hudson's Bay Company.)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_9">9</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">3</td>
-    <td>Canoes from LaHontan's <cite>Nouveaux Voyages ... dans l'Amerique septentrionale</cite>, showing crude representations typical of early writers.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_11">11</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">4</td>
-    <td>Lines of an old birch-bark canoe, probably Micmac, brought to England in 1749 from New England. (<em>From Admiralty Collection of Draughts, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_12">12</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">5</td>
-    <td>Ojibway Indian carrying spruce roots, Lac Seul, Ont., 1919. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_15">15</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">6</td>
-    <td>Roll of bark for a hunting canoe. Algonkin Reserve, at Golden Lake, Ont., 1927.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_16">16</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">7</td>
-    <td>Sketch: wood-splitting techniques, cedar and spruce.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">8-19</td>
-    <td>Sketches of tools: 8, stone axe; 9, stone hammer, wedge, and knife; 10, mauls and driving sticks; 11, stone scraper; 12, bow drill; 13, modern Hudson Bay axe; 14, steel fur-trade tomahawk; 15, steel canoe awls; 16, crooked knives; 17, froe; 18, shaving horse; 19, bucksaw.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">20</td>
-    <td>Peeling, rolling, and transporting bark. (<em>Sketches by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_25">25</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">21</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Building frame for a large canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_26">26</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">22, 23 </td>
-    <td>Sketches: Effect on canoe bottom of crimping and goring bark.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_30">30</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">24</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Canoe formed by use of gores and panels.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_31">31</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">25</td>
-    <td>Gunwale ends nailed and wrapped with spruce roots. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_31">31</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">26</td>
-    <td>Gunwales and stakes on building bed, plan view. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_32">32</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">27</td>
-    <td>Photo: Gunwale lashings, examples made by Adney.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_33">33</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">28</td>
-    <td>Photo: Gunwale-end lashings, examples made by Adney.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_33">33</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">29</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Splints arranged in various ways to sheath the bottom of a canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_34">34</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">30</td>
-    <td>End details, including construction of stem-pieces. (<em>Sketches by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_35">35</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">31</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2½-fathom St. John River Malecite canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_36">36</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">32</td>
-    <td>Malecite canoe building, 1910. (Canadian Geological Survey photos.)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_39">39</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">33</td>
-    <td>First stage of canoe construction: assembled gunwale frame is used to locate stakes temporarily on building bed. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_40">40</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">34</td>
-    <td>Second stage of canoe construction: bark cover is laid out on the building bed, and the gunwales are in place upon it. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_41">41</a> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[Pg ix]</a></span></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">35</td>
-    <td>Photo: Malecite canoe builders near Fredericton, N.B., using wooden plank building bed.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_42">42</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">36</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Two common styles of root stitching used in bark canoes.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_43">43</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">37</td>
-    <td>Comparison of canoe on the building bed and canoe when first removed from building bed during fifth stage of construction. (<em>Detail sketches by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_44">44</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">38</td>
-    <td>Third stage of canoe construction: the bark cover is shaped on the building bed. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_45">45</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">39</td>
-    <td>Cross section of canoe on building bed during third and fourth stages of construction. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_46">46</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">40</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Multiple cross section through one side of a canoe on the building bed, at the headboard, middle, first, and second thwarts.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_46">46</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">41</td>
-    <td>Fourth stage of canoe construction: bark cover has been shaped and all stakes placed. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_47">47</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">42</td>
-    <td>Fifth stage of canoe construction: canoe is removed from building bed and set on horses to shape ends and complete sewing. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_49">49</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">43</td>
-    <td>Ribs being dried and shaped for Ojibway canoe. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_50">50</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">44</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Details of ribs and method of shaping them in pairs.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_51">51</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">45</td>
-    <td>Sixth stage of canoe construction: in this stage splints for sheathing (upper left) are fixed in place and held by temporary ribs (lower right) under the gunwales. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_53">53</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">46</td>
-    <td>General details of birch-bark canoe construction, in a drawing by Adney. (From <cite>Harper's Young People</cite>, supplement, July 29, 1890.)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_54">54</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">47</td>
-    <td>Gunwale construction and thwart or crossbar fastenings, as shown in a sketch by Adney. (<cite>Harper's Young People</cite>, supplement, July 29, 1890.)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_56">56</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">48</td>
-    <td>"Peter Joe at Work." Drawing by Adney for his article "How an Indian Birch-Bark Canoe is Made." (<cite>Harper's Young People</cite>, supplement, July 29, 1890.)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_57">57</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">49</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_59">59</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">50</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_60">60</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">51</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_61">61</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">52</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2½-fathom Micmac big-river canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_62">62</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">53</td>
-    <td>Lines of 3-fathom Micmac ocean canoe fitted for sailing.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_63">63</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">54</td>
-    <td>Micmac rough-water canoe, Bathurst, N.B. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_64">64</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">55</td>
-    <td>Micmac Woods canoe, built by Malecite Jim Paul at St. Mary's Reserve in 1911. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_64">64</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">56</td>
-    <td>Micmac rough-water canoe fitted for sailing. (<em>Photo W. H. Mechling, 1913.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_65">65</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">57</td>
-    <td>Micmac rough-water canoe, Bay Chaleur. (<em>Photo H. V. Henderson, West Bathurst, N.B.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_66">66</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">58</td>
-    <td>Micmac rough-water sailing canoe, Bay Chaleur. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_66">66</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">59</td>
-    <td>Drawing: Details of Micmac canoes, including mast and sail.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_67">67</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">60</td>
-    <td>Micmac canoe, Bathurst, N.B. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_68">68</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">61</td>
-    <td>Micmac woman gumming seams of canoe, Bathurst, N.B., 1913. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_69">69</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">62</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2½-fathom Malecite river canoe, 19th century. Old form with raking ends and much sheer.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_71">71</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[Pg x]</a></span></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">63</td>
-    <td>Lines of old form of Malecite-Abnaki 2½-fathom ocean canoe of the Penobscots in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_72">72</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">64</td>
-    <td>Lines of large 3-fathom ocean canoe of the Passamaquoddy porpoise hunters.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_73">73</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">65</td>
-    <td>Lines of old form of Passamaquoddy 2½-fathom ocean canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_74">74</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">66</td>
-    <td>Lines of Malecite racing canoe of 1888, showing <strong>V</strong>-shaped keel piece between sheathing and bark to form deadrise.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_75">75</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">67</td>
-    <td>Lines of sharp-ended 2½-fathom Passamaquoddy hunting canoe, for use on tidal river.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_76">76</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">68</td>
-    <td>Lines of Malecite 2½-fathom St. Lawrence River canoe, probably a hybrid model.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_77">77</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">69</td>
-    <td>Lines of Malecite 2½-fathom river canoe of 1890 from the Rivière du Loup region.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_78">78</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">70</td>
-    <td>Lines of Modern (1895) 2½-fathom Malecite St. John River canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_79">79</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">71</td>
-    <td>Drawing: Malecite canoe details, gear, and gunwale decorations.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_80">80</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">72</td>
-    <td>Drawing: Malecite canoe details, stem profiles, paddles, sail rig, and salmon spear.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_81">81</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">73</td>
-    <td>Lines and decoration reconstructed from a very old model of a St. John River ancient woods, or pack, canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_81">81</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">74</td>
-    <td>Lines of last known Passamaquoddy decorated ocean canoe to be built (1898).</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_82">82</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">75</td>
-    <td>Drawing: Malecite canoe details and decorations.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_83">83</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">76</td>
-    <td>Sketches: Wulegessis decorations.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_84">84</a>-85</td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">77</td>
-    <td>Photo: End decorations, Passamaquoddy canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_86">86</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">78</td>
-    <td>Photo: End decorations, Passamaquoddy canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">79</td>
-    <td>Photo: Passamaquoddy decorated canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">80</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2-fathom St. Francis canoe of about 1865</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_89">89</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">81</td>
-    <td>Lines of "14-foot" St. Francis canoe of about 1910</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_90">90</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">82</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2½-fathom low-ended St. Francis canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_91">91</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">83</td>
-    <td>Lines of St. Francis-Abnaki canoe for open water, a type that became extinct before 1890. From Adney's drawings of a canoe formerly in the Museum of Natural History.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_92">92</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">84</td>
-    <td>Photo: Model of a St. Francis-Abnaki canoe under construction.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_93">93</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">85</td>
-    <td>Photo: St. Francis-Abnaki canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_93">93</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">86</td>
-    <td>A 15-foot Beothuk canoe of Newfoundland (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_95">95</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">87</td>
-    <td>Lines based on Adney's reconstruction of 15-foot Beothuk canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_97">97</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">88</td>
-    <td>Montagnais crooked canoe. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_100">100</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">89</td>
-    <td>Birch-bark crooked canoe, Ungava Cree. (<em>Smithsonian Institution photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_101">101</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">90</td>
-    <td>Lines of 3-fathom Nascapee canoe, eastern Labrador.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_102">102</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">91</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2-fathom Montagnais canoe of southern Labrador and Quebec.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_102">102</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">92</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2½-fathom crooked canoe of the Ungava Peninsula.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_103">103</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">93</td>
-    <td>Lines of hybrid-model 2-fathom Nascapee canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_103">103</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">94</td>
-    <td>Eastern Cree crooked canoe of rather moderate sheer and rocker. (<em>Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_104">104</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">95</td>
-    <td>Photo: Straight and crooked canoes, eastern Cree.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_105">105</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">96</td>
-    <td>Montagnais canvas-covered crooked canoe under construction. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_106">106</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">97</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Fiddlehead of scraped bark on bow and stern of a Montagnais birch-bark canoe at Seven Islands, Que., 1915.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_107">107</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[Pg xi]</a></span></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">98</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Disk of colored porcupine quills decorating canoe found at Namaquagon, Que., 1898.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_107">107</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">99</td>
-    <td>Fleet of 51 birch-bark canoes of the Têtes de Boule Indians, assembled at the Hudson's Bay Company post, Grand Lake Victoria, Procession Sunday, August 1895. (<em>Photo, Post-Factor L. A. Christopherson.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_108">108</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">100</td>
-    <td>Photo: Têtes de Boule canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_109">109</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">101</td>
-    <td>Photo: Têtes de Boule canoes.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_110">110</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">102</td>
-    <td>Lines of 1½-fathom Têtes de Boule hunting canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_111">111</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">103</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2½-fathom Têtes de Boule canoe, with construction details.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_111">111</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">104</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2-fathom Têtes de Boule hunting canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_112">112</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">105</td>
-    <td>Photo: Old Algonkin canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_113">113</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">106</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2½-fathom old model, Ottawa River, Algonkin canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_114">114</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">107</td>
-    <td>Photo: Models made by Adney of Algonkin and Ojibway stem-pieces.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_115">115</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">108</td>
-    <td>Lines of light, fast 2-fathom hunting canoe of the old Algonkin model.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_116">116</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">109</td>
-    <td>Lines of hybrid 2½- and 2-fathom Algonkin canoes.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_117">117</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">110</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2-fathom Algonkin hunter's canoe, without headboards.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_118">118</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">111</td>
-    <td>Photo: Algonkin canoe, old type.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_119">119</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">112</td>
-    <td>Photo: Algonkin "Wabinaki Chiman"</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_120">120</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">113</td>
-    <td>Algonkin canoe decorations, Golden Lake, Ont.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_121">121</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">114</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2-fathom Ojibway hunter's canoe, built in 1873</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_123">123</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">115</td>
-    <td>Lines of 3-fathom Ojibway old model rice-harvesting canoe and 2-fathom hunter's canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_124">124</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">116</td>
-    <td>Lines of 3-fathom Ojibway freight canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_124">124</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">117</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2½-fathom Ojibway, old form, canoe and a 16-foot long-nose Cree-Ojibway canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_125">125</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">118</td>
-    <td>Eastern Ojibway canoe, old form. (<em>Canadian Pacific Railway photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_126">126</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">119</td>
-    <td>Photo: Ojibway Long-Nose canoe, Rainy Lake District.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_126">126</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">120</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2-fathom Ojibway hunter's canoe, 1849 and long-nose Minnesota Ojibway rice-harvesting canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_127">127</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">121</td>
-    <td>Photos: Canoe building, Lac Seul, Canada, 1918</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_128">128</a>-129</td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">122</td>
-    <td>Long Lake Ojibway long-nose canoe. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_130">130</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">123</td>
-    <td>Photo: Ojibway 19-foot canoe with 13 Indians aboard (1913)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_131">131</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">124</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2½-fathom western Cree canoe, Winisk River district, northwest of James Bay.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_133">133</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">125</td>
-    <td>Lines of a 6-fathom fur-trade canoe of the early 19th century.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_134">134</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">126</td>
-    <td>Inboard profile of a 6-fathom fur-trade canoe, and details of construction, fitting, and decoration.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_135">135</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">127</td>
-    <td>Lines of small 3-fathom north canoe of the Têtes de Boule model.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_136">136</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">128</td>
-    <td>Photo: Models of fur-trade canoes.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_137">137</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">129</td>
-    <td>"Fur-Trade Maître Canot With Passengers." From an oil painting by Hopkins (<em>Public Archives of Canada photo</em>).</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_138">138</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">130</td>
-    <td>"Bivouac in Expedition in Hudson's Bay Canoe." From an oil painting by Hopkins (<em>Public Archives of Canada photo</em>).</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_139">139</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">131</td>
-    <td>Ojibway 3-fathom fur-trade canoe, a cargo-carrying type, marked by cut-under end profiles, that was built as late as 1894.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_139">139</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">132</td>
-    <td>Lines of a 5-fathom fur-trade canoe, Grand Lake Victoria Post, Hudson's Bay Company.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_140">140</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">133</td>
-    <td>"Hudson's Bay Canoe Running the Rapids." From an oil painting by Hopkins (<em>Public Archives of Canada photo</em>).</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_141">141</a> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">[Pg xii]</a></span></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">134</td>
-    <td>"Repairing the Canoe." From an oil painting by Hopkins (<em>Public Archives of Canada photo</em>).</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_142">142</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">135</td>
-    <td>Lines of a 4½-fathom Hudson's Bay Company "North Canoe," built by Crees near James Bay, mid-19th century.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_143">143</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">136</td>
-    <td>Photo: 5-fathom fur-trade canoe from Brunswick House, a Hudson's Bay Company post.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_144">144</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">137</td>
-    <td>Fur-trade canoes on the Missinaibi River, 1901. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_145">145</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">138</td>
-    <td>Photo: Fur-trade canoe brigade from Christopherson's Hudson's Bay Company post, about 1885.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_146">146</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">139</td>
-    <td>Forest rangers, Lake Timagami, Ontario. (<em>Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_147">147</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">140</td>
-    <td>Photo: Models made by Adney of fur-trade canoe stem-pieces.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_149">149</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">141</td>
-    <td>Photo: Models by Adney of fur-trade canoe stem-pieces.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_151">151</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">142</td>
-    <td>Portaging a 4½-fathom fur-trade canoe, about 1902, near the head of the Ottawa River. (<em>Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_152">152</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">143</td>
-    <td>Decorations, fur-trade canoes (<em>Watercolor sketch by Adney.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_153">153</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">144</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2-fathom Chipewyan hunter's canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_155">155</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">145</td>
-    <td>Lines of 2½-fathom Chipewyan and 3-fathom Dogrib cargo, or family, canoes.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_156">156</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">146</td>
-    <td>Lines of 3-fathom Slavey and 2½-fathom Algonkin-type Athabascan plank-stem canoes.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_157">157</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">147</td>
-    <td>Lines of Eskimo kayak-form birch-bark canoe from Alaskan Coast.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_159">159</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">148</td>
-    <td>Lines of Athabascan hunting canoes of the kayak form.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_160">160</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">149</td>
-    <td>Lines of extinct forms of Loucheux and bateau-form canoes, reconstructed from old models.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_161">161</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">150</td>
-    <td>Lines of kayak-form canoes of the Alaskan Eskimos and Canadian Athabascan Indians.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_163">163</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">151</td>
-    <td>Lines of kayak-form canoe of British Columbia and upper Yukon valley.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_164">164</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">152</td>
-    <td>Construction of kayak-form canoe of the lower Yukon, showing rigid bottom frame. (<em>Smithsonian Institution photo.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_165">165</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">153</td>
-    <td>Photo: Model of an extinct form of Athabascan type birch-bark canoe, of British Columbia. In Peabody Museum, Harvard University.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_167">167</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">154</td>
-    <td>Lines of sturgeon-nose bark canoe of the Kutenai and Shuswap.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_169">169</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">155</td>
-    <td>Ojibway canoe construction. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photos.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_170">170</a>-171</td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">156</td>
-    <td>Photo: Indians with canoe at Alert Bay, on Cormorant Island, B. C.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_173">173</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">157</td>
-    <td>Eighteenth-century lines drawing of a kayak, from Labrador or southern Baffin Island.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_175">175</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">158</td>
-    <td>Western Alaskan umiak with eight women paddling, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, 1936. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_177">177</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">159</td>
-    <td>Western Alaskan umiak being beached, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, 1936. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_177">177</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">160</td>
-    <td>Repairing umiak frame at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, 1930. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_178">178</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">161</td>
-    <td>Eskimo woman splitting walrus hide to make umiak cover, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, 1930. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_178">178</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">162</td>
-    <td>Fitting split walrus-hide cover to umiak at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, 1930. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_179">179</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">163</td>
-    <td>Outboard motor installed on umiak, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, 1936. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_179">179</a> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">[Pg xiii]</a></span></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">164</td>
-    <td>Launching umiak in light surf, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, 1936. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_179">179</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">165</td>
-    <td>Umiaks on racks, in front of village on Little Diomede Island, July 30, 1936. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_181">181</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">166</td>
-    <td>Umiak covered with split walrus hide, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_183">183</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">167</td>
-    <td>Lines of small umiak for walrus hunting, west coast of Alaska. 1888-89</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_184">184</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">168</td>
-    <td>Umiaks near Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, showing walrus hide cover and lacing. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_185">185</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">169</td>
-    <td>Lines of umiak, west coast of Alaska, King Island, 1886</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_186">186</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">170</td>
-    <td>Making the blind seam: two stages of method used by the Eskimo to join skins together.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_186">186</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">171</td>
-    <td>Lines of north Alaskan whaling umiak of about 1890</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_187">187</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">172</td>
-    <td>Lines of Baffin Island umiak, 1885. Drawn from model and detailed measurements of a single boat.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_188">188</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">173</td>
-    <td>Lines of east Greenland umiak, drawn from measurements taken off by a U.S. Army officer in 1945.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_189">189</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">174</td>
-    <td>Frame of kayak, Nunivak Island, Alaska. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_191">191</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">175</td>
-    <td>Frame of kayak at Nunivak Island, Alaska, 1927. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_193">193</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">176</td>
-    <td>Lines of Koryak kayak, drawn from damaged kayak in the American Museum of Natural History, 1948.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_195">195</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">177</td>
-    <td>Lines of Kodiak Island kayak, 1885, in U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_196">196</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">178</td>
-    <td>Lines of Aleutian kayak, Unalaska, 1894, in U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_196">196</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">179</td>
-    <td>Lines of kayak from Russian Siberia, 2-hole Aleutian type, in Washington State Historical Society and Museum. Taken off by John Heath, 1962.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_197">197</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">180</td>
-    <td>Lines of Nunivak Island kayak, Alaska, 1889, in U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_198">198</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">181</td>
-    <td>Lines of King Island kayak, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_198">198</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">182</td>
-    <td>Lines of Norton Sound kayak, Alaska, 1889, in U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_198">198</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">183</td>
-    <td>Nunivak Island kayak with picture of mythological water monster Palriayuk painted along gunwale. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_199">199</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">184</td>
-    <td>Photo: Nunivak Island kayak in U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_199">199</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">185</td>
-    <td>Western Alaskan kayak, Cape Prince of Wales, 1936. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_200">200</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">186</td>
-    <td>Lines of Kotzebue Sound kayak, in Mariners' Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_201">201</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">187</td>
-    <td>Lines of Point Barrow kayak, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_201">201</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">188</td>
-    <td>Lines of Mackenzie Delta kayak, in Museum of the American Indian.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_201">201</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">189</td>
-    <td>Photo: Kayak from Point Barrow, Alaska, in U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_202">202</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">190</td>
-    <td>Photo: Cockpit of kayak from Point Barrow.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_202">202</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">191</td>
-    <td>Lines of kayak in U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_203">203</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">192</td>
-    <td>Lines of kayak from Coronation Gulf, Canada.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_203">203</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">193</td>
-    <td>Lines of Caribou Eskimo kayak, Canada, in American Museum of Natural History.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_203">203</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">194</td>
-    <td>Lines of Netsilik Eskimo kayak, King William Island, Canada, in the American Museum of Natural History.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_203">203</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">195</td>
-    <td>Lines of old kayak from vicinity of Southampton Island, Canada.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_205">205</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">196</td>
-    <td>Lines of Baffin Island kayak, from Cape Dorset, Canada, in the Museum of the American Indian.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_205">205</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">197</td>
-    <td>Lines of kayak from north Labrador, Canada, in the Museum of the American Indian.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_207">207</a> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiv" id="Page_xiv">[Pg xiv]</a></span></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">198</td>
-    <td>Lines of Labrador kayak, Canada, in the U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_207">207</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">199</td>
-    <td>Lines of north Greenland kayak, in the Museum of the American Indian.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_207">207</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">200</td>
-    <td>Lines of north Greenland kayak, in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_207">207</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">201</td>
-    <td>Photo: Profile of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay, in the National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_208">208</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">202</td>
-    <td>Photo: Deck of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_208">208</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">203</td>
-    <td>Photo: Cockpit of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_209">209</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">204</td>
-    <td>Photo: Bow view of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_209">209</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">205</td>
-    <td>Lines of northwestern Greenland kayak, in the U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_210">210</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">206</td>
-    <td>Lines of southwestern Greenland kayak, 1883, in the U.S. National Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_210">210</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">207</td>
-    <td>Lines of southwestern Greenland kayak, in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_210">210</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">208</td>
-    <td>Lines of south Greenland kayak, in the American Museum of Natural History.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_211">211</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">209</td>
-    <td>Lines of Malecite and Iroquois temporary canoes.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_214">214</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">210</td>
-    <td>Photo: Model of hickory-bark canoe under construction, in the Mariner's Museum.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_217">217</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">211</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Detail of thwart used in Malecite temporary spruce-bark canoe.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_217">217</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">212</td>
-    <td>Iroquois temporary elm-bark canoe, after a drawing of 1849.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_218">218</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">213</td>
-    <td>Large moosehide canoe of upper Gravel River, Mackenzie valley. (<em>Photo, George M. Douglas.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_221">221</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">214</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Standard Greenland roll.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_224">224</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">215</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Critical stage of a capsize recovery.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_225">225</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">216</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Hand positions used with the standard Greenland roll.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_226">226</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">217</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Kayak rescue, bow-grab method.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_226">226</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">218</td>
-    <td>Sketch: Kayak rescue, paddle-grab method.</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_226">226</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">219</td>
-    <td>Preparing for demonstration of Eskimo roll, Igdlorssuit, West Greenland. (<em>Photo by Kenneth Taylor.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_227">227</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">220</td>
-    <td>Getting aboard kayak. (<em>Photo by Kenneth Taylor.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_228">228</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">221</td>
-    <td>Fully capsized kayak. (<em>Photo by Kenneth Taylor.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_228">228</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">222</td>
-    <td>Emerging from roll. (<em>Photo by Kenneth Taylor.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_229">229</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">223</td>
-    <td>Emerging from roll. (<em>Photo by Kenneth Taylor.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_229">229</a></td>
-  </tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdr">224</td>
-    <td>Righting the kayak. (<em>Photo by Kenneth Taylor.</em>)</td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_229">229</a></td>
-  </tr>
-</table></div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xv" id="Page_xv">[Pg xv]</a></span></p>
-
-<p class="ph1"><em>The
-Bark Canoes and Skin Boats
-of
-North America</em>
-</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xvi" id="Page_xvi">[Pg xvi]</a><br /><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a><br />
-
-<a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2>INTRODUCTION</h2>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i018.jpg" width="700" height="567" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 1</p>
-
-<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Fur-Trade Canoe on the Missinaibi River</span>, 1901. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The bark canoes of the North American Indians,
-particularly those of birch bark, were among the most
-highly developed of manually propelled primitive
-watercraft. Built with Stone Age tools from materials
-available in the areas of their use, their design, size, and
-appearance were varied so as to create boats suitable to
-the many and different requirements of their users.
-The great skill exhibited in their design and construction
-shows that a long period of development must have
-taken place before they became known to white men.</p>
-
-<p>The Indian bark canoes were most efficient watercraft
-for use in forest travel; they were capable of
-being propelled easily with a single-bladed paddle.
-This allowed the paddler, unlike the oarsman, to
-face the direction of travel, a necessity in obstructed
-or shoal waters and in fast-moving streams. The
-canoes, being light, could be carried overland for
-long distances, even where trails were rough or nonexistent.
-Yet they could carry heavy loads in shallow
-water and could be repaired in the forest without
-special tools.</p>
-
-<p>Bark canoes were designed for various conditions:
-some for use in rapid streams, some for quiet waters,
-some for the open waters of lakes, some for use along
-the coast. Most were intended for portage in overland
-transportation as well. They were built in a
-variety of sizes, from small one-man hunting and
-fishing canoes to canoes large enough to carry a ton
-of cargo and a crew, or a war-party, or one or more
-families moving to new habitations. Some canoes
-were designed so that they could be used, turned
-bottom up, for shelter ashore.</p>
-
-<p>The superior qualities of the bark canoes of North
-America are indicated by the white man's unqualified
-adoption of the craft. Almost as soon as he arrived
-in North America, the white man learned to use the
-canoe, without alteration, for wilderness travel.
-Much later, when the original materials used in
-building were no longer readily available, canvas was
-substituted for bark, and nails for the lashings and
-sewing; but as long as manual propulsion was used,
-the basic models of the bark canoes were retained.
-Indeed, the models and the proportions used in many
-of these old bark canoes are retained in the canoes
-used today in the wildernesses of northern Canada
-and Alaska, and the same styles may be seen in the
-canoes used for pleasure in the summer resorts of
-Europe and America. The bark canoe of North
-America shares with the Eskimo kayak the distinction
-of being one of the few primitive craft of which the
-basic models are retained in the boats of civilized man.</p>
-
-<p>It may seem strange, then, that the literature on
-American bark canoes is so limited. Many possible
-explanations for this might be offered. One is that
-the art of bark canoe building died early, as the
-Indians came into contact with the whites, before
-there was any attempt fully to record Indian culture.
-The bark canoe is fragile compared to the dugout.
-The latter might last hundreds of years submerged
-in a bog, but the bark canoe will not last more than
-a few decades. It is difficult, in fact, to preserve bark
-canoes in museums, for as they age and the bark
-becomes brittle, they are easily damaged in moving
-and handling.</p>
-
-<p>Some small models made by Indians are preserved,
-but, like most models made by primitive men, these
-are not to any scale and do not show with equal
-accuracy all parts of the canoes they represent. They
-are, therefore, of value only when full-sized canoes
-of the same type are available for comparison, but
-this is too rarely the case with the American Indian
-bark canoes. Today the builders who might have
-added to our knowledge are long dead.</p>
-
-<p>It might be said fairly that those who had the best
-opportunities to observe, including many whose profession
-it was to record the culture of primitive man,
-showed little interest in watercraft and have left us
-only the most meager descriptions. Even when the
-watercraft of the primitive man had obviously played
-a large part in his culture, we rarely find a record complete
-enough to allow the same accuracy of reproduction
-that obtains, say, for his art, his dress, or his pottery.
-Once lost, the information on primitive watercraft
-cannot, as a rule, be recovered.</p>
-
-<p>However, as far as the bark canoes of North America
-are concerned, there was another factor. The student<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span>
-who became sufficiently interested to begin research
-soon discovered that one man was devoting his lifetime
-to the study of these craft; that, in a field with
-few documentary records and fewer artifacts, he had
-had opportunities for detailed examination not open
-to younger men; and that it was widely expected that
-this man would eventually publish his findings. Hence
-many, who might otherwise have carried on some research
-and writing, turned to other subjects. Practically,
-then, the whole field had been left to Edwin
-Tappan Adney.</p>
-
-<p>Born at Athens, Ohio, in 1868, Edwin Tappan
-Adney was the son of Professor H. H. Adney, formerly
-a colonel in a volunteer regiment in the Civil
-War but then on the faculty of Ohio University. His
-mother was Ruth Shaw Adney. Edwin Tappan
-Adney did not receive a college education, but he
-managed to pursue three years' study of art with The
-Art Students' League of New York. Apparently he
-was interested in ornithology as well as in art, and
-spent much time in New York museums, where he
-met Ernest Thompson Seton and other naturalists.
-Being unable to afford more study in art school, he
-went on what was intended to be a short vacation, in
-1887, to Woodstock, New Brunswick. There he became
-interested in the woods-life of Peter Joe, a
-Malecite Indian who lived in a temporary camp
-nearby. This life so interested the 19-year-old Ohioan
-that he turned toward the career of an artist-craftsman,
-recording outdoor scenes of the wilderness in
-pictures.</p>
-
-<p>He undertook to learn the handicrafts of the Indian,
-in order to picture him and his works correctly, and
-lengthened his stay. In 1889, Adney and Peter Joe
-each built a birch-bark canoe, Adney following and
-recording every step the Indian made during construction.
-The result Adney published, with sketches,
-in <cite>Harper's Young People</cite> magazine, July 29, 1890, and,
-in a later version, in <cite>Outing</cite>, May 1900. These, so far
-as is known, are the earliest detailed descriptions of a
-birch-bark canoe, with instructions for building one.
-Daniel Beard considered them the best, and with
-Adney's permission used the material in his <cite>Boating
-Book for Boys</cite>.</p>
-
-<p>In 1897, Adney went to the Klondike as an artist
-and special correspondent for <cite>Harper's Weekly</cite> and <cite>The
-London Chronicle</cite>, to report on the gold-rush. He also
-wrote a book on his experience, <cite>Klondike Stampede</cite>,
-published in 1900. In 1899 he married Minnie
-Bell Sharp, of Woodstock, but by 1900 Adney was
-again in the Northwest, this time as special correspondent
-for <cite>Colliers</cite> magazine at Nome, Alaska, during
-the gold-rush of that year. On his return to New
-York, Adney engaged in illustrating outdoor scenes
-and also lectured for the Society for the Prevention of
-Cruelty to Animals. In 1908 he contributed to a
-Harper's Outdoor Book for Boys. From New York he
-removed to Montreal and became a citizen of Canada,
-entering the Canadian Army as a Lieutenant of Engineers
-in 1916. He was assigned to the construction of
-training models and was on the staff of the Military
-College, mustering out in 1919. He then made his
-home in Montreal, engaging in painting and illustrating.
-From his early years in Woodstock he had
-made a hobby of the study of birch-bark canoes, and
-while in Montreal he became honorary consultant to
-the Museum of McGill University, dealing with Indian
-lore. By 1925 Adney had assembled a great deal
-of material and, to clarify his ideas, he began construction
-of scale models of each type of canoe, carrying
-on a very extensive correspondence with Indians,
-factors and other employees (retired and active) of the
-Hudson's Bay Company, and with government agents
-on the Indian Reservations. He also made a number
-of expeditions to interview Indians. Possessing linguistic
-ability in Malecite, he was much interested in
-all the Indian languages; this helped him in his
-canoe studies.</p>
-
-<p>Owing to personal and financial misfortunes, he
-and his wife (then blind) returned in the early 1930's
-to her family homestead in Woodstock, where Mrs.
-Adney died in 1937. Adney continued his work
-under the greatest difficulties, including ill-health,
-until his death, October 10, 1950. He did not
-succeed in completing his research and had not
-organized his collection of papers and notes for
-publication when he died.</p>
-
-<p>Through the farsightedness of Frederick Hill, then
-director of The Mariners' Museum, Newport News,
-Virginia, Adney had, ten years before his death,
-deposited in the museum over a hundred of his models
-and a portion of his papers. After his death his son
-Glenn Adney cooperated in placing in The Mariners'
-Museum the remaining papers dealing with bark
-canoes, thus completing the "Adney Collection."</p>
-
-<p>Frederick Hill's appreciation of the scope and value
-of the collection prompted him to seek my assistance
-in organizing this material with a view to publication.
-Though the Adney papers were apparently complete
-and were found, upon careful examination, to
-contain an immense amount of valuable information,
-they were in a highly chaotic state. At the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span>
-request of The Mariners' Museum, I have assembled
-the pertinent papers and have compiled from Adney's
-research notes as complete a description as I could
-of bark canoes, their history, construction, decoration
-and use. I had long been interested in the primitive
-watercraft of the Americas, but I was one of those
-who had discontinued research on bark canoes upon
-learning of Adney's work. The little I had accomplished
-dealt almost entirely with the canoes of Alaska
-and British Columbia; from these I had turned to
-dugouts and to the skin boats of the Eskimo. Therefore
-I have faced with much diffidence the task of
-assembling and preparing the Adney papers for
-publication, particularly since it was not always
-clear what Adney had finally decided about certain
-matters pertaining to canoes. His notes were seldom
-arranged in a sequence that would enable the reader
-to decide which, of a number of solutions or opinions
-given, were Adney's final ones.</p>
-
-<p>Adney's interest in canoes, as canoes, was very great,
-but his interest in anthropology led him to form many
-opinions about pre-Columbian migrations of Indian
-tribes and about the significance of the decorations
-used in some canoes. His papers contain considerable
-discussion of these matters, but they are in
-such state that only an ethnologist could edit and
-evaluate them. In addition, my own studies lead me
-to conclude that the mere examination of watercraft
-alone is insufficient evidence upon which to base
-opinions as far-reaching as those of Adney. Therefore
-I have not attempted to present in this work any of
-Adney's theories regarding the origin or ethnological
-significance of the canoes discussed. I have followed
-the same practice with those Adney papers which
-concern Indian language, some of which relate to individual
-tribal canoe types and are contained in the
-canoe material. (Most of his papers on linguistics
-are now in The Peabody Museum, Salem,
-Massachusetts.)</p>
-
-<p>The strength and weaknesses of Adney's work, as
-shown in his papers, drawings, and models, seem to
-me to be fully apparent. That part dealing with
-the eastern Indians, with whom he had long personal
-contact, is by far the most voluminous and, perhaps,
-the most accurate. The canoes used by Indians
-west of the St. Lawrence as far as the western end of
-the Great Lakes and northward to the west side of
-Hudsons Bay are, with a few exceptions, covered in
-somewhat less detail, but the material nonetheless
-appears ample for our purpose. The canoes used in
-the Canadian Northwest, except those from the
-vicinity of Great Slave Lake, and in Alaska were less
-well described. It appears that Adney had relatively
-little opportunity to examine closely the canoes used
-in Alaska, during his visit there in 1900, and that he
-later was unable to visit those American museums
-having collections that would have helped him with
-regard to these areas. As a result, I have found it
-desirable to add my own material on these areas,
-drawn largely from the collections of American museums
-and from my notes on construction details.</p>
-
-<p>An important part of Adney's work deals with the
-large canoes used in the fur trade. Very little beyond
-the barest of descriptions has been published and,
-with but few exceptions, contemporary paintings and
-drawings of these canoes are obviously faulty. Adney
-was fortunate enough to have been able to begin his
-research on these canoes while there were men alive
-who had built and used them. As a result he obtained
-information that would have been lost within,
-at most, the span of a decade. His interest was doubly
-keen, fortunately, for Adney not only was interested
-in the canoes as such, he also valued the information
-for its aid in painting historical scenes. As a result,
-there is hardly a question concerning fur trade canoes,
-whether of model, construction, decoration, or use,
-that is not answered in his material.</p>
-
-<p>I have made every effort to preserve the results
-of Adney's investigations of the individual types in
-accurate drawings or in the descriptions in the text.
-It was necessary to redraw and complete most of
-Adney's scale drawings of canoes, for they were prepared
-for model-building rather than for publication.
-Where his drawings were incomplete, they could be
-filled in from his scale models and notes. It must be
-kept in mind that in drawing plans of primitive craft
-the draftsman must inevitably "idealize" the subject
-somewhat, since a drawing shows fair curves and
-straight lines which the primitive craft do not have
-in all cases. Also, the inboard profiles are diagrammatic
-rather than precise, because, in the necessary reduction
-of the full-size canoe to a drawing, this is the
-only way to show its "form" in a manner that can be
-interpreted accurately and that can be reproduced
-in a model or full size, as desired. It is necessary to
-add that, though most of the Adney plans were measured
-from full-size canoes, some were reconstructed
-from Indian models, builders' information, or other
-sources. Thanks to Adney's thorough knowledge of
-bark construction, the plans are highly accurate, but
-there are still chances for error, and these are discussed
-where they occur.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>Although reconstruction of extinct canoe types
-is difficult, for the strange canoes of the Beothuk
-Indians of Newfoundland Adney appears to have
-solved some of the riddles posed by contemporary
-descriptions and the few grave models extant (the
-latter may have been children's toys). Whether or
-not his reconstructed canoe is completely accurate
-cannot be determined; at least it conforms reasonably
-well to the descriptions and models, and Adney's
-thorough knowledge of Indian craftsmanship gives
-weight to his opinions and conclusions. This much
-can be said: the resulting canoe would be a practical
-one and it fulfills very nearly all descriptions of the
-type known today.</p>
-
-<p>Adney's papers and drawings dealing with the construction
-of bark canoes are most complete and
-valuable. So complete as to be almost a set of "how-to-do-it"
-instructions, they cover everything from the
-selection of materials and use of tools to the art of
-shaping and building the canoe. An understanding
-of these building instructions is essential to any sound
-examination of the bark canoes of North America, for
-they show the limitations of the medium and indicate
-what was and what was not reasonable to expect from
-the finished product.</p>
-
-<p>In working on Adney's papers, it became obvious
-that this publication could not be limited to birch-bark
-canoes, since canoes built of other barks and
-even some covered with skins appear in the birch bark
-areas. Because of this, and to explain the technical
-differences between these and the birch canoes,
-skin-covered canoes have been included. I have
-also appended a chapter on Eskimo skin boats and
-kayaks. This material I had originally prepared for
-inclusion in the <cite>Encyclopedia Arctica</cite>, publication of
-which was cancelled after one volume had appeared.
-As a result, the present work now covers the native
-craft, exclusive of dugouts, of all North America
-north of Mexico.</p>
-
-<p>In my opinion the value of the information gathered
-by Edwin Tappan Adney is well worth the effort that
-has been expended to bring it to its present form, and
-any merit that attaches to it belongs largely to Adney
-himself, whose long and painstaking research, carried
-on under severe personal difficulties, is the foundation
-of this study.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span></p>
-
-<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Howard Irving Chapelle</span>
-<em>Curator of Transportation,
-Museum of History and Technology</em></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Chapter One</em><br />
-
-EARLY HISTORY</h2>
-
-
-<p>The development of bark canoes in North
-America before the arrival of the white men
-cannot satisfactorily be traced. Unlike the dugout,
-the bark canoe is too perishable to survive
-in recognizable form buried in a bog or submerged
-in water, so we have little or no visual evidence of
-very great age upon which to base sound assumptions.</p>
-
-<p>Records of bark canoes, contained in the reports
-of the early white explorers of North America, are
-woefully lacking in detail, but they at least give
-grounds for believing that the bark canoes even then
-were highly developed, and were the product of a
-very long period of existence and improvement prior
-to the first appearance of Europeans.</p>
-
-<p>The Europeans were most impressed by the fact
-that the canoes were built of bark reinforced by a
-light wooden frame. The speed with which they
-could be propelled by the Indians also caused
-amazement, as did their light weight and marked
-strength, combined with a great load-carrying
-capacity in shallow water. It is remarkable, however,
-that although bark canoes apparently aroused so
-much admiration among Europeans, so little of
-accurate and complete information appears in their
-writings.</p>
-
-<p>With two notable exceptions, to be discussed later,
-early explorers, churchmen, travellers, and writers
-were generally content merely to mention the number
-of persons in a canoe. The first published account of
-variations in existing forms of the American bark
-canoe does not occur until 1724, and the first known
-illustration of a bark canoe accurate enough to
-indicate its tribal designation appeared only two years
-earlier. This fact makes any detailed examination
-of the early books dealing with North America quite
-unprofitable as far as precise information on bark
-canoes is concerned.</p>
-
-<p>The first known reference by a Frenchman to the
-bark canoe is that of Jacques Cartier, who reported
-that he saw two bark canoes in 1535; he said the
-two carried a total of 17 men. Champlain was the
-first to record any definite dimensions of the bark
-canoes; he wrote that in 1603 he saw, near what is
-now Quebec, bark canoes 8 to 9 paces long and 1½
-paces wide, and he added that they might transport
-as much as a pipe of wine yet were light enough to
-be carried easily by one man. If a pace is taken as
-about 30 inches, then the canoes would have been
-between 20 and 23 feet long, between 40 and 50
-inches beam and capable of carrying about half a
-ton, English measurements. These were apparently
-Algonkin canoes. Champlain was impressed by
-the speed of the bark canoes; he reported that his
-fully manned longboat was passed by two canoes,
-each with two paddlers. As will be seen, he was
-perhaps primarily responsible for the rapid adoption
-of bark canoes by the early French in Canada.</p>
-
-<p>The first English reference that has been found is in
-the records of Captain George Weymouth's voyage.
-He and his crew in 1603 saw bark canoes to the
-westward of Penobscot Bay, on what is now the coast
-of Maine. The English were impressed, just as
-Champlain had been, by the speed with which canoes
-having but three or four paddlers could pass his ship's
-boat manned with four oarsmen. Weymouth also
-speaks admiringly of the fine workmanship shown in
-the structure of the canoes.</p>
-
-<p>When Champlain attacked the Iroquois, on what is
-now Lake Champlain, he found that these Indians had
-"oak" bark (more probably elm) canoes capable of
-carrying 10, 15, and 18 men. This would indicate that
-the maximum size of the Iroquois canoes was
-about 30 to 33 feet long. The illustrations in his published
-account indicate canoes about 30 feet long; but
-early illustrations of this kind were too often the product
-of the artist's imagination, just as were the delineations
-of the animals and plants of North America.</p>
-
-<p>As an example of what may be deduced from other
-early French accounts, Champlain in 1615, with a
-companion and 12 Indians, embarked at La Chine in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span>
-two bark canoes for a trip to the Great Lakes. He
-stated that the two canoes, with men and baggage
-aboard, were over-crowded. Taking one of these
-canoes as having 7 men and baggage aboard, it seems
-apparent that it was not much larger than the largest
-of the canoes Champlain had seen in 1603 on the St.
-Lawrence. But in 1672, Louis Joliet and Father
-Jacques Marquette traveled in two canoes, carrying
-a total of 5 French and 25 Indians&mdash;say 14 in one
-canoe and 16 in the other. These canoes, then, must
-have been at least 28 feet long over the gunwales, exclusive
-of the round of the ends, or about 30 feet overall.
-The Chevalier Henri de Tonti, one of La Salle's
-officers, mentions a canoe carrying 30 men&mdash;probably
-14 paddlers on each side, a steersman, and a passenger
-or officer. Such a capacity might indicate a canoe
-about 40 feet over the gunwales, though this seems
-very long indeed; it is more probable that the canoe
-would be about 36 feet long.</p>
-
-<p>Another of La Salle's officers, Baron de LaHontan,
-gave the first reasonably complete account that has
-been found of the size and character of a birch-bark
-canoe. This was written at Montreal June 29, 1684.
-After stating that he had seen at least a hundred bark
-canoes in his journeys, he said that birch-bark canoes
-ranged in length from 10 to 28 <em>pieds</em> and were capable
-of carrying from 2 to 14 persons. The largest, when
-carrying cargo, might be handled by three men and
-could carry 2,000 pounds of freight (20 quintals).
-These large canoes were safe and never upset. They
-were built of bark peeled in the winter; hot water was
-thrown on the bark to make it pliable, so that it could
-be rolled up after it was removed from the tree. The
-canoes were built of more than one piece of bark as
-a rule.</p>
-
-<p>The large canoes, he reports, were 28 <em>pieds</em> long,
-4½ <em>pieds</em> wide and 20 <em>pouces</em> deep, top of gunwale to
-top of frames on bottom. The last indicates "inside"
-measurement; in this the length would be over the
-gunwales, not overall, and the beam inside the gunwales,
-not extreme. He also says the canoes had a lining
-or sheathing of cedar "splints" or plank and, inside
-this, cedar ribs or frames. The bark was the
-thickness of an <em>écu</em> (this coin, a crown, was a little less
-than ⅛ inch thick), the sheathing the thickness of two
-<em>écus</em>, and the ribs of three. The ends of the ribs were
-pointed and these were seated in holes in the underside
-of the gunwales. There were 8 crosspieces
-(thwarts) between the gunwales (note: such a canoe
-would commonly have 9 thwarts; LaHontan may
-have erred here).</p>
-
-<p>The canoes were convenient, he says, because of
-their great lightness and shallow draft, but they were
-easily damaged. Hence they had to be loaded and
-unloaded afloat and usually required repairs to the
-bark covers at the end of each day. They had to be
-staked down at night, so that a strong wind might not
-damage or blow them away; but this light weight
-permitted them to be carried with ease by two men,
-one at each end, and this suited them for use on the
-rivers of Canada, where rapids and falls made carrying
-frequently necessary. These canoes were of no
-value on the Lakes, LaHontan states, as they could
-not be used in windy weather; though in good weather
-they might cross lakes and might go four or five
-leagues on open water. The canoes carried small
-sails, but these could be used only with fair winds of
-moderate force. The paddlers might kneel, sit, or
-stand to paddle and pole the canoes. The paddle
-blade was 20 <em>pouces</em> long, 6 wide, and 4 <em>lignes</em> thick;
-the handle was of the diameter of a pigeon's egg and
-three <em>pieds</em> long. The paddlers also had a "setting
-pole," to pole the canoes in shoal water. The canoes
-were alike at both ends and cost 80 <em>écus</em> (LaHontan's
-cost 90), and would last not more than five or six
-years. The foregoing is but a condensed extract of
-LaHontan's lively account.</p>
-
-<p>In translating LaHontan's measurements a <em>pied</em>
-is taken as 12.79 inches, a <em>pouce</em> as about 1⅛ inches.
-The French fathom, or <em>brasse</em>, as used in colonial
-Canada, was the length from finger-tip to finger-tip
-of the arms outstretched and so varied, but may be
-roughly estimated as about 64 inches; this was the
-"fathom" used later in classing fur-trade canoes for
-length. In English measurements his large canoe
-would have been about 30 feet long over the gunwales
-and, perhaps, almost 33 feet overall, 57½ inches beam
-inside the gunwales, or about 60 inches extreme beam.
-The depth inside would be 21 or 21¾ inches bottom
-to top of gunwale amidships. LaHontan also described
-the elm-bark canoes of the Iroquois as being
-large and wide enough to carry 30 paddlers, 15 on a
-side, sitting or standing. Here again a canoe about
-40 feet long is indicated. He said that these elm-bark
-canoes were crude, heavy and slow, with low sides,
-so that once he and his men reached an open lake,
-he no longer feared pursuit by the Iroquois in these
-craft.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 461px;">
-<img src="images/i025.jpg" width="461" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 2</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Page From a Manuscript of 1771</span>, "Observations on Hudsons
-Bay," by Alexander Graham, Factor, now in the archives of the
-Hudson's Bay Company in London. The birch-bark canoe at
-the top, the kayak below, and the paddles are obviously drawn
-by one not trained to observe as an artist.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>From the slight evidence offered in such records as
-these, it appears that the Indians may have had, when
-the Europeans first reached Canada, canoes at least
-as long as the 5-fathom or 5½-fathom canoe of later
-times. It appears also that these dimensions applied
-to the canoes of the Great Lakes area and perhaps to
-the elm-bark canoes of the Iroquois as well. Probably
-there were canoes as short as 10 feet, used as one-man
-hunting and fishing boats, and it is plainly evident
-that canoes between this length and about 24 feet
-were very common. The evidence in La Salle's
-time, in the last half of the seventeenth century, must
-be taken with some caution, as French influence on
-the size of large canoes may have by then come into
-play. The comparison between the maximum length
-of the Iroquois canoes, inferred from the report of
-Champlain, and that suggested by LaHontan, might
-indicate this growth.</p>
-
-<p>Beginning as early as 1660, the colonial government
-of Canada issued <em>congés</em> or trading licenses. These
-were first granted to the military officers or their
-families; later the <em>congés</em> were issued to all approved
-traders, and the fees were used for pensions of the
-military personnel. Records of these licenses, preserved
-from about 1700, show that three men commonly
-made up the crew of a trading canoe in the
-earliest years, but that by 1725 five men were employed,
-by 1737 seven men, and by 1747 seven or
-eight men. However, as LaHontan has stated that
-in his time three men were sufficient to man a large
-canoe with cargo, it is evident that the <em>congés</em> offer
-unreliable data and do not necessarily prove that the
-size of canoes had increased during this period. The
-increase in the crews may have been brought about
-by the greater distances travelled, with an increased
-number of portages or, perhaps, by heavier items of
-cargo.</p>
-
-<p>The war canoe does not appear in these early
-accounts as a special type. According to the traditions
-of the eastern Micmac and Malecite Indians,
-their war canoes were only large enough to carry
-three or four warriors and so must not have exceeded
-18 feet in length. These were built for speed, narrow
-and with very sharp ends; the bottom was made as
-smooth as was possible. Each canoe carried the
-insignia of each of its warriors, that is, his personal
-mark or sign. A canoe carrying a war leader had
-only his personal mark, none for the rest of the crew.
-It is possible to regard the large canoes of the Iroquois
-as "war canoes" since they were used in the pursuit
-of French raiders in LaHontan's time. However, the
-Iroquois did not build the canoes primarily for war;
-in early times these fierce tribesmen preferred to take
-to the warpath in the dead of winter and to raid overland
-on snowshoes. In open weather, they used the
-rough, short-lived and quickly built elm-bark canoes
-to cross streams and lakes or to follow waterways,
-discarding them when the immediate purpose was accomplished.
-Probably it was the French who really
-produced the bark "war canoes," for they appear to
-have placed great emphasis on large canoes for use of
-the military, as indicated by LaHontan's concern with
-the largest canoes of his time. Perhaps large bark
-canoes were once used on the Great Lakes for war
-parties, but, if so, no mention of a special type has
-been found in the early French accounts. The sparse
-references suggest that both large and small canoes
-were used by the war parties but that no special type
-paralleling the characteristics of the Micmac and
-Malecite war canoes existed in the West. The huge
-dugout war canoe of the Indians of the Northwest
-Coast appears to have had no counterpart in size
-among the birch or elm bark canoes.</p>
-
-<p>Except for LaHontan, the early French writers who
-refer to the use of sail agree that the canoes were quite
-unfitted for sailing. It is extremely doubtful that the
-prehistoric Indians using bark canoes were acquainted
-with sails, though it is possible that the coastal Indians
-might have set up a bush in the bow to utilize a
-following wind and thus lighten the labor of paddling.
-However, once the Indian saw the usefulness of a sail
-demonstrated by white men, he was quick to adopt it;
-judging from the LaHontan reference, and the use
-of sails in canoes must have become well established in
-some areas by 1685.</p>
-
-<p>One of the most important elements in the history
-of the canoe is its early adoption by the French.
-Champlain was the first to recommend its use by
-white men. He stated that the bark canoe would be
-very necessary in trade and exploration, pointing out
-that in order to penetrate the back country above the
-rapids at Montreal, during the short summer season,
-and to come back in time to return to France for the
-winter (unless the winter was to be spent in Canada)
-the canoe would have to be used. With it the small
-and large streams could be navigated safely and the
-numerous overland carries could be quickly made.
-Also, of course, Indians could be employed as crews
-without the need of training them to row. This
-general argument in favor of the bark canoe remained
-sound after the desirability of going home to France
-for the winter had ceased to influence French ideas.
-The quick expansion of the French fur trade in the
-early seventeenth century opened up the western
-country into the Great Lakes area and to the northward.
-It was soon discovered that by using canoes on
-the ancient canoe route along the Ottawa River
-goods could reach the western posts on the Lakes and
-be transported north early enough to reach the
-northernmost posts before the first freeze-up occurred.
-The use of sailing vessels on the Lakes did not enable
-this to be accomplished, so that until the railroads
-were built in western Canada, the canoe remained the
-mode of transport for the fur trade in this area. Even
-after the railways were built, canoe traffic remained
-important, until well into the first half of the twentieth
-century as part of the local system of transportation
-in the northwestern country of Canada.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 469px;">
-<img src="images/i027.jpg" width="469" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 3</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Canoes From LaHontan's</span> <cite>Nouveaux Voyages ... dans l'Amerique
-Septentrionale</cite>, showing crude representations typical of early
-writers.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The unsatisfactory illustrations accompanying early
-published accounts have been mentioned. The earliest
-recognizable canoe to be shown in an illustration
-is the reasonably accurate drawing of a Micmac
-canoe that appears in Bacqueville de la Poterie's
-book, published in 1722. LaFiteau, another Frenchman,
-in 1724 published a book that not only contains
-recognizable drawings but points out reasons for
-the variation in the appearance of bark canoes:</p>
-
-<div class="blockquot">
-
-<p>The Abenacquis, for example, are less high in the sides,
-less large, and more flat at the two ends; in a way they are
-almost level for their whole extent; because those who travel
-on their small rivers are sure to be troubled and struck by
-the branches of trees that border and extend over the water.
-On the other hand, the Outaouacs [Ottawas] and the nations
-of the upper country having to do their navigation on
-the St. Lawrence River where there are many falls and
-rapids, or especially on the Lakes where there is always a
-very considerable swell, must have high ends.</p></div>
-
-<p>His illustrations show that his low-ended canoes
-were of Micmac type but that his high-ended canoes
-were not of the Ottawa River or Great Lakes types
-but rather of the eastern Malecite of the lower St.
-Lawrence valley. This Jesuit missionary also noted
-that the canoes were alike at the ends and that the
-paddles were of maple and about 5 feet long, with
-blades 18 inches long and 6 wide. He observed
-that bark canoes were unfitted for sailing.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i028.jpg" width="700" height="486" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 4</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Lines of an Old Birch-Bark Canoe</span>, probably Micmac, brought to
-England in 1749 from New England. This canoe was not alike at both
-ends, although apparently intended to be so by the builder. (<em>From
-Admiralty Collection of Draughts, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The early English settlers of New England and
-New York were acquainted with the canoe forms of
-eastern Indians such as the Micmac, Malecite,
-Abnaki, and the Iroquois. Surviving records,
-however, show no detailed description of these
-canoes by an English writer and no illustration until
-about 1750. At this time a bark canoe, apparently
-Micmac, was brought from Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
-to England and delivered to Lord Anson
-who had it placed in the Boat House of the Chatham
-Dockyard. There it was measured and a scale
-drawing was made by Admiralty draftsmen; the
-drawing is now in the Admiralty Collection of
-Draughts, in the National Maritime Museum at
-Greenwich. A redrawing of this plan appears opposite.
-It probably represents a war
-canoe, since a narrow, sharp-ended
-canoe is shown. The bottom, neither
-flat nor fully round, is a rounded <strong>V</strong>-shape;
-this may indicate a canoe
-intended for coastal waters. Other
-drawings, of a later date, showing
-crude plans of canoes, exist in Europe
-but none yet found appear as carefully
-drawn as the Admiralty plan, a scale
-drawing, which seems to be both the
-earliest and the most accurate 18th-century
-representation of a tribal type
-of American Indian bark canoe.</p>
-
-<p>Due to the rapid development of the
-French fur trade, and the attendant
-exploration, a great variety of canoe
-types must have become known to the
-French by 1750, yet little in the way of
-drawings and no early scale plans have
-been found. This is rather surprising,
-not only because the opportunity for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span>
-observation existed but also because a canoe factory
-was actually operated by the French. The memoirs
-of Colonel Franquet, Military Engineer-in-Chief for
-New France, contain extensive references to this
-factory as it existed in 1751.</p>
-
-<p>The canoe factory was located at Trois Rivières,
-just below Montreal, on the St. Lawrence. A
-standard large canoe was built, and the rate of
-production was then 20 a year. Franquet gives
-as the dimensions of the canoes the following (converted
-to English measurement): length 36 feet,
-beam about 5½ feet, and depth about 33 inches.
-Much of his description is not clear, but it seems
-evident that the canoe described was very much
-like the later <i lang="fr">grand canot</i>, or large canoe, of the fur
-trade. The date at which this factory was established
-is unknown; it may have existed as early as
-1700, as might have been required by the rapid
-expansion of the French trade and other activities
-in the last half of the previous century. It is apparent
-from early comments that the French found the
-Indian canoe-builders unreliable, not to say most
-uncertain, as a source of supply. The need for
-large canoes for military and trade operations had
-forced the establishment of such a factory as soon
-as Europeans could learn how to build the canoes.
-This would, in fact, have been the only possible
-solution.</p>
-
-<p>Of course, it must not be assumed that the bark
-canoes were the only watercraft used by the early
-French traders. They used plank boats as well,
-ranging from scows to flat-bottomed bateaux and
-ship's boats, and they also had some early sailing craft
-built on the Great Lakes and on the lower St.
-Lawrence. The bateau, shaped much like a modern
-dory but with a sharp stern, was adopted by the
-English settlers as well as the French. In early
-colonial times this form of boat was called by the
-English a "battoe," or "Schenectady Boat," and later,
-an "Albany Boat." It was sharp at both ends, it
-usually had straight flaring sides with a flat bottom,
-and was commonly built of white pine plank.
-Some, however, had rounded sides and lapstrake
-planking, as shown by a plan of a bateau of 1776
-in the Admiralty Collection of Draughts. Early
-bateaux had about the same range of size as the bark
-canoes but later ones were larger.</p>
-
-<p>After the English gained control of Canada, the
-records of the Hudson's Bay Company, and of
-individual traders and travellers such as Alexander
-Henry, Jr., and Alexander MacKenzie, at the end
-of the eighteenth century, give much material on the
-fur-trade canoes but little on the small Indian canoes.
-In general, these records show that the fur-trade
-canoe of the West was commonly 24 feet long inside
-the gunwales, exclusive of the curves of bow and stern;
-4 feet 9 inches beam; 26 inches deep; and light enough
-to be carried by two men, as MacKenzie recorded,
-"three or four miles without resting on a good road."
-But the development of the fur-trade canoes is best
-left for a later chapter.</p>
-
-<p>The use of the name "canoe" for bark watercraft
-does not appear to been taken from a North American
-Indian usage. The early French explorers and
-travellers called these craft <em>canau</em> (pl. <em>canaux</em>). As
-this also meant "canal," the name <em>canot</em> (pl. <em>canots</em>)
-was soon substituted. But some early writers preferred
-to call the canoe <i lang="fr">ecorse de bouleau</i>, or birch-bark,
-and sometimes the name used was merely the generic
-<i lang="fr">petit embarcation</i>, or small boat. The early English
-term was "canoa," later "canoe." The popular uses
-of canoe, canoa, <em>canau</em>, and <em>canot</em> are thought to have
-begun early in the sixteenth century as the adaptation
-of a Carib Indian word for a dugout canoe.</p>
-
-
-<h3>Summary</h3>
-
-<p>It will be seen that the early descriptions of the
-North American bark canoes are generally lacking
-in exact detail. Yet this scanty information strongly
-supports the claim that bark canoes were highly
-developed and that the only influence white men
-exercised upon their design was related to an increase
-in size of the large canoes that may have taken place
-in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
-The very early recognition of the speed, fine construction,
-and general adaptability of the bark canoes to
-wilderness travel sustain this view. The two known
-instances mentioned of early accurate illustration
-emphasize that distinct variations in tribal forms of
-canoes existed, and that these were little changed
-between early colonial times and a relatively recent
-period, despite steadily increasing influence of the
-European.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Chapter Two</em><br />
-
-MATERIALS and TOOLS</h2>
-
-
-<p>Bark of the paper birch was the material preferred
-by the North American Indians for the construction
-of their canoes, although other barks
-were used where birch was not available. This
-tree (<i lang="la">Betula papyrifera</i> Marsh.), also known as the
-canoe birch, is found in good soil, often near streams,
-and where growing conditions are favorable it becomes
-large, reaching a height of a hundred feet, with
-a butt diameter of thirty inches or more. Its range
-forms a wide belt across the continent, with the northern
-limits in Canada along a line extending westward
-from Newfoundland to the southern shores of Hudson
-Bay and thence generally northwestward to Great Bear
-Lake, the Yukon River, and the Alaskan coast. The
-southern limits extend roughly westward from Long
-Island to the southern shores of Lake Erie and through
-central Michigan to Lake Superior, thence through
-Wisconsin, northern Nebraska, and northwesterly
-through the Dakotas, northern Montana, and northern
-Washington to the Pacific Coast. The trees are
-both abundant and large in the eastern portion of the
-belt, particularly in Newfoundland, Quebec, the
-Maritime Provinces, Ontario, Maine, and New
-Hampshire, in contrast to the western areas. Near
-the limits of growth to the north and south the trees
-are usually small and scattered.</p>
-
-<p>The leaves are rather small, deep green, and
-pointed-oval, and are often heart-shaped at the base.
-The edges of the leaves are rather coarsely toothed
-along the margin, which is slightly six-notched. The
-small limbs are black, sometimes spotted with white,
-and the large are white.</p>
-
-<p>The bark of the tree has an aromatic odor when
-freshly peeled, and is chalky white marked with black
-splotches on either side of limbs or where branches
-have grown at one time. Elsewhere on the bark,
-dark, or black, horizontal lines of varying lengths also
-appear. The lower part of the tree, to about the
-height of winter snows, has bark that is usually
-rough, blemished and thin; above this level, to the
-height of the lowest large limbs, the bark is often only
-slightly blemished and is thick and well formed. The
-bark is made up of paper-like layers, their color deepens
-with each layer from the chalky white of the exterior
-through creamy buff to a light tan on the inner
-layer. A gelatinous greenish to yellow rind, or cambium
-layer, lies between the bark and the wood of
-the trunk; its characteristics are different from those
-of the rest of the bark. The horizontal lines that appear
-on each successive paper-like layer do not appear
-on the rind.</p>
-
-<p>The thickness of the bark cannot be judged from
-the size of a tree and may vary markedly among trees
-of the same approximate size in a single grove. The
-thickness varies from a little less than one-eighth to
-over three-sixteenths inch; bark with a thickness of
-one-quarter inch or more is rarely found. For
-canoe construction, bark must be over one-eighth inch
-thick, tough, and from a naturally straight trunk of
-sufficient diameter and length to give reasonably
-large pieces. The "eyes" must be small and not so
-closely spaced as to allow the bark to split easily in
-their vicinity.</p>
-
-<p>The bark can be peeled readily when the sap is
-flowing. In winter, when the exterior of the tree is
-frozen, the bark can be removed only when heat is
-applied. During a prolonged thaw, however, this
-may be accomplished without the application of heat.
-Bark peeled from the tree during a winter thaw, and
-early in the spring or late in the fall, usually adheres
-strongly to the inner rind, which comes away from the
-tree with the bark. The act of peeling, however,
-puts a strain on the bark, so that only tough, well-made
-bark can be removed under these conditions.
-This particular characteristic caused Indians in the
-east to call bark with the rind adhering "winter
-bark," even though it might have been peeled from
-a tree during the warm weather of early summer.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span>
-Since in large trees the flow of sap usually starts later
-than in small ones, the period in which good bark is
-obtainable may extend into late June in some
-localities. Upon exposure to air and moisture,
-the inner rind first turns orange-red and gradually
-darkens with age until in a few years it becomes dark
-brown, or sepia. If it is first moistened, the rind can
-be scraped off, and this allowed it to be employed in
-decoration, enough being left to form designs.
-Hence winter bark was prized.</p>
-
-<p>To the eastern Indians "summer bark" was a poor
-grade that readily separated into its paper-like
-layers, a characteristic of bark peeled in hot weather,
-or of poorly made bark in any season. In the west,
-however, high-quality bark was often scarce and,
-therefore, the distinction between winter and summer
-bark does not seem to have been made. Newfoundland
-once had excellent canoe bark, as did the
-Maritime Provinces, Maine, New Hampshire, and
-Quebec, but the best bark was found back from the
-seacoast. Ontario and the country to the immediate
-north of Lake Superior are also said to have produced
-bark of high quality for canoe building.</p>
-
-<p>The bark of the paper birch was preferred for canoe
-building because it could be obtained in quite large
-sheets clear of serious blemishes; because its grain
-ran around the tree rather than along the line of
-vertical tree growth, so that sheets could be "sewn"
-together to obtain length in a canoe; and because the
-bark was resinous and not only did not stretch and
-shrink as did other barks, but also had some elasticity
-when green, or when kept damp. This elasticity,
-of course, was lost once the bark was allowed to
-become dry through exposure to air and sunshine,
-a factor which controlled to some extent the technique
-of its employment.</p>
-
-<p>Many other barks were employed in bark canoe
-construction, but in most instances the craft were for
-temporary or emergency use and were discarded after
-a short time. Such barks as spruce (<i lang="la">Picea</i>), elm
-(<i lang="la">Ulmus</i>), chestnut (<i lang="la">Castenea dentata L.</i>), hickory
-(<i lang="la">Carya</i> spp.), basswood (<i lang="la">Tilia</i> spp.), and cottonwood
-(<i lang="la">Populus</i> spp.) are said to have been used in bark canoe
-construction in some parts of North America. Birches
-other than the paper birch could be used, but most
-of them produced bark that was thin and otherwise
-poor, and was considered unsuitable for the better
-types of canoes. Barks other than birch usually
-had rough surfaces that had to be scraped away, in
-order to make the material flexible enough for canoe
-construction. Spruce bark had some of the good
-qualities of the paper birch bark, but to a far less
-degree, and was considered at best a mere substitute.
-Non-resinous barks, because of their structure could
-not be joined together to gain length, and their
-characteristic shrinkage and swelling made it virtually
-impossible to keep them attached to a solid framework
-for any great length of time.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 450px;">
-<img src="images/i031.jpg" width="450" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 5</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Ojibway Indian</span> carrying spruce roots, Lac
-Seul, Ont., 1919. (<em>Canadian Geological Survey
-photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The material used for "sewing" together pieces of
-birch bark was most commonly the root of the black
-spruce (<i lang="la">Picea mariana</i> (Mill.) B.S.P.), which grows in
-much of the area where the paper birch exists. The
-root of this particular spruce is long but of small
-diameter; it is tough, durable, and flexible enough
-for the purpose. The tree usually grows in soft,
-moist ground, so that the long roots are commonly
-very close to the surface, where they could easily be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span>
-dug up with a sharp stick or with the hands. In some
-areas of favorable growing conditions, the roots of
-the black spruce could be obtained in lengths up to
-20 feet, yet with a maximum diameter no larger than
-that of a lead pencil.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i032.jpg" width="700" height="544" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 6</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Roll of Bark for a Hunting Canoe.</span> Holding the bark is the intended
-builder, Vincent Mikans, then (in 1927), at age 100, the oldest Indian on the
-Algonkin Reserve at Golden Lake, Ont.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Other roots could be used in an emergency, such
-as those of the other spruces, as well as of the northern
-white-cedar (<i lang="la">Thuja occidentalis</i> L.), tamarack (hackmatack
-or eastern larch) (<i lang="la">Laris laricina</i> (Du Roi)
-K. Koch) and jack pine (<i lang="la">pinus banksiana</i> Lamb.),
-the last named being used extensively by some of the
-western tribes. Although inferior to the black spruce
-for sewing, these and other materials were used for
-sewing bark; even rawhide was employed for some
-purposes in canoe construction by certain tribes.</p>
-
-<p>Canoes built of nonresinous barks were usually
-lashed, instead of sewn, by thongs of such material
-as the inner bark of the northern white cedar, basswood,
-elm, or hickory, for the reason stated earlier.
-Spruce root was also used for lashings, if readily
-available. Since sheets of birch bark were joined
-without employing a needle, the sewing actually could
-more correctly be termed lacing, rather than stitching.
-But for the nonresinous barks, which could stand
-little sewing or lacing, perhaps lashing is the better
-term.</p>
-
-<p>Before steel tools became available to the Indians,
-the woodwork required in constructing a birch-bark
-canoe represented great labor, since stone tools having
-poor cutting characteristics were used. Selection<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span>
-of the proper wood was therefore a vital consideration.
-In most sections of the bark canoe area, the northern
-white cedar was the most sought-for wood for canoe
-construction. This timber had the excellent characteristic
-of splitting cleanly and readily when dry and
-well-seasoned. As a result, the Indian could either
-utilize fallen timber of this species, windblown or
-torn up in spring floods; with the crude means available
-he could fell a suitable tree well in advance of
-his needs; or he could girdle the tree so that it would
-die and season on the stump and then fell it at his
-convenience. If split properly, ribs of white cedar
-could be bent and set in shape by the use of hot water.
-In many areas the ribs, sheathing, and the gunwale
-members of bark canoes were made of this wood, as
-were also the headboards and stem pieces.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i033a.jpg" width="700" height="385" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 7</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Black spruce was also employed, as it too would
-split well, although only when green. This wood
-also required a different direction in splitting than the
-white cedar. Ribs of black spruce could be bent and
-set in shape when this was done while the wood was
-green. In some areas black spruce was used in place
-of white cedar for all parts of a bark canoe structure.</p>
-
-<p>Hard maple (usually either <i lang="la">Acer saccharum</i> Marsh.
-or <i lang="la">A. nigrum</i> Michx.), can be split rather easily while
-green; this wood was used for the crosspieces or
-thwarts that hold the gunwales apart and for paddles.
-Larch, particularly western larch (<i lang="la">Larix occidentalis</i>
-Nutt.), was used in some areas for canoe members.
-White and black ash (<i lang="la">Fraxinus americana</i> L. and <i lang="la">F.
-nigra</i> Marsh.), were also used where suitable wood of
-these species was available. In the northwest, spruce
-and various pines were employed, as was also willow
-(<i lang="la">Salix</i>). It should be noted that the use of many
-woods in bark canoe construction can be identified
-only in the period after steel tools became available;
-it must be assumed that the range of selection was
-much narrower in prehistoric times.</p>
-
-<p>To make a bark cover watertight, it is necessary to
-coat all seams and to cover all "sewing" with a
-waterproof material, of which the most favored by the
-Indians was "spruce gum," the resin obtained from
-black or white spruce (<i lang="la">Picea mariana</i> or <i lang="la">P. glauca</i>
-(Moench) Voss). The resin of the red spruce (<i lang="la">Picea
-rubens</i> Sarg.) was not used, so far as has been discovered.
-The soft resin was scraped from a fallen
-tree or from one damaged in summer. Spruce gum
-could be accumulated by stripping a narrow length
-of bark from trees early in the spring and then, during
-warm weather, gathering the resin that appeared at
-the bottoms of the scars thus made. It was melted or
-heated in various ways to make it workable and certain
-materials were usually added to make it durable
-in use.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i033b.jpg" width="700" height="495" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 8</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The most important aids to the Indian in canoe
-construction were his patience, knowledge of the
-working qualities of materials, his manual skill with
-the crude cutting, scraping, and boring instruments<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span>
-known to him, and of course fire; time was, perforce,
-of less importance. The canoe builder had to learn
-by experience and close observation how to work the
-material available. The wood-working tools of the
-stone age were relatively inefficient, but with care and
-skill could be used with remarkable precision and
-neatness.</p>
-
-<p>Felling of trees was accomplished by use of a stone
-axe, hatchet, or adze, combined with the use of fire.
-The method almost universally employed by primitive
-people was followed. The tree was first girdled by
-striking it with the stone tool to loosen and raise the
-wood fibers and remove the soft green bark. Above
-this girdle the trunk was daubed all around with
-wet earth, or preferably clay. A large, hot fire was
-then built around the base of the tree and, after the
-loose fibers were burned away and the wood well
-charred, the char was removed by blows from the
-stone tool. The process was repeated until the trunk
-was cut through enough for the tree to fall. The
-fallen trunk could be cut into sections by employing
-the same methods, mud being laid on each side of
-the "cut" to prevent the fire from spreading along
-the trunk. Fire could also be used to cut down poles
-and small trees, to cut them into sections, and to
-sharpen the ends into points to form crude wedges
-or stakes.</p>
-
-<p>Stone tools were formed by chipping flint, jasper,
-or other forms of quartz, such as chalcedony, into
-flakes with sharp edges. This was done by striking
-the nodule of stone a sharp blow with another stone
-held in the hand or mounted in a handle of hide or
-wood to form a stone hammer. The flakes were
-then shaped by pressing the edges with a horn point&mdash;say,
-part of a deer antler&mdash;to force a chip from the
-flake. The chipping tool was sometimes fitted with
-a hide or wood handle set at right angles to the tool,
-so that its head could be hit with a stone or horn
-hammer. The flake being worked upon, if small,
-was often held in the hand, which was protected from
-the slipping of a chipping tool by a pad of rawhide.
-Heat was not used in chipping, and some Indians
-took care to keep the flake damp while working it,
-occasionally burying the flake for a while in moist
-soil. The cutting edge of a stone tool could be ground
-by abrasion on a hard piece of granite or on sandstone,
-but the final degree of sharpness depended upon the
-qualities of the stone being used as a tool. Slate
-could be used in tools in spite of its brittleness. In
-general, stone tools were unsuitable for chopping or
-whittling wood.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 379px;">
-<img src="images/i034.jpg" width="379" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 9</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Splitting was done by starting the split at the upper,
-or small end, of a balk of timber with a maul and a
-stone wedge or the blade of a stone axe, hatchet, or
-knife. The stone knives used for this work were not
-finished tools with wood handles, but rather, as the
-blade was often damaged in use, selected flakes fitted
-with hide pads that served as a handle. The tool was
-usually driven into the wood with blows from a
-wooden club or maul, the brittle stone tool being
-protected from damage by a pad of rawhide secured
-to the top, or head, of the tool. Once the split was
-started, it could be continued by driving more
-wedges, or pointed sticks, into the split; this process
-was continued until the whole balk was divided.
-White cedar was split into quarters by this method and
-then the heartwood was split away, the latter being
-used for canoe structural members. From short balks
-of the length of the longest rib or perhaps a little more,
-were split battens equal in thickness to two ribs and in
-width also equal to two, so that by splitting one batten
-two ways four finished ribs were produced. The
-broad faces of the ribs were as nearly parallel to the
-bark side of the wood as possible, as the ribs would
-bend satisfactorily toward or away from the bark side
-only. Black spruce, however, was split in line with
-the wood rays, from the heart outward toward the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span>
-bark, so that one of the rib's narrow edges faced the
-bark side; only in this direction would the wood split
-readily and only when made this way would the ribs
-bend without great breakage.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i035a.jpg" width="700" height="660" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 10</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Long pieces for sheathing and for the gunwale
-members were split from white cedar or black spruce.
-The splitting of such long pieces as these required not
-only proper selection of clear wood, but also careful
-manipulation of wood and tools in the operation.
-Splitting of this kind&mdash;say, for ribs in the finish cut&mdash;was
-usually done by first splitting out a batten large
-enough to form two members. To split it again, a
-stone knife was tapped into the end grain to start the
-split at the desired point, which, as has been noted, was
-always at the upper end of the stick, not at the root
-end. Once the split was opened, it was continued by
-use of a sharp-pointed stick and the stone knife; if the
-split showed a tendency to run off the grain as it
-opened, it could be controlled by bending the batten,
-or one of the halves, away from the direction the split
-was taking. The first rough split usually served to
-show the worker the splitting characteristics of a piece
-of wood. This method of finishing frame members in
-bark canoes accounts for the uneven surfaces that
-often mark some parts, a wavy grain producing a
-wave in the surface of the wood when it was finished.
-If it were desired to produce a partially split piece of
-wood, such as some tribal groups used for the stems,
-or in order to allow greater curvature at the ends of
-the gunwale, the splitting was stopped at the desired
-point and a tight lashing of rawhide or bark was
-placed there to form a stop.</p>
-
-<p>The tapering of frames, gunwales, and thwarts and
-the shaping of paddles were accomplished by splitting
-away surplus wood along the thin edges and by
-abrasion and scraping on all edges. Stone scrapers
-were widely employed; shell could be employed in
-some areas. Rubbing with an abrasive such as soft
-sandstone was used when the wood became thoroughly
-dry; hardwood could often be polished by rubbing it
-with a large piece of wood, or by use of fine sand held
-in a rawhide pad. By these means the sharp edges
-could be rounded off and the final shaping accomplished.
-Some stone knives could be used to cut
-wood slowly, saw fashion, and this process appears to
-to have been used to form the thwart ends that
-in many canoes were tenoned into the gunwales.
-A stone knife used saw fashion would also cut a bent
-sapling easily, though slowly. To cut and trim bark
-a stone knife was employed; to peel bark from a tree,
-a hatchet, axe, or chisel could be used.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 536px;">
-<img src="images/i035b.jpg" width="536" height="291" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 11</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Drilling was done by means of a bone awl made from
-a splinter of the shank-bone of a deer; the blade
-of this awl had a roughly triangular cross-section.
-The splinter was held in a wooden handle or in a
-rawhide grip. The awl was used not only to make
-holes in wood, but also as the punch to make holes for
-"sewing" in bark. Large holes were drilled by means
-of the bow-drill, in which a stone drill-point was
-rotated back and forth by the bow-string. Some
-Indians rotated the drill between the palms of their
-hands, or by a string with handgrips at each end.
-The top of the drill was steadied by a block held in
-the worker's mouth, the top rotating in a hole in the
-underside of the block. With the bow-drill, however,
-the block was held in one hand.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i036a.jpg" width="700" height="428" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 12</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Peeling the bark from roots and splitting them was
-done by use of the thumbnail, a stone knife, or a
-clamshell. Biting was also resorted to. The end of
-a root could also be split by first pounding it with a
-stone, using a log or another stone as an anvil, to
-open the fibers at one end. Splitting a root was
-usually done by biting to start the split. Once this
-was done, half was held in the mouth and the other
-half between the thumb and forefinger of the right
-hand. Then the two parts were gradually pulled
-apart with the right hand, while the thumbnail of
-the left was used to guide the split. If the split
-showed a tendency to "run off," bending the root
-away from the direction of the run while continuing
-the splitting usually served to change the course of the
-split. If a root was hard to split, the stone knife came
-into play instead of the thumbnail. When the split
-reached arm's length, the ends were shifted in hand
-and mouth and the operation continued.</p>
-
-<p>The use of hot water as an aid in bending wood was
-well known to some tribal groups before the white
-man came. Water was placed in a wooden trough,
-or in a bark basin, and heated to boiling by dropping
-hot stones into it. Some Indians boiled water in
-bark utensils by placing them over a fire of hot coals
-surrounded by stones and earth so that the flame
-could not reach the highly inflammable bark above
-the water-level in the dish. Stones were lifted from
-the fire with wooden tongs made of green saplings
-bent into a <strong>U</strong>-shape or made into a spoon-like outline.
-A straight stick and a forked one, used together,
-formed another type of tongs. The straight stick
-was placed in and under the fork; then, by forcing
-the latter under the stone and bringing the end of the
-straight stick hard against its top, the stone was held
-firmly, pincer-fashion.</p>
-
-<p>The wood to be bent was first soaked in the boiling
-water, or the water was poured over it by means of
-a birch-bark or other dipper. When the wood was
-thoroughly soaked with boiling water, bending
-began, and as it progressed boiling water was almost
-continuously poured on the wood. When the wood
-had been bent to a desired form, it was secured in
-shape by thongs and allowed to cool and dry out,
-during which it would take a permanent set. Hard
-bends, as in gunwale ends and stem-pieces, were made
-by this means, usually after the wood had been split
-into a number of laminations in the area of the
-greatest bend. When the piece had been boiled
-and bent to its required form, the laminations were
-secured by wrapping them spirally with a thong
-of inner bark (such as basswood), of roots, or of
-rawhide.</p>
-
-<p>Flat stones were used to weigh down bark in order
-to flatten it and prevent curling. Picked up about the
-canoe-building site, they had one smooth and fairly
-flat surface so that no harm came to the bark, and
-were of such size and weight as could be handled
-easily by the builder. Smooth stones from a stream
-appear to have been preferred. In preparation for
-building a canoe, the pins, stakes, and poles which
-were of only temporary use were cut or burned down
-in the manner mentioned and stored ready for use.
-Bark containers were made and filled with spruce
-gum, and the materials used in making it hard and
-durable were gathered. The building site was selected
-in the shade, to prevent the bark from becoming hard
-and brittle, and on ground that was smooth, clear of
-outcroppings of stone, and roots, or other obstructions,
-and firm enough to hold the stakes driven into it. The
-location was, of course, usually near the water where
-the canoe was to be launched.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i036b.jpg" width="700" height="226" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 13</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p>When steel tools became available, the work of the
-Indian in cutting and shaping wood became much
-easier but it is doubtful that better workmanship
-resulted. The steel axe and hatchet made more rapid
-and far easier than before the felling and cutting up of
-trees, poles, and sticks; they could also be used in
-peeling bark. The favored style of axe among Cana<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span>dian
-Indians was what is known as the "Hudson Bay
-axe"; it is made as a fairly large or "full-axe," as a
-lighter "half-axe," and as a large hatchet, or hand-axe.
-The head of the blade is very narrow, the front of the
-blade vertical, while the back widens toward the cutting
-edge and the latter stands at a slightly acute angle
-to the front of the blade. This style of axe seems to
-follow the traditional form of the tomahawk and is
-popular because it cuts well, yet is lighter to carry
-than the other forms of axe. It is also called a "cedar
-axe" in some localities. In modern times, Indian
-hatchets are of the commercial variety, the "lathing"
-form being preferred because it holds somewhat to
-the old trade tomahawk in form of blade and weight.
-The traditional steel tomahawk, incidentally was an
-adaptation of one of the European forms of hatchet,
-sold in the early days of the fur trade.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i037a.jpg" width="700" height="253" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 14</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 447px;">
-<img src="images/i037b.jpg" width="447" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 15</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The "canoe awl" of the fur trade was a steel awl
-with a blade triangular or square in cross-section,
-and was sometimes made of an old triangular file of
-small size. Its blade was locked into a hardwood
-handle, and it was a modern version of the old bone
-awl of the bark canoe builders, hence its name.</p>
-
-<p>The plane was also used by modern Indians, but
-not in white man's fashion, in which the wood is
-held in a vise and smoothed by sliding the tool forward
-over the work. The Indian usually fixed the
-plane upside down on a bench or timber and slid the
-work over the sole, much as would be done with a
-power-driven joiner. However, the plane was not
-very popular among any of the canoe-building
-Indians.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i037c.jpg" width="700" height="296" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 16</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The boring tool most favored by the Indians was the
-common steel gimlet; if a larger boring tool was desired,
-an auger of the required diameter was bought
-and fitted with a removable cross-handle rather than
-a brace.</p>
-
-<p>One steel tool having much popularity among canoe-building
-Indians was the pioneer's splitting tool
-known as the "froe." This was a heavy steel blade,
-fifteen to twenty inches long, about two inches wide,
-and nearly a quarter inch thick along its back. One
-end of the blade ended in a tight loop into which a
-heavy hardwood handle, about a foot long, was set
-at right angles to the back edge of the blade, so that,
-when held in the hand, the blade was cutting edge
-down, with the handle upright. The froe was driven
-into the end of a balk of timber to be split by blows<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span>
-from a wooden maul on the back of its blade. Once
-the split was started, the maul was dropped and the
-hand that had held it was placed at the end of the
-blade away from the handle. By twisting the blade
-with the two hands the split could be forced open.
-The froe was a most powerful and efficient splitting
-tool when narrow, short plank, or battens, were required.
-The balk to be split was usually placed more
-or less end-up, as its length permitted, in the crotch
-of a felled tree, so as to hold it steady during the splitting.
-The pioneer used this tool to make clapboards
-and riven shingles; the Indian canoe builder found it
-handy for all splitting.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 556px;">
-<img src="images/i038a.jpg" width="556" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 17</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Another pioneer tool that became useful to the
-Indian canoe builder was the "shaving horse." A
-sort of bench and vise, it was used by Indians in a
-variety of forms, all based on the same principle of
-construction. Usually a seven-foot-long bench made
-of a large log flattened on top was supported by two
-or four legs, one pair being high enough to raise that
-end of the bench several feet off the ground to provide
-a seat for the operator. To the top of the bench was
-secured a shorter, wedge-shaped piece flattened top
-and bottom, with one end beveled and fastened to
-the bench and the other held about 12 inches above it
-by a support tenoned into the bench about thirty
-inches from the high end. Through the bench and
-the shorter piece were cut slots, about four feet from
-the high end of the bench and aligned to receive an
-arm pivoted on the bench and extending from the
-ground to above the upper slot. The arm was shaped
-to overhang the slot on the front, toward the operator's
-end of the bench, and on each side. The lower
-portion of the arm was squared to fit the slot, and a
-crosspiece was secured to, or through, its lower end.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i038b.jpg" width="700" height="283" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 18</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Shaving Horse.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The worker sat astraddle the high end of the bench,
-facing the low end, with his feet on the crosspiece of
-the pivoted arm. Placing a piece of wood on top of
-the wedge-shaped piece, close to the head of the
-pivoted arm, he pushed forward on the crosspiece
-with his feet, thus forcing the head down hard upon
-the wood, so that it was held as in a vise. The wood
-could then be shaved down to a required shape with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span>
-a drawknife or crooked knife without the necessity
-of holding the work. A long piece was canted on
-top of the bench so that the finished part would pass
-by the body of the worker, and, if it were necessary to
-shape the full length, it could be reversed.</p>
-
-<p>Nails and tacks eventually came into use, though
-they were never used in all phases of the construction
-of a particular canoe. In the last days of bark canoe
-construction, the bark was tacked to the gunwales
-and, in areas where a gunwale cap was customarily
-employed, the cap was often nailed to the top of the
-gunwales.</p>
-
-<p>The "bucksaw" also came into the hands of the
-Indians, but the frame of this saw was too awkward
-to carry, so the Indian usually bought only the blade.
-With a couple of nails and a bent sapling he could
-make a very good frame in the woods, when the saw
-was required. The ends of the sapling were slotted
-to take the ends of the blade and then drilled crosswise
-to the slot, so a nail could be inserted to hold the
-ends of blade and sapling together. With the end
-of the nail bent over, the frame was locked together
-and the tension was given to the blade by the bent
-sapling handle.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i039.jpg" width="700" height="289" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 19</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The "crooked knife" was the most important and
-popular steel tool found among the Indians building
-bark canoes. It was made from a flat steel file
-with one side worked down to a cutting-edge. The
-back of the blade thus formed was usually a little
-less than an eighth of an inch thick. The cutting
-edge was bevel-form, like that of a drawknife or
-chisel, with the back face quite flat. The tang of
-the file was fitted into a handle made of a crotched
-stick, to one arm of which the tang was attached,
-while the other projected at a slightly obtuse angle
-away from the back of the blade. The tang was
-usually held in place by being bent at its end into a
-slight hook and let into the handle, where it was
-secured with sinew lashing; wire later came into use
-for this lashing. The knife, held with the cutting edge
-toward the user, was grasped fingers-up with the
-thumb of the holding hand laid along the part of the
-handle projecting away from the user. This steadied
-the knife in cutting. Unlike a jackknife, the crooked
-knife was not used to whittle but to cut toward the
-user, and was, in effect, a one-hand drawknife.
-This form of knife is so satisfactory that it is to this
-day employed instead of a drawknife by many boat-builders
-in New Brunswick and Quebec. A variation
-in the crooked knife has the tip of the blade turned
-upward, on the flat, so that it can be used in hollowing
-out a wooden bowl or dish. The blades of crooked
-knives seen are usually about five-eighths inch wide
-and perhaps five or six inches long. Some are only
-slightly beveled along the cutting edge; others show
-this feature very markedly.</p>
-
-<p>Awls, as well as chisels and other stone or bone
-blades, often had handles on their sides to allow them
-to be held safely when hit with a hammer. Some of
-the stone blades and chisels thus took the form of adzes
-and could be used like them, but only, of course, to cut
-charred or very soft wood. The sharpening of stone
-tools followed the same methods used in their original
-manufacture and was a slow undertaking.</p>
-
-<p>To some Indians an efficient wood-cutting chisel was
-available in the teeth of the beaver. Each tooth was
-nearly a quarter inch wide, so two teeth would give a
-cut of nearly half an inch. The usual practice appears
-to have been to employ the skull as a handle, though
-some beaver tooth chisels had wooden handles. As
-used in making tenons in the gunwales, two holes, of
-a diameter equal to the desired width, were first
-drilled close enough together to make the length of
-the desired tenon, after which the intervening wood,
-especially if it was white cedar or black spruce, could
-be readily split out by means of either a beaver tooth
-or narrow stone chisel.</p>
-
-<p>The maul was merely some form of wooden club;
-the most common type was made by cutting away part
-of the length of a small balk to form a handle, the
-remainder being left to form the head. The swelling
-of the trunk of a small tree at the ground, where the
-roots form, was also utilized to give weight and bulk to
-the head of a maul. It could be hardened by scorching
-the head in a fire. Another method of pounding
-and driving was to employ a stone held in one hand
-or both. Stone hammers were rarely employed, since
-the maul or a stone held in the hand would serve the
-purpose.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The birch tree that was to supply the bark was
-usually selected far in advance of the time of construction.
-By exploring the birch groves, the builder
-located a number of trees from which a suitable
-quantity of bark of the desired quality could be obtained.
-Samples of the bark of each tree were stripped
-from the trunk and carefully inspected and tested.
-If they separated into layers when bent back and
-forth, the bark was poor. If the "eyes" inside the
-bark were lumpy, the bark in their vicinity would
-split too easily; this was also true if they were too close
-together, but if the eyes on the inside of the bark
-appeared hollow there was no objection. Bark that
-was dead white, or the outer surface of which was
-marked by small strips partly peeled away from the
-layer below, would be rejected as poor in quality.</p>
-
-<p>Preferably, bark was stripped from the selected trees
-during a prolonged thaw in winter, particularly one
-accompanied by rain, or as soon as the sap in the trees
-had begun to flow in early spring. If this was not
-possible, "winter" bark, as described on page <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, was
-used as long as it was obtainable. Only dire necessity
-forced the Indian to use bark of a poor quality. Fall
-peeling, after the first frosts, was also practiced in
-some areas. The work on the tree was done from
-stages made of small trees whose branches could be
-used in climbing, or from rough ladders constructed
-of short rungs lashed to two poles. When steel axes
-and hatchets were available the tree could be felled,
-provided care was taken to have it fall on poles laid
-on the ground to prevent damage to the bark in the
-fall and to keep the trunk high enough to allow it to
-be peeled. Felling permitted use of hot water to heat
-the bark, and thus made peeling possible in colder
-weather than would permit stripping a standing tree.
-Felling by burning, however, sometimes resulted in
-an uncontrolled fall in which the bark could be
-damaged.</p>
-
-<p>Whether stone or steel knives were used, the bark
-was cut in the same manner, with the blade held at
-an angle to make a slashing cut; holding a sharp knife
-upright, so as to cut square to the surface of the bark,
-makes the tool stick and jump, and a ragged cut
-results. A stone or steel axe blade could also very
-readily be used in cutting bark; with such tools, it was
-customary to tap the head with a maul to make the
-cut. It was necessary to make only the longitudinal
-cut on the trunk of the birch tree, as the bark would
-split around the tree with the grain at the ends of this
-cut. Spruce and other barks, however, required both
-vertical and horizontal cuts.</p>
-
-<p>Once the vertical cut was made to the desired
-length, one edge of the bark was carefully pried away
-from the wood with the blade of a knife. Then the
-removal of the bark could proceed more rapidly.
-Instead of starting the bark with a knife blade, some
-Indians used a small stick, one end of which was
-slightly bent and made into a chisel shape about
-three-quarters of an inch wide. This was used to pry
-the bark away, not only along the edge of the vertical
-cut, but throughout the operation of peeling. Another
-tool, useful in obtaining "winter" bark, which was
-difficult to strip from the tree, was a piece of dry,
-thick birch bark, about a foot square, with one edge
-cut in a slight round and beveled to a sharp edge.
-The beveled side was inserted beneath the bark
-and rocked on its curved cutting edge, thus separating
-the bark from the wood with less danger of splitting
-the bark. Spruce and other barks were removed
-from the tree with the same tools.</p>
-
-<p>After the bark had been removed from the tree,
-it was handled with great care to avoid splitting it
-along the grain. Even in quite warm weather, the
-bark was usually heated slightly with a bark torch
-to make it flexible; sometimes hot water was applied
-if the inner rind was not to be used for decoration.
-Then the sheets were rolled up tightly in the direction
-of growth of the tree. This made a roll convenient
-for transporting and also helped to prevent the
-bark from curling. If the bark was not to be used
-immediately, it was carefully submerged in water
-so that it would not dry out before it was fitted to the
-canoe. Spruce and other resinous barks, which could
-not be stored, were used as soon as possible after
-they were stripped from the tree, the rough exterior
-surface being removed by scraping.</p>
-
-<p>Roots for "sewing" were also gathered, split, and
-rolled up, then placed in water so they would remain
-flexible. Sometimes they were boiled as well, just
-before being used.</p>
-
-<p>The spruce gum was gathered and tempered. Before
-metal kettles and frying pans became available
-to the Indians, it was heated in a number of ways.
-One method was to heat it in a wooden trough with
-hot stones. As the spruce gum melted easily, great
-temperature was not required. Stone and pottery
-containers were also used. Another method was to
-boil water in a bark container and drop in the spruce
-gum, which melted and floated on top of the water in
-such a consistency that it could be skimmed off with a
-bark spoon or dipper. Chips and dirt were skimmed
-off the hot gum with a strip of bark or a flat stick.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 566px;">
-<img src="images/i041.jpg" width="566" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 20</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Peeling, Rolling, and Transporting</span> bark
-for use in canoe construction.
-(<em>Sketches by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Tempering, done after the gum was melted,
-consisted of adding animal fat and a little finely
-powdered charcoal. The mixture was then tested by
-dipping a strip of bark into it and then into cold
-water. The strip was bent to see if it cracked the
-spruce gum; if it did, too much tempering material
-had been added and more gum was required. If no
-cracking occurred, the gum on the strip was held in
-the hand for a few moments to see if it became tacky
-or could be rubbed off the strip; if either occurred,
-more tempering was needed. The method of
-tempering had many variations. One was to remelt
-the gum a number of times; this darkened it and made
-it harder. Red ochre or vermillion were sometimes
-added, often together with charcoal made from the
-willow. Instead of spruce gum, in some areas, pine
-resin was used, tempered with tallow and sometimes
-charcoal. The Indians in the East sometimes used
-remelted spruce gum to which a little tallow had been
-added, making a light brown or almost transparent
-mixture. Most tribal groups used gum that was
-black, or nearly so.</p>
-
-<p>For repair work, when melted spruce gum could
-not be procured in the usual manner, hard globules
-and flakes of gum scraped from a fallen spruce tree
-were used. These could not be easily melted, so they
-were first chewed thoroughly until soft; then the gum
-was spread over a seam. This type of gum would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span>
-not stick well unless it were smoothed with a glowing
-stick, and hence was used only in emergencies.</p>
-
-<p>It is believed that before steel tools were available
-birch-bark canoes were commonly built of a number
-of sheets of bark rather than, as quite often occurred
-in later times, of only one or two sheets. The
-greater number of sheets in the early canoes resulted
-from the difficulty in obtaining large sheets from a
-standing tree. Comparison of surviving birch-bark
-canoes suggests that those built of a number of sheets
-would have contained the better bark, as large sheets
-often included bark taken from low on the trunk, and
-this, as has been mentioned, is usually of poorer
-quality than that higher on the trunk.</p>
-
-<p>It is known that the early Indians carried on some
-trade in bark canoe building materials, as they did
-in stone for weapons and tools. Areas in which some
-materials were scarce or of poor quality might thus
-obtain replacements from more fortunate areas.
-Fine quality bark, "sewing" roots, and good spruce
-gum had trade value, and these items were sold by
-some of the early fur traders. Paint does not appear
-to have been used on early canoes, except, in some
-instances, on the woodwork. This use occurred
-mostly in the East, particularly among the Beothuks
-in Newfoundland. Paint was apparently not used
-on birch bark until it was introduced by white men
-in the fur trade.</p>
-
-
-<h3>Summary</h3>
-
-<p>It will be seen that the Indian gathered all materials
-and prepared them for use with only a few simple
-tools, most of which could be manufactured at the
-building site and discarded after the work was completed.
-The only other tools he usually brought to
-the scene were those he normally required in his
-everyday existence in the forest. Some instruments
-used in canoe building, however, might be preserved;
-these were the measuring sticks on which were
-marked, by notches, certain measurements to be used
-in shaping a canoe. Also, some Indians used a building
-frame that shaped the bottom in plan view.
-These are best described when the actual building
-methods are examined.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i042.jpg" width="700" height="134" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 21</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Building Frame for a Large Canoe.</span> Dotted lines show change in shape is
-caused by omitting crossbars or by using short bars in ends. Note lashing at
-ends and method of fastening thwart with a thong.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Chapter Three</em><br />
-
-FORM AND CONSTRUCTION</h2>
-
-
-<p>Classification of the types of bark canoes built
-by the Indians is not a simple matter. Perhaps the
-most practical way is to employ the tribal designation,
-such as Cree canoe, Micmac canoe, accepting as
-a criterion the distinctive general appearance of the
-canoes used by each tribe. It must be emphasized,
-however, that this method of classification does not
-indicate the model, or "lines," employed. Both the
-model and the size of bark canoes were extensively
-affected by the requirements of use: lake, coastal, or
-river navigation; smooth, rough, or fast-running
-water; transportation of a hunter, a family, or cargo;
-the conditions and length of portages; and the permanence
-of construction desired. Canoes of various
-models, sizes, methods of construction, or decoration
-might be found within the limits of a single tribal
-classification. Also, within a given area, there might
-be apparent similarity in model among the canoes of
-two or three tribal groups. However, a classification
-based on geographical areas has been found to be
-impractical, because the movements of tribal groups
-in search of new hunting grounds tend to make tribal
-boundaries difficult to define.</p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Form</em></h3>
-
-<p>The canoes of some tribal groups appear to be
-hybrids, representing an intermingling of types as a
-result of some past contact between tribes. Those of
-other groups are of like model, form, and even appearance,
-possibly owing to like conditions of employment.
-The effects of a similarity in use requirements upon
-inventiveness is seen in the applications for modern
-patent rights, where two or more applications can
-cover almost exactly the same device without the
-slightest evidence of contact between the applicants;
-there is no logical reason to suppose the same condition
-cannot apply to primitive peoples, even though
-their processes of invention might be very slow or
-relatively rare in occurrence.</p>
-
-<p>The effects of migration of tribes upon their canoe
-forms can only be studied with respect to those comparatively
-recent times for which records and observations
-are available. From the limited information at
-hand it appears that the Indian, when he moved to an
-area where use requirements and materials available
-for building differed from those to which he had been
-accustomed, was often forced to modify the model,
-form, size, and construction of his canoe. In some
-instances this seems to have resulted in the adoption
-of another tribal form.</p>
-
-<p>The distinctive feature that usually identifies the
-tribal classification of a bark canoe is the profile of
-the ends, although sometimes the profile of the gunwale,
-or sheer, and even of the bottom, is also involved.
-The bow and stern of many bark canoes were as near
-alike in profile as the method of construction would
-permit; nevertheless some types had distinct bow and
-and stern forms. Among tribes the form of the ends
-of the canoes varied considerably; some were low
-and unimpressive, others were high and often graceful.</p>
-
-<p>Obviously practical reasons can be found for
-certain tribal variations. In some areas, the low
-ends appear to ensue from the use of the canoe in
-open water, where the wind resistance of a high end
-would make paddling laborious. In others the low
-ends appear to result from the canoe being commonly
-employed in small streams where overhanging
-branches would obstruct passage. Portage conditions
-may likewise have been a factor; low ends would
-pass through brush more easily than high. Types
-used where rapids were to be run often had ends
-higher than the gunwales to prevent the canoe from
-shipping water over the bow. The high, distinctive<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span>
-ends of the canoes most used in the fur trade, on the
-other hand, were said to have resulted from the necessity
-of employing the canoe as a shelter. When the
-canoe was turned upside down on the ground, with
-one gunwale and the tops of the high ends supporting
-it, there was enough headroom under the canoe to
-permit its use as a shelter without the addition of any
-temporary structure. The desirability of this characteristic
-in the fur-trade canoe can be explained by
-the fact that the crew travelled as many hours as
-possible each day, and rested for only a very short
-period, so that rapid erection of shelter lengthened
-both the periods of travel and of rest.</p>
-
-<p>Yet these practical considerations do not always
-explain the end-forms found in bark canoes. Canoes
-with relatively high ends were used in open waters,
-and similar canoes were portaged extensively. Possibly
-the Indian's consciousness of tribal distinctions
-led him to retain some feature, such as height of the
-end-forms, as a means of tribal recognition, even
-though practical considerations required its suppression
-to some degree.</p>
-
-<p>The profile of the gunwales also varied a good
-deal among tribal types. Most bark canoes, because
-of the raised end-forms, showed a short, sharp upsweep
-of the sheer close to the bow and stern. Some
-showed a marked hump, or upward sweep, amidships
-which made the sheer profile follow somewhat the
-form of a cupid's bow. Many types had a straight,
-or nearly straight, sheer; others had an orthodox
-sheer, with the lowest part nearly amidships.</p>
-
-<p>The bottom profiles of bark canoes showed varying
-degrees of curvature. In some the bottom was straight
-for most of its length, with a slight rise toward the
-ends. In others the bottom showed a marked curvature
-over its full length, and in a few the bottom was
-practically straight between the points at which the
-stems were formed. Some northwestern types had a
-slightly hogged bottom, but in these the wooden
-framework was unusually flexible, so that the bottom
-became straight, or even a little rockered when the
-canoe was afloat and manned.</p>
-
-<p>The practical reasons for these bottom forms are
-not clear. For canoes used in rapid streams or in
-exposed waters where high winds were to be met
-many Indians preferred bottoms that were straight.
-Others in these same conditions preferred them rockered
-to varying degrees. It is possible that rocker may be
-desirable in canoes that must be run ashore end-on
-in surf. Of course, a strongly rockered bottom permits
-quick turning; this may have been appreciated
-by some tribal groups. Still other Indians appear to
-have believed that a canoe with a slightly rockered
-bottom could be paddled more easily than one having
-a perfectly straight bottom.</p>
-
-<p>The midsections of bark canoes varied somewhat in
-form within a single tribal type, because the method
-of construction did not give absolute control of the
-sectional shape during the building, but, on the whole,
-the shape followed tribal custom, being modified
-only to meet use requirements. Perhaps the two
-most common midsection shapes were the <strong>U</strong>-form,
-with the bottom somewhat flattened, and the dish-shape,
-having rather straight, flaring sides combined
-with a narrow, flat, or nearly flat bottom. Some
-eastern canoes showed marked tumble-home in the
-topside above the bilge; often they had a wide and
-rather flat rounded bottom, with a short, hard turn
-in the bilge. A few eastern canoes, used mainly in
-open waters along the coast, had bottoms with
-deadrise&mdash;that is, a shallow <strong>V</strong>-form, the apex of the
-<strong>V</strong> being much rounded; the <strong>V</strong>-bottom, of course,
-would have aided in steering the canoe in strong
-winds. One type of canoe with this rising bottom
-had tumble-home topsides, but another, used under
-severe conditions, had a midsection that was an
-almost perfect <strong>V</strong>, the apex being rounded but with
-so little curvature in the arms that no bilge could be
-seen.</p>
-
-<p>Generally speaking, the eastern canoes had a rather
-well rounded bottom with a high turn of the bilge
-and some tumble-home above, though they might
-have a flatter form when built for shallow-water use
-or for increased carrying capacity. A canoe built
-for speed, however, might be very round on the
-bottom, and it might or might not have some tumble-home
-in the topside. In the West, a flat bottom with
-flaring topsides predominated; fast canoes there had
-a very narrow, flat bottom with some flare, the width
-of the bottom and the amount of flare being increased
-to give greater capacity on a shallow draft. Some
-canoes in the Northwest had a skiff-form flat bottom
-and flaring sides, with the chine rounded off sharply.</p>
-
-<p>The form of the sections near the ends of a canoe
-are controlled to a great extent by the form of midsection.
-In canoes having flat bottoms combined
-with flaring sides this form was usually carried to
-the ends, where it became a rather sharp <strong>V</strong>, giving
-fine lines for speed when the canoe was light, and only
-moderately increased resistance when it was loaded.
-Among eastern canoes having tumble-home topsides,
-the midsection form could be carried to the ends,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span>
-gradually becoming sharper in canoes having "chin"
-in the profiles of the ends; in canoes having no chin,
-the sections necessarily took a pointed oval form close
-to the ends. A few canoes having flaring sides and
-chin ends showed a similar change in form. In all,
-however, the bow and stern showed a tendency
-toward fullness near the waterline.</p>
-
-<p>Canoes with a strongly <strong>U</strong>-shaped midsection commonly
-carried this form to the ends, with increasing
-sharpness in the round of the <strong>U</strong>. The <strong>U</strong>-form predominated
-in the end-sections of eastern canoes, of
-course, though a few showed a <strong>V</strong>-form, as must be
-expected. The fairing of the end sections into the
-end profiles appears to have controlled this matter.
-The outline of the gunwales, in plan view, also influenced
-the form of the end-sections and of the level
-lines there. Some canoes, when viewed from above,
-showed a pinched-in form at the ends, this was caused
-by the construction of the gunwales or by the projection
-of the end-profile forms beyond the ends of the
-true structural gunwale members. Such canoes
-would have a very strong hollow in the level lines
-projected through their hull-form below the gunwales,
-and this could have been accentuated by any strong
-chin in the bow and stern shapes. On the other hand,
-many canoes showed no hollow, and the level lines
-were straight for some distance inboard of the ends, or
-were slightly convex. Full, convex level lines will
-appear below the waterline in canoes having a strongly
-rockered bottom.</p>
-
-<p>It should be noted that the Indians were aware
-that very sharp-ended canoes usually were fast under
-paddle; hence they employed this characteristic in
-any canoe where high speed was desired. However,
-the degree of sharpness in the gunwales and at the
-level lines is not always the same at both ends, though
-the variation is sometimes too slight to be detected
-without careful measurement; it may at times have
-been accidental, but in many cases it appears to have
-been intentional.</p>
-
-<p>Some eastern canoes having their greatest width, or
-beam, on the gunwales at midlength had finer level
-lines aft than forward, apparently to produce trim
-by the stern when afloat and manned. This made
-them steer well in rough water. Some northwestern
-canoes had their greatest beam abaft the midlength,
-giving them a long, sharp bow; the run was sometimes
-formed by sweeping up the bottom aft to a shallow
-stern, as well as by the double-ended form of the
-canoe. Despite a general similarity in the form of the
-ends, in some canoes the bow was marked by its
-greater height, in others, by the manner in which the
-bark was lapped at the seams, or by the manner of
-decoration. In a few with ends exactly alike the
-bow was indicated by the fitting of the thwarts such
-as, for example, by placing at the forward end a
-particular style of thwart, intended to hold the torch
-used in spearing fish at night, or to support a mast
-and sail.</p>
-
-<p>In examining the lines, or model, of a bark canoe,
-the limitations imposed upon the builder by the characteristics
-of bark must be considered. The degree
-of flexibility, the run of the grain, and the toughness
-and elasticity of the bark used all influenced the
-form of canoes. The marked chin in the ends of
-some canoes, for example, resulted from an effort
-to offset the tendency of birch bark to split when a
-row of stitches lay in the same line of grain. The
-curved chin profile allowed the stitching to cross a
-number of lines of grain. Sometimes this tendency
-was avoided by incorporating battens into the coarse
-stitching; this style of sewing was particularly useful
-in piecing out birch bark for width in a canoe, where
-the sewing had to be in line with the grain. The
-Indians also employed alternating short and long
-stitching in some form for the same purpose. Spruce
-bark, as used in canoes in the extreme North and
-Northwest, could be sewn in much the same manner
-as birch bark, but with due regard for the longitudinal
-grain of the spruce bark.</p>
-
-<p>The joining of two pieces of bark by root sewing
-or lacing, combined with the use of spruce gum to
-obtain watertightness, formed a seam that could be
-readily damaged by abrasion from launching the
-canoe, from pulling it ashore, or from grounding it
-accidentally. For this reason, seams below the
-waterline were kept at a minimum and were never
-placed along the longitudinal centerline of the
-bottom, where they would have formed a sharp apex
-to both the <strong>V</strong>-shaped midsection and to the deadrise
-bottom form. Likewise, a seam was not used in
-forming the rocker of the bottom. Though seams had
-to be used to join the bark at bow and stern, the
-form of the canoe allowed the seams to be greatly
-strengthened and protected there.</p>
-
-<p>The restrictions on form imposed by barks such
-as elm, chestnut, and hickory were very great. These
-barks, which are not as elastic as birch bark, were
-sometimes employed in a single large sheet. The sheets
-were not joined for length; canoes of this material
-were often formed by crimping, or lap folding, rather
-than by cutting out gores and then sewing the edges<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span>
-together. The characteristics of these barks can
-readily be demonstrated with a sheet of paper:
-such a sheet can be made into a crude canoe-form by
-bending it lengthwise and joining the ends, but it
-will be obvious that the midsection takes a very
-unstable <strong>U</strong>-form. By forcing the ends inward to give
-a ram, or chin, effect to bow and stern, a somewhat
-flatter bottom can be obtained in the midsection. By
-crimping or folding the paper gore-fashion near each
-end of the canoe-form at the gunwale edge, some
-rocker is created in the bottom and the width of the
-gunwales is increased near the ends, giving more
-capacity. But without the crimping along the
-gunwale, when the midsection form is flattened on
-the bottom, the latter tends to hog. Many of these
-bark canoes utilized both the rams ends and crimping
-to obtain a more useful form. However, while a
-sheet of birch bark could be crimped or gored into
-a scow-form canoe such as the Asiatic birch-bark
-canoe, no example of this form from North America
-is known. On this continent all bark canoes were
-sharp at both ends, i.e., double-ended, although a
-number of North American dugouts were scow-(or
-punt-) shaped.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 532px;">
-<img src="images/i046a.jpg" width="532" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 22</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Canoe</span> formed (a) without crimping or goring
-sides, showing hogged bottom; and (b) with
-ram ends to reduce hogging of bottom.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 528px;">
-<img src="images/i046b.jpg" width="528" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 23</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Canoe</span> formed (a) by crimping sides, showing
-rockered bottom line, and (b) by simple gores
-in sides. The same effects are obtained by
-making bark cover of three pieces: sides and
-bottom.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Birch bark gave much more freedom in the selection
-of form simply because it could be joined together in
-small odd-sized sheets to shape a hull, and because
-it was elastic enough to allow some "moulding" by
-pressure of the framework employed. Birch bark
-could be gored, or slashed, and rejoined without
-resort to folding or crimping; thus it permitted a
-smooth exterior surface to be achieved. The toughness
-of the bark was sufficient to allow some sewing
-in line with the grain, to add to the width of a sheet,
-if the proper technique were employed (this was also
-true to a lesser extent of spruce bark).</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i047a.jpg" width="700" height="434" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 24</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Canoe Formed</span> by use of gores and panels.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The framework of most bark canoes depended upon
-the gunwale structure to give longitudinal strength
-to the hull; for this reason the structure was made
-sufficiently large in cross-section to be rather stiff,
-or was formed of more than one member. An inner
-and outer gunwale construction was employed in
-many bark canoes. The inner member was the
-strength member and was sometimes square, or
-nearly so, in cross-section. In some canoes bark was
-brought up on the outside of this gunwale member,
-lapped over the top, and lashed over it; in others the
-bark was lashed to both inner and outer gunwales.
-The outer gunwale, a rectangular-sectioned batten
-bent narrow-edge up, was applied like a guard, outside
-the bark, and was secured by pegs, by the lashings
-of the bark cover, or by widely spaced lashings. On
-top of the large inner gunwale and usually extending
-outward over the outer gunwale, a thin cap, pegged
-or lashed in the same manner as the outer gunwale,
-was sometimes added; this was intended to protect
-the lashing of the bark to the gunwale rather than to
-add longitudinal strength.</p>
-
-<p>The corners of the inner gunwale, or of the single
-gunwale, were all rounded off to prevent them from
-cutting the sewing and lashings. The bottom outboard
-corner was sometimes rounded off more than
-the other, or beveled, in order to form between the
-outboard face of the gunwale and the bark a slot into
-which the heads of the ribs could be forced. An
-alternate method of accomplishing this was to notch
-or drill holes in the gunwales for the heads of the ribs.</p>
-
-<p>The ends of the gunwales were fashioned in various
-ways. In some canoes the gunwales were sheered
-upward at the ends only slightly, the gunwale ends
-being secured to wide end boards in the stems or extended
-past them and secured to the stem-pieces.
-The apparent sheer in the latter might be formed by
-bending the outer gunwale, or outwale, and the cap
-(if one existed) to the required curve and then securing
-the ends to the stem-piece, or to the end boards,
-as the form of end profile dictated. If either the
-single gunwale or the outwale or both were sharply
-sheered, they were split, to a point near the end
-thwart, into two or four or even more laminations;
-even the rail cap, which was perhaps half an inch
-thick, might be split in the same manner to allow
-a sharp upward sweep at the stems. After being
-bent, the split members were temporarily wrapped
-to hold the laminations together. In no bark canoes
-did the ends of the gunwales curve back on themselves
-to form a hook just inboard of the bow and
-stern, despite the numerous pictures that show this
-feature. The gunwale ends sometimes projected
-almost perpendicularly upward, slightly above the
-top of the bow and stern, so that when the canoe was
-upside down its weight came on these rather than on
-the sewing of the ends of the craft.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i047b.jpg" width="700" height="474" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 25</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Gunwale Ends</span> nailed and wrapped with
-spruce roots. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The gunwale ends in some canoes were fastened
-together by means of one or more lashings, often
-widely spaced. After being lashed together, a narrow
-wedge was sometimes driven between the two gunwales
-from inboard to tighten the lashings. The ends
-were sometimes beveled on their bearing surfaces so
-as to make a neat appearance when joined. The
-various ways in which the gunwale ends at stem and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span>
-stern were finished can best be described when individual
-types are under examination. Some canoes
-had a small piece of bark over the ends of the gunwales
-but under the outwales that held it in place. Whether
-these pieces were employed to protect the lashing of
-the gunwales and adjoining work from the weather, or
-whether they were the vestigial remains of a decking
-once used, cannot be determined. In the Canadian
-Northwest the ends of bark canoes were sometimes
-decked with bark for a short distance inboard.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i048.jpg" width="700" height="223" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 26</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Gunwales and Stakes on Building Bed</span>, plan view. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The bark was secured to the gunwales by a continuous
-spiral lashing all along the main gunwale or by
-separated lashing in series. In the first, the continuous
-lashing, where it passed through the bark, might
-show regularly spaced separations to avoid the tops of
-the ribs. In the second, the lashings were placed
-clear of the ribs. There were some slight variations
-in the lashings, but these were of minor importance
-so far as structural strength is concerned. In all
-cases, the bark was brought up to or over the top of
-the gunwale before being secured, so that the holes
-for the lashing were pierced at some distance from
-the edge of the bark to prevent it from splitting.</p>
-
-<p>The ends of the thwarts were mortised into the gunwales
-and also secured by lashings. The number of
-thwarts varied with the tribal type, the size, and the
-purpose of the canoe. Usually an odd number, from
-three to nine, were used, though occasional canoes
-had two or four thwarts. Very small canoes for hunting
-might have only two or three thwarts, but most
-canoes 14 to 20 feet long had five. Canoes intended
-for portaging usually had one thwart at midlength to
-aid in lifting the canoe for the carry position. The
-distance between the thwarts might be determined by
-structural design, or might be fixed so as to divide the
-cargo space to allow proper trim. The thwarts might
-serve as backrests for passengers, but were never used
-as seats. There was no standard form for the shape
-of the thwarts, which varied not only to some degree
-by tribal classification, but even among builders in
-single tribe. They were usually thickest and widest
-over the centerline of the canoe, tapering outboard
-and then spreading again at the gunwales to form a
-marked shoulder at the mortise. The lashings to the
-gunwales often passed through two or more holes in
-this shoulder.</p>
-
-<p>The ribs, or frames, of most canoes were very closely
-spaced and were wide, flat, and thin. They ran in
-a single length from gunwale to gunwale. In canoes
-having <strong>V</strong>-sections near the ends, the ribs were often
-so sharply bent as to be fractured slightly. Across
-the bottom they were wide but above the bilge they
-tapered in width toward the end, which was either
-a rounded point or a beveled or rounded chisel-edge.
-The ribs were forced under the gunwales so
-that the heads fitted into the bevel, or into notches
-or holes at the underside and outboard edge of the
-gunwale, between it and the bark cover. By canting
-the rib to bring its ends into the proper position and
-then forcing it nearly perpendicular, the builder
-brought enough pressure on the bark cover to mold
-it to the required form. Bulging of the bark at each
-frame was prevented by a thin plank sheathing. The
-ribs in many Eastern canoes were spaced so that on
-the bottom they were separated only by a space equal
-to the width of a rib.</p>
-
-<p>Each piece of sheathing, better described as a
-"splint" than as "planking," was commonly of irreg<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span>ular
-form. The edges were often beveled to a marked
-thinness. While some builders laid the sheathing
-edge-to-edge in the bark cover, others overlapped the
-edges. Nearly all builders feathered the butts and
-overlapped them slightly. The sheathing was held in
-position by a number of light temporary ribs while the
-permanent frames, or ribs, were being installed. It is
-to be noted that the sheathing was neither lashed nor
-pegged; it remained fixed in place only through the
-pressure of the bent ribs and the restraint of the bark
-skin.</p>
-
-<p>The exact method of fitting the sheathing varied
-somewhat from area to area, but not in every instance
-from tribe to tribe. The bottom sheathing used by
-some eastern Indians was in two lengths. The individual
-pieces were tapered toward the stems and the
-edges butted closely together. The sides were in
-three lengths, but otherwise similarly fitted. The
-butts lapped very slightly. In a second method, used
-to the westward, the sheathing was laid edge-to-edge
-in two lengths, with the butts slightly lapped. The
-center members of the bottom, usually five, were
-parallel-sided, but the outboard ends of those at
-the turn of the bilges were beveled, or snied, off.
-The members further outboard were in one length,
-with both ends snied off. The bottom thus appeared
-as an elongated diamond-form. The topside sheathing
-was fitted as in the first instance.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 407px;">
-<img src="images/i049a.jpg" width="407" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 27</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Gunwale Lashings</span>, examples made by Adney:
-1, Elm-bark, Malecite; 2, St. Francis; 3, Algonkin;
-4, Malecite.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i049b.jpg" width="700" height="464" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 28</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Gunwale-End Lashings</span>, examples made by
-Adney: Athabascan (large), Ojibway (small).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>A variation in the second style used three lengths
-in the centerline sheathing. In still another varia<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span>tion
-a centerline piece was laid in two lengths without
-taper, the next outboard piece was then cut in the
-shape of a broad-based triangle, and the rest were
-laid in two lengths, with the sides parallel to the sides
-of the triangular strake and with their ends snied
-off against the centerline pieces. In a fourth style
-short pieces, roughly elongate-oval in shape, were
-overlapped on all sides and laid irregularly so that
-when in place they appeared "thrown in." With this
-style, the midship section was laid first and secured
-by a temporary rib, then the next toward the ends,
-with the butts shoved under the ends of the middle
-section. The next series was similarly laid so that
-the top member of each butt-lap faced toward the
-ends of the hull and was under a rib. The ends
-were not cut square across, but were either blunt-pointed
-or rounded. Five lengths of sheathing were
-often used, and the widths of the individual pieces
-of sheathing were rarely the same, so the seams were
-not lined up and presented an irregular appearance
-in the finished canoe. The sheathing was thin enough
-to allow it to take the curve of the bilge easily.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 594px;">
-<img src="images/i050.jpg" width="594" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 29</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Splints Arranged</span> in various ways to sheath
-the bottom of a canoe: 1, Micmac, Malecite;
-2, Central Cree, Têtes de Boule, etc.; 3, Montagnais;
-4, Algonkin, Ojibway, etc.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>If the sheathing was lapped, the overlap was always
-slight. In some old canoes a small space was left
-between the edges of the sheathing, particularly in the
-topsides. In some northwestern bark canoes there
-was no sheathing; these used a batten system somewhat
-like that in the Eskimo kayak, except that in the
-bark canoes the battens were not lashed to the ribs,
-being held in place only by pressure. These kayak-like
-bark canoes had a bottom framework formed with
-chine members; some had a rigid bottom frame of this
-type, while others had bottom frames secured only
-by rib pressure. The purpose of the sheathing, it
-should be noted, was to protect the bark cover from
-abrasion from the inside, to prevent the ribs from
-bulging the bark, and to back up the bark so as to
-resist impacts; but in no case, even when battens
-were employed, as in the Northwest, did the sheathing
-add to the longitudinal strength of the bark canoe.
-The principle of the stressed rib and clamped sheathing,
-which is the most marked characteristic in the
-construction of the North American Indian bark
-canoe, is fundamentally different from that used in the
-construction of the Eskimos' skin craft.</p>
-
-<p>A wide variety of framing methods are exhibited
-in the construction of the ends, or stems, of bark
-canoes. In the temporary types of the East, the bark
-was trimmed to a straight, slightly "ram" form and
-secured by sewing over two battens, one outboard on
-each side. Birch-bark canoes of the East usually had
-an inside stem-piece bent by the lamination method
-to the desired profile, the heel being left unsplit; as
-usual, the laminations were spirally wrapped, often
-with basswood-bark thongs. The stem-piece was
-then placed between the bark of the sides, and the bark
-and wood were lashed together with an over-and-over
-stitch. Sometimes variations of the short-and-long
-form of stitch were used here, and some builders also
-placed a halved-root batten over the ends of the bark
-before lashing to form a stem-band as protection to
-the seam. In some canoes the end lashing passed
-through holes drilled in the stem-pieces, often with
-the turns alternating in some regular manner through
-and around the stem-piece.</p>
-
-<p>The stem-pieces were generally very light, and in
-some canoes the head was notched and sharply bent
-down and inboard, so that it could be secured to the
-ends of the gunwales. Some tribal types had no inner
-stem-piece, and the stem profiles were strengthened
-merely by the use of two split-root or halved-sapling
-battens, one on each side, outside the bark and under
-the sewing.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i051.jpg" width="700" height="343" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 30</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">End Details, Including Construction of Stem-Pieces</span> and fitting of bark over them, ending
-of gunwale caps at stem heads, and the headboard, with its location. Lamination of the stem
-pieces shows fewer laminae than is common. (<em>Sketches by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Birch-bark canoes to the westward used battens
-under the end lashing as well as rather complicated
-inside stem-pieces. In some parts of the West and
-Northwest, the ends were formed of boards set up on
-edge fore-and-aft, the bark being lashed through all,
-with the boards projecting slightly outboard of the
-ends of the bark cover to form a cutwater.</p>
-
-<p>To support the inside stem-piece, some form of
-headboard was usually fitted near each end after the
-sheathing was in place. These were shaped to the
-cross-section of the canoe so as to form bulkheads.
-In some canoes, these miniature bulkheads stood vertical,
-but in others they were curved somewhat to follow
-the general curve of the end-profile, and this caused
-them to be shaped more like a batten than a bulkhead.
-Bent headboards were sometimes stepped so as to rake
-outboard. Sometimes the form of the headboard permitted
-the gunwale members to be lashed to it, and
-often there was a notch for the main gunwale on each
-side.</p>
-
-<p>The headboards were sometimes stepped on the
-unsplit heel of the stem-piece; a notch was made in
-the bottom of the headboard to allow this. In two
-types of canoe in which there was no inner stem-piece,
-the headboards were stepped on short keel
-pieces, or "frogs," fore-and-aft on the bottom and extending
-slightly forward of the end of the sheathing to
-reinforce the forefoot. The purpose of the headboard
-was to strengthen the stem-piece, and in many cases
-it was an integral member of the end structure itself
-and helped to maintain its form. The headboard
-usually served to support the gunwale ends in some
-manner, it stretched the bark smooth near the stems,
-and it secured the ends of the sheathing where support
-from a rib would have been most difficult to obtain.
-Many canoes had the space between the headboard
-and the stem-piece stuffed with shavings, moss, or
-other dry material to help mold the bark to form
-beyond the sheathing in the ends. Some tribal groups
-decorated the headboards.</p>
-
-<p>In a few canoes, the stem-piece was additionally
-supported by a short, horizontal member stepped in
-the forward face of the headboard and projecting forward
-to bear on the after side of the stem-piece. The
-latter was sometimes bent back onto itself above this
-member to form a loop around the top of the end-profile,
-and the gunwale ends or a part of the gunwale
-structure were secured to it. This complicated
-bending of the stem-piece, in conjunction with use of
-a headboard and a brace member, served to stiffen
-the end structure sufficiently to meet the requirements
-of service.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i052.jpg" width="700" height="429" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 31</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite Canoe of the Type Described in This Chapter.</span> This 2½ fathom St. John
-River canoe represents the last Malecite birch-bark model, and usually was fastened with
-tacks and nails, rather than with root lashings and pegs as described here.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The use of a bark cover over the gunwale ends has
-already been mentioned. In some eastern canoes,
-this was placed under the cap and outwale pieces and
-extended below the latter in a shallow flap on which
-the owner's mark or other decoration might appear;
-the flap was in fact a kind of name board. Such flaps
-do not appear on the partly decked bark canoes of
-the Northwest.</p>
-
-<p>This general description of the structure of the bark
-canoes is sufficient to permit the explanation of the
-actual construction of a bark canoe to be more readily
-understood, and it also serves to illustrate the close connection
-between the method of construction and the
-formation of the lines, or model, of bark canoes. From
-the description, too, it can be seen that while the
-shape of a bark canoe was partially planned during
-the construction the control of every part of the
-model could not be maintained with the same degree
-of precision as in the building of an Eskimo skin boat
-or an Indian dugout.</p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Construction</em></h3>
-
-<p>One aspect of canoe construction, the Indian method
-of making measurements, was briefly mentioned
-(p. <a href="#Page_8">8</a>) under a discussion of the origin of the measurement
-known in French Canada as the <em>brasse</em>. This
-was the distance from finger-tip to finger-tip of the
-arms outstretched; in the fur trade in English times
-it was known as the fathom and it appears to have
-been about 64 inches, or less than the nautical
-fathom of 6 feet. Other measurements used were the
-greatest width of the ball of the thumb, which is very
-close to an English inch, and the width of the four
-fingers, each finger-breadth being close to three-fourths
-of an English inch. The length of the forearm,
-usually from the knuckles of the clenched hand to
-the elbow, was also employed by some Indians, as a
-convenient measurement.</p>
-
-<p>Measurements in these units might be memorized
-and used in building, but many Indians used measur<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span>ing
-sticks, and these served as "foot-rules." They
-were sometimes squared and were painted as well as
-notched.</p>
-
-<p>A Malecite Indian, interviewed in 1925, had three
-such sticks for canoe building. One, for the length of
-the gunwale frame, was half the total length required;
-it was notched to show the distance at which the
-ends of the gunwales were lashed and also the position
-of the thwarts. Such a stick would be about 7 feet
-long for a 16-foot canoe, 8 feet for an 18-foot canoe.
-The second stick was notched to show half the length
-of each of the thwarts. The third stick had notches
-showing the height of the gunwale at each thwart
-and at the end, four notches in all for the half-length
-of the canoe. This stick measured from the surface
-of the building bed, not from a regular base line.</p>
-
-<p>The method of measuring canoes appears to have
-been fairly well standardized, at least in historical
-times. As stated earlier, length was commonly taken
-over the gunwales only, and did not include the end
-profiles, which might extend up to a foot or slightly
-more beyond the gunwale ends, bow and stern.
-However, in certain old records the overall length is
-given, and in various areas other methods of measurement
-existed. Where a building frame was used,
-the given length of the canoe was the length of this
-frame; usually this approximated the length of
-the gunwales. The width of a canoe was measured
-by the Indian from inside to inside of the main gunwale
-members. The extreme beam might be only 2
-or 3 inches greater than the inside measurement of the
-gunwales, but if the sides bulged out, the beam might
-actually be 6 or more inches greater. The depth
-was usually measured from the inside of the ribs to
-the top of the gunwale but in building it was measured
-from the surface of the building bed to the bottom
-of the main gunwales, as noted above in the description
-of the measuring sticks.</p>
-
-<p>Thus it will be seen that the Indian measurements
-constituted a statement of dimensions primarily
-useful to the builder, for their main purpose was to
-fix the proportions rather than establish the actual
-length, width, and depth. Today we state the
-length of a canoe in terms of extreme overall measurement;
-the Indian was inclined to state the length
-in building terms, giving dimensions applicable to
-the woodwork only, just as the old-time shipbuilder
-gave the keel length of a vessel instead of the overall
-length on deck.</p>
-
-<p>The building site was carefully selected. The space
-in which the canoe was to be set up had to be smooth,
-free of stones and roots or anything that might damage
-the bark, and the soil had to be such that stakes
-driven into it would stand firmly. A shady place was
-preferred, as the bark would not dry there as fast as
-in sunlight. Since the construction of a canoe required
-both time and the aid of the whole Indian
-family, the site had to be close to a suitable place for
-camping, where food and water could be obtained. It
-is not surprising, therefore, to find canoe building
-sites that apparently had been used by generations of
-Indians.</p>
-
-<p>The preparation of the building bed was controlled
-by the intended form of the canoe to be built. If the
-bottom of the canoe was to be rockered, the cleared
-ground was brought to a flat surface for the length
-required for setting up the canoe. If the rocker was
-to be great, the middle of the bed would be slightly
-depressed. If the bottom was to be straight fore-and-aft,
-or very nearly so, the bed was crowned from 1½
-to 2 inches higher in the middle than at the ends, so
-that the canoe was first set up with a hogged bottom.
-Very large canoes such as were used in the fur trade
-required as much as 4 inches crown in the building
-bed. Other dimensions being equal, the amount of
-crown was usually somewhat greater in canoes having
-bulging sides than in ones having more upright or
-flaring sides. Canoe factories such as were operated
-in certain fur-trading posts sometimes had a plank
-building bed suitably crowned and drilled for setting
-the stakes.</p>
-
-<p>Two methods of setting up the canoe were used. In
-most of the eastern area, the gunwales were put
-together and used to establish the plan outline of the
-canoe on the building bed. But a building frame was
-used for constructing the various narrow-bottom
-canoes having flaring sides, and for some other tribal
-forms. The frame, made in the same general form as
-the gunwales when assembled, but less wide and
-sometimes much shorter, could be taken apart easily,
-allowing it to be removed after the canoe was built;
-hence it could be used to build as many canoes as
-desired to the same dimensions as the first, and was
-retained by the builder as a tool, or pattern, for future
-use.</p>
-
-<p>The method of construction in which gunwales only
-were used in setting up the canoe will be explained
-first in order to show the general technique of construction.
-Use of the building frame will then be
-described. Important deviations from these methods
-will be described in later chapters under the individual
-tribal types in which they occur.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The Malecite canoe, a straight-bottomed craft
-about 19 feet long and 36 inches beam, is used as the
-example, hence the method of building to be described
-is that generally employed in the East, where
-variations in construction mainly involve the use or
-omission of structural elements.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwales are the first members to be formed.
-In the Malecite canoe these are the inner gunwales,
-as the canoe will have outwales and caps. The gunwales
-are split from white cedar to produce battens
-that will square 1½ inches when shaped. The gunwales
-are tapered each way from midlength, where they
-are 1½ inches square, to a point 3 inches short of the
-ends, where they are ¾ by 1 to 1¼ inches. The edges
-of the gunwales are all rounded, and the outboard
-bottom edge is beveled almost ½ inch, at 45° to the
-bottom of the member. The last 3 inches at each end
-is formed like half a blunt arrowhead, as shown in the
-sketch of the member on page <a href="#Page_31">31</a>. The gunwales will
-be bent, side to side, on the flat as far as the ends are
-concerned, so the blunt arrowhead is formed on one
-of the wide faces of the ends as shown. The arrowhead
-form allows a neat joint when the gunwale ends
-are brought together, pegged athwartships, and then
-wrapped with a root lashing. In forming and finishing
-the gunwales, a good deal of care is required to
-get them to bend alike, so that the centerline of the
-finished frame will be straight and true.</p>
-
-<p>To take the ends of the middle thwart, a mortise
-¼ by 2 inches is cut in each gunwale member athwartships
-at exactly midlength, the length of the mortise
-being with the run of the gunwale. In it, the middle
-thwart, 33 inches long, is fitted. Made of a ⅞-inch
-by 3-inch piece of hard maple, the thwart tapers
-slightly in thickness each way from its center to
-within 5 inches of the shoulders, which are 30 inches
-apart. The thickness at a point 5 inches from the
-shoulder is ¾ inch; from there the taper is quick to the
-shoulder, which is <sup>5</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> inch thick, with a drop to
-¼ inch in the tenon. The width, 3 inches at the center,
-decreases in a graceful curve to within 5 inches of the
-shoulder, where it is 2 inches, then increases to about
-3 inches at the shoulder. The width of the tenon is,
-of course, 2 inches, to fit the mortise hole in the gunwale.
-The edges of the outer 5 inches of the thwart
-are rounded off or beveled a good deal; inboard they
-are only slightly rounded.</p>
-
-<p>The thwart is carefully fitted to the gunwale
-members and the ends are pegged. Some builders
-wedged the ends of this thwart from outside the gunwales,
-the wedge standing vertical in the thwart so
-that the gunwale would not split; however, it is not
-certain that wedging was used in prehistoric times,
-although it is seen in some existing old canoes. The
-pegs used in this canoe are driven from above, into
-holes bored through the gunwale and the tenon of
-the thwart to lock all firmly together. Three holes
-are then bored in the broad shoulders of the thwart
-about 1½ inches inboard of gunwale for the root
-lashing that is also used.</p>
-
-<p>The ends of the gunwale members are now brought
-together, and to avoid an unfair curve appearing at
-the thwart in place, short pieces of split plank or of
-sapling, notched to hold them in place, are inserted
-between the gunwale members as temporary thwarts
-at points about 5 feet on each side of the middle
-thwart. After the ends are brought together and the
-final fitting is carried out, a peg is driven athwartships
-the ends and a single-part root lashing is carefully
-wrapped around the assembly.</p>
-
-<p>Some canoe builders omitted the blunted half-arrowhead
-form at the gunwale end. Instead, the
-inside faces were tapered to allow the two parts to
-bear on one another for some distance. The gunwales
-were then pinched together and lashed with one
-or more wrappings. Finally, a thin wedge was
-sometimes driven from inboard between the two
-gunwale ends to tighten the wrappings. The wedges
-were usually so carefully fitted as to be difficult to
-identify. It is probable that this wedged gunwale
-ending represents the prehistoric form, and the
-blunted half-arrowhead ending is a result of the use
-of steel tools.</p>
-
-<p>After the ends of the gunwales have been securely
-fastened together, the first pair of permanent thwarts
-is fitted. These are located 36 inches, center to center,
-on each side of the middle thwart, a distance that
-determines the centers of the mortises in each gunwale
-member. Each thwart, made from a ¾-inch by
-3-inch piece, tapers smoothly in thickness from the
-¾-inch center to the <sup>5</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub>-inch shoulder. The tenon is
-of the same dimensions as that of the middle thwart,
-the width takes the same form as that of the middle
-thwart, and the edges are similarly beveled and
-rounded. The distance between the shoulders, taken
-along the centerline, is 22½ inches, and the centerline
-length of the thwart 25½ inches. However,
-the shoulders and ends of the tenons must be bevelled
-to follow the curve of the gunwales hence the extreme
-length of the thwart is actually very close to 26 inches.
-The worker determines the bevel of the shoulders by
-fitting the thwart to the run of the gunwales, the
-temporary thwarts being shifted so that the distance
-between the gunwales equals that set by the measuring
-stick. These two thwarts having been fitted, the
-tenons are pegged as before, but in the shoulders only
-one lashing hole is bored instead of the three employed
-in the middle thwart.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 32</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite Canoe Building</span>, 1910. (<em>Canadian
-Geological Survey photos.</em>)</p>
-</div>
-<img src="images/i055a.jpg" width="700" height="520" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Weighting gunwales on bark
-cover on building bed.</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i055b.jpg" width="700" height="532" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Resetting stakes.</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i055c.jpg" width="700" height="540" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Shaping bark cover and
-securing it to stakes.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i056.jpg" width="700" height="252" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 33</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">First Stage of Canoe Construction</span>: assembled gunwale frame is used to locate stakes
-temporarily on building bed. Instead of the gunwales, a building frame was used in some
-areas. (<em>Sketch by Adney</em>.)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The second pair of thwarts is placed 30 inches,
-center to center, from the first pair, one at each
-end, and on the basis of this measurement the tenons
-are cut as for the others. These two thwarts are made
-of ⅝-by 4-inch pieces tapering in thickness each
-way from the center to the shoulder, where they
-are a scant <sup>5</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> inch thick, the tenons having the
-same dimensions as in the other thwarts. In width
-the thwarts are worked to an even 3 inches from
-shoulder to shoulder, but in the form of a curve so
-that when each thwart is in place its center will be
-bowed toward the ends of the canoe, viewed from
-above. As in the first pair, the shoulders and ends
-are cut to a bevel to fit the gunwale; at the
-centerline they each measure 12 inches shoulder-to-shoulder
-in a straight line athwartships and 15 inches
-end-to-end. Allowing for bevel, the maximum length
-is just over 15<sup>5</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> inches. These thwarts are drilled
-for single gunwale lashings and the corner edges
-are well rounded from shoulder to shoulder. The
-distance from the centerlines of these last thwarts
-at the bow and stern to the extreme ends of the
-joined gunwales is 33 inches, so the finished gunwale
-length is 16 feet.</p>
-
-<p>After the endmost thwarts are pegged into place,
-the temporary stays are removed. At each step of
-construction the alignment of the gunwales is checked
-by measuring with the measuring sticks and by
-sighting, since the shape of the assembled gunwales,
-in this case of the inner gunwales, is very important
-in determining the sharpness of the completed canoe
-and the fairness of its general form.</p>
-
-<p>The assembled gunwales are now ready to be laid
-on the building bed which, for the Malecite canoe,
-is 20 feet long, about 3½ feet wide and is raised
-about 1½ inches at midlength so that the canoe
-bottom will be straight when the craft is in the water.
-The gunwale frame having been carefully centered
-on this bed, with the middle thwart exactly over the
-highest point in the surface of the bed, some scrap
-split-planking is laid across the gunwales and the
-whole weighted down with a few flat stones. Next,
-34 stakes from 30 to 50 inches long are prepared,
-each made of a halved length of sapling. Around
-the outside of the gunwale frame 26 of these are driven
-in pairs opposite one another across the frame, about
-24 inches apart and placed so that none is opposite
-a thwart, except for the stakes at the extreme ends
-of the gunwale frame, which are spaced about a foot
-from their nearest neighbors and are face-to-face,
-about 1½ inches apart. All the stakes are driven
-with the flat face about an inch from the gunwale
-frame and parallel to its outside edge. Finally two
-more pairs of stakes are driven at each end, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span>
-first pair about a foot beyond the end of the gunwale
-frame and 1½ inches apart, the second about 6 inches
-beyond these and similarly spaced. The length
-between the outermost stakes, measured over the
-gunwale frame, is about 18½ feet. Great care is
-taken to line up the last pairs of stakes with the
-centerline of the gunwale frame.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i057.jpg" width="700" height="305" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 34</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Second Stage of Canoe Construction</span>: stakes have been removed and laid aside, and the
-gunwales shown in first stage have been removed from the building bed. The bark cover is
-laid out on the building bed, and the gunwales are in place upon it, weighted down with stones.
-(<em>Sketch by Adney</em>.)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>If the canoe is to have a slight rocker near the ends
-and is to be straight over the rest of the bottom,
-the ends of the gunwale frame will be blocked above
-the building bed so that the frame is not hogged on
-the bed.</p>
-
-<p>After the builder is satisfied with the staking, each
-stake is carefully pulled up and laid to one side,
-off the bed but near its hole. The weights are then
-removed from the gunwale frame, which is lifted
-from the bed and laid aside, and the bed, if disturbed
-is repaired and re-leveled.</p>
-
-<p>The roll of birch bark is now removed from storage,
-perhaps in a nearby pool where it has been placed to
-keep it flexible, and unrolled white side up on the
-building bed. As the bark dries, it will become more
-and more stiff, so it will be necessary to moisten
-it frequently during construction to maintain its
-flexibility.</p>
-
-<p>The bark is usually long enough, but often it is not
-wide enough. If the bark is too short, it may be
-pieced out at this time, or later. If it is not wide
-enough it is centered on the bed; the piecing out
-will be done later. The gunwale frame is now laid
-on the bark, care being taken to place it as nearly
-as possible in its former position on the bed.</p>
-
-<p>The bark outside the frame is then slashed from
-the edge to a point close to the end of each thwart,
-and also to points along the frame halfway between
-the thwarts, so that the edges can be turned up.
-While it is being slashed, the bark cover is bent
-slightly, so that it is cut under tension. Later,
-when the required shape can be determined, these
-slashes will be made into gores, the Malecite canoes
-having flush seams, not overlaps, in the topsides and
-bottom. If a fault is noted along the outer edge of
-the bark, a slash may be placed so as to allow the
-fault to be cut out in the later goring; irregularity in
-the position of the cuts does no great harm to the
-progress of building these canoes. The slashes are
-usually carried to within an inch of the gunwales on
-the bed. It is not customary to slash the bark close
-to the end, there the bark can usually be brought up
-unbroken, depending upon the form of the end.</p>
-
-<p>When the bark has been cut as described, it can
-be turned up smoothly all around the frame so that
-the stake holes can be seen and a few of the stakes can
-be replaced. The frame and the bark are then<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span>
-realigned so that all stakes may be replaced in their
-holes without difficulty. When the frame and bark
-are aligned, the frame is weighted as before and the
-bark is turned up all around it, the stakes being firmly
-driven, as this is done, in their original holes. The
-longest stakes are at the ends of the frame, as the
-depth of the hull is to be greatest there. The tops of
-each pair of opposite stakes are now tied together with
-a thong of basswood or cedar bark, to hold them
-rigid and upright.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i058.jpg" width="700" height="523" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 35</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite Canoe Builders Near Fredericton, N.B.</span>, using wooden plank
-building bed with stakes set in holes in the platform. This was a late method
-of construction, which probably originated in the early French canoe factory
-at Trois Rivières, Que.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>After the bark is turned up around the frame, its
-lack of width becomes fully apparent. At this stage,
-some builders fitted the additional pieces to gain the
-necessary width; others did it later. The method of
-piecing the bark cover and the sewing technique,
-however, is explained here.</p>
-
-<p>The bark is pieced out with regard to the danger
-of abrasion that would occur when the canoe is
-moving through obstructions in the water, or when
-it is rolled or hauled ashore and unloaded. If the
-bark is to be lapped below the waterline, the thickness
-of the bark of both pieces in the lap is scraped thin so
-a ridge will not be formed athwart the bottom;
-here, however, most tribes used edge-to-edge joining.
-If there are laps in the topsides, the exposed edge is
-toward the stern; if in the midlength, upward toward
-the gunwale; and if it is in the end the lap may be
-toward the bottom, because this makes it easier to
-sew, and because in the ends of the canoe there is less
-danger of serious abrasion. Many tribes used edge-to-edge
-joining everywhere in the topsides so that the
-direction of lapping was not a matter of consideration.
-The type of goring, whether by slash and lap or by
-cutting out a <strong>V</strong>-shaped gore, will, of course, have
-much to do with the selection of the method of sewing
-to be used.</p>
-
-<p>It is to be recalled that in canoe building no needle
-was used in sewing the bark; the ends of the root
-strands were sharpened and used to thread the strand
-through the awl holes. Much of the topside sewing in
-a bark canoe was done with small strands made by
-splitting small roots in half and then flattening the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span>
-halves by scraping. Large root strands quartered
-and prepared in the same manner, or the cores of
-these, were sometimes used in heavy sewing or
-lashing at the gunwale or in the ends of a canoe.</p>
-
-<p>As noted previously, root thongs were used well
-water-soaked or quite green, for they became very
-stiff and rather brittle as they dried out. Once in
-place, however, the drying did not seem to destroy
-their strength. Rawhide was also used for such
-sewing by some tribes.</p>
-
-<p>The sewing was done by Indian women, if their
-help was available, and the forms of stitching used
-in canoe building varied greatly. The root sewing at
-the ends of the canoes ranged from a simple over-and-over
-spiral form to elaborate and decorative styles.
-Long-and-short stitching in a sequence that usually
-followed some formal pattern was widely used.
-Among the patterns were such arrangements as one
-long, four short, and one long; or two longs, two or
-three shorts, and two longs; or one short, five of
-progressively increasing length, and then one short; or
-six progressively longer followed by six progressively
-shorter. Cross-stitching, employing the two ends of
-the sewing root as in the lacing of a shoe was also
-common. Sometimes this was combined with a
-straight-across double-strand pass to join the ends of
-the <strong>X</strong>. The harness stitch, in which both ends of the
-sewing root were passed in opposite directions through
-the same holes, was often used, as was the 2-thong
-in-and-out lacing from each side used in northwestern
-canoes having plank stem-pieces.</p>
-
-<p>If the root strand was too short to complete a seam,
-instead of being spliced or knotted the end was tucked
-back under the last turns or stitches, on the inside of the
-bark cover. In starting, the tail was placed under the
-first turn of the stitch, so that it could not be pulled
-through. To finish sewing with double-ended strands,
-as in the harness stitch, both ends were tucked under
-the last turn or two.</p>
-
-<p>Commonly two or more turns were taken through
-a single hole in the bark; this might be done to clear
-some obstruction such as a frame head at the gunwale,
-or to provide a stronger stitch, or turn, as in the
-harness stitch and others, or to allow for greater
-spacing between awl holes in the bark. (Since the
-awl blade was tapered, the size of the hole it made in
-the bark could be regulated by the depth of penetration
-of the blade as it was turned in the hole.)</p>
-
-<p>The length of stitches varied with the need for
-strength and watertightness. Long stitches were
-about I inch, short stitches from about ⅜ to ½ inch in
-length. The run of the grain, of course, was a consideration
-in the length of stitch used.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i059.jpg" width="700" height="407" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 36</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Sewing</span>: two common styles of root stitching
-used in bark canoes.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The piecing of the side panels was done with a
-great variety of sewing styles, according to strength
-requirements. The strain put upon the bark in
-molding it by rib pressure was greater in the midlength
-than in the ends; and the sewing differed
-accordingly. The over-and-over spiral, with a batten
-under the sewing, was used for sewing in the midlength,
-as was back-stitching, a variety of basting
-stitch in which a new pass is started about half way
-between stitches, thus forming overlapped passes or
-turns. Back-stitching was usually done in a direction
-slightly diagonal to the line of sewing, so as to cross
-the grain of the bark at an angle with each pass.
-The double-thong in-and-out stitch, in which each
-thong goes through the same hole from opposite
-sides, was frequently used. The simple, spiral over-and-over
-stitch was used in sewing panels in the ends
-of canoes, as was the simple, in-and-out basting stitch
-using either a single or double strand.</p>
-
-<p>When the sides were pieced out edge-to-edge, the
-sewing was usually done spirally, over and over a
-narrow, thin batten placed outside the bark cover.
-This batten might be either a thin split sapling or,
-more commonly, a split and thinned piece of root.
-If the pieced-out sides were lapped, then the harness
-stitch was commonly used. The lap might be some
-inches wide to decrease the danger of splitting while
-the bark was being punched with the awl, afterward
-the surplus was cut away leaving about a half inch of
-overlap. On rare occasions the strength of a lapped-edge
-seam was increased by the use of a parallel row
-of stitching.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i060a.jpg" width="700" height="190" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 37</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Comparison of Canoe on the Building Bed</span> (above), with gunwales or building frame weighted
-down by stones inside bark cover, and (below) canoe when first removed from building bed
-during fifth stage of construction. (<em>Sketches by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i060b.jpg" width="700" height="130" alt="" />
-</div>
-
-<p>In making the canoe watertight, it is to be remembered
-that some forms of stitch make the bark lie
-up tight all along its edges while others bind only
-where the stitch crosses the seam. The in-and-out
-stitch, which was used only above the waterline,
-cannot be pulled up hard without causing the bark
-to pucker and split and cannot be made very watertight
-with gum. The over-and-over stitch, in either
-a spiral form or square across the seam on the outside
-and diagonally on the inside, is very strong; when a
-batten is used under the stitches it can be pulled
-up hard and allows a very watertight gumming.
-When this style of sewing is used without a batten
-across the run of the grain, as in the gore seams, it
-cannot be pulled up as hard, but will serve. Back-stitching,
-which was much used in the topsides, can
-be pulled up quite hard and makes a tight seam when
-gummed, as do the harness stitch and cross-stitch.
-The ends, regardless of the style of sewing used, were
-more readily made tight by gumming than the other
-seams in a bark canoe.</p>
-
-<p>Two basic methods, with some slight and unimportant
-variations, were used to fasten the bark to the
-gunwales. One employed a continuous over-and-over
-stitch, the other employed groups of lashings.
-On a canoe with the lashing continuous along the
-gunwales, the turns were made two or more times
-through the same hole on each side of each rib head
-to allow space for them. This might also be done
-where the lashing was in groups, as described above.
-Usually, a measuring stick was used to space the
-groups between thwart ends so that each group came
-between the rib heads. The groupings could be independent
-lashings, or the strand could be carried from
-one group to another. If the latter, it was passed
-along under the gunwale in a number of in-and-out
-stitches or in a single lone stitch either inside or out,
-or else it was brought around over the gunwale from
-the last full turn. Some tribes use both ends of the
-lashing, passing them through the same hole in the
-bark from opposite directions below the gunwales;
-the ends might be carried in the same manner in a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span>
-long stitch to the next group. In some elm and other
-bark canoes employing basswood or cedar-bark
-lashings the bark was tied with a single turn at wide
-intervals; when roots were used in these, however,
-small groupings of stitches were customary. When
-group lashings were used with birch bark, the intervals
-between groups was usually relatively short,
-though in a few canoes the groups and intervals were
-of nearly equal length.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i061.jpg" width="700" height="350" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 38</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Third Stage of Canoe Construction</span>: the bark cover is shaped on the building bed. The
-gores have been cut; part of the cover is shaped and secured by stakes and battens. "A" shows
-battens secured by sticks lashed to stakes. (<em>Sketch by Adney</em>.)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In an independent group, the ends of the strand
-were treated as in whipping, the tail being under the
-first turns made and the end tucked back under the
-last&mdash;usually on the inside of the gunwales. Where
-there were inner and outer gunwales the lashing was
-always around both, and the tail might be jammed
-between them. If a cap was used on the gunwales,
-the lashings were always under it. The use of a
-knotted turn to start a lashing occurred only in the
-old Têtes de Boule canoes.</p>
-
-<p>On the Malecite canoe, the sides are pieced out
-in one to three panels rather than in one long, narrow
-panel on each side. The panel for the midlength
-requires the greatest strength and is usually lapped
-inside the bottom bark. The latter is first trimmed
-straight along its edge, and the panel inserted behind
-it with a couple of inches of lap. Then the two pieces
-of bark are sewn together over a halved-root batten
-with an over-and-over stitch. (Other tribes used
-some form of the harness stitch, or a similar style,
-allowing great strength.) The middle panel does not
-extend much beyond the ends of the first pair of
-thwarts on each side of the middle. The next panels
-toward the ends are lapped outside the bottom bark
-and are sewn with the back-stitch. Then, if still
-another panel is required at each end, this too is
-lapped outside and is sewn in the lap with an in-and-out
-stitch. The ends of the panels are usually sewn
-with an over-and-over stitch that runs square with
-the seam outside and diagonally to it inside the bark.
-(The harness stitch was used here by some tribes, as
-were many forms of the cross-stitch.) The ends of the
-canoe and the gores have already been sewn during
-an earlier stage of the building process.</p>
-
-<p>Once the sides are pieced out, the bark is ready to
-be turned up and around the gunwale frame and
-clamped perpendicularly. To effect this, small
-stakes are made by halving saplings, so that each half
-is about a half inch thick. The butt of each half is
-cut chisel-shaped, with the bevel on the flat side; the
-rounded face is smoothed off, and it may be tapered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span>
-toward the head of the stake. Between two of the
-slashes a length of bark is now brought up against
-the outer stakes; against the bark the small, inside
-stake is placed with the round face of the chisel-pointed
-butt wedged against the outer face of the
-gunwale. The top is then levered against the outside
-stake, so that the flat face of each clamps the bark in
-place. The top of the inner stake is then bound to
-the outer.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 555px;">
-<img src="images/i062a.jpg" width="555" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 39</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Cross Section</span> of canoe on building bed during
-third stage of construction (above) and fourth
-stage. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In setting the inside stakes, care is taken that
-their points do not pierce the bark. No inside stakes
-are required at the ends, as here the outside stakes
-are so close together in opposing pairs as to hold the
-bark in a sharp fold along the centerline of the cover.
-This of course is also true of the stakes beyond the
-ends of the gunwales.</p>
-
-<p>After a few lengths of bark have been thus secured,
-they are faired between the stakes by inserting thin
-strips of split sapling, or battens of wood or root,
-along each side of the bark, under the inside and
-outside stakes. These battens are placed about halfway
-up the upturned bark. Some builders used long
-wooden battens, as this gave a very fair side when
-enough lengths were secured upright; others got the
-same results with short battens, the ends of which
-were overlapped between a pair of stakes on each side.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;">
-<img src="images/i062b.jpg" width="600" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 40</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Multiple Cross Section</span> through one side of a
-canoe on the building bed: at the headboard,
-middle, first, and second thwarts. Gunwale
-is raised and supported on sheering posts set
-under thwarts. Crown of the building bed is
-shown by varying heights of bottoms of the four
-sections.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>When the bark has been turned up and clamped,
-the gores may be trimmed to allow it to be sewn with
-edge-to-edge seams at each slash. This is usually
-done after the sides are faired, by moving the battens
-up and down as the cuts are made, then replacing
-them in their original position. The gores or slashes,
-if overlapped, are not usually sewn at this stage of
-construction.</p>
-
-<p>With the inside stakes in place, the longitudinal
-battens secured, and the gores cut or the overlaps
-properly arranged, all is ready for sheering the gunwales.
-First the weights are removed from the
-gunwale frame so that it can be lifted. If the inside
-stakes have been properly made and fitted this can
-be done without disturbing the sides, though the
-ties across each pair of outside stakes may have to
-be slacked off somewhat. Before lifting the frame,
-some short posts, usually of sapling or of waste from
-splitting out the gunwales and thwarts, are cut in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span>
-lengths determined by the measuring stick or from
-memory, one for each end of each thwart, and one
-for each end of the gunwale frame. Those under
-the middle thwart ends in this canoe are 7½ inches
-long, those under the next thwarts out from the
-middle will be 9 inches, those under the end thwarts
-will be 12 inches, and those at the gunwale ends will
-be 17 inches long. These posts, cut with squared
-butts, are laid alongside the bed. The gunwale
-frame is now lifted and the pair of posts to go under
-the middle thwart are stepped on the bark cover,
-the gunwale is lowered onto them, and while the
-frame and posts are held steady, stones are laid on
-a plank over the middle thwart. Next, the ends
-of the gunwales are held and lifted so that a pair of
-posts can be placed at the thwarts next out from the
-middle. More weights are placed over these, the
-operation is repeated for the end thwarts and, finally
-at the gunwale ends, so that the gunwales now stand
-on posts on the bark cover, sprung to the correct
-fore-and-aft sheer and steadied by the bearing of
-the outside of the gunwale frame on the rounded
-faces of the inside stakes. Now the sheer has been
-established and the depth of the canoe is approximated.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i063.jpg" width="700" height="264" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 41</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Fourth Stage of Canoe Construction</span>: bark cover has been shaped and all stakes placed.
-The gunwales have been raised to sheer height; "A" indicates the sticks which fix the sheer of
-the gunwales; "B" indicates blocks placed under ends to form rocker. Side panels are shown
-in place, and cover is being sewn to gunwales. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>To protect the bark cover from the thrust of the
-weights used to ballast the frame, some builders
-inserted small bark or wood shields for padding under
-the heels of the posts. By some tribes the posts were
-notched on one face, to fit inside the gunwales near
-the thwarts, and there were also other ways of
-assembling the gunwales themselves.</p>
-
-<p>It should be apparent that the operations just
-described would serve only for canoes in which the
-sheer had a gentle, fair sweep. For canoes in which
-the sheer turned up sharply at the ends, the gunwale
-members might have to be split into laminations
-and prebent to the required sheer before being
-assembled into the gunwale frame. To accomplish
-this, the laminations were scalded with boiling water
-until saturated and then the gunwale members were
-staked out on the ground or tied with cords to set
-the wood in the desired curves as it dried out. The
-laminations were then wrapped with cord and the
-gunwale was ready to assemble. To produce a
-hogged sheer, the gunwales were made of green
-spruce and then staked out to season in the form
-desired; a hogged sheer was also formed by steaming
-or boiling the gunwale members at midlength.</p>
-
-<p>The canoe, as now erected on the building bed, has
-a double-ended, flat-bottomed, wall-sided form. The
-gunwales are sprung to the proper breadth and sheer,
-and the bark is standing irregularly above them. At
-this point, on canoes not having outwales, the bark
-cover was laced or lashed to the gunwales. Since the
-Malecite canoe has outwales, these are now made and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span>
-fitted. They consist of two white cedar battens about
-19½ feet long, perhaps 1 inch wide, and ½ inch thick.
-The face that will be the outboard side is usually
-somewhat rounded, as are all the corners, and the
-corner that will be on the inside and bottom of each
-batten when it is in place is somewhat beveled. The
-outwales are placed between the bark and the outside
-stakes, the inside stakes being removed one by one as
-this is done. The removal of the inside stakes
-allows room for the outwale to be inserted in their
-place, between the outside stakes and the inner gunwale
-face, and it allows the bark to be brought against
-the outside face of the inner gunwales. In the process
-of fitting the outwales, the battens along the sides may
-have to be removed and replaced, or shifted, and the
-cross-ties of each pair of outside stakes may require
-adjustment. Beginning at midlength, the outwale is
-pegged through the bark cover to the inner gunwales
-at intervals of 6 to 9 inches. The pegging is not
-carried much beyond the end thwarts in any canoe
-and could not be in canoes having laminated gunwales
-near the ends.</p>
-
-<p>The Malecite canoe has bark covers over the ends
-of the inner gunwales, and these are now fitted so that
-they can be passed under the outwales and clamped in
-place. The ends of the outwales are forced inside the
-stakes at and beyond the ends of the gunwales, assuming
-a pinched-in appearance there, and they may
-reach a few inches beyond the ends of the bark cover;
-they will be cut and shaped to the length of the finished
-canoe later.</p>
-
-<p>The outwale pegs are made by splitting from a balk
-of birch, larch, or fir roughly squared dowels about ¼
-inch square and 6 to 9 inches long. Each dowel is
-then tapered and rounded each way from the middle
-to form two shanks that are between ⅛ and <sup>3</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> inch in
-diameter over 2 to 3 inches of length. The ends may
-be sharpened by fire. The dowels are then cut in two,
-providing a pair of pegs with large heads. These are
-driven in holes drilled through the outwales, bark
-cover, and gunwales, and when well home, the protruding
-ends are cut off flush. Toward the ends of
-the gunwales, the spaces between the pegs increase,
-and at the extreme ends, the outwale will be lashed to
-the gunwale by widely spaced groupings of root strand.
-These are usually temporary, as the final lashing of
-the bark to the gunwales will secure the outwales.</p>
-
-<p>After the outwales are secured in place, the bark
-is fastened to the assembled gunwales with group
-lashings. In the Malecite canoe being built, these
-are independent, each grouping consisting of eight
-to ten complete turns of the root strand. The intervals
-between, roughly 2 inches, are usually spaced by
-means of a special measuring-stick to insure evenness.
-Before the lashing is actually begun, however, the
-excess bark standing above the gunwales is cut away.
-The bark either is trimmed flush with the top of the
-gunwale, or enough is left for a flap that will fully
-cover the top of the inner gunwale, to be turned down
-under the lashing. The latter method, the stronger,
-was used by many builders. In making the turns in
-the group lashings, two or three turns may be taken
-through a single hole in the bark; the Malecites did
-this to avoid having the holes too close together. The
-result is that the group when seen from outboard
-appears as a <strong>W</strong>-form, with only two or three holes in
-the bark for an entire group. Care is taken to lay up
-the turns over the gunwales neatly, turn against
-turn without open spacing or overlaps and crossings.</p>
-
-<p>When this is completed, the ends of the thwarts
-can be lashed, the strand passing through the holes
-in the shoulders, around the two gunwale members,
-and through one or two holes in the bark cover. The
-groupings for the bark cover are spaced so that these
-lashings do not overlap them, and thus the lashings
-serve a dual purpose.</p>
-
-<p>Next, the gores are usually sewn and the ends of
-the side panels closed. To do this, the temporary
-side battens outside the bark are removed. Since
-this is a Malecite canoe, the gores are sewn edge-to-edge
-with an over-and-over stitch, the strand crossing
-the seam square outside and diagonally inside. When
-these seams and those remaining in the upper panels
-are sewn, the rather stiff bark holds the shape formed
-on the building bed to a remarkable degree.</p>
-
-<p>The canoe can now be raised from the building
-bed. To set it up at a most convenient working
-height, the weights are first removed from the gunwales
-and the remaining stakes are pulled up. The
-canoe is then lifted from its bed and turned upside
-down over a couple of logs, or crude horses. Traditionally,
-logs or sapling were rested across two pairs
-of boulders or the logs were tied between two pairs of
-trees at convenient distances apart. More recently,
-horses, formed by sticking four legs into auger holes
-drilled in the bottom of a 4-foot length of timber,
-were used. After the canoe is on its supports the
-ends are ready to be closed in.</p>
-
-<p>The stem-pieces customarily used by the Malecite
-builder are formed from two clear white cedar billets
-a full 36 inches long and in the rough nearly 1½
-inches square. The billets are first shaped so that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span>
-the outboard face of each stem-piece is about ¾ inch
-wide, making it a truncated triangle in cross-section.
-Then, along lines parallel to the base of the truncated
-triangle, it is split into six laminations which are
-carried to within 6 or 7 inches of the end selected to
-be the heel of the stem-piece. Just clear of the
-laminations a notch is cut into the top side of the heel,
-to hold the headboard, as will be seen. The piece is
-then treated with boiling water until the laminations
-are flexible, and the curve of the stem-piece can be
-formed and either pegged out or tied with cords
-until it dries in the desired shape. When dry the
-laminations are tightly wrapped with basswood bark
-cord, leaving the form of the stem-piece a quarter
-arc of a circle, with short tangents at each end, as
-shown in the illustration (p. <a href="#Page_35">35</a>).</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i065.jpg" width="700" height="252" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 42</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Fifth Stage of Canoe Construction</span>: canoe is removed from building bed and set on horse
-in order to shape ends and complete sewing. Bark cover has dried out in a flat-bottomed and
-wall-sided form. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Next, the ends of the outwales are cut to a length
-determined by the quality of the bark already in
-place; if the bark in one end is not very good, it may
-be cut away somewhat and the canoe made shorter
-by this amount at both ends in finishing. After the
-ends of the outwales have been cut, both are notched
-on the inside at the extreme ends to take the head of
-the stem-piece. The outwales may or may not
-project ¼ or ½ inch beyond the stem and the stem
-head may project ½ or 1 inch above the top of the
-outwales of the canoe; these matters, at the builder's
-option, decide the length of the notch and the fitting
-of the stem-pieces.</p>
-
-<p>The stem-piece is now placed between the folded
-bark end of the canoe with the heel resting for a
-small distance along its length on the bark bottom;
-the head must come to the right height above the outwales,
-as noted. While one worker holds the stem-piece
-in place, another trims away the excess bark at
-the end to the profile of the outboard face of the
-stem-piece. Thus the profile of each end is cut and the
-rake of the ends is established. The bark is next
-lashed to the stem-piece. In this canoe it is done
-with a spiral over-and-over stitch, a batten made of
-a large split root being placed over the edges of the
-bark, as the lashing proceeds, to form a stem band.
-The turns pass alternately from outboard around the
-inboard face of the stem-piece and through it; the
-awl inserted in the laminations from one side opens
-them enough to allow the strand to be forced through.
-Care is taken to pull up the strand very hard each
-time. As the outwale is approached, the bark is cut
-away at the notching in each so that the outwales
-can be brought snugly against the sides of the stem-piece.
-Here the strand is brought up one or two
-times over the outwales, abaft the stem head, before
-the bitter end is tucked, thus locking the outwales to
-the stem-piece and the bark. Then a lashing is
-placed around the outwales just inboard of the
-stem-piece, passing through a hole in the flap of the
-end deck-piece of bark and through the side bark.
-This lashing holds the outboard end of the deck
-piece flap. At the inboard end of the flap, another
-lashing is required, but the pinched-in outwales
-require additional securing outboard of this point;
-hence a lashing is passed just inboard of the middle<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span>
-of the flap, a little outboard of the ends of the inwales,
-and about six inches inboard from this lashing
-another is passed through the side bark and around
-the gunwale and outwale on each side. These three
-lashings hold the outwales snug to the ends of the
-gunwales and against the projecting bark ends in the
-pinched-in form of projecting outwales.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i066.jpg" width="700" height="397" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 43</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Ribs Being Dried and Shaped for Ojibway Canoe.</span> (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The heels of the stem-pieces rest on the bottom
-bark and the sewing is carried down to where the
-cutting of the profile makes an end to the seam, the
-solid part of the heels extending about 6 to 8 inches
-inboard of this. Next, any sewing required on the
-bottom is done. When the bark cover has been
-given a final inspection on the outside and all sewing
-has been completed, the canoe is lifted from its
-supports, righted, and set on the bed or on a smooth
-grassy place.</p>
-
-<p>All seams are now payed with gum on the inside of
-the bark while this can still be done without interference
-from the sheathing or those parts of the structure
-remaining to be installed. The Malecites used only
-spruce gum tempered with animal fat. The gum,
-heated until it is sufficiently soft to pour like heavy
-syrup, is spread with a small wooden paddle or spoon,
-and is then worked into the seam and smoothed by
-rubbing with the thumb dipped in water to prevent
-the gum from sticking and burning. It is first worked
-into the ends, between the bark and each side of the
-stem-pieces, particularly near the heel below the
-waterline. When the crevices are filled, a piece of
-bark (in later times a piece of cloth was used) wide
-enough to cover the gum alongside is well smeared
-with warm gum and pressed down along the inside
-of the stem-pieces. On each seam, at gores, and on
-side panels a thin narrow strip of bark is smeared
-with gum and pressed over the seam after the latter
-had been well payed. The bark is now carefully
-scrutinized for small splits, holes, or thin spots since
-these can be easily patched from the inside at this
-stage of construction. In fitting bark strips and in
-gumming, great care is taken to obtain a flat surface;
-the edges of the strips inside are faired to the inside
-face of the bark by smearing gum along the edges.
-The canoe is now ready to be sheathed and ribbed
-out.</p>
-
-<p>The sheathing for this canoe has been split in
-advance out of clear white cedar in splints about 5
-to 9 feet long, 3 to 4¼ inches wide, and ⅛ inch thick.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span>
-The butts of each piece have been whittled to a feather
-edge, the bevel extending back about 2 inches. Also,
-some pieces of basket ash have been split out of saplings
-for temporary ribs to hold the sheathing in place.</p>
-
-<p>A total of 50 or more ribs in five lengths, the longest
-about 5 feet, have been made up from white cedar
-heartwood and bent to the desired shape.</p>
-
-<p>In deciding the rough lengths of the ribs, the builder
-can resort to various methods. He can prebend ribs
-in pairs to a number of arbitrarily chosen shapes:
-the first set of six pairs to the desired midsection form;
-a second set of five pairs to the form of the section
-between the middle and first pair of thwarts; a third,
-of five pairs, to the section at the first thwarts each
-way from the middle; a fourth, of four pairs, to the
-section between the end and the first pair of thwarts
-each way from the middle; a fifth, of three pairs,
-to the section at the end thwarts; and a sixth, of two
-or three pairs, for the section at or near the headboards.
-This makes from 50 to 52 frames in a canoe
-measuring 18 or 19 feet overall.</p>
-
-<p>Each frame piece is treated with boiling water and
-then bent, over the knee or around a tree, to a slightly
-greater degree than is needed. While thus bent,
-each pair is wrapped lengthwise over the end with a
-strip of basswood or cedar bark to hold the ribs in
-shape. Sometimes a strut is placed under the bark
-strips to maintain the desired form, or a cross-tie of
-bark may be employed. The ribs are then allowed
-to season in this position.</p>
-
-<p>Another method, which will be illustrated later
-(p. <a href="#Page_53">53</a>), involves placing ribs of green spruce in their
-approximate position and forcing them against the
-bark. In this method, a number of long battens are
-placed over the roughly bent ribs laid loosely inside
-the bark cover, and are spread by forcing a series of
-short crosspieces, or stays, between them athwartships.
-The bark is given a good wetting with boiling water to
-make it flexible and elastic, so that the pressure
-applied to the battens by the temporary crosspieces
-brings the bark to the shape desired for the canoe.
-The rough lengths of the ribs are determined by use
-of a measuring stick or by measurements made
-around the bark with a piece of flexible root or a
-batten of basket ash. The ribs, in any case, are made
-somewhat longer than required to allow a final fitting
-when being placed over the sheathing.</p>
-
-<p>It can be seen that the exact form the canoe takes
-is largely a matter of judgment and of the flexibility
-and elasticity of the bark, rather than of precise
-molding on a predetermined model, or lines.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i067.jpg" width="700" height="613" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 44</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Details of Ribs</span> and method of shaping them in
-pairs in a bark strap or thong so that they take a
-"set" while drying out.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In the Malecite canoe the ribs are wide amidships,
-3 or 4 inches, and narrow to 2½ or 2 inches toward the
-ends. The thickness is an even ⅜ inch. Most birch-bark
-canoes have ribs of even thickness their full
-length, but in a few the thickness is tapered slightly
-above the turn of the bilge, usually when the tumble-home
-is high on the sides and rather great. The
-width, as previously explained, is usually carried all
-across the bottom; above the bilges there is a moderate
-taper.</p>
-
-<p>The sheathing of the canoe is now first to be put in
-place. In the Malecite canoe the center pieces are
-the longest; they are tapered each way from their
-butts, which overlap about 2 inches amidships. The
-ends are made narrow enough to fit readily into the
-sharp transverse curve of the bottom and are long
-enough to pass under the heels of the stem pieces for
-an inch or two. The pieces of sheathing on each side
-of the center pieces are fitted in the same manner, and
-by the time two or three courses are in place they
-must be held in some manner at the ends. This is
-accomplished by means of the rough temporary ribs
-mentioned earlier. The sheathing is laid edge-to-edge,
-with the butts overlapping, and, if there are
-not enough long pieces to complete the bottom amidships,
-three or four lengths, with overlapped butts,
-will be used. As the sheathing progresses, more
-temporary ribs will have to be added. At the turn of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span>
-the bilge, the sheathing will bend transversely as
-pressure is applied by the temporary ribs; the bark
-must be again wetted so that the angular bilge can
-be forced into a roughly rounded form. Particular
-care is required in finishing the sheathing below the
-gunwale to be certain that the top strake will be close
-up against the sewing of the bark at gunwales, but
-no particular attempt is made to make the edges
-of the sheathing in the topsides maintain edge-to-edge
-contact.</p>
-
-<p>The pressure of the temporary ribs, the heads of
-which are forced under the gunwales, and the elasticity
-of the bark due to treating it with boiling water
-are enough to rough-shape the canoe.</p>
-
-<p>Before the permanent ribs are placed the sheer is
-checked. If it appears to have straightened, the ends
-of the gunwales are supported by means of short posts
-placed under them, with the heels standing on the
-heels of the stem pieces or on the sheathing. Then
-some stakes, each having a projecting limb or root,
-are cut and are driven into the ground with the limb
-hooked over the gunwale to force it down.</p>
-
-<p>After measurements have been made for the first
-rib with a strand of root or an ash batten, it is now cut
-to a length slightly more than would permit the rib to
-be forced upright when in place. The ends of the
-rib are set in place in the bevel, or notch, on the underside
-of the gunwales, against the bark cover, and with
-the bottom part of the rib standing inboard of the
-head. Then, with one end of a short batten placed
-against its inboard side, the rib is driven toward the
-end of the canoe with blows from a club on the head
-of the batten. If the rib drives too easily it is removed
-and laid aside; if too hard, it is shortened. It must go
-home tightly enough to stretch slightly the bark cover
-by bringing pressure to bear on the whole width of the
-sheathing. Care is taken, in this operation, to keep
-moist not only the bark but also the sewing, particularly
-along the gunwales, so that all possible elasticity
-is obtained. The ribs are set, one by one, working to
-within two or three frames of the midship thwart;
-then the other end of the canoe is begun. The last
-three or four ribs to be placed are thus amidships.
-In every rib driven, the tension is great, but no rib is
-driven so that it stands perpendicular to the base.
-Those first driven stand with their bottoms nearer the
-midship thwart than the ends, and this angle, or slant,
-continues to amidships; the ribs in the other end of
-the canoe slant in the opposite direction.</p>
-
-<p>It will be evident that skill is required to estimate
-how much pressure the bark will stand before bursting
-under the strain of the driven ribs. It is also apparent
-that the shape of the canoe is controlled by the shaping
-given the ribs in the prebending, for this fixes the
-amount of tumble-home and the amount of round, or
-rounded-<strong>V</strong>, given to the bottom athwartships. No
-fixed rules appear to exist; the eye and judgment of
-the builder are his only guides. To show how much
-strain is placed on the bark, however, it may be noted
-that inspection of two old canoes showed that the
-gunwale pegs had been noticeably bent between the
-inner and outer gunwales.</p>
-
-<p>It appears to have been a rather common practice,
-after all the ribs had been driven into place, to allow
-the canoe to stand a few days and then again to set the
-frames (where unevenness appears in the topsides)
-with driving batten and maul, the bark cover and the
-root sewing or lashings having been again thoroughly
-wetted.</p>
-
-<p>The headboards are now to be made. These are
-shaped in the form of an elongate-oval from a wide
-splint of white cedar about 4 inches wide at midlength
-and ¼ inch thick. The narrow end is first cut
-off square or nearly so; the bottom end is notched to
-fit in the notch in the heel of the stem-piece and the
-top has a small tenon at the centerline that will be
-fitted into a hole drilled or gouged in the underside
-of the inner gunwales where they join at the ends.
-The length of the headboards in the canoe being built
-is 15¾ inches over all, and when they have been made
-for each end, they are checked as to width and height
-to see that they can be fitted. Next, the extreme
-ends of the canoe between the stem and the headboards
-are stuffed with dry cedar shavings or dry
-moss so that the sides stand firm on each side of the
-bow outboard of the ends of the sheathing, which
-ends rather unevenly, just outboard of where the headboards
-will stand. This completed, the headboards
-are forced into position by first stepping the heel
-notch in the stem-piece notch and then bending the
-board by placing one hand against its middle and
-pulling the top toward the worker. This shortens the
-height of the board enough so the tenon projecting
-on its head can be sprung into the small hole under
-the inner gunwales, where it becomes rigidly fixed.
-Its sprung shape pushes up the gunwales and makes
-the side bark of the ends very taut and smooth, while
-supporting the gunwale ends.</p>
-
-<p>Two thin strips about 19 feet long are next split
-out of white cedar to form the gunwale caps; these
-are ¼ to ⅜ inch thick, and taper each way from about
-2 inches wide in the middle to 1 inch wide at the ends.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span>
-These are laid along the top of the inner gunwales
-and fastened down with pegs placed clear of the
-gunwale lashings. The ends of the strips are usually
-secured by two or three small lashings; the caps thus
-formed often stop short of the ends of the inner
-gunwale members. If the caps are carried right
-out to the stems, as was the practice of some Malecite
-builders, the lashings of the outwale are not turned
-in until after the caps are in place, in which case
-the bark deck pieces, or flaps, are put in just before
-the final lashing is made.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i069.jpg" width="700" height="310" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 45</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Sixth Stage of Canoe Construction</span>: canoe has been righted and placed on a grassy or
-sandy spot. In this stage splints for sheathing (upper left) are fixed in place and held by
-temporary ribs (lower right) under the gunwales. The bark cover has been completely sewn
-and the shape of the canoe is set by the temporary ribs. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Next, the canoe is turned upside-down and all seams
-are gummed smoothly on the outside. The ends, from
-the beginning of the seam to above the waterline, may
-be heavily gummed and then covered with a narrow
-strip of thin bark, heavily enough smeared with gum
-to cause it to adhere over the seam. In more recent
-times a piece of gummed cloth was used here. Above
-this protective strip, the end seams are filled with
-gum so that the outside can be smoothed off flush
-on the face of the cutwater between the stitches. All
-seams in the side and bottom are gummed smooth
-and any holes or patches remaining to be gummed are
-taken care of in this final inspection.</p>
-
-<p>If the canoe is to be decorated (not many types
-were) the outside of the bark is moistened and the
-rough, reddish winter bark, or inner rind, is scraped
-away, leaving only enough to form the desired decorations.
-When paints of various colors could be obtained,
-these were also employed, but the use of the
-inner rind was apparently the older and more common
-method of decorating.</p>
-
-<p>The paddles are made from splints of spruce or
-maple, ash, white cedar, or larch. Two forms of
-blade were used by the Malecite. The older form is
-long and narrow, with the blade wide near the top
-and the taper straight along each edge to a narrow,
-rounded point. Above the greatest width, the blade
-tapers almost straight along the edge, coming into
-an oval handle very quickly. At the head, the
-handle is widened and it ends squared off, but the
-taper toward the handle is straight, not flared as
-in modern canoe paddles; there is no swelling.
-Paddles of a shape similar to this, some without a
-wide handle, were used by other eastern Indians.
-The more recent form of Malecite paddle has a
-long leaf-shaped, or beaver-tail, blade, much like
-that of the modern canoe paddle, except that it ends
-in a dull point; the handle is as in the old form but
-the head is swelled to form the upper grip. The face
-of the blade, in both old and new form, has a noticeable
-ridge down the centerline.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i070.jpg" width="700" height="463" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 46</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">General Details of Birch-Bark Canoe Construction</span>, in a drawing by Adney. (From
-<cite>Harper's Young People</cite>, supplement, July 29, 1890.)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The eastern style of construction described here
-produced what might be called a wide-bottom canoe
-with some tumble-home above the turn of the bilge,
-but a different method of construction was used to
-produce canoes having a narrow bottom and flaring
-sides. These canoes were not set up on the building
-bed, in the first steps of shaping the hull, with the
-gunwale frame on the cover bark. Instead, a special
-building frame, mentioned earlier, was used. Each
-tribe using the building frame had its own style,
-but the variations were confined to minor matters or
-to proportion of width to length.</p>
-
-<p>In general, the building frame is made of two
-squared battens, about 1¼ inch square for an 18-foot
-canoe. These, sometimes tapered slightly toward
-each end, are fitted with crosspieces with halved
-notches in each end to fit over the top of the battens.
-There may be as many as nine or as few as three of
-these crosspieces, with seven apparently a common
-number. Where ends of the long battens join they
-are beveled slightly on the inside face and notches
-are cut on the outside face to take the end lashings.
-Each crosspiece end is lashed around the long battens,
-a hole being made in each end of the crosspiece
-for this purpose. The lashings, commonly bark or
-rawhide thongs, are all temporary, as the building
-frame has to be dismantled to remove it from the
-canoe. Sometimes holes are drilled in the ends of
-the crosspieces, or in the long battens, and in them
-are stepped the posts used to fix the sheer of the
-gunwales.</p>
-
-<p>The methods of construction, using the building
-frame, varied somewhat among the tribes. Since the
-gunwale was both longer and wider across than the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span>
-building frame, the posts for sheering were set with
-outboard flare. However, some builders made the
-gunwales hogged by staking them out when green,
-and then set them above the building frame with
-vertical posts. These gunwales would not be fitted
-with thwarts nor would the thwart tenons always be
-cut at this stage. The bark was lashed to the gunwales
-while they were in the hogged position with
-the ends secured; the gunwales were then spread by
-inserting spreaders, or stays, between them, after
-which the thwarts were fitted. This method required
-knowledge of just how much hog should be given to
-the gunwales, and it must be stated that not all
-builders guessed right enough to produce a good-looking
-sheer. Judging the hogging required in the
-gunwales was complicated by the fact that most of
-these canoes had laminated ends in the gunwales at
-bow and stern, and a quick upturn there as well.
-This method of construction persisted, however,
-because the straight sides made easy the sewing of
-gores and side panels. In some Alaskan birch-bark
-canoes the building frame was, in fact, part of the
-hull structure and remained in the canoe. In these,
-the building frame was hogged and then flattened by
-the ribs in construction so as to smooth the bottom
-bark by placing it under tension. In some canoes
-the posts for sheering the canoe rested under the
-thwarts rather than under the gunwales. In most
-canoes the building frame was taken apart and removed
-from the canoe when the gunwale structure
-was complete and in place, sheered.</p>
-
-<p>Where large sheets of bark were available, the
-setting up with the building frame or gunwale was
-made easier than where the bark had to be pieced
-out for both length and width. If large pieces of
-bark could be obtained there was little or no sewing
-on the bottom; only the gores or laps, and the panels,
-in the side required attention after the bark had been
-lashed to the gunwales. In such instances, the set-up
-did not require perpendicular sides, as the sides
-could be completed after the canoe was removed from
-the building bed and the building frame had been
-removed from the hull. There were many minor
-variations in the set-up and in the sequence of the
-sewing. In view of the slight opportunities that now
-exist for examining the old building methods and
-construction sequences, it is impossible to be certain
-that the one used by a tribe in recent times was that
-employed in prehistoric times by their ancestors.</p>
-
-<p>Instead of a laminated stem-piece, a large root
-whittled to the desired cross section was sometimes
-used by builders among the Malecites and other
-eastern tribes. This was bent into the ends while
-green and to it was lashed the bark, so that the stem
-dried in place to the desired profile curve. No inner
-stem-piece was used by the Micmacs, who formed
-the end structure by placing a split-root batten on
-each outside face of the bark and passing the lashing
-around both. When a plank-on-edge was used to form
-the stem-piece, as mentioned earlier, no headboard
-was required, as the gunwales ends could be brought
-to the plank structure. In canoes having the complicated
-stem structure seen in the large fur-trade canoes
-and some others, the headboard became an integral
-part of the stem structure, rather than an independent
-unit, and was placed in the canoe during building
-with the stem-pieces.</p>
-
-<p>There was much variation in the form of gunwale
-structure employed in bark canoes. A strip of bark
-was added all along the outwale by some tribes, so
-that between the gunwale members and for a short
-distance below the sewing the bark was doubled; the
-bottom of this strip was, in fact, a flap not secured and
-thus was much like the flaps at the ends of the Malecite
-canoe, but without covering the top of the main gunwales.
-The outwale and inwale cross sections of
-some canoes were almost round. The use of a single
-gunwale member is commonly followed by continuous
-lashing of the bark along it. On some northwestern
-canoes having continuous lashing, the ends of the
-ribs were made in sharp points that could penetrate
-between the turns of root sewing, under the gunwales.
-The ends of the ribs in some of these were secured
-more firmly by tying them to long battens placed
-between the ribs and the bark cover just below the
-gunwales. The northwestern canoes built in this
-manner had double gunwales, an outwale and an
-inwale, but no bevel or notch for the rib heads. The
-ends of the gunwales, inner and outer, were secured
-in many ways. Some, instead of being pegged and
-lashed, were simply tied together; others were fastened
-by a rather elaborate lashing through the bark and
-around the gunwales. Caps were sometimes allowed
-to overlap at the ends and were pinned together with
-pegs or lashed. In some canoes the outwales were
-lashed, rather than pegged, to the inwales, and for
-this and for the caps rawhide appears to have once
-been widely used. In some canoes the head of the
-stem-piece was bent inboard sharply and lashed to
-the ends of the inwales or outwales. In many canoes
-the gunwales, instead of stopping short of the stem-piece,
-ran to it and were lashed there.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i072.jpg" width="700" height="471" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 47</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Gunwale Construction</span> and
-thwart or crossbar fastenings, as
-shown in a sketch by Adney.
-(From <cite>Harper's Young People</cite>, supplement,
-July 29, 1890.)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>At the start of ribbing out a canoe, the first two
-or three ribs might not be put at each end until after
-the headboards had been fitted, and sometimes a rib
-was placed on each side of the middle thwart, apparently
-to hold securely the sheathing butted amidships
-while the ribbing progressed toward them from
-the ends. When a canoe was short and rather wide,
-the ribs usually were bent by placing them inside the
-faired bark cover before the sheathing was installed,
-there to dry and set or to season, depending on whether
-they were steamed or green. Prebending the ribs,
-as described in the building of a Malecite canoe,
-worked well only when the canoe was long, narrow,
-and sharp. The spacing of the ribs was done by eye,
-not by precise measurement, and was never exactly
-the same over the length of the canoe. Ribs near
-the ends were usually spaced at greater intervals than
-those in the middle third of the length.</p>
-
-<p>The extension of the bark beyond the ends of the
-inner gunwale in an eastern canoe was often about one
-foot on each end, but this distance was actually determined
-by the length of the bark available and by the
-usual reluctance of the builder to add a panel at the
-end.</p>
-
-<p>For the height of the end posts, in sheering the
-gunwales, a common Malecite measurement was the
-length of the forearm from knuckles of clenched fist
-to back of elbow. These posts were often left in place
-until the stems were fitted.</p>
-
-<p>The use of a building frame is known to have
-been common in areas where, normally, the gunwale
-frame would be employed in the initial steps in building.
-In a few instances this occurred when a builder
-had a number of canoes of the same size to construct.
-It seems probable that the use of the building frame
-spread into Eastern areas comparatively recently as
-a result of the influence of the fur-trade canoes on
-construction methods. The employment of the plank
-building bed in the East is known to have occurred
-among individual canoe builders late in the nineteenth
-century as a result of this influence.</p>
-
-<p>The use of nails and tacks instead of pegs and
-root lashing or sewing in bark canoe construction
-became quite widespread early in the nineteenth
-century; it is to be seen in many old canoes preserved
-in museums. The bark in these is often secured to the
-gunwales with carpet or flat-headed tacks, and both
-the outwale and the cap are nailed to the inner gunwales
-with cut or wire nails. Various combinations
-of lashings and nailing can be seen in these canoes,
-although such combinations are sometimes the result
-of comparatively recent repairs or restorations rather
-than evidence of the original construction. No date
-can be placed on the introduction of nails into Indian
-canoe building, although it may be said that nailing
-was used in many eastern areas before 1850.</p>
-
-<p>Among the many published descriptions of the
-method of building bark canoes the earliest give very
-incomplete information on the building sequence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span>
-and usually contain obvious errors as to proportions
-and materials. (An example is that of Nicolas Denys,
-who, sometime between 1632 and 1650, saw bark
-canoes being built in what is now New Brunswick
-and Cape Breton.) The best descriptions are relatively
-recent and, as a result, may describe methods
-of construction that are not aboriginal.</p>
-
-<p>The description given here is based upon notes
-made by Adney in 1889-90 and upon inspection of
-old canoes from the various tribal areas. It was noted
-that, although among canoes of the same approximate
-length there was some variation in dimensions
-and some variety in end form, the construction
-appeared to vary remarkably little, and it is apparent
-that the Malecites held very closely to a fixed sequence
-in the building process. There was, however, great
-variation in detail. The number of gore slashes in
-canoes 18 to 19 feet long varied from 10 to 23 on a
-side. The number was not always the same on both
-sides of a canoe nor were the gores always opposite
-one another. Canoes with long, sharp ends often
-had a large number of closely spaced gores in the
-middle third of the length, with widely spaced gores
-toward the ends. Full-ended canoes, on the other
-hand, had rather equally spaced gores their full
-length. The amount and form of rocker was also a
-factor in spacing the gores, and when the rocker was
-confined to short distances close to the ends there
-would naturally be rather closely spaced gores in
-these portions of the sides.</p>
-
-<p>A number of the building practices remain to be
-described, but these will be best understood when the
-individual tribal canoe forms are examined. No
-written description of building canoes can be understood
-without reference to drawings, and to promote
-this understanding construction details have been
-shown on many of those of individual canoes of each
-tribal type.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i073.jpg" width="700" height="405" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 48</p>
-
-<p>"<span class="smcap">Peter Joe at Work.</span>" Drawing by Adney for his article "How an Indian
-Birch-Bark Canoe is Made" (<cite>Harper's Young People</cite>, supplement, July 29, 1890).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Chapter Four</em><br />
-
-EASTERN MARITIME REGION</h2>
-
-
-<p>Study of the tribal forms of bark canoes might
-well be started with the canoes of the eastern coastal
-Indians, whose craft were the first seen by white men.
-These were the canoes of the Indians inhabiting what
-are now the Maritime Provinces and part of Quebec,
-on the shores of the St. Lawrence River and in Newfoundland,
-in Canada, and of the Indians of Maine
-and New Hampshire, in New England. Within this
-area were the Micmac, the Malecite, and the mixture
-of tribal groups known as the Abnaki in modern times,
-as well as the Beothuk of Newfoundland. All these
-groups were expert canoe builders and it was their
-work that first impressed the white men with the
-virtues of the birch-bark canoe in forest travel.</p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Micmac</em></h3>
-
-<p>The Micmac Indians appear to have occupied the
-Gaspé Peninsula, most of the north shore of New
-Brunswick and nearly all the shores of the Bay of
-Fundy as well as all of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward
-Island, and Cape Breton. They may have also occupied
-much of southern and central New Brunswick
-as well, but if so they had been driven from these
-sections by the Malecites before the white men came.
-The Micmacs were known to the early French invaders
-under a variety of names; "Gaspesians,"
-"Canadiens," "Sourikois," or "Souriquois," while
-the English colonists of New England called them
-merely "Eastern Indians." The name Micmac is
-said to mean "allies" and not known, but this name
-was in use early in the 18th century, if not before 1700.</p>
-
-<p>The Micmac were a hunting people with warlike
-characteristics; they aided the Malecite and other
-New England Indians in warfare against the early
-New England colonists and in later times aided the
-French against the English in Nova Scotia and New
-Brunswick. These Indians lived in an area where
-water transport represented the easiest method of
-travel and so they became expert builders and users
-of birch-bark canoes, which they employed in hunting,
-fishing, general travel, and warfare.</p>
-
-<p>The area in which they lived produced fine birch
-bark and suitable wood for the framework. Through
-experience, they had become able to design canoes
-for specific purposes and had produced a variety of
-models and sizes. The hunting canoe was the smallest,
-being usually somewhere between 9 and 14 feet
-long, with an occasional canoe as long as 15 feet.
-This light craft, known as a "woods canoe" and sometimes
-as a "portage canoe," was intended for navigating
-very small streams and for portaging. Another
-model, the "big-river canoe," somewhat longer than
-the woods canoe, was usually between 15 and 20 feet
-long. A third model, the "open water canoe," was for
-hunting seal and porpoise in salt water and ranged from
-about 18 feet to a little over 24 feet in length. The
-fourth model, the "war canoe," about which little is
-known, appears to have been built in either the "big-river"
-or "open-water" form, and to the same length,
-but sharper and with less beam so as to be faster.</p>
-
-<p>The tribal characteristics of the Micmac birch-bark
-canoes were to be seen in the form of the midsection,
-in certain structural details, and in their generally
-sharp, torpedo-shaped lines. The construction was
-very light and marked by good workmanship. The
-distinctive profiles of bow and stern, which do not
-appear in the canoes of other tribes in so radical a
-form, were almost circular, fairing from the bottom
-around into the sheer in a series of curves. The
-break in the profile of the ends at the sheer, a break
-that marks in more or less degree, the end profile
-of other tribal forms, never occurs in the Micmac
-canoe. At most, a slight break in the "streamlined"<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span>
-curve might occur at the point where the profile was
-started in the bottom, at which point there might be
-a short, hard curve.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i075.jpg" width="700" height="434" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 49</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac 2-Fathom Pack, or Woods, Canoe</span> for woods travel with light loads,
-used by the Nova Scotia Micmacs.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The form of the sheer line of the Micmac canoes
-apparently varied with the model: the woods canoe
-had the usual curved sheer with the point of lowest
-freeboard about amidships, the big river canoe had
-either a nearly straight sheer or one very slightly
-hogged, while the open-water canoe had a strongly
-hogged sheer in which the midship portion was often
-as much as 3 or 4 inches above that just inboard of the
-ends. However, there is a possibility that, at one time,
-the sheer of all Micmac canoes was more or less
-hogged. The little that is known of the war canoes of
-colonial times indicate that they had the strongly
-hogged sheer that now marks the open-water model,
-through it is also known that some of these were
-really of the big-river model, which in later times had
-usually no more than a vestige of the hogged sheer.</p>
-
-<p>The hull-forms of the Micmac canoes were marked
-in the topsides by a strong tumble-home, carried the
-full length of the hull, that gave these canoes more
-beam below than at the gunwale. The form of the
-midsection varied with the model; the woods canoe
-usually had a rather flat bottom athwartships, the
-big river canoe a slightly rounded bottom, and the
-open water canoe either a well-rounded bottom or
-one in the form of a slightly rounded <strong>V</strong>. The fore-and-aft
-rocker in the bottom was always moderate,
-usually occurring in the last few feet near the ends;
-however, many of the canoes were straight along the
-bottom. This condition will be again referred to in
-discussing the building beds used in this type. The
-ends were usually fine-lined; in plan view the gunwales
-came into the ends in straight or slightly hollow
-lines. The level lines below the gunwales might also
-be straight as they came into the ends, but were
-commonly somewhat hollow; a few examples show
-marked hollowness there. Predominantly, the Micmac
-canoes were very sharp in the ends and paddled
-swiftly. Early Micmac canoes seem to have been
-narrower than more recent examples, which are
-usually rather broad as compared to the types used
-by some other tribes.</p>
-
-<p>Structurally, the Micmac canoes were distinguished
-by the construction of the ends and by their light<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span>
-build throughout. The canoes had no inner framework
-to shape the ends; stiffness there was obtained
-by placing battens outside the bark, one on each side
-of the hull, that ran from the bottom of the cut in the
-bark required to shape the ends to somewhat inboard
-of the ends of the gunwales at the sheer. These two
-battens, as well as a split-root stem-band covering the
-raw ends of the cut bark, were held in place by
-passing a spiral over-and-over lashing around all
-three. Sometimes thicker battens reaching from the
-high point of the ends inboard to the end thwarts
-were added, in which case the side battens were
-stopped at the high point of the ends and there
-faired into the thick battens.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i076.jpg" width="700" height="454" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 50</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac 2-Fathom Pack, or Woods, Canoe</span> with Northern Lights decoration
-on bow, and seven thwarts.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The gunwale structure was rather light, the maximum
-cross section of the main gunwale in large
-canoes being rarely in excess of 1¼ inches square.
-These members usually tapered slightly toward the
-ends of the canoe and had a half-arrowhead form
-where they were joined. Old canoes had no guard
-or outwale, but some more recent Micmac canoes
-have had a short guard along the middle third of the
-length. Often there was no bevel to take the rib ends
-on the lower outboard corner of the main gunwales,
-and the gunwales were not fitted so that their outboard
-faces stood vertically. Instead, the tenons in
-the gunwales were cut to slant upward from the
-inside, so that installation of the thwarts would cause
-the outboard face to flare outward at the top. Between
-this face and the inside of the bark cover were
-forced the beveled ends of the ribs, which were cut
-chisel-shape. However, some builders beveled or
-rounded the lower outboard corner of the main
-gunwale, as described under Malecite canoe building
-(p. <a href="#Page_38">38</a>). The bark cover in the Micmac canoe was
-always brought up over the gunwales, gored to
-prevent unevenness, and folded down on top of them
-before being lashed. The gunwale lashing was a
-continuous one in which the turns practically touched
-one another outboard, though they were sometimes
-separated under the gunwale to clear the ribs, which
-widened near their ends, so the intervals between
-them were very small.</p>
-
-<p>The other member of the gunwale structure was
-the cap; its thickness was usually ¼ to ⅜ inch, reduced
-slightly toward the ends. Its inboard face and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span>
-bottom were flat, but the top was somewhat rounded,
-with the thickness reduced toward the outboard edge.
-The cap was fastened to the main gunwales with
-pegs and with short lashing groups near the ends, but
-in late examples nails were used. The ends of the
-caps were bevelled off on the inboard side, so that
-they came together in pointed form. The cap usually
-ended near the end of the gunwale but in some canoes,
-particularly those that were nail-fastened, the cap
-was let into the gunwale (see p. <a href="#Page_50">50</a>) so that the top
-was flush with end of the gunwale.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i077.jpg" width="700" height="496" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 51</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac 2-Fathom Pack, or Woods, Canoe</span> with normal sheer and flat bottom.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The ends of the gunwales were supported by headboards
-that were bellied outboard to bring tension
-vertically on the bark cover. The heel of the board
-stood on a short frog, laid on the bottom with the
-inboard end touching or slightly lapping over the
-endmost rib. The frog supported the heels of the
-headboard and also the forefoot of the stem-piece,
-which otherwise would have but partial support
-from the sewing battens outside the ends at these
-points. The headboard was rather oval-shaped and
-the top was notched on each side to fit under the
-gunwale; the narrow central tenon stood slightly
-above the top of the main gunwales when the headboard
-was sprung into place and was held in position
-by a lashing across the gunwales inboard of the top of
-the headboard. The heel was held by the notch in
-the frog. Cedar shavings were stuffed into the ends
-of the canoe between the stem-piece and the headboard
-to mold the ends properly, as no ribs could be inserted
-there. All woodwork in these canoes was white cedar,
-except the headboards and thwarts, which were
-maple, and the stem battens, which were usually
-basket ash but sometimes were split spruce roots.</p>
-
-<p>The more recent Micmac canoes usually had no
-more than five thwarts; this number was found even
-on small woods canoes. However, old records indicate
-that canoes 20 to 28 feet long on the gunwales
-were once built with seven thwarts. The shape of the
-thwarts varied, apparently in accordance with the
-builder's fancy. The most common form was nearly
-rectangular in cross-section; in elevation, it was thick
-at the hull centerline and tapered smoothly to the
-outboard ends; and in plan it was narrowest at the
-hull centerline and increased in width toward the
-ends, the increase being rather sharp at the shoulders<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span>
-of the tenon. In some, the tenon went through the
-main gunwales and touched the inside of the bark
-cover; in others the ends of the thwarts were pointed
-in elevation, square in plan, and were inserted in
-shallow, blind tenons on the inboard side of the main
-gunwales. A single 3-turn lashing through a hole in
-the shoulder and around the main gunwale was used
-in every case.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i078.jpg" width="700" height="424" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 51</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac 2-Fathom Pack, or Woods, Canoe</span> with normal sheer and flat bottom.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Sometimes the thwarts just described were straight
-(in plan view) on the side toward the middle of the
-canoe, and only the middle thwart was alike on both
-sides. In others the straight side of the end thwart
-and of that next inboard were toward the bow and
-stern of the canoe. In still others, the middle thwart
-had a rounded barb form in plan, with the barb
-located within 6 or 7 inches of the shoulder and pointed
-toward the tenon; the next thwarts out on each side of
-the middle thwart were shaped like a cupid's bow but
-slightly angular and aimed toward the ends of the
-canoe, and the end thwarts were of similar plan. In
-one known example having such thwarts, there were
-two very short thwarts at the ends of the canoe, of the
-usual plain form described earlier, each a few inches
-inboard of the headboard. Thus this canoe had
-seven thwarts in the old fashion.</p>
-
-<p>The ribs, or frames, were thin, about ¼ or <sup>5</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> inch
-thick, and across the bottom of the canoe they were
-often 3 inches wide. In the topsides the ribs were
-tapered to about 2 inches in width; when the bottom
-and outboard corner of the main gunwales were not
-beveled, the rib ends were cut square across on the
-wide face and chisel-shaped. When the gunwale
-corner was beveled, the ribs were formed with a
-sharply tapered dull point at the ends. From the
-middle of the canoe to the first thwarts each way from
-the middle, the ribs were spaced 1 inch edge-to-edge.
-From the first thwarts to the ends, the spacing was
-about 1½ inches. Most builders made the ribs narrower
-toward the ends; if those in the middle of the
-canoe were 3 inches wide, those near the ends might
-be 2½. They were shaped and placed as described
-for the Malecite canoe in Chapter 3.</p>
-
-<p>In the construction of a Micmac canoe, the gunwales
-were first formed, assembled, and used as a
-building frame. If the sheer was to be hogged, this
-was done by treating the main gunwales with boiling<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span>
-water before assembly and then staking them out to
-dry in the required sheer curves. The building bed
-was well crowned, usually 2 to 2½ inches because of
-the very wide bottom and the tumble-home of these
-canoes. Most Micmac canoes appear to have had
-only slight fore-and-aft rocker in the bottom; the
-bottoms of the seagoing type were often quite straight,
-and the other two types had a slight rocker of perhaps
-1½ inches, most of it near the ends. When the sheer
-was hogged, the amount of hog was probably close to
-the amount of crown in the building bed. The ends
-of the gunwales, when laid on the bed, were blocked
-up to about the desired amount of rocker to be given
-the bottom.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i079.jpg" width="700" height="400" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 53</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac 3-Fathom Ocean Canoe Fitted for Sailing.</span> Short outwales or
-battens project gunwales to strengthen the ends of the canoe. Some specimens
-of this type of canoe had almost no rocker in the bottom.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The bark cover was selected with great care from
-the fine stand of paper birch available to the Micmac.
-Except in emergencies, only winter bark was used.
-The cover was gored six to eight times on each side,
-and most of these cuts were grouped amidships,
-owing to the sharpness of the ends. The gores were
-trimmed edge-to-edge, without overlap, as the
-Micmac preferred a smooth surfaced canoe, and the
-sewing was the common spiral, over and over. The
-width of the bark cover was usually pieced out
-amidships on each side (at least in existing models)
-by the addition of narrow panels. These may not
-have been necessary in the very old canoes, which
-appear to have been much narrower than more recent
-examples. The horizontal seams of the panels were
-straight, or nearly so, and did not follow the sheer.
-The closely spaced spiral over-and-over stitch was
-sewn over a batten, the lap being toward the gunwale.
-As has been said, a continuous over-and-over gunwale
-lashing was used. The thwart lashings were through
-single holes in the thwart shoulders, three turns
-being usual, and two turns around the gunwale on
-each side were added, all passing through the bark
-cover, of course. The sewing was neat and the
-stitches were even.</p>
-
-<p>The wood lining, or sheathing, of the Micmac
-canoe was like that described for the Malecite canoe
-in the last chapter. The sheathing was a full ⅛ to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span>
-about <sup>3</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> inch thick. The strakes were laid edge-to-edge
-longitudinally, with slightly overlapping butts
-amidships, and were tapered toward the ends of the
-canoe. The maximum width of any strake at the
-butts was about 4 inches.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i080a.jpg" width="700" height="321" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 54</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac Rough-Water Canoe</span>, Bathurst, N.B. (<em>Canadian
-Geological Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In some of the rough-water canoes fitted to sail, a
-guard strip running the full length of the canoe and
-located some 6 or 7 inches below the gunwale was
-placed along both sides to protect the strongly
-tumble-home sides from abrasion from the paddles,
-particularly when the craft was steered under sail.
-These strips, about <sup>5</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> inch thick and ¾ inch wide,
-were butted on each side, a little abaft amidships,
-and were held together by a single stitch. The
-guards were secured in place by rather widely spaced
-stitches around them that passed through the bark
-cover and ceiling, between the ribs in the topsides.
-At bow and stern, the ends of the guards butted
-against the battens outside the bark at the end
-profiles and were secured there by a through-all
-lashing.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i080b.jpg" width="700" height="358" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 55</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac Woods Canoe</span>, built by Malecite Jim Paul at St.
-Mary's Reserve in 1911, under the direction of Joe Pictou,
-old canoe builder of Bear River, N.S. Modern nailed type.
-(<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The proportions and measurements of the Micmac
-canoes appear to have changed between the colonial
-period and the late 19th century. From early refer<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span>ences,
-it is apparent that the early canoes were much
-narrower than later ones, in proportion to length, as
-mentioned earlier. An 18-foot rough-water canoe of
-the 18th century appears to have had an extreme
-beam of between 30 and 34 inches and a gunwale
-beam, measured inside the members, of 24 to 28
-inches, the depth amidships being about 18 to 20
-inches. A similar canoe late in the 19th century
-would have had an extreme beam of nearly 40 inches,
-a beam inside the gunwales of 33 or 34 inches, and a
-depth of about 18 inches or less. An early woods
-canoe, about 14 feet long overall, appears to have had
-an extreme beam of only 29 inches and a beam inside
-the gunwales of about 25 or 26 inches. A woods
-canoe of 1890 was 15 feet long, 36½ inches extreme
-beam, and 30 inches inside the gunwales, with the
-depth amidships about 11 inches. A big-river canoe
-of this same date was a little over 20 feet in extreme
-length, 18 feet over the gunwales, 41 inches extreme
-beam, and 34 inches gunwale width inside, with a
-depth amidships of about 12½ inches. An 18-foot
-big-river canoe of an earlier time was reported as
-being 37 inches extreme beam, 30½ inches inside the
-gunwales, and 13 inches depth amidships. The maximum
-size of the rough-water seagoing canoe, in early
-times, may have been as great as 28 feet but with a
-narrow beam of roughly 29 or 30 inches over the
-gunwales, and say 24 inches inside, with a depth
-amidships as much as 20 or 22 inches due to the
-strongly hogged sheer there. In modern times, such
-canoes were rarely over 21 feet in overall length and
-had a maximum beam of about 42 inches, a beam
-inside the gunwales of 36 or 37 inches, and a depth
-amidships of 16 or 17 inches.</p>
-
-<p>In early colonial times, and well into the 18th century,
-apparently, the Micmac type of canoe was used
-as far south as New England, probably having been
-brought there by the Micmac war parties aiding the
-Malecite and the Kennebec in their wars against the
-English. The canoe in the illustration on page <a href="#Page_12">12</a> is
-obviously a Micmac canoe and apparently one used
-by a war party. As it was brought to England in 1749
-in the ship <em>America</em>, which was built in Portsmouth,
-New Hampshire, and probably sailed from there, it
-seems highly probable that the canoe had been
-obtained nearby, perhaps in eastern Maine.</p>
-
-<p>The small woods canoe, most commonly about 12
-feet long, appears first to have been used by all the
-Micmac. By the middle of the 19th century, however,
-this type was to be found only in Nova Scotia, owing to
-the movement of most of the tribe toward the north
-shore in New Brunswick, where their inland navigation
-was confined to large rivers and the coast.
-Hence the Micmac in New Brunswick used the big-river
-model and the seagoing type. The latter was
-last used in the vicinity of the head of Bay Chaleur
-and was often called the Restigouche canoe, after the
-Micmac village of that name. It was replaced by a
-3-board skiff-canoe and finally by a large wooden
-canoe of the "Peterborough" type with peaked ends
-and lapstrake planking; some of the latter may still
-be seen on the Gaspé Peninsula.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i081.jpg" width="700" height="628" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 56</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac Rough-Water Canoe</span> fitted for
-sailing. (<em>Photo W. H. Mechling, 1913.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The use of sail in the Micmac canoes cannot be
-traced prior to the arrival of the white men. The use
-probably resulted from the influence of Europeans,
-but it is possible that the prehistoric Indians may
-have set up a leafy bush in the bow of their canoes to
-act as a sail with favorable winds. The old Nova
-Scotia expression "carrying too much bush," meaning
-over-canvassing a boat, is thought by some to have
-originated from an Indian practice observed there
-by the first settlers. In early colonial times, the
-Micmac used a simple square sail in their canoes and
-this, by the last decade of the 19th century, was
-replaced by a spritsail probably inspired by the dory-sail
-of the fishermen. The Indian rig was unusual
-in several respects. The sheet, for example, was
-double-ended; one end was made fast to the clew
-of the sail and the other to the head of the sprit, so
-that it served also as a vang. The bight was secured<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span>
-within reach of the steersman by a half hitch to a
-crossbar fixed well aft across the gunwales. The
-sail, nearly rectangular and with little or no peak,
-was laced to the mast, and the sprit was supported by
-a "snotter" lanyard tied low on the mast. A sprit
-boom was also carried by some canoes; this was
-secured to the clew of the sail and to the mast, a
-snotter lanyard being used at the latter position.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i082a.jpg" width="700" height="297" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 57</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac Rough-Water Canoe, Bay Chaleur.</span> (<em>Photo H. V. Henderson, West
-Bathurst, N.B.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i082b.jpg" width="700" height="374" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 58</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac Rough-Water Sailing Canoe, Bay Chaleur.</span>
-(<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The mast was secured by a thwart pegged, or
-nailed, across the gunwale caps. Sometimes, the
-thwart was also notched over the caps, so that the
-side-thrust caused by the leverage of the mast would
-not shear the fastenings. The crossbar for the sheet
-was sometimes similarly fastened and fitted, with its
-ends projecting outboard of the gunwales. The heel
-of the mast was sometimes stepped into a block,
-which was usually about 5 inches square and 1½ inches
-thick, nailed or pegged to the center bottom board,
-or sometimes it was merely stepped into a hole in the
-center bottom board. The bottom boards, usually<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span>
-three in number were of wide, thin stock and were
-clamped in place over the ribs by three or four false
-frames driven under the thwarts, just as were the
-canoe ribs under the gunwales.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i083.jpg" width="700" height="416" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 59</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Details of Micmac Canoes, Including Mast and Sail.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The canoes could not sail close-hauled, as a rule,
-though some Indians learned to use a leeboard in
-the form of a short plank hung vertically over the lee
-side and secured by a lanyard to a thwart, the board
-being shifted in tacking. An alternate was to have a
-passenger hold a paddle vertically on the lee side.
-There seems to have been no fixed proportions to the
-area of sail used; the actual areas appear to have
-been somewhere between 50 and 100 square feet,
-depending upon the size of the canoe. Joseph
-Dadaham, a Micmac, stated in 1925 that he used
-"24 yards" in the sail of a "rough-water canoe" 20
-feet long and about 44 inches beam, while one 18
-feet long and about 36 inches extreme beam carried
-"16 to 18 yards"; it is obvious that the "yards" are of
-narrow sail cloth and not square yards of finished
-sail. In the last days of sailing bark canoes, mast
-hoops and a halyard block were fitted so that the
-sail could be lowered instead of having to be furled
-around the mast (to accomplish this the "crew" had
-to stand). Dadaham also stated that for his sheet
-belay he used a jamb-hitch which could be released
-quickly when the canoe was found to be overpowered
-by the wind. It appears that during the last era of
-these bark canoes the rig had been improved to fit it
-for open-water sailing.</p>
-
-<p>The paddles used by the Micmac appear to have
-varied in shape. If the canoe shown in Chapter 1 (p. <a href="#Page_12">12</a>)
-was indeed a Micmac canoe as supposed, the paddle
-shown there is quite different from the later tribal
-forms illustrated above, and it is possible that the
-top grips shown in the more modern forms were never
-used in prehistoric times, when the pole handle shown
-with the old canoe may have been standard.</p>
-
-<p>The Micmac canoes were decorated by scraping
-away part of the inner rind of the birch bark, leaving
-portions of it in a formal design. It seems very
-probable that the Micmac seldom used this form of
-decoration in early times, but later they used it a
-great deal in their rough-water canoes, perhaps as a
-result of contact with the Malecite. The formal
-designs used as decoration by the Micmac did not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span>
-have any particular significance as a totem or religious
-symbol; they were used purely as decoration or to
-identify the owner. Such forms as the half-moon, a
-star in various shapes, or some other figure might be
-used by the builder, but these were apparently only
-his canoe mark, not a family insignia or his usual
-signature, and could be altered at will.</p>
-
-<p>The usual method of decoration was to place the
-canoe mark on both sides of the canoe at the ends and
-to have along the gunwales amidships a long narrow
-panel of decoration, usually of some simple form.
-The panel decorations are said by Micmacs to have
-been selected by the builder merely as pleasing
-designs. One design used was much like the fleur-de-lis,
-another was a series of triangles supposed to
-represent camps, still another was the northern lights
-design, a series of closely spaced, sloping, parallel
-lines (or very narrow panels) that seem to represent
-a design much used in the quill decoration for which
-the Micmac were noted. Canoes are recorded as
-having stylized representations of a salmon, a moose,
-a cross, or a very simple star form; these may have
-been canoe marks or may once have been a tribal
-mark in a certain locality. A series of half-circles
-were sometimes used in the gunwale panels, which
-were rarely alike on both sides of the canoe, and it is
-probable that use was made of other forms that have
-not been recorded. Colored quills in northern
-lights pattern were used in some model or toy canoes
-but not in any surviving example of a full-size canoe.
-It is quite possible, however, that such quill-work was
-once used in Micmac canoe decoration. Painting of
-the bark cover for decorative purposes in Micmac
-canoes has not been recorded.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i084.jpg" width="700" height="348" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 60</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac Canoe, Bathurst, N.B.</span> (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Historical references to the canoes of the Micmac
-are frequent in the French records of Canada; it
-must have been Micmac canoes that Cartier saw in
-1534 at Prince Edward Island and in Bay Chaleur.
-The most complete description of such canoes is in
-the account of Nicolas Denys, who came to the
-Micmac country in 1633 and remained there almost
-continuously until his death at 90, in 1688. His
-travels during this period took him into Maine as
-far as the Penobscot and throughout what are now
-New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. While his descriptions
-are primarily concerned with the Malecite dress,
-houses, and hunting and fishing techniques, his notes
-on birch-bark canoes seem to indicate very clearly
-that he is describing a hogged-sheer Micmac rough-water
-canoe. He says, for example, that the length
-of these canoes was between 3 and 4½ fathoms,
-the fathom being the French <em>brasse</em>, so that they
-ranged in length from 16 to 24 feet over the gunwales.
-This gunwale length seems reasonable, since Denys
-gives the beam as only about 2 English feet, obviously
-a gunwale measurement in view of the great tumble-home
-in these canoes. That the Micmac rough-water
-canoe is the subject of Denys' observations is further
-indicated by his statement that the depth was such
-that the gunwales came to the armpits of a man
-seated on the bottom. This could only be true in a
-canoe having a hogged sheer in the lengths given,
-and is, in fact, a slight exaggeration unless the man
-referred to was of less than average height. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>
-depth would be about 22 English inches, great even
-for a 24-foot canoe. Denys states that the inside
-sheathing of these canoes was split from cedar. He
-also states that the splints were about 4 inches wide,
-were tapered toward the ends, and ran the full length
-of the canoe. It is probable that they were butted
-amidships, as in known examples; this, however,
-would have been covered by a rib and might not
-have been noticed.</p>
-
-<p>Denys says that the Indians "bent the cedar ribs
-in half-circles to form ribs and shaped them in the
-fire." Adney believed this meant by use of hot water.
-However, this bending could have been done by what
-was known in 17th-century shipbuilding practice as
-stoving, in which green lumber was roasted over an
-open fire until the sap and wood became hot enough
-to allow a strong bend to be made without breakage.
-Wood thus treated, when cooled and seasoned somewhat,
-would hold the set. While it is certain that
-later Indians knew how to employ hot water, it does
-not follow that all tribes used this method, particularly
-in early times.</p>
-
-<p>Denys also states that the roots of "fir," split into
-three or four parts, were used in sewing. He apparently
-used "fir" as a general name for an evergreen.
-It is probable that the roots used were of the black
-spruce. The technique of building he describes
-is about the same as that outlined in the last chapter.
-He says that the gunwales were round and that
-seven beech thwarts were employed, practices that
-differ from those in more recent Micmac canoe
-building, and he notes the goring of the bark cover.
-Denys states the paddles were made of beech (instead
-of maple as was perhaps the case) with blades about
-6 inches wide and their length that of an arm (about
-27 inches), with the handle a little longer than the
-blade. He also says that four, five, or six paddlers
-might be aboard a canoe and that a sail was often
-used. "Formerly of bark," the sail was made of
-a well-dressed hide of a young moose. Since it could
-carry eight or ten persons, the canoe Denys is referring
-to is obviously a large one. In his building description
-he does not mention headboards, rail caps,
-or the end forms. It may be assumed that he was
-then describing a canoe he had seen during construction
-but whose building he did not follow step by step.</p>
-
-<p>De la Poterie, in his book published in 1722, gives
-a profile and top view of what must have been a
-Micmac canoe. The probable length indicated must
-have been about 22 English feet overall and about
-32 inches extreme beam; seven thwarts are shown.</p>
-
-<p>Late in the 19th century there appears to have
-been some fusion of Micmac and Malecite methods of
-construction, as Malecite built to Micmac forms and
-vice versa. This apparently did not produce a hybrid
-form so far as appearance was concerned but it did
-affect construction, in that inner end-frames were
-used and other details of the Micmac design were
-altered. The Micmac, having early come into close
-contact with the Europeans, were among the first
-Indians to employ nails in the construction of bark
-canoes, and this resulted in an early decadence in
-their building methods. Hence, some examples of
-their canoes show what the Indians termed broken
-gunwales, in which the ends of the thwarts were not
-tenoned into the gunwales, but rather were let flush
-into the top by use of a dovetail cut or, less securely,
-by a rectangular recess across the gunwale, and were
-held in place with a nail through the thwart end and
-the gunwale member.</p>
-
-<p>From scanty references by early writers, it appears
-that a spiral over-and-over lashing was originally
-used by the Micmac on the ends and gunwales. The
-lower edges of the side panels were sewn over-and-over
-a split-root batten. In some extant examples
-the gores are sewn with a harness stitch; in others a
-simple spiral stitch is used. The cross-stitch does not
-appear to have been used by the Micmac. The gunwale
-caps were certainly pegged and the ends lashed;
-the bark cover was folded over the gunwale tops and
-clamped by the caps as well as secured by the gunwale
-lashings. Tacking the bark cover to the top of the
-gunwales, with the cap nailed over all, marks the
-later Micmac canoes. The use of nails and tacks
-seems to have begun earlier than 1850.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i085.jpg" width="700" height="360" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 61</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Micmac Woman</span> gumming seams of canoe,
-Bathurst, N.B., 1913. (<em>Canadian Geological
-Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In spite of decadent construction methods used in
-the last Micmac birch-bark canoes, the model re<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span>mained
-a very good one in each type. The half-circular
-ends, sharp lines, and standard mid-sectional
-forms were unaltered; the hogged sheer was retained
-in some degree in at least two of the canoe types, the
-rough water and the big river, right down to the end of
-bark-canoe building by this tribe. The very fine
-design and attractive appearance of the Micmac
-canoe may have contributed to the early acceptance
-by the early explorers and traders of the birch-bark
-canoe as the best mode of water transport for forest
-travel.</p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Malecite</em></h3>
-
-<p>Another tribe expert in canoe building and use
-was the Malecite. These Indians were known to the
-early French explorers as the "Etchimins" or "Tarratines"
-(or Tarytines). Many explanations have
-been given for the name Malecite. One is that it
-was applied to these people by the Micmac and
-is from their word meaning "broken talkers," since
-the Micmac had difficulty in understanding them.
-When the Europeans came, these people inhabited
-central and southern New Brunswick and the shore of
-Passamaquoddy Bay, with small groups or tribal subdivisions
-in the area of the Penobscot to the Kennebec.
-These were early affected by the retreat of the New
-England Indians before the whites into eastern and
-northern Maine and southeastern Quebec. As a
-result, the Penobscot and Kennebec Indians became
-part of the group later known as Abnaki, while the
-Passamaquoddy Indians remained wholly Malecite
-and closely attached to those living along the St. John
-River in New Brunswick. Like their neighbors the
-Micmac, the Malecite were hunters and warlike;
-during the colonial period they were usually friendly
-to the French and enemies of the English settlers in
-their vicinity. It is not certain that the tribe now
-called by that name were actually of a single tribal
-stock; it is possible that this designation really covers
-a loose federation of small tribal groups who eventually
-achieved a common language. In addition,
-the tribal designation cannot be wholly accurate
-because of the fact that much of the original group
-living in New England were absorbed in the Abnaki
-in the 17th and 18th centuries. Therefore, the Malecite
-are considered here to be those Indians formerly
-inhabiting valleys of the St. John and the St. Croix
-Rivers, and the Passamaquoddy Bay area. The
-remaining portions, the Kennebec and Penobscot
-Indians, must now be classed as Abnaki, of whom
-more later (see p. <a href="#Page_88">88</a>).</p>
-
-<p>In considering the birch-bark canoes of the Malecite,
-it is important to understand that this tribal
-form includes not only the types used in more recent
-times in New Brunswick and on Passamaquoddy Bay,
-but also an overlapping type related to the later
-Abnaki models. The old form of Malecite canoe
-used on the large rivers and along the coast appears
-to have had rather high-peaked ends, with a marked
-overhang fore and aft. The end profiles had a
-sloping outline, strongly curved into the bottom, and
-a rather sharply lifting sheer toward each end. This
-form was also to be seen in old canoes from the St.
-John River (the lower valley), the Passamaquoddy,
-the Penobscot, and the upper St. Lawrence. By late
-in the 19th century, however, this style of canoe had
-been replaced by canoes having rounded ends, the
-profiles being practically quarter-circles and sometimes
-with such small radii that a slight tumble-home
-appeared near the sheer. The small radius of the end
-curves is particularly marked in some of the seagoing
-porpoise-hunting canoes of the Passamaquoddy. In
-modern forms, the amount of sheer is moderate and
-the quick lift in the sheer to the ends is practically
-nonexistent. On the St. Lawrence, the radii of the
-end curves are very short and the upper part of the
-stems stands vertical and straight; the sheer, too, is
-usually rather straight. The older type, with high-peaked
-ends, was also marked by very sharp lines forward
-and aft, and had a midsection with tumble-home
-less extreme than in the Micmac canoes. The bottom,
-athwartships, was usually somewhat rounded
-(in coastal canoes the form might be a rounded <strong>V</strong>)
-and the bilges were rather slack, with a reverse
-curve above, to form the tumble-home rather close
-to the gunwales. The river model probably had
-lower ends and less rake than the coastal type, but
-surviving examples of both give confusing evidence.
-The river canoes usually had a flatter bottom than
-the coastal type, the latter having somewhat more
-rocker fore-and-aft. The sections near the ends were
-rather <strong>V</strong>-shaped in the coastal canoes, <strong>U</strong>-shaped in
-the river canoes.</p>
-
-<p>The old form of small hunting canoe is represented
-by but one poor model (see p. <a href="#Page_72">72</a>) in which the ends are
-lower and with much less rake than those of the river
-type. From this very scant evidence, it seems probable
-that the small woods canoes were patterned on the
-river canoe in all respects but the profile of the ends.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i087.jpg" width="700" height="404" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 62</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite 2½-Fathom River Canoe, 19th Century.</span> Old form with raking
-ends and much sheer.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>From the early English and French accounts, it is
-evident that none of the maritime Indians used very
-large or long war canoes, capable of holding many
-men. The old war canoes of the Malecite appear to
-have been either of the coastal or river types as the
-circumstances of their place of building and use
-dictated. The slight information available in these
-accounts suggests that the war canoe did not differ in
-appearance from the other types of Malecite canoes,
-and that they were not of greater size. The Malecite
-appear to have followed the same practices as the
-Micmac, using for war purposes canoes of standard
-size and appearance but narrower and built for speed,
-since a war party sought to travel rapidly to and
-from its objective in order to surprise the enemy and
-escape before organized pursuit could be formed.
-The Malecite placed four warriors in each canoe,
-two to paddle and two to watch and use weapons
-while afloat. However, only on rare occasions were
-bows and arrows used from canoes afloat; most
-fighting was done on land. Each canoe carried the
-personal mark of each of the four warriors, apparently
-one mark on each flap, or <em>wulegessis</em>, under the gunwales
-near the ends. When a war leader was carried
-however, only his mark was on his canoe. After a
-successful raid, the Malecite used to race for the last
-mile or so of the return journey, and the winning
-canoe was given, as a distinction, some mark or
-picture, often something humorous such as a caricature
-of an animal. This practice, however, was not
-confined to war canoes; in rather recent times it has
-been noted that such pictures were placed on any
-canoe that had shown outstanding qualities in racing
-competition or in exhibitions of skill.</p>
-
-<p>When making long canoe trips, the Malecite
-followed the widespread Indian practice of using the
-canoe as a shelter at night. When a camping place
-was reached, the canoe was unloaded, carried ashore,
-and turned upside down so that the tops of the ends
-and one gunwale rested on the ground. If the ends
-were high enough, as in the old Malecite type, one
-gunwale was raised off the ground far enough to
-permit a man to crawl under. If, as in the Micmac
-canoes, the ends were too low to allow this, they
-were raised off the ground by short forked sticks,
-with the forks resting against the end thwarts and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span>
-the upper gunwale and the heels stuck into the earth.
-The dunnage (provisions or other cargo) was then
-stowed on the ground under the ends of the canoe
-and the two men would sleep under a single blanket
-with their feet pointed in opposite directions, each
-with his head on a pile of dunnage. If there were
-too many men aboard to do this, in bad weather a
-crude shelter was made by resting some poles on the
-upturned bilge and covering them with sheets of
-bark; under such a shelter meals could be cooked.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i088.jpg" width="700" height="427" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 63</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Old Form of Malecite-Abnaki 2½&mdash;Fathom Ocean Canoe</span> of the Penobscots.
-In the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>As did many of the eastern Indians, the old Malecite
-tribesmen built canoes of materials other than
-birch bark. When a canoe was required for a temporary
-use such as in hunting, it could be made of
-spruce bark. (As the designs of such canoes were
-rather standardized, they will be dealt with in Chapter
-8.) When bark was unobtainable, the Malecite built
-canoes covered with moosehide, or, in rare instances,
-they built wooden dugouts.</p>
-
-<p>The old Malecite river canoe shown on page <a href="#Page_71">71</a>
-will serve to illustrate a description of the details of
-construction that were used. These canoes were
-obviously built with their gunwales (which were the
-length of the bottom only) serving as a building frame.
-The ends of the gunwales were supported by headboards
-stepped on the heels of the inner stem-pieces,
-and the stems raked outward from their heels. The
-gunwale ends were joined to the head of the stem-piece
-by the outwales and the gunwale caps. Bark
-was used to the ends of the canoe. One side of the
-bark cover was cut so that it stood well above the sheer
-line from the gunwale end outboard, and the opposite
-side was cut to the level of the sheer. The first piece
-was then folded over the opposite side and down, so
-that it covered both the extreme ends of the gunwales
-and the top of the inner stem-piece. Another piece
-of bark was then fitted over this fold, and this new
-piece formed the flaps below the outwales on each
-side, the <em>wulegessis</em>. The outwales ran past the gunwale
-ends and were cut off flush with the outboard
-face of the stem; the caps ran likewise and covered the
-bark over the head of the inner stem piece. The
-characteristic sheer of these canoes, where the rise
-toward the ends began, showed a quick curve that
-faired into a rising straight line at the gunwale and
-then continued straight and rising to the stem head.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span>
-The <em>wulegessis</em> was therefore quite long. The ends of
-the gunwales were not of the half-arrowhead shape,
-but were snied off on their inboard sides so that they
-met on a rather long bevel; the lashing was slightly
-let in to the outboard faces to keep it from slipping
-over the gunwale ends. The caps of the gunwales
-were similarly reduced in width, where they came
-together over the ends of the canoe.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i089.jpg" width="700" height="392" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 64</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Large 3-Fathom Ocean Canoe of the Passamaquoddy</span> porpoise hunters.
-These canoes were sometimes fitted to sail or outrigged for rowing. The
-last of this type had much lower ends.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The main gunwale members were about 1¼ inches
-square amidships, tapering to ¾ inch at the ends.
-The lower outboard corner was beveled to take the
-ends of the ribs, as shown on page <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, and the lower
-inboard corner was also beveled or rounded, but to a
-lesser degree. The upper inboard corner, shown
-beveled in the drawing of figure 62, was sometimes
-slightly rounded, as were the outwales. Amidships
-the outwale was about 1 inch deep, and it tapered
-toward the ends, where its depth was about ⅝ inch,
-the thickness being ½ inch amidships and a scant ⅜
-inch at the ends. On the canoe shown, the cap was
-⅜ inch thick, tapering to about <sup>5</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> inch at the ends,
-and 1¾ inches wide amidships, tapering to about ⅝
-or ½ inch where the caps came together at the ends.
-The top corners of the cap were beveled in the example.</p>
-
-<p>The sheathing appears to have been about <sup>3</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> inch
-thick on the average. On the bottom and sides it
-was in two lengths, overlapping slightly amidships.
-Toward the ends of the canoe the sheathing was tapered,
-maximum width of the splints being about 4
-inches amidships.</p>
-
-<p>The canoe, which was 18 feet 6 inches long overall,
-had 46 ribs. These were about 3 inches wide and ⅜
-inch thick from the center to the first thwart outboard
-on each side, and 2 inches wide from these
-thwarts to the ends, except for the endmost five ribs,
-which were roughly 1¾ inches wide. The drawing on
-page <a href="#Page_71">71</a> shows the shape of the thwarts. The ends
-were tenoned through the gunwales, and there were
-three lacing holes in the ends of the middle and first
-thwarts and two in the end thwarts. The beam of
-the canoe inside the gunwales was 30 inches and outside,
-31¼ inches; the tumble-home made the extreme
-beam 35½ inches. The canoe was rather flat bottomed
-athwartships and quite shallow, the depth amidships
-being 10¾ inches.</p>
-
-<p>The building bed must have had about a 1½ inch
-crown at midlength. It is probable that the stem
-pieces were not fixed in place until after the gun<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span>wales
-had been raised to sheer height. The gunwales
-were lashed with the Malecite group lashings, each
-of four turns through the bark and spaced at 3 to 3½
-inches apart in the midlength and at 2 inches from
-the end thwarts to the headboards. Two auxiliary
-lashings were placed over the outwales and caps
-outboard of the gunwale ends, one about 6 inches
-beyond the ends of the gunwales and the other against
-the inboard side of the stem-piece. The end closure
-was accomplished by the usual spiral lashing passed
-through the laminated stem pieces. The latter were
-split (to within about 4 inches of the heel), into six or
-more laminae that were closely wrapped with bark
-cord. The headboards were bellied toward the ends
-to keep the bark cover under tension, and the ends
-outboard of the headboards were stuffed with shavings
-or moss.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i090.jpg" width="700" height="482" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 65</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Old Form of Passamaquoddy 2½-Fathom Ocean Canoe</span> with characteristic
-bottom rocker and sheer. This rather small, fast canoe for coastal hunting
-and fishing was common in the 19th century.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>A canoe from the Penobscot River, obtained in 1826
-by the Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts, and
-described in <cite>The American Neptune</cite> for October 1948,
-shows that the Penobscot built their canoes on the
-old Malecite model. The canoe is apparently a
-coastal type. It has some round in the bottom
-amidships and <strong>V</strong>-sections toward the ends; it is
-18 feet 7 inches long overall, 37¼ inches maximum
-beam, 15¼ inches deep amidships, and the ends stand
-26 to 28 inches above the base line, the bow being
-slightly higher and with more rake than the stern.
-The rocker takes place within 4 feet of the ends, with
-the bottom straight for about 8 feet along the midlength.
-The bilges amidship are slack, and the reverse
-curve to form the tumble-home starts within
-6 inches of the gunwales (see drawing, p. <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.)</p>
-
-<p>A much later coastal canoe of the Passamaquoddy,
-a porpoise-and seal-hunting canoe built in 1873,
-will also serve to show the old type (see p. <a href="#Page_73">73</a>).
-This style of canoe was usually built in lengths
-ranging from 18 to 20 feet overall, the maximum beam
-was between 25 and 44 inches, and the beam inside
-the gunwales was between 29½ and 36 inches. The
-depth amidships ranged from about 18 to 21 inches,
-and the height of the ends above the base was from
-28 or 30 inches to as much as 45 inches. The ribs
-numbered from 42 to 48 and were 3 inches wide and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span>
-½ inch thick. The sheathing was from ¼ to ⅜ inch
-thick and the rocker of the bottom, from 4 to 6
-inches, took place within the last 4 or 5 feet of the
-ends. The midsection showed a well-rounded bottom,
-a slack bilge, and the high reverse to form
-the tumble-home seen in the old Penobscot canoe at
-Salem. These canoes were still being built well
-into the 1880's, if not later, and are to be seen in some
-old U.S. Fish Commission photographs of porpoise
-and seal hunting at Eastport, Maine. Seal-and porpoise-hunting
-canoes carried a sail, usually the spritsail
-of the dory. While this model probably was little
-changed in construction from early times, the surviving
-examples and models are of the period when nails
-were employed. The drawing on page <a href="#Page_74">74</a> is of a small
-coastal hunting canoe of the same class, built in 1875.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i091.jpg" width="700" height="410" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 66</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite Racing Canoe of</span> 1888, showing <strong>V</strong>-shaped keel piece placed
-between sheathing and bark to form deadrise.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The reasons for the gradual decline in the building
-of canoes of the old style are not known, and the
-transition from the high-peaked ends to the more
-modern low and rounded ends was not sudden. It
-apparently began in some inland areas, particularly
-on the St. Lawrence and the St. John Rivers, at least
-as early as 1849, and the new trend in appearance
-finally reached the coast about 25 years later. In
-the period of transition, the high-peaked model
-developed toward the St. Francis type, or that of the
-modern "Indian" canvas canoe, as well as toward
-the low-ended type.</p>
-
-<p>One of the later developments took place on the
-St. John River, in New Brunswick, where two Indians,
-Jim Paul and Peter Polchies, both of St. Marys, in
-1888 built for a Lt. Col. Herbert Dibble of Woodstock
-the racing canoe illustrated above (fig. 66). This
-canoe, 19 feet 6½ inches long overall and only 30½ inches
-extreme beam, was of a design perhaps not characteristic
-of any particular type of Malecite canoe, but
-it nevertheless shows two elements that may have
-appeared during the period of change in model.
-The sides amidships not only are without tumble-home,
-they flare outward slightly, but tumble-home
-is developed at the first thwart each side of the middle
-and continues to the headboards. The bottom shows
-a marked <strong>V</strong>-deadrise achieved by an unusual construction
-in a birch-bark canoe: the center strake of
-the sheathing is shaped in a shallow <strong>V</strong> in cross section,
-its width being about 2½ inches amidships and taper<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span>ing
-each way toward the ends, and its thickness along
-the longitudinal centerline being about ⅝ inch and
-tapering to about ¼ inch at the edges; the two lengths
-of the strake are butted, not lapped, amidships,
-though the rest of the sheathing is lapped at the butts
-in the usual way and is uniformly ¼ inch thick. In
-this manner a ridge that gives a <strong>V</strong>-deadrise is formed
-down the centerline of the bottom, though the frames
-are bent in a flattened curve from bilge to bilge.
-The bottom has very little rocker, the rise being only
-1 inch, and this takes place in the last 2 feet inboard
-of the heel of the stem piece.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i092.jpg" width="700" height="425" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 67</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Sharp-Ended 2½-Fathom Hunting Canoe</span> for use on tidal river. Built by
-the Passamaquoddy Indian Peter Denis, it shows what may be the primitive
-construction method of obtaining a <strong>V</strong>-form in hull.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Another feature in this canoe is the end profile;
-the curved ends are strongly raked, the curve used
-being the same as that in the old Malecite type, but
-with the stem-pieces reversed, so that the quick turn
-is at the head, near the sheer, rather than at the heel.
-As a result, the gunwales come to the ends in a straight,
-rising line for the last 16½ inches rather than as a
-sudden lift near the ends. The stem-heads stand a
-little above the rail caps. The headboards belly
-toward the ends and are raked in the same direction.</p>
-
-<p>The use of a <strong>V</strong>-shaped keel piece in the sheathing
-has been found in a St. Francis canoe from the St.
-Lawrence country; this may be a rather old practice.
-This racing canoe is very lightly built and
-much decorated, the date 1888 being worked into
-the hull near one end.</p>
-
-<p>Another canoe having a marked <strong>V</strong>-deadrise was
-built sometime between 1890 and 1892 by Nicola
-(sometimes called Peter) Denis (sometimes spelled
-Dana), a Passamaquoddy, for his son Francis, who
-used it at Frenchman's Bay, Maine. The drawing
-above (fig. 67) shows a coastal-type hunting canoe,
-nailed along the gunwales but sewn elsewhere, and
-painted. The craft is 15 feet 9 inches overall and
-14 feet 5 inches over the gunwales. The beam amidships
-is 32 inches over the gunwales, 29½ inches inside.
-The depth amidships is 11 inches, and at the headboards,
-14½ inches. The ends are of the low rounded
-form; the profile shows a moderate tumble-home
-just below the sheer, which is a long fair curve without
-any quick lift toward the ends. The construction
-is of the usual Malecite type described in Chapter 3.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span>
-The midsection shows a remarkable amount of <strong>V</strong>
-in the bottom without any tumble-home anywhere
-in the topsides. The <strong>V</strong>-bottom is rounded at the
-apex, where the keel would be; this is done by bending
-the ribs very sharply where they cross the centerline
-of the hull. A narrow strake of thin sheathing runs
-along the centerline of the canoe, and this is bent
-athwart-wise to follow the bends in the ribs there.
-The canoe had 46 ribs, each 2½ inches wide and <sup>5</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub>
-inch thick, tapered slightly from the middle up to the
-gunwales. The gunwales, as previously noted, are
-nailed and the main gunwale members are of sawed
-spruce. The rest of the framework is cedar.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i093.jpg" width="700" height="426" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 68</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite 2½-Fathom St. Lawrence River Canoe</span>, probably a hybrid model.
-The high ends show a western influence.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The outside of the canoe was painted red, the
-inside was a pale yellow, the gunwales and middle
-portions of the thwarts were cobalt blue, the ends
-of the thwarts were red. The <em>wulegessis</em> was blue,
-and the "canoe mark" was a painted representation of
-the spread eagle of the United States Seal, the border
-being in black and white and the eagle in black,
-yellow, and white, holding a brown branch with
-green leaves. The whole panel was outlined in red.
-On the side of the canoe, near the stern, was a white
-swallowtail pennant on which is lettered "Frenchmans
-Bay" in black capital letters. This canoe was used
-for fishing and also for porpoise and seal hunting.</p>
-
-<p>The construction employed to form the <strong>V</strong>-bottom
-in a birch-bark canoe can be seen to have been done
-in two ways; that described on page <a href="#Page_76">76</a> is undoubtedly
-the method used in prehistoric times, since laborious
-forming of a <strong>V</strong> keel-piece in the sheathing, using
-stone scrapers, would be avoided. The <strong>V</strong>-bottom, it
-should be noted, usually appears in canoes used in
-open waters, as this form tends to run straight under
-paddle, in spite of a side wind, and thus requires the
-minimum of steering to hold it on its course. It was
-this characteristic, too, that made the <strong>V</strong>-bottom suitable
-for the racing canoe on the St. John River, since
-stopping the stroke momentarily to steer diminishes
-the driving power of the stern paddler.</p>
-
-<p>The various river canoes of the Malecite, built to
-the modern low, rounded-end profiles, or to the short-radii
-and straight-line forms, held rather closely to
-the same lines, that is, sharp ends with a rather
-flat bottom amidships and an easy bilge. Some of
-the canoes retained the characteristic tumble-home,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span>
-but others had nearly vertical sides or the curve of
-the bilge was carried so high that it ended at the
-gunwales.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i094.jpg" width="700" height="455" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 69</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite 2½-Fathom River Canoe</span> of 1890 from the Rivière du Loup region.
-Canoes in this area had straight stems and sharp lines from at least as early as
-1857.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>On the St. Lawrence there was apparently a canoe
-having rather peaked ends as well as the rather
-straight-stemmed, low-ended type. A St. Lawrence
-River canoe found in the Chateau de Ramezay and
-built sometime before 1867 provides an example of the
-rather high-peaked ends. The canoe, as illustrated
-on page <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, has a well-rounded bilge working into a
-very round tumble-home above and into a rather
-flat bottom below, the tumble-home being carried
-into the extreme ends, so that the headboards are
-rather wide. The ends round up rather quickly and
-then continue up to the sheer in a very slight curve,
-having a very moderate tumble-home near the sheer.
-The latter follows somewhat the characteristic
-sheer of the old Malecite canoes, but the straight
-portion just inboard of the ends is much shorter, so
-that the quick upsweep of the sheer begins nearer the
-ends and thus appears somewhat more pronounced.</p>
-
-<p>The construction is in the usual manner. The
-rocker of the bottom is 2 inches. The ribs are wider
-amidships than near the ends. The outwale is
-rounded on the outboard face so that the cap is
-slightly narrower than the thickness of inner gunwale
-and outwale combined. The headboard is rather
-unusual, however, as it is not bellied but stands
-straight and vertical. The lashing at the upper
-portion of the stems is the crossed stitch, below it is
-spiral. The gunwale groups are made up of six passes
-through the bark, and the spaces between groups are
-about 2½ inches. The side panels are sewn with
-the harness stitch. The canoe is 16 feet long overall
-and 14 feet 5 inches inside the gunwales; the extreme
-beam amidships is 37 inches and inside the gunwales
-32 inches. The depth amidships is about 13 inches
-and the height of the ends 25 inches, with 2 inches
-of rocker at the headboards. This canoe, retaining
-the high ends, marks the transition from the old form
-to the new.</p>
-
-<p>A later canoe built on the St. Lawrence about 1890,
-probably near Rivière de Loup, is shown above.
-It is 16 feet 11 inches long overall, the beam over the
-gunwales is 33½ inches and inside it is 31 inches, the
-curve of the bilge being carried up to the gunwales.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span>
-The bottom is flat for only a short width. The depth
-amidships is 11½ inches and the height of the ends is
-20 inches, with 1 inch of rocker in the last two feet of
-length. The sheer is a long fair sweep without any
-quick upward lift near the ends. The headboards
-are very narrow and belly only very slightly toward
-the ends. The end profile illustrates the short radii
-and straight line form that marked many of the last
-Malecite birch-bark canoes of the St. Lawrence
-Valley. It is possible that the end-form was copied
-from the white man's St. Lawrence skiff, which usually
-had ends that were straight and nearly vertical, with
-a sharp turn into the keel.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i095.jpg" width="700" height="444" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 70</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Modern (1895) Malecite 2½-Fathom St. John River Canoe</span>, with low ends
-and moderate sheer, developed late in the 19th century.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Since a Malecite canoe of the form having rounded
-low ends was the subject used to describe the construction
-of a birch-bark canoe in Chapter 3 (see p. <a href="#Page_36">36</a>),
-there is no need to discuss all the details here. There
-was some variety in the sewing and lashing used
-in Malecite canoes; the combination of cross and
-spiral stitches in the ends and the use of a batten and
-the over-and-over stitch in the side panels are, of
-course, very common in these canoes. The occasional
-use of other stitches in the side panels and even in
-the gores would probably be normal, since individual
-preferences in such details were not controlled by a
-narrow tribal practice.</p>
-
-<p>The Malecite are known to have hauled their
-canoes overland in the early spring, before the snow
-was entirely gone, by mounting the canoe on two
-sleds or toboggans in tandem, binding the canoe to
-each. This was done as late as the 1890's for early
-spring muskrat hunts. The Malecite also fitted their
-river canoes with outside protection when much running
-of rapids or "quick water" work was done. This
-protection consisted of two sets of battens (see p. <a href="#Page_80">80</a>),
-each set being made up of five or six thin splints of
-cedar about ⅜ inch thick and 3 inches wide, tapering
-to 2 or 1½ inches at one end. These were held together
-by four strips of basket ash, bark cord, or rawhide.
-Each cord was passed through holes or slits made
-edgewise through each splint. The cords were located
-so that when the splints were placed on the bottom
-of the canoe, the cords could be tied at the thwarts.
-The tapered ends of the splints were at the ends of
-the canoe; the butts of the two sets being lapped amidships
-with the lap toward the stern. This formed a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span>
-wooden sheathing, outside the bottom, to protect the
-bark from rocks and snags or floating ice that might
-be met in rapids and small streams. The fitting was
-used also by the Micmac and Ojibway; it is not known
-whether this was an Indian or European invention.
-The French canoemen called it <i lang="fr">barre d'abordage</i> and
-the Malecite, <em>P's-ta' k'n</em>; the English woodsmen
-called the fitting "canoe shoes."</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i096.jpg" width="700" height="456" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 71</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite Canoe Details, Gear, and Gunwale Decorations.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The Malecite paddle was of various forms, as illustrated
-in figures 71 and 72, the predominant form
-being very similar to the paddle now used with canvas
-"Indian" canoes. The total length of the blade was
-usually about 28 to 30 inches; at 10 or 11 inches from
-the tip it was about 2½ inches wide. The handle was
-about 36 inches long. At just above the blade it
-was 1¼ inches wide and 1 inch thick. The handle
-was not parallel-sided. Near the top it widened gradually
-to about 2¼ inches at 2½ inches from the top;
-here the cross-grip was formed. The thickness of the
-handle reduced gradually from that given for just
-above the top of the blade to about ½ inch at about
-5 inches below the cross-grip, and widened again to ⅝
-inch at the point where the cross-grip was formed.
-The blade was ridged down its center. The lower
-end was rounded and the lower half of the blade was
-approximately half an ellipse in shape. The Passamaquoddy
-blade had its wide point within 7 inches of
-the lower tip, where it was about 6 inches wide. The
-handle was about 1⅛ inches in diameter just above
-the blade, and then tapered in thickness until it first
-became oval and then flat in cross section. The
-width remained nearly constant to a point within 12
-to 16 inches of the cross-grip, then gradually widened
-to nearly 3 inches at the top. The blade was 33 to
-36 inches long and the whole paddle somewhere
-between 73 and 76 inches long. The cross-grips were
-sometimes round, at other times they were merely
-worked off in an oval shape to fit the upper hand.
-The usual width of the cross-grip was just under 3
-inches.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i097a.jpg" width="700" height="417" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 72</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite Canoe Details, Stem Profiles, Paddles,
-Sail Rig, and Salmon Spear.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i097b.jpg" width="700" height="316" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 73</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Lines and Decoration Reconstructed From a Very Old Model</span> of an
-ancient woods, or pack, canoe, showing short ends and use of fiddlehead and
-fire-steel form of decoration.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>Formerly, the Malecite placed his personal mark, or
-<em>dupskodegun</em>, on the flat of the top of his paddle near
-the cross-grip. The mark was incised into the wood
-and the incised line was filled with red or black pigment
-when available. Sometimes the whole paddle,
-including the blade, was covered with incised line
-ornamentation. This was usually a vine-and-leaf
-pattern, or a combination of small triangles and
-curved lines. The Passamaquoddy used designs
-suggesting the needlework once seen on fine linens.
-Sometimes other designs showing animals, camps, or
-canoes were used.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i098.jpg" width="700" height="412" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 74</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Last Known Passamaquoddy Decorated Ocean Canoe</span> to be built. Constructed
-in 1898 by Tomah Joseph, Princeton, Maine, on the same model as a
-canvas porpoise-hunting canoe.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The Malecite, particularly the Passamaquoddy,
-were especially skillful in decorating bark canoes,
-as can be seen from the illustrations (pp. <a href="#Page_81">81</a>-87).
-Sometimes they used scraped winter bark decoration
-just along the gunwales; occasionally the whole canoe
-was decorated in this manner above the normal
-load waterline as described on page <a href="#Page_87">87</a>. Usually,
-however, the bark decoration was confined to a long
-panel just below the gunwales and to the ends of the
-canoe. The personal "mark" of the owner-builder
-would usually be on the flaps near the ends, the
-<em>wulegessis</em>, meaning the outside bark of a tree or a
-child's diaper, but in canoe nomenclature used to
-indicate the protective cover which it formed for the
-gunwale-end lashings. Sometimes the Malecite placed
-his mark in the gunwale decoration. Sometimes he
-placed a picture or a sign on each side of the ends
-below the <em>wulegessis</em>, in about the position used for
-insignia on the canvas "Indian" canoe.</p>
-
-<p>The swastika was used by the Passamaquoddy in a
-war canoe in colonial times and has been used later.
-The Passamaquoddy mark for an exceptional canoe
-(such as a war canoe that won the race home) was
-often on the <em>wulegessis</em>, and on a relatively modern
-canoe this mark, or <em>gogetch</em>, was a picture of "a funny-looking
-kind of doll." A common form of decoration
-in Passamaquoddy canoes was the fiddlehead curve
-which resembles the top of young fern shoots. This
-appears in numerous combinations; often double and
-back to back, joined with a long bar, or "cross."
-This particular combination is known as the "fiddlehead
-and cross" or as the "fire steel"; the latter
-because of a fancied resemblance of the form to the
-shape of the old fire-making steels of colonial times.
-A zigzag line appears to represent lightning to most
-Indians. A series of half-circles along the gunwales,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span>
-with the rounded side down and just touching one
-another at the top, having a small circle in the center
-of each, represents "clouds passing over the moon."
-A similar series of half-circles without the center
-circles might mean the canoe was launched during a
-new moon; the number of half-circles shown would
-indicate the month.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i099.jpg" width="700" height="452" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 75</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite Canoe Details and Decorations.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Yet there is not full agreement among Indians
-about the meaning of decorative forms; the crooked
-or zigzag line might also mean camps or the crooked
-score stick used in a Malecite game. The circle
-could mean sun or moon or month. A half-moon
-form might also be "a woman's earring," or a new
-moon. A circle with a very small one inside might be
-a "brooch," as well as "money." Right triangles,
-in a closely spaced series along the gunwales, apparently
-meant "door cloth," or tent door ("what you
-lift with your hand"). Shown on pages <a href="#Page_84">84</a> and <a href="#Page_85">85</a> are
-some Indian marks on the <em>wulegessis</em>, based upon the
-statements of old Malecites or upon their sketches.</p>
-
-<p>After the Malecite had become Roman Catholic,
-a fish on the middle panel of a canoe meant that
-it had been launched on Friday. Pictures on a
-canoe sometimes indicated a mythological story;
-a picture of a rabbit sitting and smoking a pipe on
-one side of the canoe and a lynx on the other would be
-such a case. In Malecite mythology the rabbit was
-the ancestor of the tribe. He was also a great magician.
-The lynx was the mortal enemy of the rabbit,
-but in the mythological tales he was always overcome
-and defeated by the rabbit's magic. Hence, the idea
-conveyed is that "though the-lynx is near, the rabbit
-sits calmly smoking his pipe and as he knows he can
-overcome his enemy," or, in short, "self-confidence."</p>
-
-<p>The Indian's mark on his canoe or weapons is not
-a signature to be read by anyone. The mark may, of
-course, be identified as to what it represents, but unless
-it is known as the mark used by a certain man it
-cannot be "read." Any mark could be used by an
-Indian, either because it had some connection with
-his activities or habits, or because he "likes it."
-The stone tobacco pipe used by Peter Polchies (see
-p. <a href="#Page_85">85</a>) as his mark had no known connection with
-this Indian's habits or activities. However, his son,
-of the same name and well known also as "Doctor
-Polchies," took the same mark, but in his case it had
-a personal meaning since he was noted locally for
-his skill in making stone pipes. Another case was
-a Passamaquoddy who at every opportunity used
-to pole his canoe in preference to paddling. As a
-result he had become known as "Peter of the Pole"
-or "Peter Pole" and he then used as a canoe mark
-a representation of a setting pole. In submitting
-sketches of the marking on the <em>wulegessis</em> of canoes
-to old Indians it was seldom possible to learn the
-identity of the owner or builder, since the marks were
-usually not known to those questioned. In more
-recent times, the educated Malecite signed his name
-in English on his canoe and thus gave it more permanent
-identification.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 76</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Wulegessis Decorations</span></p>
-</div>
-
-<img src="images/i100a.jpg" width="700" height="325" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>"mark of Mitchell Laporte"</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i100b.jpg" width="700" height="342" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>"that pot hanging was used by three or four generations&mdash;it
-was mark on John Lolar's canoe in 1872"</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i100c.jpg" width="700" height="322" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>"I made marks like this on wulegessis and sometimes on
-middle" (Charlie Bear)</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i100d.jpg" width="700" height="338" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>"mark of Noel John Sapier" (tomahawk)</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i100e.jpg" width="700" height="330" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>"mark of Noel Polchies" (paddle)</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span></p>
-</div>
-
-<img src="images/i101a.jpg" width="700" height="350" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>"mark of old Peter Polchies" (stone pipe)</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i101b.jpg" width="700" height="361" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>"mark of Chief Neptune" (Passamaquoddy)</p></div>
-<img src="images/i101c.jpg" width="700" height="330" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>"mark of Louis Paul"</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i101d.jpg" width="700" height="336" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>"canoe was finished on new moon" (Joe Ellis)</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i101e.jpg" width="700" height="332" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>"mark of old Solomon Paul"</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i102.jpg" width="700" height="336" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 77</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">End Decorations, Passamaquoddy Canoe</span> built by Tomah Joseph.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In duplicating a design, the Malecite apparently
-used a pattern, or stencil, which was preserved to
-allow duplication over a long period of time. The
-stencil was usually cut from birch bark, apparently
-an old practice, although whether it was done in
-prehistoric times cannot be determined. The long
-contact of the Malecites with Europeans is a factor
-to be considered in such matters. This is sometimes
-shown in picture-writing on a canoe; one, for instance,
-showed a white man fishing with rod and line from a
-canoe with an Indian guide. On the opposite side
-was the representation of an Indian camp beside two
-trees, a kettle over the fire and the brave sitting cross-legged
-smoking his pipe, indicating, of course, "comfort
-and contentment."</p>
-
-<p>Asking old Indians to identify or give the names
-of decorations, Adney recorded statements which
-indicate their thought in regard to such matters.
-There were used, for example, two forms of the half-moon
-or crescent; one was quite open at the points
-which plainly indicated a half-moon, but the other
-was more nearly closed:
-<img src="images/102.png" height="12" alt="" />
-Mrs. Billy Ellis, widow
-of Frank Francis, a Malecite, said of them, "Old
-Indian earrings, that is only what I can call them.
-Also in nose. Wild Indian made them of silver or
-moose-bone, I guess he thought he looked nice; it
-looked like the devil." Joe Ellis, an old canoe
-builder, also called this form "earrings" and when
-asked why an Indian would put these on a canoe,
-replied "He will think what he will put on here. He
-might have seen his wife at bow of canoe, and put
-it on [there]." Shown the right-triangle-in-series
-design, Mrs. Ellis said "I fergit it but I will remember;
-what you lift with your hand, we call it that&mdash;camp
-door" (referring to the cloth or hide hung over a
-camp door, and raised at one corner to enter, so
-that the opening is then divided diagonally).</p>
-
-<p>In a later period, the Malecite usually confined
-decoration to the <em>wulegessis</em> and to the pieced-out
-bark amidships, the panel formed on each side. The
-<em>wulegessis</em> was of various forms; its bottom was sometimes
-shaped like a cupid's bow, sometimes it was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span>
-rectangular. A common form was one representing
-the profile of a canoe. Being of winter bark, it was
-red or brown, with the part where the design was
-scraped showing white or yellow. The center panel
-was also of winter bark, and the design on it showed
-a similar contrast in color. Even when the bark cover
-was not pieced out, the panel was formed by scraping
-all the cover except a panel amidships on each side.
-Old models indicate that the early Malecite canoes
-may have used decoration all over above the waterline
-(see p. <a href="#Page_81">81</a>) far more frequently than has been the
-recent custom. The decorations were a fiddlehead
-design in a complicated sequence so that it bore a
-faint resemblance to the hyanthus in a formal scroll,
-but the design apparently had no ceremonial significance;
-it was used for the same reason given Adney
-for so many forms of bark decoration, "it looked nice."</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i103a.jpg" width="700" height="373" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 78</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">End Decorations, Passamaquoddy Canoe</span> built by Tomah Joseph.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i103b.jpg" width="700" height="190" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 79</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Passamaquoddy Decorated Canoe</span> built by Tomah Joseph.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The drawings and plans on pages <a href="#Page_71">71</a> to 87 will
-serve better than words to show these characteristic
-designs and decorations. It is doubtful that color,
-paint or pigment, was used in decorating the Malecite
-bark canoes before the coming of Europeans, but it
-was employed occasionally in the last half of the 19th
-century. The beauty of the Malecite canoe designs<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span>
-lay not in the barbaric display of color characteristic
-of the large fur-traders' canoes, but in the tasteful
-distribution of the scraped winter bark decoration
-along the sides of the hull. The workmanship exhibited
-by the Malecite in the construction of their
-canoes was generally very fine; indeed, they were
-perhaps the most finished craftsmen among Indian
-canoe-builders.</p>
-
-
-<h3><em>St. Francis</em></h3>
-
-<p>The tribal composition of the Abnaki Indians is
-somewhat uncertain. The group was certainly made
-up of a portion of the old Malecite group, the Kennebec
-and Penobscot, but later also included the
-whole or parts of the refugee Indians of other New
-England tribes who were forced to flee before the
-advancing white settlers. It is probable that among
-the refugees were the Cowassek (Coosuc), Pennacook,
-and the Ossipee. There were also some
-Maine tribes among these&mdash;the Sokoki, Androscoggin,
-(Arosaguntacook), Wewenoc, Taconnet,
-and Pequawket. It is probable that the tribal
-groups from southern and central New England
-were mere fragments and that the largest number to
-make up the Abnaki were Malecite. The latter in
-turn were driven out of their old homes on the lower
-Maine coast and drifted northwestward into the old
-hunting grounds of the Kennebec and Penobscot,
-northwestern Maine and eastern Quebec as far as the
-St. Lawrence. The chief settlement was finally on
-the St. Francis River in Quebec, hence the Abnaki
-were also known as the "St. Francis Indians." These
-tribesmen held a deep-seated grudge against the New
-Englanders and, by the middle of the 18th century,
-they had made themselves thoroughly hated in New
-England. Siding with the French, the St. Francis
-raided the Connecticut Valley and eastward, taking
-white children and women home with them after a
-successful raid, and as a result the later St. Francis had
-much white blood. They were generally enterprising
-and progressive.</p>
-
-<p>Little is known about the canoes of these Abnaki
-during the period of their retreat northwestward.
-It is obvious that the Penobscot, at least, used the old
-form of the Malecite canoe. What the canoes of the
-other tribal groups were like cannot be stated.
-However, by the middle of the 19th century the St.
-Francis Indians had produced a very fine birch-bark
-canoe of distinctive design and excellent workmanship.
-These they began to sell to sportsmen, with the result
-that the type of canoe became a standard one for
-hunting and fishing in Quebec. When other tribal
-groups discovered the market for canoes, they were
-forced to copy the St. Francis model and appearance
-to a very marked degree in order to be assured of
-ready sales. It is obvious, from what is now known,
-that the St. Francis had adapted some ideas in canoe
-building from Indians west of the St. Lawrence, with
-whom they had come into close contact. However,
-they had also retained much of the building technique
-of their Malecite relatives. Hence, the St.
-Francis canoes usually represent a blend of building
-techniques as well as of models.</p>
-
-<p>The St. Francis canoe of the last half of the 19th
-century had high-peaked ends, with a quick upsweep
-of the sheer at bow and stern. The end profile was
-almost vertical, with a short radius where it faired
-into the bottom. The rocker of the bottom took
-place in the last 18 or 24 inches of the ends, the
-remaining portion of the bottom being usually
-straight. The amount of rocker varied a good deal;
-apparently some canoes had only an inch or so while
-others had as much as four or five. A few canoes
-had a projecting "chin" end-profile; the top portion
-where it met the sheer was usually a straight line.</p>
-
-<p>The midsection was slightly wall-sided, with a
-rather quick turn of the bilge. The bottom was
-nearly flat across, with very slight rounding until
-close to the bilges. The end sections were a <strong>U</strong>-shape
-that approached the <strong>V</strong> owing to the very quick turn
-at the centerline. The ends of the canoe were very
-sharp, coming in practically straight at the gunwale
-and at level lines below it. The gunwales were longer
-than the bottom and so the St. Francis canoes were
-commonly built with a building-frame which was
-nearly as wide amidships as the gunwales but shorter
-in length.</p>
-
-<p>At least one St. Francis canoe, built on Lake
-Memphremagog, was constructed with a tumble-home
-amidships the same as that of some Malecite
-canoes. The rocker of the bottom at each end started
-at the first thwart on each side of the middle and
-gradually increased toward the ends, which faired
-into the bottom without any break in the curves.
-The end profiles projected with a chin that was full
-and round up to the peaked stem heads. The sheer
-swept up sharply near the ends to the stem heads.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span>
-This particular canoe represented a hybrid design
-not developed for sale to sportsmen, and the sole
-example, a full-size canoe formerly in The American
-Museum of Natural History at New York and measured
-by Adney in 1890, is now missing and probably
-has been broken up.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i105.jpg" width="700" height="456" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 80</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">St. Francis 2-Fathom Canoe of About 1865</span>, with upright stems. Built for
-forest travel, this form ranged in size from 12 feet 6 inches overall and 26½-inch
-beam, to 16 feet overall and 34-inch beam.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The St. Francis canoes were usually small, being
-commonly between 12 and 16 feet overall; the 15-foot
-length usually was preferred by sportsmen. The
-width amidships was from 32 to 35 inches and the
-depth 12 to 14 inches. The 14-foot canoe usually
-had a beam of about 32 inches and was nearly 14
-inches deep; if built for portaging the ends were
-somewhat lower than if the canoe was to be used in
-open waters. Canoes built for hunting might be as
-short as 10 or 11 feet and of only 26 to 28 inches
-beam; these were the true woods canoes of the St.
-Francis.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwale structure of the St. Francis canoes
-followed Malecite design; it was often of slightly
-smaller cross section than that of a Malecite canoe
-of equal length, but both outwale and cap were of
-somewhat larger cross section. The stem-pieces were
-split and laminated in the same manner, but occasionally
-the lamination was at the bottom, due to the
-hard curve required where the stem faired into the
-bottom. Many such canoes had no headboards, the
-heavy outwales being carried to the sides of the
-stem pieces and secured there to support the main
-gunwales. If the headboard was used, it was quite
-narrow and was bellied toward the ends of the canoe.
-In some St. Francis canoes the bark cover in the
-rockered bottom near the ends showed a marked <strong>V</strong>.
-In the canoe examined by Adney at the American
-Museum of Natural History, the ribs inside toward
-the end showed no signs of being "broken," so it is
-evident that the <strong>V</strong> was formed either by use of a
-shaped keel-piece in the sheathing or by an additional
-batten shaped to give this <strong>V</strong>-form under the center
-strake. Since the <strong>V</strong> began where the rocker in the
-canoe started, in an almost angular break in the
-bottom, it is likely that a shaped batten had been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span>
-used to form it. He could not verify this, however,
-as the area was covered by the frames and sheathing.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i106.jpg" width="700" height="482" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 81</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">St. Francis Canoe of About 1910</span>, with narrow, rockered bottom, a model
-popular with guides and sportsmen for forest travel.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The sheathing was in short lengths with rounded
-ends which overlapped, and it was laid irregularly in
-the "thrown in" style found in many western birch-bark
-canoes. The ribs were commonly about 2 inches
-wide and nearly ⅜ inch thick, the width tapering
-to roughly 1¾ inches under the gunwales. The ends
-of the ribs were then sharply reduced in width to a
-chisel point about 1 inch wide; the sides of the sharply
-reduced taper being beveled, as well as the end. A
-15-foot canoe usually had 46 to 50 ribs.</p>
-
-<p>The thwarts, unlike those of the Micmac and some
-Malecite canoes, in which the thwarts were unequally
-spaced, were equally spaced according to a builder's
-formula. The ends of the thwarts, or crossbars, were
-tenoned into the main gunwales and lashed in place
-through the three lashing holes in the ends of each
-thwart, except the end ones, which usually had but
-two. In some small canoes, however, two lashing
-holes were placed in all thwart ends. The design of
-the St. Francis thwart was as a rule very plain,
-gradually increasing in width from the center outwards
-to the tenon at the gunwale in plan and
-decreasing in thickness in elevation in the same
-direction. The ends of the main gunwales were of
-the half-arrowhead form, and were covered with a
-bark <em>wulegessis</em>, but the flaps below the outwales were
-sometimes cut off, or they might be formed in some
-graceful outline.</p>
-
-<p>The bark cover was sometimes in one piece; when
-it was pieced out for width, the harness-stitch was
-used. In most canoes, the bark along the gunwale
-was doubled by adding a long narrow strip, often
-left hanging free below the gunwales and stopping
-just short of the <em>wulegessis</em>, which it resembled. It
-was sometimes decorated. A few St. Francis canoes
-with nailed gunwales omitted this doubling piece.
-When used, the doubling piece, as well as the end
-cover, were folded down on top of the gunwale before
-being sewn into place. The decoration of the St.
-Francis canoes seems to have been scant and wholly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span>
-confined to a narrow band along the gunwale, or to
-the doubling pieces. The marking of the <em>wulegessis</em>
-had ceased long before Adney investigated this type
-of canoe and no living Indian knew of any old marks,
-if any ever had been used.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i107.jpg" width="700" height="435" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 82</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Low-Ended St. Francis Canoe</span> with <strong>V</strong>-form end sections made with short,
-<strong>V</strong>-shaped keel battens outside the sheathing at each end. Note the unusual
-form of headboard, seen in some St. Francis canoes.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The ends were commonly lashed with a spiral or
-crossed stitch, but some builders used a series of short-to-long
-stitches that made groups generally triangular
-in appearance. The gunwale lashing was in groups
-about 2½ inches long, each having 5 to 7 turns through
-the bark. The groups were about 1½ to 1¼ inches
-apart near the ends and about 2 inches apart elsewhere.
-The groups were not independent but were
-made by bringing the last turn of each group over the
-top and inside the main gunwale in a long diagonal
-pass so as to come through the bark from the inside
-for the first pass of the new group. The caps were
-originally pegged, with a few lashings at the ends.</p>
-
-<p>The ribs were bent green. After the bark cover had
-been sewn to the gunwales, the green ribs were fitted
-roughly inside the bark, with their ends standing above
-the gunwales, and were then forced into the desired
-shape and held there, usually by two wide battens
-pressed against them by 7 to 10 temporary cross
-struts. After being allowed to dry in place, the
-ribs were then removed, the sheathing was put into
-place, and the ribs, after a final fitting, were driven
-into their proper positions. Some builders put in the
-ribs by pairs in the shaping stage, one on top of the
-other, as this made easier the job of fitting the temporary
-battens. The forcing of the ribs to shape also
-served to shape the bark cover, and the canoe was
-placed on horses during the operation, so that the
-shape of the bottom could be observed while the bark
-was being moulded. Some builders used very thin
-longitudinal battens between the bark and the green
-ribs to avoid danger of bursting the bark.</p>
-
-<p>The canoe was built on a level building bed, in
-most instances apparently, with the ends of the building
-frame blocked up about an inch. It seems pos<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span>sible,
-however, that narrow bottom canoes may have
-been built with the bed raised 2 or 3 inches in the
-middle, rather than employing a narrow building
-frame. The construction of the building frame was
-the same as among the western Indians and as
-described in Chapter 3.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i108.jpg" width="700" height="419" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 83</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">St. Francis-Abnaki Canoe for Open Water</span>, a type that became extinct
-before 1890. From Adney's drawings of a canoe formerly in the Museum of
-Natural History, New York. Details of Abnaki canoes are also shown.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In preparing the ribs, a common practice was the
-following: Assume, for example, that there are 10
-ribs from the center to the first thwart forward; these
-are laid out on the ground edge-to-edge with the rib
-under the center thwart to the left and the rib under
-the first thwart to the right. On the rib to the left
-the middle thwart is laid so that its center coincides
-with that of the rib, and the ends of the thwart are
-marked on the rib. The same is done to the rib on
-the far right, over which the first thwart is laid as the
-measure. On each side of the centerline the points
-marking the ends of the thwarts are then joined by a
-line across the ribs, as they lie together, to mark the
-approximate taper of the canoe toward the ends, at
-the turn of the bilge. Each rib is taken in turn from
-the panel and with it is placed another from the stock
-on hand to be set in a matching position on the other
-side of the middle thwart, toward the stern; the pair,
-placed flat sides together, are then bent over the knee
-at, or outside of, the marks or lines. The ribs in the
-next portion of the canoe's length are shaped in the
-same manner, using the lengths of the first and second
-thwarts as guides. Thus, the ribs are given a rough,
-preliminary bend before being fitted inside the bark
-cover and stayed into place to season. This method
-allowed the bilge of the canoe to be rather precisely
-determined and formed during the first stages of
-construction. At the ends, of course, the ribs are
-sharply bent only in the middle. Since the full thwart
-length makes a wide bottom, by setting the length of
-the rib perhaps a hand's width less than that of the
-whole thwart, the narrow bottom is formed.</p>
-
-<p>The rough length of the ribs was twice the length
-of the thwarts nearest them. Hackmatack was used
-for thwarts by the St. Francis Indians, rock maple
-being considered next best. Cedar was first choice for
-ribs, then spruce, and then balsam fir. Longitudinals
-were cedar or spruce. All canoe measurements were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span>
-made by hand, finger, and arm measurements.
-Basket ash strips were often used in transferring
-measurements.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i109a.jpg" width="700" height="297" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 84</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Model of a St. Francis-Abnaki Canoe Under Construction</span>, showing
-method of moulding ribs inside the assembled bark cover.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>From what has been said, it will be seen that the
-construction practice of the St. Francis did not follow
-in all details that of their Malecite relatives. The
-intrusion of western practices into this group probably
-took place some time after the group's final settlement
-at St. Francis. As they gradually came into more
-intimate relations with their western neighbors and
-drifted into western Quebec, beyond the St. Lawrence,
-their canoe building technique became influenced by
-what they saw to the westward. As would be expected,
-the St. Francis Abnaki began early to use nails
-in canoe building, but, being expert workmen, they
-retained the good features of the old sewn construction
-to a marked degree up to the very end of birch-bark
-canoe construction in southern Quebec, probably
-about 1915. It should perhaps be noted that what
-has been discovered about the St. Francis Abnaki
-canoes refers necessarily to only the last half of
-the 19th century, since no earlier canoe of this group
-has been discovered. The changes that took
-place between the decline of the Penobscot style of
-canoe and that of the later Abnaki remain a matter of
-speculation.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i109b.jpg" width="700" height="428" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>s: Figure 85</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">St. Francis-Abnaki Canoe.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span></p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Beothuk</em></h3>
-
-<p>The fourth group of Indians, classed here as
-belonging to the eastern maritime area, are the
-Beothuk of Newfoundland. Historically, perhaps,
-these Indians should have been discussed first, as they
-were probably the first of all North American Indians
-to come into contact with the white man. However,
-so little is known about their canoes that it has seemed
-better to place them last, since practically all that
-can be said is the result of reconstruction, speculation,
-and logic founded upon rather unsatisfactory evidence.
-The tribal origin of the Beothuk has long
-been a matter of argument; they are known to have
-used red pigment on their weapons, equipment,
-clothes, and persons. A prehistoric group that once
-inhabited Maine and the Maritime Provinces appears
-to have had a similar custom; these are known as the
-"Red Paint People," and it may be that the Beothuk
-were a survival of this earlier culture. But all that
-can be said with certainty is that the Beothuk inhabited
-Newfoundland and perhaps some of the Labrador
-coast when the white man began to frequent those
-parts. The Beothuk made a nuisance of themselves
-by stealing gear from the European fishermen, and by
-occasionally murdering individuals or small groups of
-white men. Late in the 17th century, the French
-imported some Micmac warriors and began a war of
-extermination against the Beothuk. By the middle of
-the 18th century the Newfoundland tribe was reduced
-to a few very small groups, and the Beothuk became
-extinct early in the 19th century, before careful
-investigation of their culture could be made.</p>
-
-<p>Their canoes were made to a distinctive model quite
-different from that of the canoes of other North
-American Indians. The descriptions available are far
-from complete and, as a result, many important details
-are left to speculation. Some parts of the more complete
-descriptions are obscure and do not appear to
-agree with one another. In spite of these difficulties,
-however, some information on the canoes is rather
-specific; by using this, together with a knowledge
-of the requirements of birch-bark canoe construction,
-and by reference to some toy canoes found in 1869 in
-the grave of a Beothuk boy, a reasonably accurate
-reconstruction of a canoe is possible.</p>
-
-<p>Captain Richard Whitbourne had come with Sir
-Humphrey Gilbert to Newfoundland in 1580 and
-revisited the island a number of times afterward. In
-1612 he wrote that the Beothuk canoes were shaped
-"like the wherries of the River Thames," apparently
-referring to the humped sheer of both; in the wherry
-the sheer swept up sharply to the height of the oar
-tholes, in profile, and flared outward, in cross section.</p>
-
-<p>John Gay, a member of the Company of Newfoundland
-Plantation, wrote in 1612 that Beothuk
-canoes were about 20 feet long and 4½ feet wide "in
-the middle and aloft," that the ribs were like laths,
-and that the birch-bark cover was sewn with roots.
-The canoes carried four persons and weighed less than
-a hundredweight. They had a short, light staff set in
-each end by which the canoes could be lifted ashore.
-"In the middle the canoa is higher a great deale,
-than at the bowe and quarter." He also says of their
-cross section: "They be all bearing from the keel to
-portlesse, not with any circular, but with a straight,
-line."</p>
-
-<p>Joann de Laet, writing about 1633, speaks of the
-crescent shape of the canoes, of their "sharp keel"
-and need of ballast to keep them upright; he also
-states that the canoes were not over 20 feet long and
-could carry up to five persons.</p>
-
-<p>The most complete description of the Beothuk canoe
-was in the manuscript of Lt. John Cartwright, R.N.,
-who was on the coast of Newfoundland in 1767-1768
-as Lieutenant of H.B.M. Ship <em>Guernsey</em>. However,
-some portions are either in error or the description
-was over-simplified. For example, Cartwright says
-that the gunwales were formed with a distinct angle
-made by joining two lengths of the main gunwale
-members at the elevated middle of the sheer. This
-hardly seems correct since such a connection would
-not produce the rigidity that such structural parts
-require, given the methods used by Indians to build
-bark canoes. The three grave models show that the
-sheer was actually curved along its elevated middle.
-It is possible that Cartwright saw a damaged canoe
-in which the lashings of the scarf of the gunwales
-had slackened so that the line of sheer "broke" there.
-Cartwright is perhaps misleading in his description
-of the rocker of the keel as being "nearly, if not
-exactly, the half of an ellipse, longitudinally divided."
-The models show the keel to have been straight along
-the length of the canoe and turned up sharply at the
-ends to form bow and stern. Cartwright also states
-the keel piece was "about the size of the handle of a
-common hatchet" amidships, or perhaps 1 inch thick
-and 1½ inches wide, and tapered toward the ends,
-which were about ¾ inch wide and about equally
-thick. The height of the sheer amidships was perhaps
-two-thirds the height of the ends.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i111.jpg" width="700" height="266" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 86</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">A 15-Foot Beothuk Canoe of Newfoundland</span> with 42½-inch beam, inside
-measurement, turned on side for use as a camp. It gives headroom clearance
-of about 3 feet, double that of an 18-foot Malecite canoe with high ends. When
-the ends were not high enough to provide maximum clearance, small upright
-sticks were lashed to bow and stern. The shape of the gunwales would permit
-the canoe to be heeled to an angle (more than 35°) which would swamp a
-canoe of ordinary sheer and depth. (<em>Sketch by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Nearly all observers, Cartwright included, noted
-the almost perfect <strong>V</strong>-form cross section of these
-canoes, with the apexes rounded off slightly and
-the wings slightly curved. From an interpretation
-of Cartwright's statements, it appears that after
-the bark cover had been laced to the gunwales, the
-latter were forced apart to insert the thwarts, as
-in some western Indian canoe-building techniques.
-The three thwarts are described as being about two
-fingers in width and depth. It is stated that the
-gunwales were made up of an inner and outer member
-and all were scarfed in the middle to taper each
-way toward the ends, the outer member serving as
-an outwale or guard. Cartwright also states that
-the inside of the bark cover was "lined" with "sticks"
-2 or 3 inches broad, cut flat and thin. He refers also
-to others of the same sort which served as "timbers"
-so he is describing both the sheathing and the ribs as
-being 2 or 3 inches wide. He does not say how the
-thwarts were fitted to the gunwales, how high the
-ends were, how the ends of the gunwales were formed,
-nor does he give any details of the sewing used.
-However, the grave models suggest the form of
-sewing probably used and the approximate proportions
-of sheer.</p>
-
-<p>An old settler told James Howley that the Beothuk
-canoes could be "folded together like a purse."
-Considering the construction required in birch-bark
-canoes, this is manifestly impossible; perhaps what
-the settler had seen was a canoe in construction with
-the bark secured to shaped gunwales, ready for the
-latter to be sprung apart by thwarts, as in opening a
-purse. Howley also obtained from a man who had
-seen Beothuk canoes a sketch which shows a straight
-keel and peaked ends, confirmed in all respects by
-the grave models or toys.</p>
-
-<p>The toy canoes so often referred to here were found
-by Samuel Coffin in an Indian burial cave on a small
-island in Pilley's Tickle, Notre Dame Bay (on the
-east coast of Newfoundland), in 1869. Among the
-graves in the cave, one of a child, evidently a boy,
-was found to contain a wooden image of a boy, toy
-bows and arrows, two toy canoes and a fragment of
-a third, packages of food, and some red ochre.
-With one of the canoes was a fragment of a miniature
-paddle. One of the canoes was 32 inches long,
-height of ends 8 inches, height of side amidships
-6 inches, straight portion of keel 26 inches and beam
-7 inches, as shown by Howley.</p>
-
-<p>In Newfoundland there was very fine birch but no
-cedar. There was, however, excellent spruce which
-would take the place of cedar. It seems certain, then,
-that all the framework of the Beothuk canoes was of
-spruce. It seems likely that they were never built of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span>
-a single sheet of birch but were covered with a number
-of sheets sewn together, as in other early Indian
-birch-bark canoes. The canoe birch of Newfoundland
-grew to a diameter of 2 to 2½ feet at the butt, which
-would produce a sheet of birch of 6 to 7 feet width;
-the length would be decided by how far up the tree
-the Indian could climb to make the upper cut. As
-has been stated, the prehistoric Indians seemingly
-made little attempt to build birch-bark canoes of
-long lengths of bark, preferring to use only the bark
-obtainable near the ground and above the height
-of the winter snows.</p>
-
-<p>The form of the Beothuk canoes, particularly the
-lack of bilge and the marked <strong>V</strong>-form, has caused
-much speculation. One writer assumed that the
-form was particularly suited for running rapids.
-Actually, the Beothuk appeared to have used canoes
-for river travel very rarely, as few rivers in their
-country were suited for navigation. Instead, they
-seem to have been coast dwellers and to have used
-canoes for coastal travel and for voyages from island
-to island.</p>
-
-<p>Their canoes were undoubtedly designed for open-water
-navigation, and the <strong>V</strong>-form was particularly
-suitable for this. The draft aided in keeping the
-canoe on its course with either broadside or quartering
-winds, and if the Beothuks knew sail, the hull-form
-would have served them well. It is quite
-evident that the Beothuk canoes used ballast in the
-form of stones or heavy cargo. Stones would have
-been placed along the keel piece and covered with
-moss and skins. The strongly hogged sheer was
-useful in protecting cargo amidships from spray and,
-in picking up a seal or porpoise, the canoe could be
-sharply heeled without taking in water. The <strong>V</strong>
-sections fore and aft were suitable for rough-water
-navigation; because of its form and the weight of
-ballast, the canoe would pass partly over and through
-the wave-top without pounding. If a wave of such
-height as to overtop the gunwales just abaft the stem
-were met, the strongly flaring sides would give reserve
-buoyancy, causing the canoe to lift quickly as the
-wave reached up the sides.</p>
-
-<p>The small sticks in the ends, mentioned by John
-Gay, served not only for lifting the canoe but also as
-braces to support the canoe at a given angle when
-turned over ashore to serve as a shelter. The Beothuk
-canoe, because of its form, was not well suited for portaging,
-and it must be concluded that little of this was
-done. In coastal voyages, the canoe would be unloaded
-and brought ashore each night to serve as a shelter.</p>
-
-<p>It is believed that the gunwale lashing of these
-canoes was in groups, as in the Malecite. Howley
-questioned an old Micmac who had seen the Beothuk
-lashing; he likened it to the continuous lashing used
-by his own people, indicating some form of group
-wrapping, at least. It is probable that the group
-lashings were let into the gunwales by shallow
-notching at each group, a common Indian practice
-when no rail cap was used, to prevent abrasion from
-the paddle or from loading and unloading the canoe.
-The lacing of the ends appears to have been in the
-common spiral stitch, judging by the grave models.
-These, however, show a continuous wrapping at the
-gunwales, a common simplification found in Indian
-canoe models, representing either group or continuously
-wrapped gunwales indiscriminately.</p>
-
-<p>The paddle of the Beothuks had a long, narrow
-blade, probably with a pointed tip and a ridged
-surface. The shape is nearly spatulate. The handle
-is missing from the grave model but was perhaps of
-the usual "hoe-handled" form without a top cross-grip.</p>
-
-<p>From these descriptions and on the basis of common
-Indian techniques in birch-bark canoe construction,
-the form and methods of building the Beothuk canoe
-can be reconstructed. The drawing on page <a href="#Page_97">97</a> shows
-the probable shape and appearance of the finished
-canoe. It seems likely that a level building bed was
-first prepared. The keel, probably rectangular in
-cross section, was then formed of two poles placed
-butt-to-butt, worked to shape, and scarfed. The
-fastening of the scarf was probably two or more
-lashings let into the surface of the wood. These
-lashings are assumed to have been of split-root
-material but may have been sinew. Possibly to
-strengthen the scarfs, pegs were also used, a technique
-consistent with the state of Beothuk culture.
-The keel probably had its ends split into laminae
-to allow the sharp bend required to form the bow
-and stern pieces; and it was probably treated with
-hot water and staked out to the desired profile.
-The main gunwales were similarly made and worked
-to the predetermined sheer which, in staking out, was
-hogged to a greater degree than was required in the
-finished canoe. The ends of the gunwales were
-apparently split into laminae to allow the shaping
-of the sharp upsweep of the sheer close to bow and
-stern. The outwales were probably formed in the
-same manner, after which the three thwarts were
-made and the material for ribs and sheathing prepared.
-The ribs were apparently bent to the desired<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span>
-shape, using hot water, and were either staked out
-or tied to hold them in form until needed.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i113.jpg" width="700" height="468" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 87</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Beothuk Canoe, Approximate Form and Construction</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The keel was then laid on the bed and a series
-of stakes, perhaps 4½ feet long, were driven into the
-bed on each side of the piece in opposing pairs at
-intervals of perhaps 2 or 3 feet. The stakes and keel
-piece were then removed and the bark cover laid
-over the bed. This may have been in two or three
-lengths, with the edges overlapped so that the
-outside edge of the lap faced away from what was to
-be the stern. The keel was then placed on the bark
-and weighted down with a few stones or lashed at
-the stem heads to the end stakes; then the bark was
-folded up on each side of the keel, and the stakes
-slipped back into their holes in the bed and driven
-solidly into place, perhaps with the tops angled slightly
-outward. The heads were then tied together across
-the work and battens placed along the stakes and the
-outside of the bark to form a "trough" against which
-the cover could be held with horizontal inside battens.
-These were secured by "inside stakes" lashed to each
-outside stake in the manner used in building eastern
-Indian canoes (see p. <a href="#Page_45">45</a>). The bark cover now stood
-on the bed in a sharp <strong>V</strong> form, with the keel supported
-on the bed, the ends of the bark supported by the end
-stakes, and both held down by stones along the length
-of the keel. An alternative would have been to fix
-heavy stakes at the extreme bow and stern of the keel
-and to lash the stem-heads firmly to these in order to
-hold the keel down on the bark.</p>
-
-<p>Next the main gunwales, prebent to the required
-form, were brought to the building bed and their
-ends temporarily lashed to stem and stern. The bark
-was brought up to these, trimmed, folded over their
-tops, and secured by a few temporary lashings. Then
-the outwales were placed outside the bark with their
-ends temporarily secured, and a few pegs were driven
-through outwale, bark, and main gunwales, or a few
-permanent lashings were passed. The bark cover was
-next securely lashed to the gunwales and outwales
-combined, all along the sheer to a point near the
-ends. The excess bark was then trimmed away at
-bow and stern and the cover was laced to the end
-pieces to form bow and stern. This lacing must
-have passed through the laminations of the stem and
-stern pieces in the usual manner, avoiding the spiral<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span>
-lashing that held the laminae together. The ends of
-the gunwales and outwales were next permanently
-lashed together with root or other material and to the
-stem and stern pieces. This done, the gunwales were
-spread apart amidships, pressing the stakes outward
-still more at the tops. At this point the tenons may
-have then been cut in the main gunwales and the
-thwarts inserted. This method, incidentally, was
-used in building some western Indian bark canoes.</p>
-
-<p>The usual steps of completing a birch-bark canoe
-would then follow&mdash;the insertion of sheathing, held
-in place by temporary ribs, and then the driving home
-of the prebent ribs under the main gunwales, with
-their heads in the spaces between the group lashings
-along the gunwales and against the lower outboard
-corner of the main gunwale member, which was probably
-beveled as in the Malecite canoe. The sheathing
-may have been in two or three lengths, except
-close to the gunwale amidships where one length
-would serve. On each side of the keel piece a sheathing
-strake was placed which was thick on the edge
-against the keel but thin along the outboard edge,
-in order to fair the sheathing into the keel piece.</p>
-
-<p>At some point in this process, the bark cover was
-pieced out to make the required width, and gores
-were cut in the usual manner. In spreading the
-gunwales, the bow and stern would have to be freed
-from any stakes, as these would tend to pull inboard
-slightly as the gunwales were spread in the process
-of shaping the hull. The ribs could have been put
-in while green and shaped in the bark cover by use
-of battens and cross braces inside, as were those
-of the St. Francis canoes.</p>
-
-<p>The sewing of the bark cover at panels and gores
-would take place before the sheathing and ribs were
-placed, of course. A 15-foot canoe when completed
-would have a girth amidships of about 65 to 68 inches
-if the beam at the gunwales were 48 inches, and a
-bark cover of this width could be taken from a tree of
-roughly 20 inches in diameter. Hence, there may
-have been little piecing out of the bark for width.
-In the form of the Beothuk canoe as reconstructed
-there is nothing that departs from what is possible by
-the common Indian canoe-building techniques. The
-finished canoe would, in all respects, agree with
-most of the descriptions that have been found and
-would be a practical craft in all the conditions
-under which it would be employed.</p>
-
-<p>These were the only birch-bark canoes supposed to
-have made long runs in the open sea clear of the land.
-In them the Beothuk are supposed to have made voyages
-to the outlying islands, in which runs in open water
-of upward of 60 miles would be necessary, and they
-probably crossed from Newfoundland to Labrador.</p>
-
-<p>The <strong>V</strong>-form used by the Beothuk canoe was the
-most extreme of all birch-bark canoe models in
-North America, although, as has been mentioned, less
-extreme <strong>V</strong>-bottoms were used elsewhere. The Beothuk
-canoe may have been a development of some
-more ancient form of bark sea canoe also related to the
-<strong>V</strong>-bottom canoes of the Passamaquoddy. The most
-marked structural characteristic of the Beothuk canoe
-was the keel; the only other canoe in which a true
-keel was employed was the temporary moosehide
-canoes of the Malecite.</p>
-
-<p>The Beothuk keel piece may have sometimes been
-nearly round in section like the keel of the Malecite
-moosehide canoe (p. <a href="#Page_214">214</a>). The two garboard strakes
-of the sheathing may have been shaped in cross section
-to fair the bark cover from the thin sheathing
-above to the thick keel and at the same time allow
-the ribs to hold the garboards in place. They could,
-in fact, be easily made, since a radial split of a small
-tree would produce clapboard-like cross sections.
-This construction would perhaps comply better with
-Cartwright's description of the keel than that shown
-in the plan on page <a href="#Page_97">97</a>.</p>
-
-<p>The sheer of the Beothuk canoe is an exaggerated
-form of the gunwale shape of the Micmac rough-water
-canoe but this, of course, is no real indication
-of any relationship between the two. Indeed, the
-probable scarfing of the gunwales of the Beothuk
-canoe might be taken as evidence against such a
-theory. On the other hand, the elm-bark and other
-temporary canoes of the Malecite and Iroquois had
-crudely scarfed gunwale members, as did some northwestern
-bark canoes.</p>
-
-<p>Most of the building techniques employed by
-Indians throughout North America are illustrated by
-these eastern bark canoes, yet marked variation in
-construction details existed to the westward, as will
-be seen.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Chapter Five</em><br />
-
-CENTRAL CANADA</h2>
-
-
-<p>The Indians inhabiting central Canada were
-expert builders of birch-bark canoes and produced
-many distinctive types. The area includes not only
-what are now the Provinces of Quebec (including
-Labrador), Ontario, Manitoba, and the eastern
-part of Saskatchewan, but also the neighboring
-northern portions of Michigan, Wisconsin and
-Minnesota in the United States. The migrations of
-tribal groups within this large area in historical times,
-as well as the influence of a long-established fur
-trade, have produced many hybrid forms of bark
-canoes and, in at least a few instances, the transfer
-of a canoe model from one tribal group to another.
-It is this that makes it necessary to examine this
-area as a single geographic unit, although a wide
-variation of tribal forms of bark canoes existed within
-its confines.</p>
-
-<p>The larger portion of the Indians inhabiting this
-area were of the great Algonkian family. In the east
-during the 18th and 19th centuries, however, some
-members of the Iroquois Confederacy were also
-found, and in the west, from at least as early as the
-beginning of the French fur trade, groups of Sioux,
-Dakota, Teton, and Assiniboin. From the fur trade
-as well as from normal migratory movements there
-was much intermingling of the various tribes, and it
-was long the practice in the fur trade, particularly in
-the days of the Hudson's Bay Company, to employ
-eastern Indians as canoemen and as canoe builders
-in the western areas. These apparently introduced
-canoe models into sections where they were formerly
-unknown; as a result, the tribal classification of bark
-canoes within the area under examination cannot be
-very precise and the range of each form cannot be
-stated accurately. It was in this area, too, that the
-historical <i lang="fr">canot du maître</i> (also written <i lang="fr">maître canot</i>), or
-great canoe, of the fur trade was developed.</p>
-
-<p>Most of central Canada, except toward the extreme
-north in Quebec and toward the south below the Great
-Lakes, is in the area where the canoe birch was plentiful
-and of large size. There the numerous inland
-waterways, the Great Lakes, and the coastal waters of
-James and Hudson Bays make water travel convenient,
-and natural conditions require a variety of canoe
-models. Hence, when Europeans first appeared in
-this area they found already in existence a highly
-developed method of canoe transportation. This
-they immediately adopted as their own, and in the
-long period lasting until very recent times, during
-which the development of the northern portion of
-this area was slow, the canoe remained the most
-important means of forest travel.</p>
-
-<p>In the northeastern portion of the area, including
-the Province of Quebec (with Labrador) from a line
-drawn from the head of James Bay eastwardly
-through Lake St. John and the Saguenay River
-Valley to the St. Lawrence and thence northward
-to the treeline in the sub-Arctic, dwelt the eastern
-branch of the far-ranging Cree tribe. Those living
-on the shores of Hudson and James Bays, along the
-west side of the Labrador Peninsula, were known as
-the Eastern, Swamp, or Muskeg Cree. To the north,
-at the Head of Ungava Bay, around Fort Chimo, and
-to the immediate southward, were the Nascapee, or
-Nascopie, supposedly related to the Eastern Cree.
-In southern Labrador and in Quebec along the north
-shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and for some
-distance inland, dwelt another related tribal group
-now known as the Montagnais.</p>
-
-<p>Although the most recent canoe forms employed by
-these three Indian groups were very much the same,
-this may not have been the case earlier. A common
-canoe model in this area was the so-called "crooked
-canoe," in which there was a very marked fore-and-aft
-rocker to the bottom without a corresponding
-amount of sheer; as a result the canoe was much
-deeper amidships than near the ends. Another
-common model had a rather straight bottom fore<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span>
-and aft, with some lift near the ends and a corresponding
-amount of sheer. Between these was a hybrid
-which had some fore-and-aft rocker in the bottom
-and a very moderate sheer. Not until the 1870's
-was any detailed examination made of the canoes in
-this area; then it appeared that the crooked canoe
-might be the tribal model of the eastern Cree only,
-while the Nascapee employed a straight-bottom
-model, but it is possible that the examination was
-limited and that Nascapee use of the crooked canoe
-was simply not observed. By 1900, however, the
-crooked model was in use not only by the eastern
-Cree and the Nascapee but also by the Montagnais.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i116.jpg" width="700" height="274" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 88</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Montagnais Crooked Canoe.</span> (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In the area around Fort Chimo and at the northern
-ranges of the eastern Cree and of the Montagnais
-the lack of good birch bark made it necessary to make
-up the bark cover out of many small pieces. This
-not only was laborious but made a rough and rather
-unsightly cover. Hence, some of the northern
-builders, particularly the Nascapee, substituted spruce
-bark, which was available in quite large sheets.
-The use of the spruce bark, however, did not cause
-any of these people to depart markedly from the model
-or the method of constructing birch-bark canoes,
-as it did for the Indians in the maritime area.</p>
-
-<p>At the time (1908) when Adney was carefully observing
-the canoes in this area he found that both crooked
-and straight-bottom canoes were being used by all
-three tribal groups, but with a variation in midsection
-form among individual builders. Both types were
-built with a midsection that had a wide bottom and
-vertical sides, or, as an alternative, a narrow bottom
-and flaring sides. The end profile of all these canoes
-showed chin. In some crooked canoes the profile was
-apparently an arc of a circle, but in most canoes the
-form was an irregular curve. The stem met the
-gunwale in a marked peak rounded very slightly
-at the head, as the result of the method by which the
-stem was constructed, but in the hybrid model used
-by the Nascapee the ends were low and not much
-peaked and the quick upward rise of the sheer near
-the ends was lacking. In cross section all these
-canoes became <strong>V</strong>-shaped close to the ends, regardless
-of the midsection form. For the straight-bottom
-canoe and in the hybrid form this resulted in very
-sharp level lines, but the very great rocker of the
-crooked canoe brought the ends well above the normal
-line of flotation, so that this type was quite full-ended
-at the level line in spite of the <strong>V</strong>-section.</p>
-
-<p>It is apparent upon examining the crooked canoe
-that there was actually less variation in its form, in
-spite of differences in midsection shape, than in that
-of the straight-bottom canoe, owing to its very great
-depth amidships in proportion to its width. This
-proportion made necessary a very moderate flare in
-the narrow-bottom midsection and resulted in a
-rather wall-sided appearance, even in this model.
-The hybrid form, which fell between the extremes of
-the crooked canoe and the straight-bottom canoe,
-had a narrow-bottomed flaring-sided midsection, and
-its relatively moderate depth made obvious the flare in
-the topsides and thus created a distinctive model.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i117.jpg" width="700" height="253" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 89</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Birch-Bark Crooked Canoe, Ungava Cree.</span> (<em>Smithsonian Institution photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-
-<h3><em>Eastern Cree</em></h3>
-
-<p>The construction of canoes of the eastern Cree
-and related tribes seems generally like that of the
-Micmac craft. Instead of the gunwale method
-employed in the Maritime area, a building frame
-was used, and as a result the gunwales were longer
-than the bottom. In constructing the crooked canoe,
-the building frame must be heavily sheered, and
-there is evidence that the building bed was depressed
-amidships, rather than raised as was usual in the east.
-The great amount of rocker in the bottom in this
-form of Cree canoe made it necessary to block up the
-ends of the building frame to a very great height, and
-there was no need to raise the building bed at midlength,
-since the rocker extended the full length of
-the bottom. The bark cover had to be gored at closely
-spaced intervals to allow the rocker to be formed, and
-even in the straight-bottom model, the quick rise
-of the bottom near the ends required closely spaced
-gores there. In the straight-bottom model, however,
-the building bed was raised at midlength, as in
-eastern canoe-building, and the building frame was
-ballasted to a cupid's-bow profile, when on the bed,
-so as to achieve the combination of straight bottom
-amidships with sharply rising ends.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwales were formed of the main gunwale
-member and a light gunwale cap, no outwale being
-employed. They were joined at the ends and, after
-hot water had been applied, were staked out with
-posts under the ends to obtain the required sheer.
-The thwarts were then tenoned into the main gunwales,
-though occasionally a canoe was built with
-"broken" gunwales, that is, the thwart-ends were let
-flush into the top and covered by the caps. Some
-builders did not spread the gunwales and place the
-thwarts until after the bark cover was lashed at the
-sheer; others used the eastern methods of assembling
-the gunwale structure prior to securing the bark cover
-at sheer. The bark cover was attached to the main
-gunwales with a continuous lashing, as in the Micmac
-canoes, but the bark was not always brought over the
-top of the gunwales. As a result, some canoes had a
-batten placed under the lashing, near the edge of the
-cover, to prevent the lashing from tearing away. Due
-to the lack of good root material, the lashing was often
-of rawhide. For all horizontal seams in the side
-panels of the bark cover, rawhide sewing over a root
-batten was used. The ends of the gunwales were
-supported by sprung headboards; in some canoes
-these were bellied toward the ends to such a degree
-that they almost paralleled the end profiles.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i118a.jpg" width="700" height="429" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 90</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Nascapee 3-Fathom Canoe, Eastern Labrador.</span> Similar canoes, with slight variations in model
-and dimensions, were used by all Ungava Indians: the Montagnais and the Eastern, or Swamp, Crees.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i118b.jpg" width="700" height="397" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 91</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Montagnais 2-Fathom Canoe of Southern Labrador and Quebec</span>, showing old decoration
-forms. Drawing based on small model of a narrow-bottom canoe built for fast paddling.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i119a.jpg" width="700" height="418" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 92</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Crooked Canoe, 2½-Fathom, of the Ungava Peninsula</span>, used by the Ungava-Cree, Montagnais,
-and Nascapee. Also built with a wide bottom and a slight tumble-home in the topsides.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i119b.jpg" width="700" height="471" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 93</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Hybrid Model of the Nascapee-Cree Canoe, 2-Fathom</span>, built of
-spruce or birch bark, with details of canoes and paddles.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The ends were formed by means of the same technique
-used for Micmac canoes; no inside stem-piece
-was employed and the bark cover was stiffened by
-outside battens covered by the lashing. In the Cree
-canoes, however, the stem battens were "broken"
-sharply at the sheer to form a slightly rounded peak
-where the end met the gunwale caps. The "break"
-in the battens was made by bending them very
-sharply, so that they were almost fractured. The Cree
-practice also differed from that of the Micmac,
-although not universally, by passing the lower end of
-the stem batten through the bark cover at the point
-where the stem met the bottom. The slit thus made
-was sealed with gum or, more recently, covered with
-cloth impregnated with gum. The stems were lashed
-in various ways; the most common was a spiral form
-up to the sheer. Near the gunwale caps crossed
-stitches or small, closely spaced wrappings were also
-employed. The tops of the battens, forming the peak
-of the stem, were brought along under the rail caps,
-in line with the gunwale lashings inboard, and secured
-with a continuous lashing for about 6 inches. In the
-northern parts of the area under discussion the stem
-lashing was often of rawhide.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i120.jpg" width="700" height="434" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 94</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Eastern Cree Crooked Canoe</span> of rather moderate sheer and rocker.
-(<em>Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Gunwale caps were wider than the gunwales and
-thus gave some protection to the lashing there. The
-ends of the gunwale caps were heavily tapered to allow
-the sharp bends necessary to carry them out on the
-stems. They were pegged or nailed to the gunwales,
-but at the ends were lashed; usually with two or three
-small group lashings over and under the stem battens,
-below the caps.</p>
-
-<p>The most recent canoes had canvas covers instead
-of bark. Nails, tacks, and twine for sewing were used;
-otherwise they were built as the Indians built birch-
-and spruce-bark craft, and not as white men built
-canvas canoes and boats.</p>
-
-<p>The framework of the canoes was usually spruce or
-larch. Toward the south and along the St. Lawrence
-some white cedar was used, and in the south maple
-was sometimes used for thwarts. The ribs of the
-canoes inspected by Adney were usually about 3
-inches wide, and a short taper brought them to about
-2 inches at the ends, where they were cut square
-across. They were spaced about 1 inch apart edge-to-edge
-amidships and somewhat further apart toward
-the ends of the canoe. The canoes usually had an
-odd number of ribs, as the first was placed under the
-thwart amidships. The last three ribs at the ends
-were "broken" at the centerline to allow them to take
-the necessary <strong>V</strong>-section there; but the fourth rib from
-each end was only sharply bent. In some canoes the
-heel of the very narrow headboard was stepped on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span>
-the sheathing against the endmost rib, in others it was
-stepped, as in the Micmac canoes, on a frog which
-rested against the endmost rib.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i121.jpg" width="700" height="439" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 95</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Straight and Crooked Canoes, Eastern Cree.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In more recent times the sheathing was laid in one
-of two ways, according to the preference of the builder,
-but the existence of the two styles suggests that each
-was once a tribal-group method. One method of
-shaping the bottom sheathing was to employ a center,
-or keelson, piece in two lengths, the butts being overlapped
-amidships, parallel-sided except toward the
-stems, where it was tapered to fit the <strong>V</strong>-sections
-rather closely. The next strake outboard was short
-and was in the form of a shallow triangle with its
-base along the middle portion of the first strakes and
-about one-third the length of the bottom. Its apex
-was under the middle thwart. The next strake outboard
-was in two lengths lapped amidships, parallel
-sided along the arms of the triangular strake, and
-snied off at the ends to fit along the sides of the first
-strake. Another strake outboard of this was similar
-in form and position, but longer. Thus seven strake
-widths would complete the bottom sheathing. The
-side sheathing was narrow and slightly tapered; each
-strake in two lengths overlapped slightly amidships.
-The ends of the topside sheathing ran well into the
-ends, in most canoes, where they apparently served
-as stiffening. The second method of sheathing
-employed parallel-sided strakes throughout, laid side
-by side on the bottom, with the ends snied off to fit
-the form of the bark bottom. The existence of a model
-canoe made about 1850 (see p. <a href="#Page_91">91</a>) supports the
-theory that the first method was originally the Montagnais
-tribal construction and that the more primitive
-second method was probably Cree or Nascapee.</p>
-
-<p>The ribs were preformed and fitted to the canoe
-after drying out. They were bent to the desired shape
-in pairs and tied with a thong across the ends to hold
-their shape while drying. Some builders inserted a
-strut inside the bent ribs, parallel to the thong, protecting
-the surface of the inner rib by a pad of bark
-placed under each end of the strut. The pair of ribs
-might also be wrapped with a bark cord to help hold
-them together. To aid in handling, one pair of ribs
-might be nested inside another. As in eastern canoes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span>
-the ribs under the gunwales were driven into place.
-At the ends they were canted toward the center, so
-that in the straight-bottom models they stood nearly
-perpendicular to the rocker of the bottom there; in
-the crooked canoe the ribs were all somewhat canted
-in this manner.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i122.jpg" width="700" height="291" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 96</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Montagnais Canvas-Covered Crooked Canoe</span> under construction.
-(<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The paddles used in this area were made with
-parallel-sided blades, the end of the blade being
-almost circular. The handle might be fitted with
-a wide grip at the head or it might be pole-ended.
-It is impossible to say how early sails were used to
-propel canoes, but it is probable they were introduced
-by the fur traders. Square sails were being used on
-the coastal canoes at the time the earliest reference
-was made to these canoes, in the 1870's.</p>
-
-<p>Little is known about the decorations employed by
-the eastern Cree. The Montagnais birch-bark model
-canoe of about 1850 (see p. <a href="#Page_91">91</a>) has three small circles
-placed in a triangular position on the bow and a
-band along the bottom of the side panels. The circles
-and the bands are in red paint, but may have been
-intended to represent the dark inner rind left after
-scraping the winter bark cover. The use of decoration
-in this area after 1850 has not been noted in any
-available reference.</p>
-
-<p>As a rule, the straight-bottom canoes were small,
-commonly between 12 and 18 feet overall, and the
-most popular size was 14 to 16 feet overall. A
-canoe of this size was usually employed as a hunters'
-canoe for forest travel, though it might be used
-occasionally along the coasts. These canoes were light
-and, in this respect, resembled the Micmac models
-shown in Chapter 4.</p>
-
-<p>The original purpose of the crooked canoe is in
-question. Those travelers who saw this canoe in
-use on the Hudson Bay side of the Labrador Peninsula
-believed that it was designed for use in rough,
-exposed water. While it would be a desirable form
-for beach work in surf, the high ends would make
-paddling against strong winds very difficult. On the
-other hand the Montagnais used the crooked canoe
-for river navigation, particularly where rapids were
-to be run, and for this work it appears to have been
-well adapted. The crooked canoe was commonly
-built larger than the straight-bottom model, between
-16 and 20 feet in length overall, and was a vessel of
-burden rather than a hunting canoe. Canoes up to 28
-feet in length have been mentioned by travelers in
-this area but investigation indicates strongly that these
-were not the tribal form but the <i lang="fr">canot du nord</i>, or
-north canoe of the Hudson's Bay Company traders.</p>
-
-<p>Along the southern borders of their territory and
-to the westward the eastern Cree often built and used
-canoes modeled on those of their neighbors, the
-Têtes de Boule and the Ojibway. Hence the tribal
-classification does not hold good in these localities.
-Also, the eastern Cree were employed by the Hudson's
-Bay Company as builders of forms of the <i lang="fr">maître canot</i>
-and <i lang="fr">canot du nord</i> that are unlike their typical tribal
-model.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span></p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Têtes de Boule</em></h3>
-
-<p>The Têtes de Boule, particularly the western bands,
-were skilled canoe builders and had long been employed
-by the Hudson's Bay Company in the construction
-of large fur-trade canoes. Apparently made
-up of bands of Indians inhabiting lower Quebec,
-in the basin of the St. Maurice River and on the
-Height of Land, these bands had come down to the
-lower Ottawa River to trade with the local Algonkin
-tribe there in early times. They were known to the
-Algonkins, who had had some contact with civilization,
-as "wild Indians." They also came into
-close trading relations with the French colonists, as
-the Ottawa River was the early French canoe route
-between Montreal and Lake Superior. Because they
-cut their hair short, unlike the other Indians, these
-northern bands were nicknamed "Bull Heads," or
-"Round Heads," by the French traders, and the
-tribesmen soon came to accept this rather than their
-own designation of "White Fish People" as the tribal
-name. In more recent times, the name has been
-applied to groups of Indians living in western Quebec
-Province, near Lake Barrière and Grand Lake Victoria,
-but these do not consider themselves related
-to the St. Maurice bands.</p>
-
-<p>It seems apparent that the canoe models of all
-these groups had been altered as a result of long
-contact with other tribal groups. Although the St.
-Maurice and the western bands were apparently not
-of the same tribal stock, their relations with the
-Algonkin may have brought about the use of a
-standard model by all.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i123a.jpg" width="700" height="555" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 97</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Fiddlehead of Scraped Bark</span> on bow and
-stern of a Montagnais birch-bark canoe at
-Seven Islands, Que., 1915.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i123b.jpg" width="700" height="628" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 98</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Disk of Colored Porcupine Quills</span> decorating
-canoe found at Namaquagon, Que.,
-1898. Within the 4-inch disk may have been
-an 8-pointed star.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The Têtes de Boule lived in an area where very
-superior materials for birch-bark canoe construction
-were plentiful. This, with the need for canoes imposed
-by the numerous waterways and the demand
-for canoes from white traders, made many of the
-tribesmen expert builders. Their small canoes, ranging
-from the 8-to 12-foot hunter's canoes to the 14-to
-16-foot family canoes, were very similar in profile
-to the canoes of the St. Francis Abnaki. The Têtes
-de Boule canoes, however, were commonly narrower
-on the bottom, and in their construction a building
-frame was always used. The Têtes de Boule model
-was straight along the bottom for better than half
-the length and then rose rather quickly toward the
-ends. Similarly, the sheer was moderate amidships
-and increased toward the ends. The stems showed
-a chin and were much peaked at the gunwale ends.
-Most commonly the midsection had a flat bottom
-athwartships and a well-rounded bilge, giving the
-topsides, near the gunwale, a very slight outward
-flare. Some Têtes de Boule canoes had rather <strong>V</strong>-section
-ends in which the endmost rib was "broken"
-at the centerline. As a result the lines were sharp
-and the canoes paddled very easily.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i124.jpg" width="700" height="317" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 99</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">A Fleet of 51 Birch-Bark Canoes</span> of the Têtes de Boule Indians, assembled
-at the Hudson's Bay Company post, Grand Lake Victoria, Procession Sunday,
-August 1895. (<em>Photo, Post-Factor L. A. Christopherson.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>For construction of the Têtes de Boule canoe, which
-was marked by good structural design and neat workmanship,
-the building bed was slightly raised at midlength,
-as was the general practice of the St. Francis
-builders. The building frame was usually about 6
-inches less in width amidships, inside to inside, than
-were the gunwales, and from 15 to 18 inches shorter.
-The building frame was made quite sharp toward the
-ends so that, viewed from above, it rather approached
-a diamond form; this produced the very sharp lines
-that are to be seen in many examples of the Têtes de
-Boule canoes. The building frame was of course
-removed from the canoe as soon as the gunwales were
-in place and the bark cover lashed to them.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwale structure, comprised of main gunwale
-members, caps, and outwales, was the same as in the
-Malecite canoes. The main gunwales were rectangular
-in cross-section, some being almost square, with
-the lower outboard corner bevelled off. Compared
-to those of eastern canoes of equal length, the main
-gunwales were unusually light; their depth and width
-rarely exceeded 1 inch, and in very small hunter's
-canoes these were often only about ¾ inch. Toward
-the ends, they tapered to ½ inch, or even slightly
-less. The ends of the main gunwales, usually of
-the common half-arrowhead form, were held together
-by rawhide or root thongs passed back and forth
-through horizontal holes in the members. After
-being thus lashed together, they were securely
-wrapped with thongs which usually went over gunwales
-and outwales and through the bark cover.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwale caps, also light, were usually between
-¼ and ½ inch thick and from 1 to 1½ inches wide. At
-the ends they were tapered in width and thickness,
-often to <sup>3</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> by ½ inch, so as to follow the quickly rising
-sheer there. The ends of the gunwales, caps, and outwales
-required hot-water treatment to obtain the
-required curve of the sheer. The caps were pegged to
-the gunwales and were secured at each end with two
-or three groups of lashings which passed around the
-outwales as well, and through the bark cover.</p>
-
-<p>The outwales were likewise light battens between
-¼ and ½ inch thick and from ¾ to 1¼ inches deep, the
-depth near the ends being tapered to ⅜ to ¾ inch so as
-to sheer correctly.</p>
-
-<p>The bark cover had four or five vertical gores on
-each side of the middle thwart, the gore nearest each
-stem being commonly well inboard of the end thwarts.
-The side panels were usually deep amidships and
-narrowed toward the ends. A root batten was used
-under the stitching of the longitudinal seams of the
-side panels, which were sewn with a harness-maker's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span>
-stitch. The top edge of the bark cover was brought
-over the top of the main gunwales, as in the Malecite
-canoes, and was secured by group wrappings passing
-over the gunwales and outwales, under the caps.
-These groups were not independent, the root thong
-being carried from group to group outside the bark in
-a long pass under the outwales. The groups of seven
-to nine turns were roughly an inch apart in many
-small canoes, and perhaps 1½ inches in the large craft.
-In the last birch-bark canoes in which no nails or
-tacks were used, wrappings of root thongs began with
-a stop knot, but this does not appear to have been
-the earlier practice.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i125.jpg" width="700" height="272" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 100</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Têtes de Boule Canoe.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The Têtes de Boule canoes had inside stem-pieces
-split, according to the size of the canoe, in four to six
-laminations and lashed with a bark or root thong
-in an open spiral in some canoes but close-wrapped in
-others. The stem-piece was as in the Malecite canoes,
-except that it ended under the rail cap, and did not
-pass through it as in the Eastern canoes; the heel was
-notched to receive the heel of the headboard. The
-bark was usually lashed through the stem, as in the
-Malecite construction. However, in some Têtes de
-Boule canoes, the stem close to the heel was not
-laminated and the bark was lashed to the solid part
-by an in-and-out stitch passing through closely spaced
-holes drilled in the stem piece. Above this, the lashing
-was the usual spiral which, in at least a few instances,
-was passed through the bark just inboard of the stem
-piece. Near the top of the stem the lashings sometimes
-were rather widely spaced and passed inboard
-of the stem-pieces; at other times, however, these
-lashings were more closely spaced and passed through
-the stem.</p>
-
-<p>Ordinarily, at the ends of the canoe no <em>wulegessis</em>, or
-covers of bark, were used under the gunwale caps,
-although in one example examined a small cover had
-been inserted over the gunwale ends and under the
-caps, it did not extend below the outwales to form a
-<em>wulegessis</em>. In some canoes the bark cover was pieced
-up at the peak of the stems by a panel whose bottom
-faired into the bottom of the side panels.</p>
-
-<p>A variety of methods was used to fit the gunwale
-caps at the ends of the canoe. Some builders carried
-the cap out beyond the gunwale ends, flat, over the
-edges of the bark cover and the top face of the outwale,
-but others tilted the cap outboard and downward.
-The ends of the caps came flush with the face
-of the stems. In an apparently late variation, the
-gunwales, instead of ending in the half-arrowhead,
-were snied off the inside and a triangular block was
-inserted between the ends. The gunwales were then
-pegged or nailed to the block and the whole secured
-with a root wrapping around them, before the outwales
-were in place. The first turn began by passing
-the root through a hole in the block near its inboard
-end, with a stop knot in the root.</p>
-
-<p>The ends of the gunwales were supported by a
-narrow headboard sharply bellied toward the end of
-the canoe. The top of the headboard was notched to
-stand under the main gunwales; the center portion
-often was carried high and ended with a cylindrical<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span>
-top that was slightly swelled like the handle of a gouge
-or chisel. The heel was sometimes held in the stem-piece
-notch with a root lashing.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i126.jpg" width="700" height="320" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 101</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Têtes de Boule Canoes.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The thwarts, spaced equal distances apart, were
-tenoned into the gunwales as in the old Malecite
-canoes, and were secured with a peg and lashing
-through the two holes in the thwart ends. The
-middle thwart was usually formed with a shoulder,
-viewed in plan, that started 6 or 7 inches inboard of
-the inside face of the main gunwale. In form, this
-thwart usually swelled outward in a straight line from
-the tenon shoulder, then reduced in a curved line to
-about the width of the tenon tongue and, finally,
-increased again in a right-angle cut to the greatest
-width. From here it was reduced again in a long
-curve to the canoe's center line. The other thwarts
-usually had simple ends, wide at the tenon shoulder
-and reduced in a long curve to a narrow center. In
-elevation, all the thwarts were thin outboard and
-thick at the centerline of the canoe. The cross
-section of the center thwart at the centerline was
-square or nearly so, the first thwart on each side was
-rectangular in cross section at the center, and the end
-thwarts were similar, but very thin.</p>
-
-<p>The sheathing of the Têtes de Boule canoes was thin,
-particularly at the ends of the strakes. The bottom
-was laid with a parallel-sided center strake going
-in first. This strake was in two lengths in a small
-canoe and three lengths in a large, the butts overlapping
-slightly. The rest of the strakes in the bottom
-were tapered toward the ends of the canoe. At the
-extremities of the canoe, the narrow ends of the strakes
-were very thin and overlapped along their edges, the
-bottom sheathing, when in place, thus following the
-diamond form of the building frame. The topside
-sheathing was laid up in short lengths with overlapping
-butts and edges in an irregular plan, those
-strakes along the bilges being longer than above.
-Toward the ends of the canoe these strakes were
-slightly tapered and the edges were very thin. The
-sheathing ended irregularly, outboard of the headboards,
-in narrow butts as in most eastern canoes.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i127a.jpg" width="700" height="450" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 102</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Têtes de Boule Hunting Canoe, 1½-Fathom</span>, with typical construction details and a paddle.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i127b.jpg" width="700" height="424" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 103</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Têtes de Boule Canoe, 2½-Fathom</span>, with some construction details.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The ribs, like the rest of the structure, were very
-light, usually ¼ to ⅜ inch thick and from about
-1¼ to 1¾ inches wide, depending upon the size of the
-canoe. A few examples had ribs 2 inches wide, and
-still fewer had ribs up to 2½ inches wide. The spacing
-was usually close, somewhat more than an inch edge
-to edge amidships and a little more between the end
-thwarts and the headboards. The spacing amidships
-would average perhaps 3¼ inches, center to center.
-The ends of the ribs, in the last 2 or 3 inches, were
-reduced in width very sharply in a hollow, curved
-taper to ½ to ¾ inch wide, and were usually beveled
-on the inside edge. The thickness was also reduced
-by a cut on the inside, so that the ends were chisel-pointed
-with a short bevel on the inboard side.
-The rib ends were forced between the main gunwales
-and the bark cover, coming home in the bevel of
-the lower outboard edge of the main gunwales between
-the group lashings of the bark cover as in the
-Malecite canoes. The ribs were not prebent but
-were placed in the canoe when green, treated with
-hot water, and then allowed to dry into place. In preparing
-the rib, it was first bent over the knee. It was
-the custom of some builders to place under the building
-frame the ribs that were to go near the ends of
-the canoe, and to mark the point where they would be
-bent. Sometimes the endmost ribs that were to be
-"broken" at the centerline to form the <strong>V</strong>-section were
-split edgewise. A piece of the inner lamina was then
-cut out to one side of the center so that the inner
-laminae would lie flat against each other, and to
-prevent the inner half from buckling the rib was
-wrapped with a thong to one side of the "break."</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i128.jpg" width="700" height="449" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 104</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Têtes de Boule Hunting Canoe, 2-Fathom</span>, with wide bottom, showing
-structural details.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>It does not appear to have been the common practice
-of the Têtes de Boule to decorate their small
-canoes, though when building for white men they
-would decorate if the buyer requested it.</p>
-
-<p>The paddles used by the Têtes de Boule were somewhat
-like those of the eastern Cree but the blade was
-slightly wider near the tip than near the handle. The
-top grip was formed wide and thin, the taper from the
-lower grip to the upper one often being very long.
-The paddles were usually of white birch, but maple
-was used in a few of the examples examined.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwales, outwales, and caps of the Têtes de
-Boule canoes were usually of spruce; the ribs and stem
-pieces, white cedar; the thwarts, white birch; the
-headboards, white cedar in all but one of the canoes
-inspected (in this, birch had been used). Jack pine
-was used also for thwarts, and cedar was sometimes
-used for the gunwale members; as would be expected,
-the builders used the materials that were at hand
-near the building sites.</p>
-
-<p>Têtes de Boule fur-trade canoes, like those of the
-eastern Cree, appear to have had no relationship
-to the smaller tribal types, since they were constructed
-under supervision of white men. They will be discussed
-as a group on page <a href="#Page_135">135</a>.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span></p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Algonkin</em></h3>
-
-<p>The Algonkins were a tribe residing on the Ottawa
-River and its tributaries, in what are now the provinces
-of Quebec and Ontario, when the French first
-met them. They appear to have been a large and
-powerful tribe and were apparently competent
-builders and users of birch-bark canoes. They were
-not the same tribe as the Ottawa, who controlled the
-Lake Huron end of the canoe route between Montreal
-and Lake Superior, by way of the Ottawa River.
-These Ottawa were related to the Ojibway tribe and
-received their name from the French, who gave the
-name <em>Outaouais</em>, or "Ottaway," to all Indians, except
-the Hurons, who came from the west by way of the
-Ottawa. The Algonkins, because of their location,
-were much influenced by the French fur trade.
-Early in the 18th century they intermingled with
-certain Iroquois whom they allowed to settle with
-them, near Montreal, at the Lake of Two Mountains,
-later Oka. Thence they gradually spread out and
-lost tribal unity, until only small groups were left.
-These lived on the Golden Lake Algonkin Reserve,
-Bonshere River, Ontario; at Oka, Quebec; and elsewhere
-in western Quebec and eastern Ontario. It is
-possible that they were the first to build fur-trade
-canoes for the French, but evidence to support such a
-claim with any certainty is lacking.</p>
-
-<p>Due to intermixing with other tribal groups and to
-the influence of the fur trade, in which they were long
-employed as canoe men and builders, the Algonkins
-no longer used a single tribal model of canoe. However,
-one of their models, which had high ends
-resembling those of the large fur-trade canoe, may
-have been the tribal type from which the fur-trade
-canoe was developed, as will be seen.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i129.jpg" width="700" height="285" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 105</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Old Algonkin Canoe.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The high-ended model, the oldest form known to
-have been used by this tribe, was narrow-bottomed,
-with flaring sides. The canoes seen were built with
-careful workmanship and in the old manner, without
-iron fastenings. They were light and easily paddled,
-yet would carry a heavy load. The ends were sharp at
-the line of flotation. The bottom was straight to a
-point near the ends, where it lifted somewhat. The
-sheer was rather straight over the middle portion of
-the canoe, then lifted slightly until close to the
-stem, where it rose sharply, becoming almost perpendicular
-at the ends of the rail caps. The midsection
-was slightly rounded across the bottom, with a well-rounded
-bilge and a gently flaring topside. The cross-section
-became <strong>V</strong>-shaped close to the headboards.
-The most marked feature in the appearance of this
-canoe was the profile of the ends. The stem line,
-beginning with a slight angle where it joined the
-bottom, bent outward in a gentle curve, reaching the
-perpendicular at a point a little more than half the
-height of the end, and from there it tumbled home
-slightly. In most of the canoes examined the top of
-the stem then rounded inboard in a quick, hard curve,
-usually almost half a circle, so that the stem was
-turned downward as it joined the outwale and gun<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span>wale
-cap. In a variation of this stem form, the top of
-the stem was cut off almost square, forming a straight
-line that ran parallel to the rise of the bottom below
-the stems to the point where it would meet the upturned
-outwale and cap. The ends of the outwales
-and caps were thus 3 or 4 inches inboard of the
-extremities. This form of stem, particularly when
-to top was rounded in a half-circle, approached the
-basic form of the ends of the fur-trade canoe.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i130.jpg" width="700" height="458" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 106</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Old Model, Ottawa River, Algonkin Canoe</span>, combining capacity with
-easy paddling qualities.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>All the examples of this form of canoe that were
-examined were small, from 14 to a little over 16 feet
-in length overall, but this is not proof that larger
-canoes of this type had not existed earlier.</p>
-
-<p>The later and more common form of Algonkin
-canoe was the <em>wabinaki chiman</em>. A corruption of
-Abnaki, <em>wabinaki</em> to the later Algonkin meant the
-Malecite as well as the St. Francis Indians. The
-<em>wabinaki chiman</em> was built in lengths from 12 to 18 feet.</p>
-
-<p>Iroquois living in the Algonkin territory during
-the period built this form of canoe as well as the older,
-high-ended form. The <em>wabinaki chiman</em> was very
-much like the St. Francis and Malecite canoes in
-appearance, but it was not an exact copy. The
-Algonkin version was commonly a narrow-bottom
-canoe with flaring topsides. There was some variation
-in the end profiles; most had the rather high,
-peaked ends of the St. Francis canoe. The sheer was
-rather straight until near the end, where it rose rapidly
-to the stem. The stem was rounded and was faired
-into the bottom. The top of the stem was often
-rather straight and tumbled home slightly, but on
-some it raked outward, much as did the stem of some
-Malecite canoes.</p>
-
-<p>Another form of Algonkin canoe had a low sheer
-with only a slight lift toward the ends. In this canoe
-the stem might have a short, hard curve at the heel
-and an upper portion that was quite straight and
-slightly tumbled home; or the full height might be
-well rounded, with a slight tumble-home near the
-stem head.</p>
-
-<p>In appearance these canoes were very like the
-straight-stem Malecite models. The <em>wabinaki chiman</em><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span>
-was unquestionably copied from the eastern canoes
-that came into popularity among the Algonkin late
-in the 19th century, when white sportsmen were demanding
-canoes of the St. Francis and Malecite
-models. However, the Algonkin canoes differed
-somewhat from the eastern canoes not only in model
-but also in methods of construction.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 690px;">
-<img src="images/i131.jpg" width="690" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 107</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Algonkin and Ojibway Stem-Pieces</span>, models of old forms made by Adney:
-1, 2, 3, Ojibway; 4, 5, 6, 7, Algonkin.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Algonkins used the same construction methods in
-both their canoe models, though the framework was
-not alike in all respects. The building frame was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span>
-always used. For a 2-or 2½-fathom canoe this was
-made of two strips of cedar, 1½ inches wide and ¾
-inch deep, that were bent edgewise, notched, and tied
-together at the ends with thongs of the inner bark of
-the basswood. These strips were held apart in the
-required shape by cedar crosspieces 1 inch wide and
-1¾ inches deep, with the ends notched ¾ inch deep
-(the depth of the longitudinals) and the tops well
-rounded. The crosspieces, five in all, were fastened
-to the longitudinals with thongs passing through holes
-in the ends. The middle one was about 19½ inches
-between the inside faces of the longitudinals, those
-on each side of it were about 15½ inches long by
-similar measure, and the end ones were nearly 6
-inches long and were located a foot or so from the
-extremities of the longitudinals. The outside width
-of the building frame amidships would thus be about
-22½ or 23 inches.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i132.jpg" width="700" height="406" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 108</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Light, Fast 2-Fathom Hunting Canoe</span> of the old Algonkin model.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The building bed was level, with a 6-inch-wide
-board, some 6 to 8 feet in length, sunk into the earth
-flush with the surface to insure a true line for the
-bottom. The outside stakes were of the usual sort
-described in building the Malecite canoe (pp. <a href="#Page_40">40</a>-41).
-The wedge-shaped inside stakes, or clamp pieces,
-were 1½ inches wide, 1 inch thick, and 20 to 25 inches
-long. The posts for setting the height of the gunwales
-at the ends and at the crosspieces were not cut off
-square at the top as for the Malecite canoe, but were
-notched on the outside to take the gunwales. The
-heights of the posts were graduated, of course, to form
-the required sheer in the gunwales. Like the canoes
-of the Têtes de Boule, these of the Algonkin were
-generally less deep amidships than the general run of
-eastern canoes.</p>
-
-<p>Building procedure was as follows: The gunwales
-were made, bent, and the ends fastened, but instead of
-being mortised and fitted with thwarts, they were
-spread by temporary crosspieces, or "spalls," made
-of a splint, or plank-on-edge, with the lower edge
-notched in two places to take the gunwale members.
-Sometimes the spalls were lashed, pegged or nailed to
-the gunwales as well. The stakes were set along the
-building frame and these were generally driven
-sloping, so that their heads stood outboard of the
-points. They were then pulled and laid aside, the
-building frame was removed, and the bark cover
-placed on the building bed. After the building
-frame has been reset in its original position and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span>
-bark cover turned up along the sides, the stakes were
-again driven in their holes. The cover was then
-pieced out with side panels as necessary and gored,
-and longitudinal strips of wood were set in place
-by means of the clamp pieces, about as in Malecite
-construction. The gunwales were then placed on
-the posts, which had been set to the required sheer,
-and the bark trimmed and fitted to them. The
-old method was to lash the bark to the main gunwale
-members and to peg on the outwales at intervals
-of about a foot. In earlier times most builders
-inserted along the gunwales an extra reinforcing
-strip of bark extending a little below the outwales,
-as in the St. Francis canoes, but in the nailed-and-tacked
-bark canoes built during the decadent period
-this was sometimes omitted.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i133.jpg" width="700" height="448" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 109</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Hybrid Algonkin Canoes</span>: Eastern 2½ fathom (above) and northeastern
-2-fathom adaptation, with sketches of stems used in each.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Mortises for the thwarts were next cut and the
-middle thwart was forced into place, after the spall
-there had been removed. This required that the
-gunwales be spread slightly, thus increasing the
-amount of sheer somewhat. Much judgment was
-needed to do this correctly. The increase in the
-sheer lifted the ends slightly and put some rocker in
-the bottom toward the ends. The building frame was
-lifted out before the rest of the thwarts were placed;
-usually it was taken apart in the process. In forming
-the ends of the bark cover, the two sides were held
-together by a clothespin-like device made of two
-short, flat sticks lashed together.</p>
-
-<p>Increasing the beam at the gunwales by fitting
-the thwarts after the bark cover had been secured to
-the gunwales not only increased the sheer but decreased
-the depth of the canoe amidships as established
-by the posts placed under the gunwales in setting up.
-In order to retain the required sheer and the desired
-depth of side, the gunwales had been sheered up at the
-ends while being shaped, and had also been treated
-with hot water and hogged upward amidships by
-being staked out to dry into shape. The spreading of
-the gunwales tended to lift the ends of the bottom line,
-a condition that was controlled in two ways: the
-usual one apparently was to employ, in combination<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span>
-with a level bed, a building frame slightly wider than
-was desired for the finished bottom; the second way
-was to follow Malecite procedure and elevate slightly
-the middle of the building bed while employing a
-building frame the width of the finished bottom.
-The Algonkin procedure of spreading the gunwales
-during construction was that employed in the northwest
-and in the building of the fur-trade canoes, as
-will be seen. The amount of spread to be given the
-gunwales also affected the angle, or slope, at which
-the side stakes were driven on the building bed.
-Even so, some builders who spread the gunwales
-a good deal would set the stakes almost vertically,
-instead of at a slant, as this made sewing the side
-panels easier, particularly in large canoes and in
-canoes whose covers were made up of a large number
-of small pieces of bark.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i134.jpg" width="700" height="437" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 110</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Algonkin, 2-Fathom Hunter's Canoe</span>, without headboards. Details of building
-frame, stakes or posts, gauge, and stem.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The gunwales of the Algonkin canoes were made up
-of three members&mdash;main gunwales, outwales, and
-caps. The main gunwales, usually of cedar, were
-rectangular in cross section and bent on the flat. The
-lower outboard corner was bevelled off to take the rib
-ends, as in the Malecite canoes. The gunwales were
-rather light ranging in the examples found from about
-1 inch square to 1 by 1⅝ inches, the ends being tapered
-to a lesser size. The outwales were light battens,
-rectangular in cross-section, about as deep as the
-main gunwales and about two-thirds their thickness
-or less; they tapered in depth toward the ends to
-⅜ or ½ inch in order to follow the sheer, while the
-thickness might be constant or only slightly reduced.
-The caps, which were pegged to the gunwales, were
-also light and were about equal to the combined
-width of the main gunwales and outwales and had
-a depth of about ⅜ to ½ inch amidships. At the ends
-they were tapered in both width and depth, becoming
-½ inch wide and ⅜ inch deep. The amount of taper
-in the ends of the gunwale members depended upon
-the form of sheer; the Algonkin practice in the old
-form of canoe was to sheer the outwales and caps to
-the top of the stem, while the gunwales sheered less
-and met the sides of the stem piece at a lower point,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span>
-as in the drawing (p. <a href="#Page_116">116</a>). In the <em>wabinaki chiman</em>,
-however, the gunwales and other members, as a rule,
-all followed the sheer of the ends of the canoe.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i135.jpg" width="700" height="177" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 111</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Algonkin Canoe, Old Type.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The Algonkins used inside stem-pieces in both
-models, but the stem-piece of the old high-ended
-canoe was quite different from that of the <em>wabinaki
-chiman</em>, for it was built to give a profile in which the
-top of the high stem ended in a line straight across to
-the sheer. The piece consisted of a crooked stick,
-without lamination, worked out of a thin board, ⅜
-to ½ inch thick. It was shaped to the desired profile
-inside and out, and was slightly sharpened, or sometimes
-rabbeted and sharpened, toward the outboard
-face. The headboard was mounted on this stem-piece
-by means of the usual notch but was not
-bellied; instead it stood approximately vertical and
-a short strut was tenoned into both the headboard
-and the inside face of the stem at a point about half
-the height of the stem. Sometimes two struts were
-used, side by side, with the outboard ends lashed at
-the sides of the stem. Thus the stem-pieces and headboards
-were placed as a single unit, not independently
-as in eastern canoes. The gunwale ends were
-lashed to the sides of the stem-piece, between the strut
-and the stem-head, at a height determined by the
-sheering of the main gunwale members. The outwales
-and caps did not touch the stem-piece, ending with
-a nearly vertical upward sweep, a few inches inboard.
-The ends of the outwales and caps were always higher
-than the top of the stem-piece so that, when the canoe
-was turned upside down, the bark cover over the stem-head
-was kept off the ground and thus preserved from
-damage. The top of the stem-piece was held rigid
-not only by the strut to the headboard but also by the
-ends of the main gunwale members lashed to it a
-little higher up. The headboard was in the form of
-a rounded <strong>V</strong> that was widest at midheight, at the
-gunwales, which were let into its sides.</p>
-
-<p>When the stem-head was rounded in the style of the
-fur-trade canoe, the stem-piece except near the heel
-was split into very thin laminations about <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> inch,
-or a little more, thick. The carefully selected cedar
-of which these were made was treated with boiling
-water, then bent to profile; the head was sharply bent
-over and down, inside the stem, then sharply up again
-so the end stood at about right angles to the face of
-the stem at midheight. The headboard was mounted
-as previously described, except that the end of the
-stem-piece was inserted into a hole in the headboard
-just above the strut. The laminations of the stem-piece
-were wrapped in the normal manner and the
-lashing was often brought around the strut as well,
-up against the outboard face of the headboard.
-The whole structure was thus made rigid and very
-strong. As in the other form, the main gunwale
-members did not follow the sheer near the ends of
-canoe but were secured at a point lower down on
-the sides of the stem-piece. In the round-head form,
-however, the outwale and cap ends were fastened on
-the after face of the stem-head where the laminations
-were curved downward as illustrated in the drawing
-(p. <a href="#Page_116">116</a>).</p>
-
-<p>The headboards for both models were thicker than
-those in the eastern canoes; this aided in holding
-the stem line in form. Tension on the bark cover
-was obtained by making the cover <strong>V</strong>-formed toward
-the ends and then spreading the sides of the <strong>V</strong> with
-the headboard, thus bringing pressure on the strakes
-of the sheathing and forcing the sides outward in a
-slight curve.</p>
-
-<p>The stem-pieces of the <em>wabinaki chiman</em> were either
-cut out of a thin board or laminated. In the straight-stem
-form, only the forefoot part was laminated, and
-no headboard was used. Ordinarily, however, the
-rigid headboard with a single strut was used. The
-head of the stem-piece was carried through the rail<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span>
-caps and showed above them; the ends of the caps
-and main gunwales were notched to permit this, but
-neither these nor the cap extended outboard of the
-face of the stem.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i136.jpg" width="700" height="361" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 112</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Algonkin "Wabinaki Chiman."</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The bark cover was lashed to the gunwales with
-group lashings in which the thong was carried from
-group to group by a long stitch outside the cover,
-under the outwale. The turns in each group were
-passed through five or six holes in the cover and reinforcing
-piece, two turns of the thong going through
-each hole. The connecting stitch between groups,
-which were usually about 1½ inches apart, usually
-passed from the last hole in a group to the second hole
-in the next. Some builders laid a wooden measuring
-stick along the gunwales to space the lashings;
-this was perhaps the practice of many tribal groups.</p>
-
-<p>The lashing of the ends of the cover was passed
-through the stem pieces; when the latter were not
-laminated, holes through the soft, thin cedar were
-made by a sharp awl and an in-and-out or harness
-stitch was quite commonly used. On laminated stem
-pieces the form of lashing varied; in the <em>wabinaki
-chiman</em> it was commonly some combination of spiral
-and crossed turns; in the old form of high-ended canoe
-multiple turns through a single hole (usually at the
-top of the stem-head) were also used in combination
-with closely spaced long-and-short turns in triangular
-groups near the top of the stem profile. Below, in
-the forefoot, spiral or crossed stitches were used. The
-ends of the outwales were lashed together with a
-close wrapping of turns in contact where they turned
-upward sharply, and the caps were secured there by
-two or more group lashings. The head of the headboard
-was lashed to each gunwale by passing the
-thong through holes each side of the headboard; these
-lashings were in a long group and were passed around
-gunwale and outwale before the caps were in place.
-With plank stem-pieces the ends of the bark cover
-were slightly inboard of the cutwater line, sometimes
-protected by a rabbet.</p>
-
-<p>The side panels were sewn on with in-and-out
-stitches, back stitches, or a double line of either. The
-gores were sewn spirally in the usual manner or were
-stitched with a closely spaced lacing.</p>
-
-<p>Some of the old Algonkin canoes examined had what
-appeared to be a <em>wulegessis</em> just outboard of the headboards.
-No marking was found on these and they
-were too far aft to protect the ends of the gunwales.
-The bark was carried across the gunwales, under the
-caps, and hung down a little below the outwales. On
-top, it reached from the headboard out to the lashings
-of the outwales, forming between the headboards
-and the lashings a short deck that may have been
-intended to keep dirt and water out of the ends of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span>
-canoe. Sometimes a modern <em>wabinaki chiman</em> has a
-<em>wulegessis</em>, copying the Eastern practice but without
-markings.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 667px;">
-<img src="images/i137a.jpg" width="667" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 113</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Algonkin Canoe Decorations</span> by Tommy Sersin (or Serzia),
-Golden Lake, Ont., showing four sides of stems of one canoe.
-Indian shown has the eastern headdress rather than that of the
-Plains Indian. Moose, bear, beaver, and goose are shown.
-(<em>Sketches by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The thwarts were of various designs; a common one
-had parallel sides in plan. The old canoes had thwarts
-much like those of the Têtes de Boule. The end
-lashings of these were usually passed through three
-holes in the thwart ends, but some had only two holes.</p>
-
-<p>Sheathing was laid somewhat as in the Têtes-de-Boule
-canoe, with overlapping edges and butts. The
-end sheathing was short and was laid first; the centerline
-strake was parallel-sided to a point near the sharp
-end of the canoe. The strakes on each side of it were
-tapered and were laid with their wide ends toward
-the middle of the canoe and with the sides and narrow
-end lapped. In the middle of the canoe the strakes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span>
-were parallel-sided and their butts were on top of
-those of the strakes in the end of the canoe. The
-sheathing was carried up to within about three inches
-of the gunwales. The edges were not thinned or
-feathered as much as were those in the Têtes de Boule
-canoe.</p>
-
-<p>Ribs were of cedar from 2 to 3 inches wide, closely
-spaced and, as usual, without taper until near the ends,
-which were formed with a narrow chisel edge as in the
-Têtes-de-Boule canoe. The ribs were first roughly
-bent, using the building frame as a general guide for
-length, in order to obtain a somewhat dish-shaped
-cross section; by this means the width of the bottom
-could be established to the builder's satisfaction.</p>
-
-<p>The foregoing description of building methods and
-construction is based largely upon what is known of
-the old canoes. In later times the Algonkin copied
-the eastern canoes and their procedure altered. Not
-only did they copy extensively the appearance of the
-St. Francis and Malecite canoes, but they built some
-canoes much like those of the Têtes de Boule and
-Ojibway. As a result, it has become difficult to
-determine what their tribal practices were.</p>
-
-<p>Their paddles were of the same design as those of
-the Têtes de Boule, round-pointed and with the blade
-parallel-sided for most of its length. In portaging,
-the Algonkin, like many forest Indians, placed a pair
-of paddles a foot or so apart fore-and-aft over the
-middle thwart and those on each side of it. These
-were lashed in place with the ends of a band of hide
-or the inner bark of a tree like the basswood or elm.
-This band had been first passed around the ends of the
-middle thwart, outside the shoulders, and hitched with
-ends long enough to secure the paddles in place.
-The shoulder on the middle, thwart, a few inches inside
-the gunwales, was placed there for just this purpose,
-not as a mere decoration, so that the line could
-not slide in along the thwart. The canoe was then
-lifted and turned over by raising one end, or by
-lifting the whole canoe, and was placed on the carrier's
-shoulders, so that the paddle handles were on
-his shoulders. This brought the middle thwart to
-just behind the carrier's head. The loop of the bark
-or hide cord was then placed around the forehead of
-the carrier in order to keep the canoe from slipping
-backward. In this fashion one man could carry a
-canoe for miles if the canoe were small&mdash;and all woods,
-or portage, canoes were small and light. The headband
-was known to white men as a "tump line." The
-Indians used it to carry not only canoes but other
-heavy or awkward loads (see p. <a href="#Page_25">25</a>).</p>
-
-<p>There is no certainty about the decorations of
-Algonkin canoes. Some of the older Indians claimed
-that the old form of canoe was often decorated with
-figures formed by scraping the winter bark; usually
-these depicted the game the owner hunted. Five-pointed
-stars, fish, and circular forms are known to
-have been used on the <em>wabinaki chiman</em>, but it is not
-known whether these were really Algonkin decorations
-or merely something that had been copied
-"because it looked good."</p>
-
-<p>The Algonkin called the large fur canoes <em>nabiska</em>,
-a name which the Têtes de Boule rendered as <em>rabeska</em>.
-The word may be a corruption of the Cree word for
-"strong." At any rate, the name <em>rabeska</em> (sometimes
-pronounced ra-bas-ha), rather than the French
-maître canot, was long applied by white men in the
-fur trade to the large canoes built in the Ottawa
-River Valley for their business. In late years the
-rabeska was a "large" 2½-fathom high-ended birch-bark
-canoe, but originally it meant a fur-trade canoe,
-with the characteristic ends, of from 3 fathoms upward
-in length.</p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Ojibway</em></h3>
-
-<p>The Indian bands that were called "<em>Outaouais</em>" by
-the early French do not appear to have been an
-independent tribe, as has been mentioned, but were
-largely made up of Ojibway from the Great Lakes
-region. Perhaps some Têtes de Boule were among
-these bands before these people were given their nickname.
-The Ojibway were a powerful tribal group,
-made up of far-ranging bands, located all around
-Lake Superior and to the northwest as far as Lake
-Winnipeg. They had been in the process of taking
-over the western end of Lake Superior when the
-earliest French explorers reached that area; they
-pushed the Sioux from these forest lands into the
-plains area, joining with the western Cree in this
-movement. In the process they seem to have absorbed
-both some Sioux and some Cree bands.
-Within the Ojibway tribal group, later called Chippewa
-or Chippeway by the English and Americans,
-the bands had local names, or were given nicknames,
-such as the Menominee, Saltreaux, Pillagers, etc.
-All the important bands within the tribal group were
-expert canoemen and builders. As far as can be
-discovered now, the Ojibway added to their own tribal
-types the models of canoes they encountered in their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span>
-expansion westward. It has long been true that the
-Ojibway canoe can be one of at least three forms,
-depending upon which area of their territory is being
-discussed.</p>
-
-<p>What is believed to be their old tribal form was a
-high-ended canoe in all respects very much like the
-high-ended Algonkin type. This was the model used
-by the Lake Nipigon Ojibway, north of Lake Superior
-in Ontario, and by those of the same tribe that once
-lived near Saginaw, Michigan, as well as by the
-Menominee of Wisconsin. At the late period, from
-the middle of the 19th century onward, for which
-information was available or in which investigation
-was possible, it appears that the Ojibway canoes of
-this high-ended model were built in larger sizes than
-contemporary Algonkin canoes of like design. The
-Ojibway canoes had the same end structure as these;
-the early examples found had "chin" in the end profiles
-and the tumble-home of the stem was straight,
-or nearly so, between the large curve of the forefoot
-and the very short hard curve at the stem head. The
-Ojibway used the same inner stem-piece, laminated
-and brought downward abaft the stem-head and
-then inboard so that the end fitted into a slot in the
-headboard a little above its midheight, at which
-point was fitted a strut from the headboard to the
-back of the stem-piece. The midsection of the
-Ojibway canoe was very much like that of the
-Algonkin; it had a narrow bottom somewhat rounded
-athwartships, a well-rounded bilge, and flaring
-topsides.</p>
-
-<p>A small Ojibway portage canoe built in the middle
-of the 19th century had an end profile somewhat
-different from that described above; the ends were
-well rounded and had a heavy chin, the stem was
-carried into the tumble-home with a full rounded
-curve all the way to the stem-head, where the stem
-piece was bent in and downward very sharply and
-then inboard sharply again, so that the end pierced
-the vertical headboard at sheer height. The <strong>S</strong>-curve
-was so located that the main gunwales could be
-lashed to the stem piece at the point where they
-paralleled it well below the stem head. In these
-canoes the Ojibway followed Algonkin practice in
-ending the gunwales; there was, therefore, no strut.
-Where this canoe was built is uncertain.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i139.jpg" width="700" height="421" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 114</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Ojibway 2-Fathom Hunter's Canoe</span>, used by the eastern tribal groups.
-Probably the ancient model.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i140a.jpg" width="700" height="435" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 115</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Examples of the Old Model Ojibway 3-Fathom</span> rice-harvesting canoe (above), and
-2-fathom hunter's canoe, showing the easy paddling form used.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i140b.jpg" width="700" height="438" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 116</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Ojibway 3-Fathom Freight Canoe From Lake Timagami</span>, apparently a hybrid based on canvas canoes.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i141.jpg" width="700" height="424" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 117</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">The Old Form of Ojibway 2½-Fathom Canoe</span> of the eastern groups (above),
-and the long-nose Cree-Ojibway canoe of the western groups.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>At Lake Timagami, north of Georgian Bay in
-Ontario, the Ojibway used a low-ended canoe with
-a remarkably straight tumble-home stem profile; the
-forefoot had a very short radius ending at the bottom
-line with a knuckle, and the stem-head stood slightly
-above the gunwale caps. The stem-piece was made
-from a thin plank cut to profile; thus no lamination
-was necessary. The headboard stood straight, falling
-inboard slightly at the head. The midsection was
-dish-shaped, with a flat bottom athwartships and
-strongly flaring sides, the turn of the bilge being rather
-abrupt. The ends were strongly <strong>V</strong>-shaped in cross-section;
-a number of the frames there being "broken"
-at the centerline of the bottom. A canoe of this design
-was seen by Adney at North Bay, Ontario, in 1925,
-indicating that the design may have been used in
-some degree outside the Lake area in later years.</p>
-
-<p>The most common Ojibway model used to the
-northwest and west of Lake Superior was the so-called
-"long-nose" form, a rather straight-sheered canoe.
-The bottom, near the ends, had a slight rocker, and
-the sheer turned up very sharply there, becoming
-almost perpendicular at the extremities, yet the ends
-were not proportionally very high. The end-profile
-came up from the bottom very full and round, then
-fell sharply inboard in a slightly rounded sweep to
-join the upturned sheer well inboard. The midsection
-was somewhat dish-shaped, but with well-rounded
-bilges, so that the flare of the topsides was rounded
-and not very apparent to the casual observer. The
-end section developed into a tumble-home form, so
-that a section through the top of the headboard
-was rather oval. As a result, these canoes appeared
-rather clumsy and unfair in their lines, but this
-apparently did not harm their paddling qualities or
-seaworthiness.</p>
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span></p>
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i142a.jpg" width="700" height="342" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 118</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Eastern Ojibway Canoe, Old Form.</span> (<em>Canadian Pacific Railway photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i142b.jpg" width="700" height="446" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 119</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Ojibway Long-Nose Canoe, Rainy Lake District.</span></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>These canoes had narrow headboards that were
-sharply bellied, somewhat like those in the crooked
-canoes, and the belly was sufficient to allow the heel
-of the end-board to pass under the bottom sheathing
-and inside the bark cover so that two end ribs served
-to hold the heel in place. The inside stem-piece was
-often no more than a light stick or rod bent to profile,
-with the head split and brought over the gunwale ends
-and down inside, between them. Each half of the
-split was then lashed to its neighboring gunwale
-member. A strip of bark was often placed over the
-end of the bark cover and carried down the face of the
-stem, under the sewing. The rail caps were then
-brought up over the tops of the gunwales and overlapped
-the top portion of the stem piece. The heel
-of the stem-piece was bevelled off on the inboard side
-so that it could be wedged under the headboard, inside
-the bark cover. These headboards, it should be
-noted, were no more than a thin, narrow batten, and
-in some canoes the head of this batten was lashed
-under the gunwale ends instead of coming up between
-them inboard, as usual. A variation in the fitting of
-the stem head was found in a canoe at Long Lake,
-Ontario; the stem head, instead of being split, was
-lashed between the gunwale ends and thus was brought
-inboard level with the top of the gunwales.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i143.jpg" width="700" height="435" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 120</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Small Ojibway Canoes of the Two Tribal Forms</span> showing (above) early
-trend toward the long nose form, and the final Ojibway-Cree hybrid form
-combining flaring sides amidships with tumble-home sections at ends.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The cross section of the main gunwales was round
-or nearly so in nearly all long-nose canoes, and often a
-gunwale cap was fitted. The bark cover was secured
-to the gunwales by a continuous lashing, but in at
-least one example, from Minnesota, the gunwale
-wrappings were in groups over an outwale after the
-regular fashion to the eastward. The ends of the
-thwarts were wedge-or chisel-shaped and instead of
-being tenoned were forced into splits in the round
-gunwales. Many canoes had bark covers at the gunwale
-ends and vestiges of the <em>wulegessis</em> were to be seen.</p>
-
-<p>All Ojibway canoes were built with a building frame,
-the bed being slightly higher at midlength than at the
-ends. The stakes were driven nearly perpendicular,
-instead of with heads slanted outward. It is apparent
-from observed examples that some canoes were built
-by the same procedure as the Algonkin, but that not
-all the long-nose canoes were built by spreading the
-gunwales; some were built using the methods of the
-St. Francis.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 121</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Ojibway Canoe Building,
-Lac Seul, 1918.</span></p>
-
-<p>(See pp. <a href="#Page_170">170</a>-171 for more
-photos of Ojibway canoe
-building.)</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i144a.jpg" width="700" height="424" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Preparing a building site or
-bed; building frame in place.</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i144b.jpg" width="700" height="407" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Bark set up; bark staked out
-on building bed.</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i144c.jpg" width="700" height="417" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Bark cover being sewn on building
-bed.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span></p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i145a.jpg" width="700" height="406" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Gunwales being lashed.</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i145b.jpg" width="700" height="412" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Securing gunwales.</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i145c.jpg" width="700" height="420" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Pitch being applied to seams.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i146.jpg" width="700" height="240" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 122</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Long Lake Ojibway Long-Nose Canoe.</span> (<em>Canadian Geological Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The lashing in the high-ended Ojibway canoes was
-about the same as that in the Algonkin canoes, but in
-the long-nose type the workmanship was often coarse.
-On many of the latter the stems were lashed by use of
-small groups in which two turns were taken through
-each of two closely spaced holes in the bark and the
-connection between the groups was made by a long
-spiral around the outside of the stem. This pattern
-was carried down from the stem-head to about the
-level of the midship sheer height; from there down
-around the forefoot the lashing consisted of a simple
-spiral. Another style was to use widely spaced groups
-made up of two or three turns through a pair of facing
-holes in the bark, one on each side and inboard of the
-stem. The turn went around the stem, and the last
-connected with the next pair of holes below. A few
-canoes of this style used closely spaced wrapping, as
-in the high-ended canoes.</p>
-
-<p>The long-nose Ojibway canoe is surprisingly
-primitive by comparison with the graceful and well-finished
-high-ended model built after the Algonkin
-style. Adney believed that the long-nose type originated
-with the Sioux Dakotas, before the combined
-Ojibway and Cree movement forced them out of the
-forest lands to the west of Lake Superior. He considered
-it possible that both the Ojibway and Cree
-adapted the Dakota model, modifying it somewhat to
-their methods of construction. It is true that the
-western Cree built a long-nose canoe, but it had less
-chin than the Ojibway model. On the other hand,
-the Ojibway prebent ribs in pairs like the eastern
-Cree, and used spreaders in the end ribs while drying
-them, in exactly the same manner. A picture taken
-in 1916 shows the gunwales of a Cree long-nose canoe
-being set; it was laid on the ground and weighted
-along the midlength by stones laid on boards placed
-across the longitudinals. The ends had been sheered
-up and were supported at each end by a thong made
-fast to the gunwale end and then brought over a post,
-or strut, a few feet inboard and made fast to the
-middle thwart.</p>
-
-<p>It is unnecessary to detail the construction of the
-Ojibway canoes, as they employed a building-frame,
-as the drawings on pages <a href="#Page_123">123</a> to 127 show plainly enough
-the pertinent details of fitting and construction. It is
-important to observe that the wide variation in model
-and in construction details of the Ojibway canoes
-produced a variety of building procedures that in the
-main were like those of the Algonkin and Cree.
-Hence the older tribal method of construction cannot
-now be stated with any accuracy.</p>
-
-<p>The paddle forms used by the Ojibway groups
-varied somewhat. Most were made with parallel-sided
-blades and oval tips. The hand grip at the top
-of the handle was rectangular and was large in comparison
-to the grip of the eastern Cree paddles. A
-few variations have been noticed; the blade of one was
-widest at the top, the tip was almost squared off, and
-the upper hand grip was much as in the factory paddle
-of today. This paddle, from an unknown locality,
-was used in 1849.</p>
-
-<p>As in the case of the Algonkin, the eastern Ojibway
-built fur-trade canoes under supervision. Though
-these canoes differed somewhat from those built by
-the Algonkins, it is now impossible to say whether<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span>
-or not there was any real relationship between them
-and the small, high-ended "old-form" canoe. Likewise,
-the Ojibway built a version of the <em>wabinaki chiman</em>
-which seems to have influenced some types of their
-own, such as, for instance, the straight-stem Lake
-Temagami canoe.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i147.jpg" width="700" height="537" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 123</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Nineteen-Foot Ojibway Canoe</span> with thirteen Indians aboard (1913).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span></p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Western Cree</em></h3>
-
-<p>The western portion of the great Cree tribe appear
-to have occupied the western shore of James Bay and
-to have moved gradually northwestward in historical
-times. Their territory included the northern portion
-of Ontario and northern Manitoba north of Lake
-Winnipeg, and as early as 1800 they had entered
-northwestern Alberta. The line of division between
-the canoes of the eastern and western Cree cannot be
-strictly determined, but it is roughly the Missinaibi
-River, which, with the Abitibi River, empties into
-the head of James Bay at the old post of Moose
-Factory. The southern range of the Cree model
-was only a little way south of the head of James Bay,
-irregularly westward in line with Lake St. Joseph to
-Lake Winnipeg. To the west, the Cree type of canoe
-gradually spread until it met the canoe forms of the
-Athabascan in the Northwest Territories, in the
-vicinity of Lake Athabaska in northwestern Saskatchewan.</p>
-
-<p>The canoes of the western Cree, as has been noted,
-strongly resembled the long-nose Ojibway model
-except that they had less pronounced chin. But
-unlike those of the eastern Cree, their canoes employed
-an inside stem-piece that was sometimes a laminated
-piece and sometimes a piece of spruce root. The
-stem head was commonly bent sharply and secured
-between the gunwale ends at the point where the two
-longitudinals were fastened together, much as in some
-Ojibway long-nose canoes. The Cree canoe had
-basically the same dish-shaped midsection, but it had
-very full, round bilges and the flare was so curved in
-the topside that it was even less apparent than in the
-Ojibway model. The shorter chin of the Cree canoe
-also made tumble-home in the end sections unnecessary,
-and cross section near the headboards was
-given the form of a slightly rounded <strong>U</strong>.</p>
-
-<p>The bottom had very little rocker at the ends,
-being straight for practically the whole length. The
-stem-piece if laminated (often in only two or three
-laminations) came up from the bottom in a fair round
-forefoot and then tumbled in by a gentle curve to the
-stem-head, where it was bent sharply to pass down
-between the gunwale ends as previously noted. But
-if the stem-piece was of spruce root, the profile was
-often somewhat irregular and the chin was more
-pronounced. In a common style the stem came fair
-out of the bottom in a quick hard curve, then curved
-outward slightly until the height of the least freeboard
-amidships was reached, at which height another hard
-turn began the tumble-home in a gentle sweep to the
-stem-head, where there was a very hard turn downward.
-The stem-head was often split, as in some
-Ojibway canoes, so that it came over the joined ends
-of the main gunwales and the two halves were then
-lashed to the inside faces of the gunwales.</p>
-
-<p>Birch bark was often poor or scarce in the territory
-of the western Cree, as in that of their eastern brothers.
-As a substitute, they employed spruce bark and in
-general seem to have achieved better results, for
-their spruce-bark canoes had a neater appearance.
-If the canoe was built when or where root material
-was difficult to obtain, the western Cree used rawhide
-for sewing the bark cover. When the stems
-were lashed with rawhide, a stem-band of bark under
-the lashing was common.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwales were round in cross section and were
-often spliced amidships. The bark cover was lashed
-to these with a continuous lashing, no caps or outwales
-being employed. As in the Ojibway long-nose
-canoe, the headboards were very narrow and much
-bellied. These canoes were built with four or five
-thwarts; the 4-thwart type was used for gathering
-wild rice, as was the Ojibway type, while the 5-thwart
-canoe was the portage model. The thwarts were
-sometimes mortised into the gunwales, but some
-builders made the thwart ends chisel-pointed and
-drove them into short splits in the gunwales before
-lashing them, one or two holes being drilled in the
-thwart ends to take the lashing thongs. When the
-thwarts were tenoned into the gunwales, the builders
-of course made the inside of the gunwales flat.</p>
-
-<p>When spruce bark was employed, its greater stiffness
-made it possible to space the ribs as much as
-10 inches on centers, but with birch the spacing was
-about 1 inch, edge to edge. The sheathing was in
-short splints and the inside of the canoe was "shingled"
-or covered irregularly without regard to lining off
-the strakes, a practice sometimes observed in Ojibway
-long-nose canoes. The much-bellied and narrow
-headboards were fitted as in the long-nose canoe, and
-the heel was secured under a piece of sheathing and
-held by it and the first two ribs.</p>
-
-<p>Western Cree canoes were built with a building
-frame, and the bed was raised in the middle. The
-sewing varied. The ends were lashed with combinations
-of close-wrapped turns, crossed turns, grouped,
-and spiral turns; the lashing commonly went around
-the inside stem piece rather than through it. Side<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span>
-panels were sewn with in-and-out stitches or back
-stitches, and the gores with the usual spiral. Gumming
-as a rule was done with clear spruce gum tempered
-by repeated meltings.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i149.jpg" width="700" height="429" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 124</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Western Cree 2½-Fathom Canoe</span>, Winisk River District, northwest of James
-Bay. Built of either birch or spruce bark. Inside root stem piece, round
-gunwales, and much-bellied headboard are typical.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The woodwork varied with the building site; some
-builders could use much cedar, but spruce was most
-common and the thwarts were usually of birch. When
-spruce bark was used it was never employed in a single
-large sheet, since it would have been impossible to
-mold it to the required shape. Hence the bark cover
-was pieced up, whether birch or spruce, as an aid in
-molding the form. Before the spruce bark was sewed
-and gummed, the edges of the pieces had to be thinned
-to make a neat joint. Furthermore, in the continuous
-lashing it was desirable to take two or three turns
-through one hole in the bark cover to avoid weakening
-the material with closely spaced holes.</p>
-
-<p>The western Cree paddles had parallel-sided blades
-with rounded tips; the handle sometimes had a ball-shaped
-top grip and sometimes it was pole-ended.
-The blade did not have a ridge on its face near the
-handle. Old Cree paddles were often decorated with
-red pigment bands, markings in the shape of crosses,
-squares in series, and dots on the blades; the top
-grip might also be painted.</p>
-
-<p>Many tribal groups in the western portion of the
-area have been mentioned&mdash;Teton, Sioux, Assiniboine,
-Illinois, Huron, and many others&mdash;but no
-record of their canoe forms has survived and the
-assigning of any model to them is pure speculation.
-The fur trade alone brought about a period of tribal
-movement among the Indians long enough to erase
-many tribal distinctions in canoes and to cause types
-to move great distances.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i150.jpg" width="700" height="316" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 125</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">An Old 6-Fathom Fur-Trade Canoe</span>, or "rabeska," used on the Montreal-Great Lakes run.
-Also called the Iroquois canoe, it approximates the canoes built for the French, at the Trois
-Rivières, Que., factory and is of the style used by the North West and Hudson's Bay Companies.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span></p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Fur-Trade Canoes</em></h3>
-
-<p>Of all birch-bark canoe forms, the most famous
-were the <i lang="fr">canots du maître</i>, or <i lang="fr">maître canots</i> (also called
-north canoes, great canoes, or <em>rabeskas</em>), of the great
-fur companies of Canada. These large canoes were
-developed early, as we have seen in the French
-colonial records, and remained a vital part of the fur
-trade until well toward the very end of the 19th
-century&mdash;two hundred years of use and development
-at the very least. A comprehensive history of the
-Canadian and American fur trade is yet to be written;
-when one appears it will show that the fur trade could
-not have existed on a large scale without the great
-<i lang="fr">maître canot</i> of birch bark. It will also have to show
-that the early exploration of the north country was
-largely made possible by this carrier. In fact, the
-great canoes of the Canadian fur trade must be
-looked upon as the national watercraft type, historically,
-of Canada and far more representative of the
-great years of national expansion than the wagon,
-truck, locomotive, or steamship.</p>
-
-<p>Little has survived concerning the form and construction
-of the early French-colonial fur-trade canoes.
-Circumstantial evidence leads to the conclusion
-that the model was a development, an enlargement
-perhaps, of the Algonkin form of high-ended canoe as
-described on pages <a href="#Page_113">113</a> to 116. The early French came
-into contact with these tribesmen before they met
-the Great Lakes Ojibway, the other builders of the
-high-ended model. It is known that the Indians
-first supplied large canoes to the French governmental
-and church authorities and that when this source of
-canoes proved insufficient, the canoe factory at
-Trois Rivières was set up and a standard size (probably
-a standard model as well) came into existence. As
-the fur trade expanded, large canoes may well have
-been built elsewhere by the early French; we know at
-least that building spread westward and northward
-after Canada became a British possession.</p>
-
-<p>In the rise of the great canoe of the fur trade, the
-basic model was no doubt maintained through the
-method of training its builders. The first French
-engaged in bark-canoe building learned the techniques,
-let us say, from the original Indian builders,
-the Algonkin. As building moved westward, the
-first men sent to the new posts to build canoes apparently
-came from the French-operated canoe
-factory. It would be reasonable to expect that as
-building increased in the west, local modifications
-would be patterned on canoes from around the building
-post, but that the basic model would remain. This
-may account for the departures from the true Ojibway-Algonkin
-canoes seen in the <i lang="fr">maître canots</i>.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i151.jpg" width="700" height="311" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 126</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Inboard Profile of a 6-Fathom Fur-Trade Canoe</span>, and details of construction,
-fitting, and decoration.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i152.jpg" width="700" height="371" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 127</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Small 3-Fathom North Canoe</span> of the Têtes de Boule
-model. Built in the 19th century for fast travel, this
-Hudson's Bay Company canoe was also called nadowé
-chiman, or Iroquois canoe.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In model, all the fur-trade canoes had narrow
-bottoms, flaring topsides, and sharp ends. The flaring
-sides were rather straight in section and the bottom
-nearly flat athwartships. The bottom had a moderate
-rocker very close to the ends. In nearly all of these
-canoes, the main gunwales were sheered up only
-slightly at the ends and were secured to the sides
-of the inner stem-piece; the outwales and caps,
-however, were strongly sheered up to the top of the
-stem. The curvature and form of the ends, in later
-years at least, varied with the place of building.</p>
-
-<p>After the English took control of Canada and the
-fur trade, a large number of Iroquois removed into
-Quebec and were employed by the English fur traders
-as canoemen and as canoe builders. Though the
-aboriginal Iroquois were not birch-bark canoe
-builders, they apparently became so after they reached
-Canada, for the fur-trade canoes built on the Ottawa
-River and tributaries by the Algonkins and their
-neighbors became known after 1820 as <em>nadowé chiman</em>
-or <em>adowe chiman</em>, names which mean Iroquois canoe.
-These "Iroquois canoes," however, were not a
-standard form. Those built by the Algonkin had
-relatively upright stem profiles, giving them a rather
-long bottom, and the outwales and caps stood almost
-vertical at the stem-heads; in contrast, the "Iroquois
-canoes" built by the Têtes de Boule had a proportionally
-shorter bottom than those of the Algonkin,
-because the end profiles were cut under more at the
-forefoot. Also, the outwales and caps of the Têtes de
-Boule canoes were not sheered quite as much as were
-those of the Algonkin.</p>
-
-<p>It is supposed that the Têtes de Boule were taught
-to build this model by Iroquois, who had replaced
-the French builders subsequent to the closing of the
-canoe factory at Trois Rivières, sometime about 1820.
-After the English took possession of Canada in 1763,
-the old canoe factory had been maintained by the
-Montreal traders (the "North West Company"), and
-it was not until these traders were absorbed by the
-Hudson's Bay Company that canoe manufacture at
-Trois Rivières finally came to a halt, although it is
-probable that the production of canoes there had
-become limited by shortages of bark and other suitable
-materials. However, the North West Company had
-built the large trading canoes elsewhere, for many of
-its posts had found it necessary to construct canoes
-locally, and when the Hudson's Bay Company finally
-took over the fur trade it continued the policy of
-building the canoes at various posts where material
-and builders could be found. This policy appears to
-have produced in the fur-trade canoe model a third
-variant in which the high ends were much rounded at
-the stem head; this was the form built by the Ojibway
-and Cree (see p. <a href="#Page_139">139</a>). It must be noted, however,
-that the variation in the three forms of fur-trade canoe
-was expressed almost entirely in the form and framing
-of the ends; the lines were all about the same, though<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span>
-small variations in sheer, rocker, and midsection
-must have existed.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i153.jpg" width="700" height="512" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 128</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Models of Fur-Trade Canoes</span>, top to bottom: 2½-fathom Ottawa River
-Algonkin canoe, Hudson's Bay Company express canoe, 3½-fathom Têtes de
-Boule "Iroquois" canoe, 3¾-fathom Lake Timagami canoe, 5-fathom fur-trade
-canoe of early type, and 5-fathom Hudson's Bay Company canoe built in
-northwestern Quebec Province.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Although no regulations appear to have been set
-up by the fur companies to govern the size, model,
-construction or finish of these canoes, custom and
-the requirements of usage appear to have been satisfactory
-guides, having been established by practical
-experience. As a result, the length of canoes varied
-and the classification by "fathoms" or feet must be
-accepted as no more than approximate.</p>
-
-<p>The form of the canoe was determined by the use to
-which it was to be put, in trade or in travel. Fur-trade
-accounts often mention the "light canoe," or
-<i lang="fr">canot léger</i>, often misspelled in various ways in early
-English accounts, and this class of canoe was always
-mentioned where speed was necessary. Commonly,
-the light canoe was merely a trade canoe lightly
-burdened. Due to the narrow bottom of these canoes,
-they became long and narrow on the waterline when
-not heavily loaded and so could be paddled very
-rapidly. It is true, however, that some "express
-canoes" were built for fast paddling. These were
-merely the common trade models with less beam than
-usual at gunwale and across the bottom. Some posts
-made a specialty of building such canoes, often handsomely
-painted, for the use of officials of the company,
-or of the church or government, during "inspection"
-trips. Not all of the highly finished canoes were of
-the narrow form, however, as some were built wide
-for capacity rather than for high speed.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i154.jpg" width="700" height="341" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 129</p>
-
-<p>"<span class="smcap">Fur-Trade Maître Canot With Passengers.</span>" From an oil painting by
-Hopkins (<em>Public Archives of Canada photo</em>).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The fur traders used not only the so-called fur-trade
-canoes, of course, but they employed various Indian
-types when small canoes were required. And in
-the construction of the high-ended fur-trade models,
-they did not limit themselves to canoes of relatively
-great length. Each "canoe road" forming the main
-lines of travel in the old fur-trade had requirements
-that affected the size of the canoes employed on it.
-The largest size of fur-trade canoe, the standard
-5½-fathom (bottom length), was employed only
-on the Montreal-Great Lakes route, in the days
-before this run was taken over by bateaux, schooners,
-sloops, and later, by steamers. At the western end of
-this route, a smaller 4-or 4½-fathom canoe came
-into use. The latter was used on the long run into
-the northwest. Even smaller canoes were often
-employed by the northern posts; the 3-or 3½-fathom
-sizes were popular where the canoe routes were
-very difficult to operate. For use on some of the
-large northern lakes, the large canoes of the Montreal-Great
-Lakes run were introduced. Fur coming east
-from the Athabasca might thus be transported in
-canoes of varying size along the way.</p>
-
-<p>In judging the size of the canoe mentioned in a fur-trader's
-journal, it is often very difficult to be certain
-whether the measurement he is employing is bottom
-or gunwale length. In the largest canoes, however,
-the 5½-fathom bottom-length was the 6-fathom gunwale
-length, and the use of either usually, but not
-always, indicates the method of measurement. This
-is not the case in the small canoe however, where the
-matter must too often be left to guesswork. To give
-the reader a more precise idea of the sizes of the
-canoes last employed in the fur trade, the following
-will serve. The <i lang="fr">maître canot</i> of the Montreal-Great
-Lakes run was commonly about 36 feet overall, or
-about 32 feet 9 inches over the gunwales, and a little
-over 32 feet on the bottom. The beam at gunwale
-was roughly 66 inches (inside the gunwales) or about
-68-70 inches extreme beam. The width of the building
-frame that formed the bottom would be somewhere
-around 42 inches. The depth amidships, from bottom
-to top of gunwale might be approximately 30-32
-inches and the height of the stems roughly 54 inches.
-These dimensions might be best described as average,
-since canoes with gunwale length given as 6 fathoms
-were built a number of inches wider or narrower,
-and deeper or shallower. The earlier fur-trade
-canoes of the French and of the North West Company,
-for example, were apparently narrower than the
-above.</p>
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span></p>
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i155a.jpg" width="700" height="345" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 130</p>
-
-<p>"<span class="smcap">Bivouac in Expedition in Hudson's Bay Canoe.</span>" From an oil painting by
-Hopkins (<em>Public Archives of Canada photo</em>).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i155b.jpg" width="700" height="353" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 131</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Ojibway 3-Fathom Fur-Trade Canoe</span>, a cargo-carrying type, marked by
-cut-under end profiles, that was built as late as 1894.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i156.jpg" width="700" height="340" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 132</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">This Type of 5-Fathom Fur-Trade Canoe</span> was built at L. A. Christopherson's
-Hudson's Bay Company posts at Grand Lake Victoria, Lake Barrière, and Lake
-Abitibi. Called the Ottawa River canoe by fur-traders, it was used for fast
-travel and shows the upright stems of the northwest Quebec Algonkin.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The 5-fathom size that replaced the larger canoe
-at the close of the bark-canoe period was about 31
-feet long over the gunwales or 30 feet 8 inches in a
-straight line from tip of upturned rail cap at one
-stem to the other. The beam inside the gunwales
-was 60 inches. The width of the building frame
-would be between 40 and 45 inches, and the frame
-when formed would be about 26 feet 8 inches long.
-The depth of the canoe amidships, from bottom to
-top of gunwale, was approximate 30 inches and the
-height of the stems about 50 inches. The overall
-length of such a canoe was about 34 feet 4 inches.
-An express canoe of this size would be about 56 inches
-beam inside the gunwales or even somewhat less, and
-the depth amidships about 28 inches or a little less.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i157.jpg" width="700" height="416" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 133</p>
-
-<p>"<span class="smcap">Hudson's Bay Canoe Running the Rapids.</span>" From an oil painting by
-Hopkins (<em>Public Archives of Canada photo</em>).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>A 4-fathom canoe measured 26 feet 8 inches over
-the tips of the upturned rail caps, and 29 feet 11 inches
-overall. The beam amidships was 57 inches inside
-the gunwales and the depth amidships to top of gunwales
-was 26 inches; the height of the stem was 53
-inches.</p>
-
-<p>A 3-fathom canoe was 19 feet 2 inches overall,
-16 feet 8 inches over the ends of the gunwale caps,
-42 inches beam amidships inside of gunwales, the
-depth of the canoe from bottom to top of gunwale
-amidships was 19 inches, and the height of the ends
-was 38 inches. The building frame for this canoe
-was 15 feet 8 inches long and 27 inches wide.</p>
-
-<p>The canoes falling between the even-fathom measurements
-were often of about the same dimensions
-as the even-fathom size next below; a 3½-fathom
-canoe would have nearly the same breadth and depth
-as a 3-fathom; only the length was increased. The
-half-fathom rarely measured that&mdash;a canoe rated as
-3½ fathom was actually only 20 feet 5 inches overall.
-One express canoe rated 3½ fathoms measured 20 feet
-1 inch overall, 18 feet 3 inches over the gunwale caps,
-44 inches beam inside gunwales amidships, and 21
-inches deep, bottom to top of gunwale cap. The
-height of the ends was 39 inches. This example will
-serve to indicate how inexact the fathom classification
-really was. It should also be noted that the height
-of the ends varied a good deal in any given range of
-length, as this dimension was determined not by the
-length of the canoe but by the judgment and taste
-of the builder and his tribal form of end. Generally,
-however, small canoes had relatively higher ends than<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span>
-large canoes, in proportion to length, because, as will
-be remembered, one function of the end was to hold
-the upended canoe far enough off the ground to
-permit the user to seek shelter under it.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i158.jpg" width="700" height="419" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 134</p>
-
-<p>"<span class="smcap">Repairing the Canoe.</span>" From an oil painting by Hopkins (<em>Public Archives
-of Canada photo</em>).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Extremes of dimension appear to have been rare in
-fur-trade canoes; none whose length overall exceeded
-37 feet have been found in the records, and the maximum
-beam reported in a <i lang="fr">maître canot</i> was 80 inches.
-When canvas replaced birch bark in the fur-trade
-canoes, the high-ended models disappeared; the
-canvas freight canoes were commonly of the white
-man's type having low-peaked ends, or a modified
-Peterborough type.</p>
-
-<p>Before discussing the methods of construction, the
-loading and equipment of the fur-trade canoes should
-be described from contemporary fur trade accounts.
-The goods carried in these canoes were packed into
-easily handled bundles, or packages, of from 90 to
-100 pounds weight. Wines and liquor were carried
-in 9-gallon kegs, the most awkward of all cargo to
-portage. In some cases the furs were packed into
-80-or 90-pound bundles in the Northwest, and were
-repacked into 100-pound bundles before being
-placed on the large canoes of the Montreal-Great
-Lakes route, but bundles lighter than 90 pounds were
-made up for the shipment of small quantities of
-individual goods to isolated posts. The bundles, or
-packs, of furs were formed under screw presses so
-that 500 mink skins, for example, were made into a
-package 24 inches long, 21 inches wide and 15 inches
-deep, weighing very close to 90 pounds. Buffalo
-hides formed a larger pack, of course. In the canoe,
-packs were covered by a <em>parala</em>, a heavy, oiled red-canvas
-tarpaulin.</p>
-
-<p>Boxes called <em>cassettes</em> were carried; these were 28
-inches long and 16 inches in width and depth, made
-of ¾-inch seasoned pine dovetailed and iron-strapped,
-with the lid tightly fitted. The top, and sometimes
-the bottom too, was bevelled along the edges. The
-lids were fitted with hasps and padlocks and the boxes
-were as watertight as possible. Each box was painted
-and marked; in these were placed cash and other<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span>
-valuables. Also carried was a travelling case&mdash;a lined
-box for medicine, refreshments for the officers, and
-what would be needed quickly on the road.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i159.jpg" width="700" height="364" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 135</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Hudson's Bay Company 4½-Fathom North Canoe</span>, of the
-type built by Crees at posts near James Bay in the middle of the
-19th century, for cargo-carrying.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Provisions such as meat, sugar, flour, etc. were
-carried in tins and were stowed in baskets which were
-usually of the form known to woodsmen as pack-baskets.
-Baskets also served to carry cooking utensils
-and other loose articles. Bedrolls consisted of blankets
-or robes, made up in a tarpaulin or oilskin groundsheet
-and were used in the canoe as pads or seats.
-The voyageur's term for the canoe equipment&mdash;paddles,
-setting poles, sail, mast, and yard, and the
-rigging and hauling lines&mdash;was <em>agrès</em>, or <em>agrets</em>.</p>
-
-<p>The term <em>pacton</em> was applied to packs made up
-ready for portage; they were ordinarily made up of
-two or more packages, so the weight carried was at
-the very least 180 pounds. No self-respecting
-voyageur would carry less, as it would be disgraceful
-to be so weak. The <em>pacton</em> was carried by means of a
-<em>collier</em>, or tump-line similar to that used to portage
-canoes (see p. <a href="#Page_122">122</a>). It was made of three pieces
-of stout leather. The middle piece was of stout
-tanned leather about 4 inches wide and 18 inches
-long, tapered toward each end, to which were sewn
-pliant straps 2 or 2½ inches wide and 10 feet long.
-These were usually slightly tapered toward the free
-ends. The middle portion of this piece of gear was of
-thick enough leather to be quite stiff, but the straps
-were very flexible. Sometimes the middle portion and
-2 or 3 feet of the end straps were in one piece with
-extensions sewn to the latter. The <em>pacton</em> was lifted
-and placed so that it rested in the small of the carrier's
-back, with its weight borne by the hips. The ends of
-the <em>collier</em> were tied to the <em>pacton</em> so as to hold it in place,
-with the broad central band around the carrier's
-forehead. On top of the <em>pacton</em> was placed a loose
-package, <em>cassette</em>, or perhaps a keg. The total load
-amounted to 270 pounds on the average if the trail
-was good; the maximum on record is 630 pounds.
-With his body leaning forward to support the load,
-the carrier sprang forward in a quick trot, using
-short, quick paces, and moved at about 5 miles an
-hour over a good trail. A carrier was expected to
-make more than one trip over the portage, as a rule.</p>
-
-<p>The traditional picture of the fur-trade voyageur
-as a happy, carefree adventurer was hardly a true one,
-at least in the 19th century. With poor food hastily
-prepared, back-breaking loads, and continual exposure,
-his lot was a very hard one at best. The
-monstrous packs usually brought physical injury and
-the working life of a packer was very short. In the
-early days, and during the time of the North West
-Company, the canoemen were allowed to do some
-private trading to add to their wages, but when the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span>
-Hudson's Bay Company took over this was not allowed
-and discipline became far more harsh. As a result,
-the French Canadians deserted the trade, to be replaced
-with Indians and half-breeds. The paddling
-race against time, to reach the destination before the
-fall freeze, was labor comparable to that of a galley
-slave, but in a very harsh climate. Altogether, if
-the brutal truth is accepted, the life of the canoeman
-was far more hardship than romance.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i160.jpg" width="700" height="487" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 136</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Five-Fathom Fur-Trade Canoe From Brunswick House</span>, one of the Hudson's
-Bay Company posts.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The cargo of a fur-trade canoe was not placed
-directly on the bottom; light cedar or spruce poles
-were first laid in the bottom of the canoe and then
-the cargo loaded aboard. The poles prevented
-damage to the canoe by any undue concentration of
-weight. The weight of cargo carried varied with the
-size of the canoe and with the conditions of the canoe
-route. The canoes were usually loaded deeply, except
-in the case of the light express canoe, in which the
-cargo was reduced for sake of rapid travelling.</p>
-
-<p>An account written in 1800 by Alexander Henry
-the younger gives the following list of cargo in a trade
-canoe on the run to Red River in the Northwest,
-where canoes under 4½ fathoms were generally used:
-General trade merchandise, 5 bales; tobacco, 1 bale
-and 2 rolls; kettles, 1 bale or basket; guns, 1 case;
-hardware, 1 case; lead shot, 2 bags; flour, 1 bag;
-sugar, 1 keg; gunpowder, 2 kegs; wine, 10 kegs. This
-totaled 28 pieces: in addition the crew had 4 bales
-(1 for each paddler) of private property, 4 bags of
-corn of 1½ bushels each, and ½ keg of "grease,"
-plus bedrolls and the canoe gear. The trade goods
-carried to the posts included such items as canoe awls,
-axes, shot, gunpowder, gun tools, brass wire, flints
-(or, later, percussion caps), lead, beads, brooches,
-blankets, combs, coats, fire-steels, finger rings, guns,
-spruce gum, garters, birch bark, powder-horns or
-cartridge boxes, hats, kettles and pans, knives, fish
-line, hooks, net twine, looking glasses, needles, ribbons,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span>
-rum, brandy, wine, blue and red broadcloth, tomahawks
-or hatchets, tobacco, pipes, thread, vermillion
-and paint, and false hair.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i161.jpg" width="700" height="395" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 137</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Fur-Trade Canoes on the Missinaibi River</span>, 1901. (<em>Canadian Geological
-Survey photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The tarpaulins used to cover the cargo were 8 by
-10 feet, hemmed and fitted with grommets around the
-edges for lashings. The cloth was treated with ochre,
-oil, and wax to give it a dull red color and to waterproof
-it. One of the tarpaulins usually served as the
-sail. The fur bales were each sacked, that is, wrapped
-in a canvas cover that was sewed on and stenciled
-with identification and ownership marks.</p>
-
-<p>The cargo manifests were not always the same.
-Compare the previous list with this cargo, with which
-two light canoes were each loaded: 3 <em>cassettes</em>, 1
-travelling case, 2 baskets, 1 bag of bread, 1 bag of
-biscuits, 2 kegs of spirits, 2 kegs of porter, 1 tin of beef,
-1 bag of pemmican for officers and 2 for the crew, 2
-tents for officers, cooking utensils, canoe equipment,
-and 1 <em>pacton</em> for each of the 9 men in each canoe.</p>
-
-<p>The rate of travel varied a good deal, depending
-upon the condition of the waterway and of the men.
-Perhaps, as an average, 50 miles a day would be the
-common expectation during a 3-month run into the
-northwest. Traveling fast with good conditions, an
-express canoe might average as much as 75 or 80 miles
-a day, but this was exceptional.</p>
-
-<p>The number of men required to man a fur-trade
-canoe varied with the use required of the canoe, with
-its load, and its size. There were rare occasions in
-which a <i lang="fr">maître canot</i> had 17 paddlers and a steersman,
-but normally such a canoe was manned by between 7
-and 15 men, depending upon how much space aboard
-was required by cargo or passengers and upon the
-difficulties of the route. An express canoe, traveling
-light and at high speed, was manned by 4 to 6 paddlers,
-one of whom acted as steersman or stern
-paddler, and one as the equally important bowman
-in river work.</p>
-
-<p>The most valuable information on the construction
-methods of fur trade canoes was obtained in 1925 from
-the late L. A. Christopherson, a retired Hudson's Bay
-Company official. He had joined the Company in
-1874 and retired in 1919, after 45 years service, 38 of
-which he had spent in western Quebec at the posts on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span>
-Lake Barrière and on Grand Victoria. These were
-canoe-building posts, and Christopherson had supervised
-the construction of both the 5-and 4½-fathom
-trade canoes. His posts had built the nearly vertical-ended
-<em>nadowé chiman</em>, the Iroquois, or Ottawa River,
-type of Algonkin canoe. The actual building was
-done by Indians, but the work was directed by the
-Company men.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i162.jpg" width="700" height="270" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 138</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Fur-Trade Canoe Brigade, Christopherson's Hudson's Bay Company Post</span>,
-about 1885. Christopherson in white shirt and flat cap, sitting with hands
-clasped. Five-fathom canoes, Ottawa River type.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In the building the eye and judgment of the builder
-were the only guides, aided by the occasional use of a
-measuring stick, and Christopherson made it abundantly
-clear that the Company had no rules or regulations
-that he knew of, regarding the size, model, and
-construction of the canoes, nor any standards for
-decoration. The model and appearance of the canoes
-were determined by the preferences of the builders
-and the size by the needs of the posts. For example,
-the 5-fathom canoe had been built at the Grand
-Victoria post until it was decided there that a 4½-fathom
-canoe would serve. The decoration, if any,
-was apparently according to "the custom of the post."</p>
-
-<p>The method of construction described by Christopherson
-seems to be largely that of the Algonkin,
-modified slightly by Ojibway practices. The canoes
-were built on a plank building bed made of 2-or
-2½-inch thick spruce; its middle was higher than
-the ends, as were the earthen beds used in the east,
-and holes were bored in it to take the stakes. A
-stake was placed near the end of each thwart and one
-between, along the sides of the canoe. The individual
-builders had their preferences as to the method of
-setting stakes; some set them vertically while others
-bored the bed so that the stakes stood with their
-heads pointed outward. A post might have two or
-more building beds, one for each size, or model.</p>
-
-<p>Canoes were always built by means of a building
-frame. This was made with four or five crosspieces
-that determined the fullness or fineness of the bottom
-of the canoe toward the ends. By altering the lengths
-of the end crosspieces, the degree of fullness in the
-lines of the finished canoe could be predetermined.
-As a result the bed, which was usually about 18 inches
-wider than the building frame, might have the shape
-of its frame marked on it twice, with two sets of
-holes for stakes. Otherwise, the alteration in the
-building frame would require a special bed to be
-used. In addition to the alteration in the ends of
-the building frame, there could also be variations
-in its width amidships. Christopherson's posts commonly
-built canoes intended for fast travel, so most
-of them were narrower in beam at the gunwale and
-across the bottom than were the fur-trade canoes
-of the period, and the building frame was likewise
-narrower.</p>
-
-<p>The length of the building frame used in these
-canoes was the same as the bottom length, or a little
-longer than the distance between the two headboards
-of the finished canoe. Thus, in a 5-fathom canoe the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span>
-bottom length would be 30 feet, and in a 4½-fathom
-canoe, 27 feet; the beds would be some 6 feet longer
-than these lengths.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i163.jpg" width="700" height="444" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 139.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Forest Rangers, Lake Timagami, Ontario.</span> (<em>Canadian Pacific Railway
-Company photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>As the canoes at Christopherson's were built for
-speed and rarely measured more than 48 inches beam
-between the gunwale members, the building frame
-was about 32 inches wide amidships, or approximately
-two-thirds the beam inside the gunwales in a 5-fathom
-canoe. The beam of his 4½-fathom canoes was less,
-say 42 inches inside the gunwales and 27 or 28 inches
-across the building frame, with a depth, bottom to
-top of rail cap, of between 19 and 21 inches. A
-5-fathom canoe of this narrow model would carry
-nearly 2½ short tons with a crew of six, while the
-smaller model would carry nearly 2 tons. However,
-the capacity of a wide canoe was much greater. A
-6-fathom canoe, the <em>Rob Roy</em>, built by another post
-about 1876 to bring in the bishop for the consecration
-of a church at the Lake Temiscaming post, was
-described by Christopherson as being about 6 feet
-beam on the gunwales. Considered a fine example
-of a freight canoe, the <em>Rob Roy</em> was afterwards loaded
-with 75 bags of flour, totaling 3½ tons deadweight,
-and carried as well a crew of seven and their provisions
-and gear.</p>
-
-<p>The bark cover was commonly in two lengths on the
-bottom of the canoe, summer bark being used. The
-post maintained a supply of bark for canoe building
-and sheets 4 fathoms in length and 1 in breadth were
-not uncommon. Such sheets would have been ample
-for the cover of a small canoe but would not be
-expended so needlessly; hence, the canoes, large or
-small, had two lengths of bark in their bottoms. The
-lap was toward the stern. In what appears to have
-been a local characteristic of the canoes built at
-Christopherson's posts, the bows were indicated by
-making the thwarts toward that end slightly longer
-than those toward the stern, so that the forebody was
-fuller at sheer than the afterbody; the canoe master
-could thus instantly see which end was the bow<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span>
-without having to examine the bottom or the bark
-cover.</p>
-
-<p>The two pieces of bark sewn together were placed
-on the building bed and the building frame placed on
-it and weighted down, in the usual manner. The
-stakes were then set in the holes in the bed and the
-bark secured to them with the usual inside stakes, as
-well as with the clothespin-like clamps used by the
-Algonkin and other Indian canoe builders. The end
-stakes were set in a peculiar manner: a short pair
-were set with their heads sloping inboard, for use
-later to support the sheering of the outwales, and a
-long pair were set raking sharply outboard to help
-support the bark required for the high ends. As the
-bark cover was made up, pieces were worked into the
-ends to allow the high ends to be made. The side
-panels often seen on the eastern Indian bark canoe
-were used, and the bark doubled at the gunwales.
-The doubling pieces were put on about 6 inches wide
-and trimmed off after the outwales were in place.
-The pieces were widest amidships, and when trimmed
-would extend about two inches or a little more below
-the outwales, narrowing somewhat toward the ends.
-Longitudinal battens to fair the bark along the sides
-were placed as usual in canoe building.</p>
-
-<p>The main gunwales were originally made of white
-cedar, but when this became scarce at the posts,
-whipsawed spruce was used instead. The gunwales
-were rectangular in cross section, with the outer
-lower corner beveled off. The cross section of the
-inner gunwale member was smaller, in proportion,
-than the outwale, compared to a small eastern Indian
-canoe. The gunwales were bent "on the flat" in
-plan, and were sheered "edge bent." The tenons for
-the thwart ends were cut slanting, so that when the
-gunwales were made up they stood at a flare outward
-toward the top edge. The gunwales had much taper
-toward the ends as it was usual to work in some sheer
-in these members. The canoes built at Christopherson's
-posts, unlike some other trade canoes, had a
-good deal of sheer at the ends, as the main gunwales
-rose nearly to the top of the stem.</p>
-
-<p>The manner of forming the gunwales varied somewhat.
-If the stakes around the building frame had
-been set to stand vertically, it was necessary to assemble
-the gunwales with temporary crosspieces, or
-false thwarts, each shorter by several inches than
-would be the finished thwart in their place, or twice
-the amount of flare desired. After the gunwale
-assembly had been set above the building frame on the
-usual posts to determine its height above the building
-bed, the bark cover would be lashed to each gunwale
-member. This done, each crosspiece would be removed
-in turn and replaced with its corresponding
-thwart. By this means the gunwales would be spread
-and, in the process, lowered in proportion to the change
-in beam. This would usually make too much sheer.
-Therefore, if the gunwales were to be spread as a result
-of the side stakes standing vertically, they had to be
-formed with some reverse sheer amidships. This was
-done as usual, by first treating each member with hot
-water and then weighting it on a long plank, or unused
-building bed, over a block placed under it at midlength.
-The height of the block would determine the
-amount the sheer was "humped" in the middle,
-usually only an inch or so. The gunwale ends were
-also treated with hot water and sometimes were split
-horizontally to get the required sheer there; they
-were then bent up and held, while drying and setting,
-by a long cord that was stretched between them and
-placed under tension by means of a strut, about 4 feet
-long, placed under the cord at midlength and stepped
-on the gunwale member being bent. However, if
-the side stakes were set sloping outward, it was unnecessary
-to hump the sheer amidships.</p>
-
-<p>The reason why many builders preferred to set the
-stakes on the bed vertically was that it made easy the
-goring and the sewing of the bark cover side panels;
-if the bark available for the cover required little
-sewing, the sloping stakes might be preferred. It
-appears, however, that the usual procedure was to set
-the stakes vertically and to spread the gunwales,
-since good bark was usually available. A good deal
-of judgment was required to estimate the amount of
-hump or reverse to be worked into the gunwale
-members; too much would leave a hump in the sheer
-of the finished canoe and not enough would cause
-too much dip amidships. Before being bent to sheer,
-the gunwale members were worked smooth with a
-plane or with scrapers made of glass or steel. The
-building frame was taken apart and removed from
-the canoe after most of the thwarts were in place.</p>
-
-<p>The ribs Christopherson called "timbers" and the
-sheathing, "lathing." The ribs, commonly of cedar,
-were usually ¼ to ⅜ inch thick, and were 2½ to 3¼
-inches wide in most canoes, with a long taper so
-that near the ends the width was about half that at
-the middle, and at the ends they tapered almost to a
-point. Some large canoes had ribs 4 inches wide
-at the centerline, amidships, but these appear to have
-been unusual. The ribs were placed on the building
-frame at their proposed position and the width of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span>
-frame at that point was marked on each. After being
-cut to about the required length and tapered, the
-ribs were then treated with hot water, and were then
-usually bent over the knee in pairs, the marks determining
-where the bending was to be done. In a
-freight canoe the ribs amidships would be nearly flat
-across the bottom but in a fast canoe they would be
-slightly rounded. The parts of the rib nearest the
-ends were not bent, and thus the rib would appear
-dish-shaped when in form. Each pair while drying
-was sometimes held by cords tied across the ends, or
-the ribs might be inserted in about their proper
-location in the unfinished canoe and held in place by
-battens and struts until they took their final set. The
-ribs at the extreme ends were often "sprung" or
-"broken" at the centerline to get the <strong>V</strong>-section required
-there, particularly in a sharp-ended express canoe.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i165.jpg" width="700" height="503" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 140</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Fur-Trade Canoe Stem-Pieces</span>, models made by Adney: 1, Algonkin type;
-2, Iroquois type, Ottawa River, old French; 3, Christopherson's canoes.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The sheathing was about ¼-inch thick and was laid
-according to the tribal practice of the builder;
-Christopherson appears to have followed the Algonkin
-practices generally in this as in other building matters
-at his posts.</p>
-
-<p>Whereas Malecite practice was to lash the bark
-cover to both inwale and outwale, in the western type
-of canoe the cover was lashed to the main gunwale
-first, owing to the spread gunwales, and the outwale
-was then pegged to the gunwale and also lashed, the
-ends being wrapped with figure-eight turns. All gunwale
-lashing in fur-trade canoes was in groups.
-Because of the sheer at the ends, the outwales were
-split horizontally into four or more laminae, and the
-splitting extended almost to the end-thwart positions.
-In a few canoes outwales were omitted or were short
-and did not extend beyond the end thwarts, but this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span>
-practice was relatively uncommon. The outwales
-were usually rectangular in cross section and much
-tapered toward the ends.</p>
-
-<p>The rail caps were also rectangular in cross section,
-but often they had the outboard upper edge rounded
-off or beveled. The caps were pegged at 1-foot intervals
-to the main gunwales, but at the ends they
-could only be lashed to the outwale, as both outwales
-and caps were so sharply upswept at the ends
-that they stood almost vertically. The ends were
-squared off and stood a little above the top of the stems,
-so that when the canoe was placed upside down as a
-shelter for the paddlers and packers it rested upon
-these members rather than on the sewing of the bark
-cover on the tops of the stems, as was usual with all
-the high-ended Algonkin and Ojibway canoes.</p>
-
-<p>The stem-pieces and headboards were assembled
-into single units, as shown on pages <a href="#Page_149">149</a> and <a href="#Page_151">151</a>,
-before being installed during construction. The stem-pieces
-were of white cedar, about four fingers deep
-fore-and-aft and laminated, and about ¾ to 1¼ inches
-wide, depending upon the size of the canoe and the
-judgment of the builder. In Christopherson's area
-the stem-piece was relatively short, the head coming
-up and around and ending at a point far enough under
-the rail-cap ends for it to be securely lashed to these
-members and to the outwale ends. It was bent by use
-of hot water and the laminae were secured by wrapping
-the stem piece with fine twine. The stem was
-stiffened by stepping the headboard on its heel in the
-usual manner, and the two were held in the required
-position by two horizontal struts, the outboard ends
-of which were lashed to the sides of the stem piece
-well up above the heel; the inboard ends were pegged
-at the sides of the headboard, in notches, or were
-passed through the headboards in slots and the strut
-ends secured with wedges athwartships on the inboard
-face of the headboard. The result was a rigid and
-strong end-frame. More complicated bending was
-employed at some posts, where the building of fur-trade
-canoes followed Algonkin or Ojibway practices.
-In these, as has been mentioned, the stem-pieces were
-brought down and around under the stem-head to the
-back or inboard edge of the stem-piece and lashed,
-then brought inboard horizontally to end in a hole in
-the headboard, between struts placed as in the Christopherson-built
-canoes. Another method was to
-bring the stem-piece around the stem head and down
-and around outboard to the inboard face of the stem,
-where the end was split and each half lashed to the
-sides of the stem-piece. In this case there was a
-lashing between stem-piece and the headboard, placed
-where the reverse was made, inboard and below the
-top of the stem, well up on the headboard. The heel
-of the headboard and stem-piece were pegged
-together.</p>
-
-<p>Struts were not required with this construction,
-described earlier (on p. <a href="#Page_123">123</a>) as the Ojibway method.
-In bending the stem-piece, the reverse curve around
-the stem-head was formed over a short strut that was
-removed when the stem-piece was dried and set to
-shape. As a variety of forms were used in shaping these
-stem-pieces, it was the ingenuity of the builder that
-decided just how the end of the stem-piece was best
-secured and how the whole was to be braced. These
-details will be better understood by reference to the
-plans and illustrations on pages <a href="#Page_134">134</a> to 151.</p>
-
-<p>The headboards were not sprung or bellied, but
-stood nearly vertical in the canoes. The inboard
-face was often decorated; in the old French canoes
-and in those of the North West Company, the board
-was carved or painted to represent a human figure,
-<i lang="fr">le petit homme</i>, which was often made in the likeness
-of a voyageur in his best clothes. In some canoes, only
-a human head was used, or the top of the headboard,
-or "button," was decorated with a rayed compass
-drawn in colors.</p>
-
-<p>The thwarts were usually rather heavy amidships
-and were made in various forms to suit the taste of
-the builder. They were commonly of maple, but
-Christopherson's canoes had spruce or tamarack
-thwarts, the latter being his preference. These
-thwarts were not intended to be used as seats, though
-the sternman, or steersman, often sat on the aftermost
-one. The paddlers often used seats in the large
-canoes; these were planks slung from each end by
-cords made fast to the gunwales. These cords allowed
-the height of the seats to be adjusted; the paddlers
-usually knelt on the bottom of the canoe with hips
-supported by the seat. The seats were usually slung
-before the thwarts, except amidships, where the space
-was taken up by passengers or cargo.</p>
-
-<p>The factors often took great pride in the appearance
-of the canoes from their posts and many, like
-Christopherson, had the craft gaily painted in a
-rather barbaric fashion. Christopherson's canoes did
-not use any of the circular decoration forms; his
-canoes usually had painted on them, he recalled,
-such names as <em>Duchess</em>, <em>Sir John A. MacDonald</em>, <em>Express</em>,
-<em>Arrow</em>, and <em>Ivanhoe</em>. The ends were often painted
-white, with the figures or letters on this background.
-The Company flag was often painted on the stern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span>
-with the initials of the Company, H.B.C., said to
-mean "Here Before Christ" by disrespectful clerks.
-Many posts used such figures as the jackfish, loon,
-deer, wolf, or bear, on the bow. The rayed circular
-devices appear to have been long popular and were
-said to have been introduced by the French. There
-is no record of any device being officially required
-in any district but the <em>cassettes</em> of certain districts were
-marked with distinctive devices at one time; Norway
-House used a deer's head with antlers, Saskatchewan
-two buffalo, Cumberland a bear, Red River a grasshopper,
-and Manitoba a crocus.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i167.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 141</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Fur-Trade Canoe Stem-Pieces</span>, models made by Adney: 1, Têtes de Boule
-type; 2, Ojibway form; 3, old Algonkin form.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>During Christopherson's long service he knew the
-canoes built in his vicinity at such nearby building
-posts as Lake Abitibi, Lake Waswanipi, and Kipewa,
-in western Quebec; and Lake Timagami (Bear
-Island), Matachewan on Montreal River, Matagama
-(west of Sudbury), and Missinaibi, in nearby
-Ontario. These were but a few of the building posts,
-of course, for canoes were built at numerous posts to
-the west and northward.</p>
-
-<p>When portaged, the large canoes might be carried
-right side up or upside down, the former being more
-usual method. The <i lang="fr">canot du nord</i> was often light
-enough to be carried by two paddlers, one under each
-end, with the canoe right side up and steadied by
-a cord tied to the offside gunwale and held in the
-carrier's hand. The <i lang="fr">maître canot</i> required four men
-to carry it. Various methods were used. One was to
-lash carrying sticks across the gunwales near the ends
-and to carry the canoe right side up with a man on the
-end of each stick. Another way was for the men to
-distribute themselves along the bottom of the canoe,
-near the ends, and to use steadying cords. Or the
-canoe might be carried upside down with the men
-carrying it by placing one shoulder under the gunwales<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span>
-at convenient places. When a bad place in the
-portage was reached, the whole crew might have to
-turn to. The method of portaging had to meet the
-physical limitation of the portage path and the matter
-was not so much one of standard procedure as of improvisation
-of the moment.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i168.jpg" width="700" height="394" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 142</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Portaging a 4½-Fathom Fur-Trade Canoe, About 1902</span>, near the head of
-the Ottawa River. Shows an unusually large number of carriers; four would
-be the normal number. (<em>Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The voyageur was particular about his paddle;
-no man in his right mind would use a blade wider than
-between 4½ and 5 inches, for anything wider would
-exhaust him in a short distance. The paddle reached
-to about the users' chin, when he stood with the tip
-of the paddle on the ground in front of him. Longer
-paddles, about 6 feet long, were used by the bow and
-stern men, the two most skillful voyageurs in the canoe
-and the highest paid. These men had, also, spare
-paddles whose total length was 8 feet or more; these
-were used in running rapids only. The paddles
-were of hardwood, white or yellow birch or maple,
-as hardwood paddles could be made thin in the blade
-and small in the handle without loss of strength,
-whereas softwood paddles could not. The blades
-were sometimes painted white, the tips in some color
-such as red, blue, green or black, but other color
-combinations were often used.</p>
-
-<p>In Christopherson's service, sail was rarely used,
-as the canoemen were unskilled in handling it and
-loss had resulted. In early times, however, it appears
-to have been much used on the Great Lakes routes
-by the French and the North West Company. A
-single square-sail was the only rig employed; the
-canoes could not be worked to windward under
-fore-and-aft sails.</p>
-
-<p>During the great seasonal movements the trade
-canoes moved in fleets called brigades, the usual
-brigade in early times being three or four canoes,
-but later, when the needs of the individual posts
-had grown, the brigade could be of any necessary
-number of canoes to carry in the required supplies
-and goods or to bring out the season's catch of furs.
-The leader of the brigade was the <em>conducteur</em> or <em>guide</em>;
-sometimes he was the post's factor. In French times
-the <i lang="fr">maître canot</i> would be loaded with 60 pieces, or
-packs, to the total of about 3 short tons and half a ton
-of provisions, and eight men, each with an allowance
-of 40 pounds for gear, so that the whole weight in the
-canoe would be something over 4 short tons. An
-example of such a canoe measured, inside the gunwales,
-5½ fathoms long and 4½ feet beam. The usual<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span>
-brigade of four of these canoes would thus carry
-roughly 12 short tons of goods.</p>
-
-<p>The Company would send one brigade after another,
-at close intervals of time, until the whole
-seasonal movement was in progress. Those brigades
-going the greatest distance were started first. Although
-cargoes left the coast from early spring on to
-late summer, the great canoe movement took place
-towards the fall. Canoe travel north and northwestward
-from the Great Lakes had to be carefully
-timed, as goods had to be accumulated at the base
-posts on the Lakes and the brigades placed in movement
-at the last safe date which would permit them
-to reach their destination before the first hard freeze-up.
-The base posts were those where the run of the
-<i lang="fr">maître canot</i> ended and that of the <i lang="fr">canot du nord</i> began,
-the places where reloading for the individual trading
-posts in the Northland was necessary. The late
-start was usually desirable in order to await the
-arrival at the base posts of all the goods required, for
-movements of freight were uncertain before the days
-of railroads and steamers.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i169.jpg" width="700" height="349" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 143</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Decorations: Fur-trade Canoes.</span> (<em>Watercolor sketch by Adney.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, before
-the whole canoe trade fell under the control of the
-Hudson's Bay Company, it was the custom to distribute
-8 gallons of rum to each canoe for consumption
-during the run, and it was also the custom for all
-hands to see how much of this they could drink before
-starting out. This grandiose undertaking usually
-began as soon as the local priest, who gave his blessing
-to the canoemen, had left the scene. The magnificent
-drunk lasted one day and the next morning the crew
-had to be underway. The first day's run, old accounts
-repeatedly show, not only was short but was often
-beset by difficulties.</p>
-
-<p>The era of the bark trading canoe did not close
-with a dramatic change. Its ending was a long, slow
-process. By the last decade of the 19th century the
-bark trading canoe had disappeared from most of
-the old routes, and even in the Northwest it had been
-almost wholly displaced by York boats, scows,
-bateaux, and canvas or wooden canoes of white-man
-construction. By the beginning of the first World
-War, the <i lang="fr">maître canots</i> and <i lang="fr">canots du nord</i> were finished,
-except as curiosities&mdash;hardly even as these, for not
-one was preserved in a museum.</p>
-
-<p>Indeed, so complete was the disappearance of the
-fur-trade canoe that any attempt to record its design,
-construction, and fitting would have been almost
-hopeless, had it not been for the notes, sketches, and
-statements of such men as L. A. Christopherson,
-aided by a few models and pictures, and for the
-memories of a few Indian builders who had worked
-on the canoes.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Chapter Six</em><br />
-
-NORTHWESTERN CANADA</h2>
-
-
-<p>Indians of the Northwest Territories and the
-Province of British Columbia in Canada, and the
-States of Alaska and Washington, built bark canoes
-that may be divided into three basic models.</p>
-
-<p>The first may be called the "kayak" model, a flat-bottom,
-narrow canoe having nearly straight flaring
-sides and either a chine or a very quick turn of the
-bilge. These bark canoes were low-sided and were
-usually partly decked. A number of tribal groups
-built canoes of this model, the variation being relatively
-minor. The rake and form of the ends varied
-somewhat as did the amount of decking; there were
-also some slight variations in structure and method of
-construction. While these bark canoes had some
-superficial resemblance in general proportions to the
-Eskimo kayaks, it is necessary to point out that they
-did not, particularly in Alaska, have the same hull
-form as the seagoing kayaks in that area. In fact, the
-single-chine form of the Alaskan version of this canoe
-appears only in the kayaks of northern Greenland
-and Baffin Island. The Alaskan seagoing skin
-kayaks are all multi-chine forms that approximate a
-"round-bottom" hull. It has been thought that the
-flat-bottom seagoing kayak form may have existed in
-the Canadian Northwest, at the mouth of the Mackenzie;
-a kayak so identified is in the collections of the
-U.S. National Museum (see p. <a href="#Page_202">202</a>), but there is now
-doubt among authorities as to the correctness of this
-identification. As will be shown later, it seems probable
-that it has been improperly assigned to the Mackenzie
-delta and is, in fact, an eastern Eskimo model.</p>
-
-<p>The second model used in the Northwest area was
-a narrow-bottom flaring-sided bark canoe with
-elevated ends, having, perhaps, a faint resemblance
-to the Algonkin-Cree canoes of the old type. Here
-too there was some variation among the canoes of
-tribal groups, mostly in the shape and construction
-of the ends and in the fitting of the gunwales. Most
-of the canoes of this type had stem-pieces formed of a
-plank-on-edge, but in a few examples the stem-pieces
-were bent. This model was built by the same tribal
-groups in Canada that built the kayak form, the explanation
-being that the kayak form was the hunting
-while the second model was commonly the family or
-cargo canoe. In Alaska, however, only the kayak-form
-was used and the family, or cargo, canoe was
-merely an enlargement of it.</p>
-
-<p>The third model may be called the "sturgeon-nose"
-type; in this the ends were formed with a long, pointed
-"ram" carried well outboard below the waterline as
-an extension of the bottom line of the canoe. Primitive
-in both model and construction, it was built in a
-rather limited area in British Columbia and in the
-State of Washington. The last canoes built on this
-form were canvas-covered; in earlier times spruce or
-pine bark was usually employed.</p>
-
-<p>The birch in most of the Northwest is a small tree
-and the bark is of poor quality for canoe building;
-hence, in many areas spruce bark was commonly
-employed in its place; a single tribal group might build
-its canoes of either, depending upon what was available
-near the building site. However, near the Alaska
-coast, where kayak-form bark canoes were used and
-good birch was usually not available, some tribes used
-seal or other skins as a substitute. In the framework
-spruce and fir were most commonly employed, but
-occasionally cedar was available and was used.</p>
-
-<p>The canoe-building Indians in northwestern Canada
-were mostly of the Athabascan family and included
-the Chipewyan or "Chipewans," the Slave or
-"Slavey" (= Etchareottine), the Beaver (= Tsattine),
-the Dogrib (= Thlingchadinne), the Tanana (= Tenankutchin),
-the Loucheux, the Hare (= Kawchodinne),
-and others. Some of these tribal groups built
-not only bark canoes but also dugouts. There were
-also some Eskimo people who built bark canoes for
-river service, as well as skin canoes, on the same model
-as the bark kayak-form.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>In the vicinities of Lake Athabasca and Great
-Slave Lake, the Chipewyan employed not only their
-own models of canoes but also that of the western
-Cree. The latter had invaded Chipewyan territory
-before the arrival of the first white men in the Northwest
-and undoubtedly had influenced canoe-building
-technique during the long period of the fur trade that
-followed. It is therefore not possible to say where
-the influence of Chipewyan building techniques
-ends and that of the Cree and the eastern Indians,
-as introduced through the fur-trade canoes, begins.
-This raises the question whether the high-ended
-Athabascan canoe is itself the result of influence.
-One may infer from Samuel Hearne's description of
-his travels in this area, in his <cite>Journey ... to the
-Northern Ocean</cite>,<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> that only the kayak-form then
-existed, for this type is the only one he describes,
-and he describes it in great detail. However, Alexander
-Mackenzie, in an entry in his journal for June 23,
-1789, refers to the "large canoe" in a manner indicating
-that it was a local type. It may well be that
-then, as later, the kayak-form and cargo canoe existed
-side by side, or it may be that Mackenzie was referring
-to a large kayak-form canoe like the family canoe
-of the Alaska Yukon Indians. Perhaps the reason
-that Hearne did not mention the "large canoe"
-is that the people he met on his way to the Coppermine
-River, and on his way back by way of Lake
-Athabasca to Hudson Bay, did not then use canoes
-of the second model.</p>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> See bibliography.</p></div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i171.jpg" width="700" height="609" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 144</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Chipewyan 2-Fathom</span> hunter's canoe
-(top), with bent stem piece, and Athabascan
-2½-fathom canoe with plank
-stem piece. Plank and bent stem pieces
-were both employed in Athabascan
-canoes. Spruce or birch bark were used
-without alteration of the design or basic
-construction methods.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-
-<h3><em>Narrow-Bottom Canoe</em></h3>
-
-<p>Because the variations in the second model, the
-Algonkin-Ojibway type, are relatively slight, it will
-be easiest to describe this first. The canoe is known
-to have been built extensively by the Chipewyan,
-Dogrib, and Slave. The sizes most common were 16
-to 22 feet over the gunwales, with a beam of between
-36 and 48 inches. The sheer was usually rather
-straight, the sharp upward turn to the end taking
-place very close to the gunwale ends. Most of the
-bottom was straight; the rocker, if existing, occurred
-close to the ends of the canoe and was moderate.
-The midsection was dish-shaped and nearly flat
-across the bottom, with a rather slack, well-rounded
-bilge and almost straight flaring sides, the amount of
-flare being usually great. The bottom apparently
-was never dead flat athwartships, for in all known
-examples it was somewhat rounded. Near the ends
-the sections were in the shape of a <strong>V</strong> with apex
-rounded; the form of the ends was sharp and without
-hollow either at the gunwale or at the level lines.
-The ends of the canoes were never lofty and many
-had end profiles that were very long fore-and-aft and
-showed a marked angularity. Inwales and outwales
-formed the gunwale structure; some canoes also had
-gunwale caps which stopped well short of the end
-profiles. The ends of the inwales were carried to the
-stem-pieces; they were sharply tapered and curved to
-sheer, and were elaborately cross-wrapped to secure
-them there. The end profiles were formed of a thin
-plank-on-edge in most canoes, but some had stem-pieces
-split into laminae in the usual fashion and bent.
-In all cases headboards were employed; the heads
-were forced under the inwale ends and against the
-inside face of the stem-piece. The gunwale lashings
-were in groups, although some canoes exist in which
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span>the outwale was omitted and the lashing was continuous;
-these canoes usually had laminated bent stem-pieces
-and their stem lashing was identical with that
-of the Algonkin-Ojibway fur-trade canoes. This
-departure, it is reasonable to assume, was the result
-of outside influence on the Athabascan technique.
-When the stem-piece was of thin plank, the bark was
-usually fastened to it by multiple turns of two thongs
-passed, one from each side, through the bark and
-through holes bored in the stem.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i172.jpg" width="700" height="429" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 145</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Athabascan Cargo or Family Canoes With Bent Stem Pieces</span>, Chipewyan
-2½-fathom (top) and Dogrib 3-fathom. These canoes were covered with
-spruce or birch bark.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The end profile varied with the tribe of the builder.
-Chipewyan canoes had a very long end profile
-fore-and-aft; the heel was angular, and the outline
-of the stem then swept forward in an easy curve to
-a height about two-thirds the depth of the canoe
-amidships, then began to tumble in a little, the curve
-becoming gradually sharper until the head was
-reached. The stem-head in its fore-and-aft length
-was almost one third the height of the ends and was
-roughly parallel to the bottom of the canoe directly
-beneath it. Because of the rocker of the bottom,
-the after end of the head was thus lower than the fore
-end. The sheer was faired up to the after end of the
-head in a short, quick curve. Usually the outwales
-were cut off short of this point, but in some canoes they
-were brought up along with the inwales to the stem-head.
-Wedges were used in making up the gunwale-end
-lashings in both the Chipewyan and Dogrib
-canoes; these served to tighten the lashings and
-formed a sort of breasthook. In a few examples of the
-Athabascan type, the stem-pieces were of cedar root
-without lamination; this use of the roots enabled
-the angular form of the plank-on-edge stems to be
-retained. It cannot be determined whether the root
-stem-pieces were part of the old Athabascan technique
-or were an importation from the western Cree.
-The lashing in these canoes followed the forms used
-in the fur-trade canoes&mdash;long-and-short turns in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span>
-groups generally triangular in shape, with a spiral
-turn between groups.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i173.jpg" width="700" height="462" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 146</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Plank-Stem Canoes of Hybrid Forms, 3-Fathom</span> Slavey (top) and 2½-fathom
-Algonkin-type Athabascan, probably the results of the influence of fur-trade
-canoe-building.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The canoes of the Dogrib were practically identical
-with those of the Chipewyan except that the end profiles
-were usually slightly deeper fore-and-aft; also
-the Dogrib canoes were perhaps more often of birch
-bark, judging from the remaining canoes and models.
-The form of the ends in the Dogrib canoes was such
-that they often appeared higher than they really were,
-as the stem-heads stood some distance above the ends
-of the sheer, an effect which was heightened by the
-small fore-and-aft depth of the stem-heads.</p>
-
-<p>The large canoes of the Slave had the same hull
-characteristics as the others but differed in end profiles
-and did not have rail caps. In the Slave canoe,
-the ends were formed of thin plank and in profile were
-almost upright and slightly curved. The stem line
-came out from the bottom in a sharp, almost angular
-curve and ascended with a slight sweep to a point
-about level with the gunwale amidships (in some, to
-within a few inches of the stem-head); from there a
-tumble-home carried it to the stem-head, which was
-short fore-and-aft and slightly crowned, the inboard
-end dropping vertically downward inside the gunwales.
-The headboards were under the gunwale
-ends. Inwales and outwales were both carried to
-the stems but the end lashings were quite short.
-There were no rail caps. The bark cover was lashed
-to the stem with an in-and-out stitch from side to side
-through holes in the plank. The sheer was brought
-up nearly to the top of the stem in a rather long, easy
-sweep beginning inboard at the endmost thwart.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwale members in all these Athabascan
-canoes were quite light compared with their Eastern
-counterparts. A reinforcing strip of bark was placed
-under the outwales so as to hang down below them
-some four inches or so amidships and less toward the
-ends; this was sometimes decorated with a painted
-zigzag stripe or with widely spaced circles. The end
-lashings of the gunwales were protected by short bark<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span>
-deck pieces inserted under the caps. The edges of
-these deck pieces were trimmed flush with the outboard
-edges of the caps, so that no <em>wulegessis</em> resulted.</p>
-
-<p>In spruce-bark canoes, because the bark was stiff
-the ribs were spaced 6 to 8 inches, whereas in birch-bark
-canoes the ribs were spaced about as usual,
-1 to 2 inches edge to edge. In the Dogrib and Slave
-canoes the ribs were without taper; in the Chipewyan
-there was usually a slight taper from the bottom to
-the gunwale end. The ends of the ribs were forced
-under the gunwales in the usual manner employed
-in the east, the gunwales being rectangular in cross-section,
-with the lower outboard corner beveled.</p>
-
-<p>The thwarts were all parallel-sided, but tapered
-toward the ends, in elevation. The thwart ends were
-tenoned into the inner gunwale and usually had
-two holes in each end for the lashings.</p>
-
-<p>In the bark cover the horizontal sewing was often
-over root battens. In many canoes rawhide was
-used in much of the lashing and sewing, and in the
-last-built bark canoes the end lashings of the gunwales
-were often protected by a decking formed of a small
-triangular sheet of metal, obtained from a large can
-and crimped along its edges so as to clamp the bark
-and main gunwales. When this metal deck-piece
-was used, the cap and outwale ended against the
-inboard edge of it.</p>
-
-<p>For use in open water these canoes were often
-fitted with a blanket square-sail. The sapling serving
-as a temporary mast stood in a hole in the second
-thwart, and was stepped on a block, or board, pegged
-or lashed to the ribs.</p>
-
-<p>The sheathing of all canoes of this class was of the
-same form&mdash;wide, short strakes amidships, narrower
-short strakes afore and abaft. The midship strakes
-were often quite short and their ends were over the
-longer end strakes. The end strakes were, of course,
-tapered toward the stems. The placing of the strakes
-was often irregular, with the result that the butts
-were somewhat staggered. Some canoes had four
-strakes to the length, but three appears to have been
-most common.</p>
-
-<p>The large canoe was employed on the large lakes
-of the Mackenzie region; smaller canoes of the same
-general form, 14 to 16 feet in length and 30 to 40
-inches in beam, were used on the large rivers and
-streams. In the smaller canoes of this class, the flare
-of the topsides was often less than in the larger
-craft. The Cree in this area, particularly to the south
-of Great Slave Lake, also employed the Athabascan
-form. This class of canoe, in general, appears to have
-been strongly affected by outside influence; consequently
-this description must be understood to cover
-existing canoes and models, not pure Athabascan
-canoe building.</p>
-
-<p>The usual construction methods were employed in
-building this class of canoe; the stakes around the
-building frame were set vertically, and when the bark
-cover was lashed to the gunwale members (inwale
-and outwale together) the gunwales were spread and
-the thwarts inserted in their tenons. Skill was required
-in preshaping the gunwale members, which,
-as in the fur-trade canoes, had to be arched in sheer
-amidships to allow for the change in sheer caused
-by spreading the gunwales in construction. The
-building bed was also arched at midlength to allow
-for the lifting of the ends that occurred in spreading
-the gunwales with the bark cover attached.</p>
-
-<p>A typical large Chipewyan canoe of this class was
-21 feet 4 inches in overall length, 43 inches beam
-and 14 inches in depth amidships. A smaller Dogrib
-canoe of the same class was 14 feet 7 inches in overall
-length, 31¼ inches beam, and 11½ inches in depth.
-However, these smaller canoes appear to have been
-relatively uncommon, and the average large canoe
-was about 20 feet long.</p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Kayak-Form Canoe</em></h3>
-
-<p>The kayak-form canoe was widely employed in the
-Northwest and was highly developed in both model
-and construction. It was essentially a portage and
-hunting craft, ranging in length from 12 to 18 feet and
-in beam from about 24 to 27 inches, with a depth
-between 9 and 12 inches. In areas where the kayak
-form was used as a family and cargo canoe, the length
-would be as great as 20 or 25 feet and the beam might
-reach 30 inches. Except in the family or cargo canoe,
-which had none, there was usually some decking at
-the ends, most of it forward. Some tribal groups built
-the kayak form with its greatest beam at midlength,
-but the most common form had its greatest beam
-abaft midlength and its greatest depth there likewise.
-Many of the kayak forms had unlike end profiles, so
-that there was a distinct bow in appearance as well
-as in fact.</p>
-
-<p>There was much variety in end profile, and the
-canoes of each tribal group were usually identifiable
-by this means. The kayak-form bark canoes of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span>
-lower Yukon and neighboring streams had a short
-overhang, formed in a curved rake and alike or very
-nearly so, at bow and stern. On the upper Yukon
-and adjoining streams the canoes had much rake at
-both ends, the rake being straight from the bottom
-outward for some distance, then curving rather
-markedly. The bow rake was usually greatest, but
-the stern might be higher by one or two inches. The
-bottom was without rocker, being straight or even
-slightly hogged in most of these canoes. The sheer
-was straight to the point where the rake began, then
-rose in a easy sweep to the ends. The end decks on
-the upper Yukon canoes were short, those on lower
-Yukon canoes were much longer; on the latter the
-bow deck was nearly a third the length of the canoe,
-on the former about a fifth. In the Mackenzie Basin,
-the kayak-form canoes had a moderate rake, curved
-in profile, at bow and stern and a rather low stem-head;
-the depth at the stern was noticeably greater
-than at the bow, and the deck forward was commonly
-a little less than a fourth the length of the canoe.
-In these canoes the greatest beam in most cases
-was abaft midlength, and this was also true of the
-lower Yukon canoes. On the upper Yukon and
-in some of these canoes on the lower Mackenzie, the
-greatest beam was amidships and the depth at bow
-and stern were equal.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i175.jpg" width="700" height="284" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 147</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Eskimo Kayak-Form Birch-Bark Canoe From Alaskan Coast</span>, with long
-foredeck batten-sewn to the gunwales, no afterdeck, and rigid bottom frame.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The variation in depth at bow and stern in some of
-the kayak-form canoes seems to have been related to
-the position of the greatest beam; when the beam was
-abaft the midlength, the greatest depth was aft, whereas
-when the greatest beam was amidships, the depth
-at the ends was equal. With the beam abaft midlength,
-the weight of the paddler trimmed the canoe
-by the stern somewhat, hence greater depth aft than
-forward was necessary to make the canoe run easily
-and turn readily in smooth water. In the sea kayaks
-of the eastern Eskimo, on the other hand, the depth
-and the draft were greatest forward, to bring them
-head to the sea when paddling ceased. The Alaskan
-sea kayaks were commonly of equal draft at bow and
-stern or might have a slightly greater draft aft than
-forward.</p>
-
-<p>A third variation of the kayak form existed in
-British Columbia in early times, and apparently was
-employed by the Beaver, Nahane, and Sekani. It
-was an undecked bateau-shaped canoe having a
-fair sheer in a long sweep from end to end, the stem
-profiles were nearly straight, the ends were raked
-rather strongly, and the bow was somewhat higher
-than the stern. The beam was greatest slightly abaft
-midlength. It is estimated that canoes of this type,
-which has long been extinct and now can only be
-reconstructed from a model, were about 14 feet 8
-inches long and 30 to 36 inches in beam, and probably
-were built of both spruce and birch.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwales of the kayak-form canoes were formed
-by inwales and outwales; no caps were employed. In
-the Alaskan types and in the extinct British Columbia
-bateau variation, the gunwale lashings were contin<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span>uous,
-but in the Mackenzie models the lashings were
-in groups. Inwales and outwales in all the kayak
-forms ran to the stem-pieces, which were plank-on-edge
-of a thickness that varied according to tribal
-practice. No headboards were employed. The gunwale
-members were rectangular in cross-section and
-were bent square with the flare of the sides. The
-ends sometimes were swelled and rounded, and in the
-bateau variation the gunwales, in cross section,
-appear to have been rounded. Six thwarts appear
-in most of the kayak forms but the Loucheux model
-had five and the bateau variation seems to have had
-but three.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i176.jpg" width="700" height="350" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 148</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Athabascan Hunting Canoes of the Kayak Form</span>, showing characteristic
-hull shape. These canoes were light, handy, and fast.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Reinforcing bark was placed under the outwales in
-all Mackenzie Basin canoes, but not in the Alaskan or
-in the bateau variation. The ribs in all these canoes
-were small, usually about ½ inch square, and widely
-spaced, about 9 to 14 inches on centers. No ribs were
-placed in the rake of the ends. The ends of the ribs
-were chisel-pointed and were forced between the inwale
-and outwale, against the inside of the bark cover.
-In some canoes, however, the ribs near the ends of the
-canoe were forced into short splits on the underside
-of the inwale. The thwart ends might also be forced
-into short splits on the inside face of the inwales or
-might be tenoned there; in any case a single lashing
-was used at the thwart ends. Thwarts were parallel-sided
-in plan and slightly tapered toward the ends
-in elevation; no shoulders were used. In the bateau
-variation, a heavy thwart was placed directly under
-the middle thwart with its ends against the side
-battens, apparently to act as a spreader. Each end
-was notched over the side battens and was held by
-two lashings to the bottom crosspiece below it. This
-structure was probably made necessary by the fragile
-construction of this form of canoe. In all kayak
-forms there was no complete sheathing&mdash;the one, two,
-or three narrow battens to a side above the chine
-were held in place only by the sprung ribs (without
-lashings); in the bateau form, however, the side
-batten was lashed to each frame after the manner of
-of an Eskimo sea kayak.</p>
-
-<p>The characteristic detail in the structure of the bark
-kayak-canoe, including the bateau variation, was the
-bottom framing. It was variously formed, according
-to tribal designation. The bottom framing was made
-up of five or six longitudinal battens (four in one
-extinct form of canoe). In the Yukon canoes six
-rectangular battens, all of about the same cross section,
-were used with the narrow edge outboard. These
-battens were held rigidly to form by thin crosspieces,
-or splints, about ¼ by 1 inch forced athwartships
-through short splits in the battens and pegged at the
-ends on the chine battens. The ends of the four inner
-longitudinals were cut off on the snye to bear on the
-inside face of the chine battens (in some instances
-they were cut short of this). The chine ends were beveled
-together or lashed to the sides of the stem-pieces.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span>
-But in the Mackenzie form of canoe, the longitudinals
-had no cross-members and, like the side battens, were
-held in place by the pressure of the sprung ribs
-against the bark cover. There was a difference in the
-form of midsection: in the Yukon canoes the bottom
-athwartships was flat, but in the Mackenzie canoes
-there had to be some rounding there. At least one
-exception existed in the Mackenzie Basin, where the
-Loucheux canoe was formed on the Yukon bottom.
-Another is to be seen in an old model of an extinct
-Athabascan kayak form, which has only four longitudinals
-and chine members that are very wide and
-rounded only on the outboard face. Between the
-chine battens are two light rectangular battens.
-These are all held together by a few splints and by
-lashings which pass around each individual batten,
-thus serving both as lashing and spreader. This
-canoe has what is apparently a very narrow bottom
-compared to known types. In some of the Eskimo-built
-birch kayak forms, the separators between the
-bottom battens were rectangular blocks held in place
-by a thong threaded through two holes in each batten
-and block, to make a round turn, and tied at one chine.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i177.jpg" width="700" height="323" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 149</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Extinct Forms of Canoes Reconstructed From Old Models</span>, showing variations
-in the bottom frame construction and the effects of hull form. Dimensions
-are estimated from the sizes of canoes in the area of each example.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In some bateau variations of the kayak-form canoe,
-the longitudinals were secured by crosspieces, the ends
-of which were tenoned into the inside faces of the
-chine battens. The three inner battens were below
-the cross pieces. As a result, their bottoms were slightly
-below the bottom of the chine members, so that
-in this canoe two chine lines show through the bark
-cover on each side of the canoe.</p>
-
-<p>From tribe to tribe the method of building the
-kayak-form canoe varied somewhat, but generally
-the following procedure was employed. On a smooth,
-level piece of ground the form of the canoe was staked
-out in the usual manner, using a building frame,
-with the stakes sloped outward at the top to match the
-desired flare of the sides.</p>
-
-<p>Stem and stern posts were shaped of cedar by charring
-and scraping. The gunwales were made in the
-same manner and were then lashed at the desired
-heights on the stakes. Next, the bark cover was
-formed, usually of two or more sheets sewn together.
-This was placed inside the stakes and the building
-frame was forced down on it and weighted with stones.
-The ends were then trimmed and the sides were gored,
-sewn, and trimmed to fit the gunwales, to which the
-bark was laced. The stem and the stern post were
-then placed and lashed to the gunwales and secured
-to the bark by lashing, in some instances through
-holes in the posts. The bark at this stage was usually
-quite dry and stiff and the gunwales could be freed
-from the side stakes.</p>
-
-<p>The bottom frame, assembled before other construction
-had started, was hogged; the middle was
-placed on a log or block and the ends weighted. Hot<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span>
-water was often applied to set the bottom frame.</p>
-
-<p>Next, the bark cover was thoroughly wetted with
-boiling water to make it pliable and elastic. The
-building frame and stones were now removed, the
-bottom frame was substituted, and its ends fastened
-or engaged to the heels of the stem and stern posts.
-The bottom frame was then forced flat and held there
-by stones. This stretched the bottom bark longitudinally,
-and increased the sheer slightly toward bow
-and stern. The hogged bottom frame was known as
-a "sliding bottom" by some Indians.</p>
-
-<p>The transverse frames, or ribs, had been prebent
-in the usual manner before assembly began; a few
-of these were now put in place, the ends being forced
-under the gunwales between their outer faces and the
-bark, or into a groove on the underside of the gunwale.
-This stretched the bark transversely and vertically.
-Once the bark had been forced into form by this
-method, the remaining ribs were added, and these
-now held the hogged bottom down so that the weights
-or stones could be removed. The canoe was then
-turned over, the seams gummed, and any tears or
-rents repaired.</p>
-
-<p>This method of building usually produced a slight
-hogging in both bottom and in the sheer amidships,
-but when the canoe was afloat and loaded the light,
-flexible construction caused the hogging to disappear.
-The kayak-form canoes of the Dènè tribe appear to
-be the most highly developed of all in this type.</p>
-
-<p>The decks of many of the kayak-form canoes were
-made of a triangular sheet of bark cut with the grain
-of the bark running athwartships, so that it could be
-held in place by the curl of its edges, which clamped
-under the outwales, as well as by three lashings.
-The edges were curled by passing a glowing brand
-along them. One lashing was around the stem-head
-and two were at the inboard end of the deck, around
-inwale and outwale. If the inboard end of the deck
-was not on a thwart it was stiffened by a batten
-lashed on top of the deck athwartship, at the deck
-end, to serve as an exterior deck beam and breakwater
-in one. If the deck end was on a thwart, a batten
-might be pegged athwartship on top of the deck;
-sometimes this batten was rolled in a sheet of bark
-first. Another method was to use a small sheet of
-bark tightly rolled, with its free edge tucked under
-the deck end and secured at the ends of the roll by
-the deck-gunwale lashings there. Some canoes had
-their decks lashed over battens for a short distance
-along the gunwales. In some Mackenzie Basin kayak
-forms, the end of the deck at the stem-head was
-protected by a small paddle-or leaf-shaped piece of
-bark placed under the lashing there and shaped to
-reach a little over onto the stem piece so as to seal
-the seam.</p>
-
-<p>The fitting of the bark cover of the kayak-form
-canoes was not the same in all types. In the Mackenzie
-canoes the bottom, which might be in three, four,
-or five pieces sewn together, was alike on both sides;
-to it the side pieces were sewn at, or just above, the
-chines. The sides were made up of deep panels, five
-to nine to a side. There were no horizontal seams
-other than the one near the chines.</p>
-
-<p>In some Yukon canoes, however, the bottom sheet
-was often made of three pieces and covered not only
-the bottom but also a portion, such as the after
-two-thirds, of one side. The forward portion of that
-side would then be covered by a single large panel or
-perhaps two, so that the horizontal seam on that side
-would run from the stem aft to the inboard end of the
-foredeck and would be just above the chine. On
-the opposite side a sheet would cover the bottom there
-and the bow topside from the stem aft for a short way.
-Deep panels would then cover the rest of that side to
-the stern, so that the horizontal seam there began
-forward at the sheer, some feet abaft the bow, and
-swept downward in a gentle curve to near the chine
-and then ran aft to the stern in a long sheered line
-just above the turn of the bilge, rising slightly as it
-neared the stern. Hence the foremost of the panels
-on that side was nearly triangular and the others
-were nearly rectangular. Inside, at the chine, was
-placed a reinforcing strip of bark wide enough to
-reach 3 inches beyond both sides of each chine
-longitudinal and running the length of the bottom;
-or if a seam near the chine permitted, the side and
-bottom pieces were overlapped. As has been noted,
-in the Yukon canoes a reinforcing piece at the outwale
-was not used, but was in the Mackenzie canoes;
-it extended down the side about 3 inches below the
-underside of the outwale amidships and ran to the
-ends of the canoe, or nearly so, tapering with the
-outwales to a width of about 1½ inches at bow and
-stern. In these canoes much of the lashing at stem
-and stern was double-thong; the longitudinal sewing
-was often over a batten in the usual spiral stitch, and
-a simple spiral stitch was also used to join the panels,
-although in-and-out stitching might also be seen in
-some canoes.</p>
-
-<p>In many of the kayak-form canoes two ribs often
-stood noticeably close together amidships, and the
-rest stood parallel to the rake of the end on their side,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span>
-respectively, of the middle ribs. However, not all
-these canoes had such double ribs; some were framed
-out in the usual manner, with the ribs widely spaced
-and canted toward their respective ends of the hull,
-away from the midship of the canoe.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i179.jpg" width="700" height="370" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 150</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Kayak-Form Canoes of the Alaskan Eskimos</span> and Canadian
-Athabascan Indians: chine form of Eskimo birch-bark canoe
-(above) and the dish-sectioned form of the Canadian Athabascans.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>In most of these canoes the paddler sat on a sheet
-of bark secured on the bottom; this was held in place
-by one or two false ribs having their ends under the
-inner gunwales and their middle forced down against
-the bark on the bottom framework. In place of
-bark, some Eskimo builders of the type used thin
-splints of wood laced together by two or three lines
-of double-thong stitching athwartships, which was
-passed through two holes in each splint. This might
-be loose or held in place by a false frame.</p>
-
-<p>The paddle was single-bladed and the same as that
-used with the second class of Mackenzie Basin
-canoe (fig. 151). The blade was parallel-sided with
-the point formed in a short straight-sided <strong>V</strong>-form;
-The blade of Yukon paddles was often taper-sided
-toward the point, which was a rounded <strong>V</strong>. Other
-variations in blade form existed, however, and the
-narrow leaf-shaped blade was used in some areas in
-Alaska. In the Mackenzie paddles the handle ended
-in a knob, but in Alaskan versions it ended in a
-cross-grip like those of paddles used with some
-Alaskan sea kayaks. The Eskimo double-blade paddle
-was used with the kayak-form canoe by some paddlers;
-Hearne mentions its use.</p>
-
-<p>Some of the kayak-form canoes were decorated; in
-Alaska this decoration often took the form of a line of
-colored beads sewn along each side of the afterdeck
-at the gunwale, or it consisted of a few oval panels
-of red, blue, or black paint along the sides or centerline
-of the afterdeck. In some Mackenzie kayak forms
-the decks were painted in various designs; a rather
-common one seems to have been two or more bands
-of paint around the deck edges, along the gunwales,
-ending at bow and stern with a full round sweep.
-Painted disk designs appeared on some of the large
-Algonkin-Ojibway canoes of the second type.</p>
-
-<p>A number of kayak forms became extinct before
-any accurate, detailed records of their shape and
-construction had been made; models of some of
-these canoes exist but are not to scale and are untrustworthy
-as to detail, since they are often simplified.
-One model of the extinct British Columbia bateau
-form, for example, showed but three longitudinals
-in the bottom, though the probable size of the canoe
-undoubtedly would have required a greater number.
-On the other hand, the model may have represented
-a spruce-bark canoe constructed for temporary use,
-in which case a simplified construction might have
-been employed. One can only speculate which it
-was. Models of some kayak-form Yukon canoes show
-the decks lashed to the gunwales with a very coarse
-spiral stitch not recorded for any of the observed
-full-size canoes; thus it may be a model-maker's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span>
-method of securing the decking firmly rather than
-an actual practice used on full-size canoes.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i180.jpg" width="700" height="301" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 151</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Kayak-Form Canoe of British Columbia</span> and upper Yukon valley. Shows
-hogged bottom, usual in the type with a rigid bottom frame, which becomes
-straight or cambered when canoe is afloat and manned. Original in the
-Museum of the American Indian, New York.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>It now remains only to give short descriptions
-of the various kayak-form canoes that have been
-observed.</p>
-
-<p>The ends of the Eskimo-built canoes of the lower
-Yukon had a short rake, the heel of the end profile
-breaking out of the bottom line at a slight angle
-and sweeping upward and outward in a gentle curve,
-often becoming almost straight near the stem head.
-The bow and stern were nearly the same height,
-the bow being a little higher, about half the midship
-depth above the sheer amidships. The sheer at
-each end was almost dead straight until within a few
-inches of the end; thence it swept up sharply with
-the inner gunwale ends, broadened, resting on the
-inboard side of the stem piece. The extreme ends
-of the inner gunwales were thus at the extreme stem-head.
-The stem-pieces were of plank, the cutwater
-portion outside the bark cover being sharpened the
-full height of the stems. These lower Yukon canoes
-had three side battens above the chine piece, but
-not all ran the full length in one piece; some were
-in two, in which case the ends merely ran past one
-another for a few rib-spaces and were neither butted
-nor lapped. The forward deck extended nearly one-third
-the canoe's length and had a batten across
-the inboard deck-end; the after deck reached to the
-after thwart. Adney's model of such a canoe shows
-the after deck lashed to the gunwales with spiral
-turns over a batten along the deck edges and finished
-toward the stern with chain stitching, but no such
-arrangement was seen in any full-sized canoe.</p>
-
-<p>The form of these Eskimo-built canoes was nearly
-that of a double-ended flat-bottom skiff; the bottom
-being flat athwartships and without rocker fore-and-aft.
-The sides flared and were nearly straight. The
-turn of the bilge was quite sharp, the chine having a
-very short radius. In plan, the canoe showed no
-hollow in the ends, which were convex both at gunwale
-and on the bottom frame. In some of the
-full-sized canoes inspected there appeared to be a
-slight hog ranging from ¼ to ⅜ inch in the bottom,
-but there was no evidence to suggest that this was a
-result of the drying and shrinkage of the canoe structure
-with age. Hearne's drawing of a kayak-form
-canoe shows an impossible amount of hog in the
-bottom, and he indicates that some hog was intentional
-in building. This would disappear when the
-canoe was loaded afloat owing to the light and
-flexible structure, and it is evident that the builders
-usually sought to have the bottom slightly hogged.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i181.jpg" width="700" height="409" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 152</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Construction of Kayak-Form Canoe</span> of the lower Yukon, showing rigid
-bottom frame. (<em>Smithsonian Institution photo.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The kayak-form canoes of the lower Yukon and
-neighboring streams all appear to have been small
-canoes "tailored" to their owner's weight and height:
-14 to 15 feet in overall length, 2 to 2¼ feet wide,
-and 10 to 12 inches deep. The bottom frame was
-from 12 to 14 inches wide amidships.</p>
-
-<p>The kayak-form canoes of the upper Yukon Valley
-and those used in northern British Columbia and in
-Yukon Territory had ends with a long rake that came
-up in a straight line from an angular break at the
-bottom line to the height of the sheer amidships or
-thereabouts; there a gradual upward curve continued
-to the stem-head. The stern was 2 inches or so higher
-than the bow, and the rake of the latter was usually
-about an equal distance longer than that of the stern.
-The sheer was nearly straight, with only about 2 inches
-of sag from the heel of the stem to that of the stern.
-Beyond the heels, the sheer lifted in a fair sweep,
-becoming sharper toward the ends, where the broadened
-inwales were secured on top of the stem and
-stern pieces. There was no rocker in the bottom,
-and some examples showed as much as ⅜ inch of hog
-amidships. The bottom was flat athwartships and
-the almost straight sides flared a good deal. The turn
-of the bilge was on a very small radius and in some
-canoes appeared angular. The bow deck was usually
-just under one-fifth the length of the canoe. Most of
-the canoes did not have a stern deck, at least on the
-Yukon headwaters, but on those that did, it was about
-one-ninth the length of the canoe. The greatest beam
-was abaft amidships and the canoe was usually about
-1½ inches deeper at the heel of the sternpost than at
-the heel of the stem. In plan, the ends (at gunwale
-and bottom frame) were convex; the gunwale ends
-alone might appear slightly hollow close to the posts
-in some examples. The canoes in Alaska and British
-Columbia and at the headwaters of the Yukon had a
-rigid bottom structure, with the splint spreaders
-usually numbering five.</p>
-
-<p>The 1-man hunting canoes were commonly 18 to 19
-feet long, 24 to 27 inches beam, and usually 10 to 11
-inches deep amidships. The single example of a family
-or cargo kayak-form that has been measured from
-this area was 20 feet 1 inch overall and 30¼ inches
-beam over the gunwales. It was 18 inches wide on the
-bottom frame, 13 inches deep amidships, 14 inches<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span>
-deep at heel of stem, and 16 inches at heel of stem-post.
-Height of the stem was 29 inches, of the stern 30½
-inches, the after rake was 38 inches, and the fore rake
-40½ inches. The canoe had no decks and was rather
-sharp-ended.</p>
-
-<p>The kayak-form canoe of the Athabascan Loucheux
-had a rigid bottom-frame; the bottom was flat
-athwartships and it had no fore-and-aft rocker. The
-sides were flaring and slightly curved. Both ends
-were alike, and the canoe was unusual in having only
-five thwarts, with one amidships. The stem was
-short in rake and curved; the stem profile came out of
-the bottom line in a fair, quick curve which became
-vertical at a height of little more than two-thirds the
-depth amidships of the canoe. The height of the
-stem was almost twice the midship depth. Between
-the end thwarts the sheer was straight, thence it
-swept upward in a gradually sharpening curve to the
-inboard stems; the inwale ends stood vertical on the
-face of the stem, with their ends brought to the top of
-the stem-head. The stem-pieces were of unusually
-thick plank, with the head broadened and the cutwater
-part outside the bark cover sharpened until
-near the head, where it gradually became as wide as
-inboard. The gunwales were lashed with continuous
-turns, as in the Alaskan canoes. In plan, the gunwales
-and bottom frame were full-ended and convex.
-These canoes were decked equally at both ends. The
-deck extended inboard far enough to just cover the
-end thwart, to which, in the example seen, it was
-lashed with four simple in-and-out passes of rawhide
-thong. The chine-pieces of the bottom were lashed
-to the sides of the stem-pieces. The covering was
-birch bark. Two battens on each side were employed
-with the usual six longitudinals in the bottom frame.
-These canoes were well-built and their ends resemble
-those of the seagoing kayaks used at the mouth of the
-Mackenzie, but these for at least the last 70 years of
-their use were round-bottomed. The Loucheux
-canoes were small, usually about 15 feet long, 30
-inches wide, and about 12 inches deep amidships.</p>
-
-<p>The Chipewyan kayak-form canoe was of loose-batten
-bottom frame construction, with its beam
-well aft of amidships. Its bottom was slightly rounded
-athwartships, with a slight rocker fore-and-aft; the
-sides flared outward and were nearly straight; and
-the turn of the bilge was almost angular. The bow
-and stern were of the same general shape; the end
-profile came out of the bottom line with a quick hard
-curve and then fell outboard in a long sweep that
-gradually straightened near the head. The rakes were
-short, however, and the stem was noticeably lower
-than the stern, the difference being as much as 6
-inches in some canoes. The sheer was nearly straight
-to the end thwarts and thence it curved up in an
-easy sweep to the ends of the canoe. The canoes were
-markedly deeper at the stern than at the bow; the
-difference being as much as 1½ inches in some
-examples.</p>
-
-<p>This kayak-form was very sharp-ended; the gunwales
-in plan often showed a slight hollow and the
-chine members came to the posts in an almost straight
-<strong>V</strong>. As a result, the end ribs were often intentionally
-"broken" to form a narrow-based, angular <strong>U</strong>. In
-some Eskimo-built kayak forms, a similar result in
-hull section was obtained in the endmost frames by
-stepping short struts in splits, or tenons, on top of
-the chine members and on the underside of the main
-gunwales. This construction was occasionally found
-in some of the lower Yukon kayak forms. The
-Chipewyan kayak forms were decked at both ends.
-The fore deck was slightly more than one-fourth the
-length of the canoe and extended inboard to the second
-thwart; the after deck was about one-tenth, and
-came inboard to the end thwart. No breakwater
-batten or bark was employed. There were two battens
-on the sides, above the bilges.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwale wrappings were in groups. The bark
-cover was not folded over the top of the inner gunwale
-but, as usual in the Northwest canoes, was trimmed
-evenly with the top of the inwale and outwale. Reinforcing
-bark along the gunwales extended downward
-about 1½ inches below the bottom of the outwales
-amidships and about 1 inch at the ends. Of the
-bottom longitudinals, the keel and chine-pieces were
-roughly rectangular in cross-section, laid on the flat,
-and the intermediate two battens were round; the
-ends of the keel piece were merely butted against
-the stems, no lashing being used. The stem piece
-was thick plank and was sharpened outside the bark
-cover to form a cutwater. The stem lashing was of
-the usual two-thong form, and a batten was used
-in the longitudinal seams of the bark cover. The
-thwarts, six in number, were tenoned through both
-inwale and outwale and pegged between them. No
-thwart lashings were used. The decks often were
-not lashed into place, being held only by the curling
-of the edges of the bark sheets.</p>
-
-<p>This canoe was a very good one; it was light and
-was fitted to the owner's build. In size it would be
-between 12 and 14 feet long and 20 and 24 inches
-wide over the gunwales, and the width of bottom<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span>
-over the chine members amidships would be 11 to 12
-inches. The greatest beam would occur 7 to 8¼
-feet abaft the stem. The depth at heel of stem would
-be 8½ to 9½ inches and at heel of stern, 10 to 11 inches.
-The amount of bottom rocker would be between ¾
-and 1 inch, with its low point about amidships. The
-cover was usually birch bark, but sometimes spruce
-bark was used.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i183.jpg" width="700" height="523" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 153</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Model of an Extinct Form of Birch-Bark Canoe</span>, Athabascan type, of
-British Columbia. In Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
-Mass.; entered in the museum catalog as of 1849.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Another kayak-form canoe of unknown tribal designation
-from the Mackenzie Basin was 13 feet 3
-inches long, 27 inches beam over the gunwales, 8½
-inches deep amidships, 8¾ inches deep at heel of stem,
-10 inches deep at the aftermost thwart, and with
-about ⅜ inch of rocker in the forebody, none in the
-afterbody. The greatest beam occurred 7 feet 2 inches
-from the stem. The width amidships of the bottom
-framework of loose longitudinals was 13 inches. The
-length of the rake foreward was 12 inches and aft,
-12 inches. The fore deck extended inboard to the
-second thwart, where a roll of bark formed a breakwater.
-The after deck extended inboard to the
-aftermost thwart. Between the end thwarts the sheer
-was practically straight; at the ends it rose gently,
-becoming almost a straight line as it came to the stem
-and stern, and without the usual upward hook in the
-ends of the gunwales.</p>
-
-<p>This was a very light and well-built canoe with a
-birch-bark cover, a slightly rounded bottom athwartships,
-slack bilge, and flaring sides showing some curve
-in cross-section. The ends were rather sharp, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span>
-gunwales coming in to them almost straight, in plan,
-as did the chine members. The stem and stern
-pieces were of wide plank sharpened along their outboard
-edge outside the bark cover, for their whole
-height, to form cutwaters. The stem and stern profiles
-were about the same as those of the Chipewyan
-canoes.</p>
-
-<p>An old model in the Peabody Museum of an undecked
-kayak-form canoe of Athabascan construction
-represents a high-ended canoe having ends with
-a slight rake and a straight cutwater. This form of
-canoe has long been extinct, and no description of an
-actual canoe of the form exists. Judging by the model
-it had a very narrow flat-bottom and rounded flaring
-sides.</p>
-
-<p>The extinct bateau variant has already been
-described (pp. <a href="#Page_159">159</a>-161); it might be considered a
-primitive form of the kayak-form bark canoes, were
-it not that no intermediate type, between the bateau
-and the later and highly developed bark kayak-form,
-has been found; as a result, any such statement can
-be no more than speculation.</p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Sturgeon-Nose Canoe</em></h3>
-
-<p>In southern British Columbia and in northern
-Washington, the ram-ended or sturgeon-nose canoes
-were built. These were the canoes of the Kutenai, also
-spelled "Kootenay," and of the Salish tribal groups.
-Used on rivers and lakes, they were constructed of
-the bark of birch, spruce, fir, white pine, or balsam,
-whichever was available at the building site. Wherever
-possible a panel of birch bark was worked in
-along the whole length of the gunwales. The hull
-form of these canoes varied somewhat, perhaps by
-decision of the builder, or perhaps by local tribal
-custom. The ends were formed with a marked "ram,"
-the stem profiles running down and out to the "nose"
-in a straight or nearly straight line. In some examples
-the stem profiles were in a hollow curve, starting
-down from the gunwales rather steeply and then
-curving outward more gently to the nose. Most
-examples had a bottom that was straight or slightly
-hogged, while those with the hollow curve in the ram
-often had a slight rocker. It is believed that the
-intention was always to have the bottom straight but
-that in construction the center of the canoe lifted
-somewhat, thus showing a slight hog in the bottom
-line. The effects of loading and use on the light and
-flexible structure of these canoes would cause the
-bottom to rocker and the outboard ends to lift, thus
-causing the hollow in the ram profiles. These effects
-of loading are confirmed by tests with models of this
-form of canoe.</p>
-
-<p>The midsection was usually quite round, almost
-<strong>U</strong>-shaped, on the bottom, but some canoes showed the
-bottom slightly flattened and the sides flared out
-somewhat. Toward the ends, the <strong>U</strong>-shape became
-marked, and near the gunwale ends the sides of the <strong>U</strong>
-fell inboard slightly as they came to the gunwales,
-the bottom of the <strong>U</strong> having a hard turn. In plan,
-the gunwales approached the stems without hollow,
-being nearly straight or even slightly convex. The
-ram was long and sharp in its lower level lines and
-this, with the form of midsection, made this model a
-fast-paddling canoe, though rather unstable. Most
-of these canoes had but one thwart, placed at midlength,
-but some have been found with three thwarts
-and a thong tie across the gunwales, close to the stems,
-as well.</p>
-
-<p>No stem-pieces were used; the bark ends were closed
-by two outside battens, one on each side, whose heads
-were carried some 3 inches above the gunwales. A
-cutwater batten was placed over the edges of the
-bark between the battens, and the three were lashed
-together, with the bark, by a coarse spiral wrapping
-or by group ties. The bark cover was not sheathed
-inside; instead, six battens, ⅜ by 1½ inches, were
-placed on each side of the keel piece, which measured
-about ½ by 3 inches and tapered toward the ends.
-The battens, widely spaced, ran well into the ram
-ends, and were held in place, like sheathing, by the
-pressure of the ribs. The ribs, spaced 8 to 12 inches
-on centers, were often split saplings; sometimes they
-were shaped to approximately ¼ by ¾ inch. The
-batten nearest the gunwale on each side was lashed
-to every rib. In some canoes the heads of the ribs
-were brought up between the inwale and outwale,
-inside the bark cover, with their ends against the
-cap. The stitching of the longitudinal seam of the
-topside panel was passed around these frames and
-so helped to secure them. In one example, the ribs
-were passed through the bark cover just below the
-horizontal seam of the topside panel; there a turn of
-the stitching was passed around each rib; then
-the rib was brought inboard again in the seam by
-being passed between the edges of the bark cover
-and the panel. In many canoes there were no ribs
-in the ram ends, but this was not universal practice;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span>
-small light ribs were sometimes placed there, with
-their heads caught in the closure lashing of the end.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i185.jpg" width="700" height="397" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 154</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Bark Canoe of the Kutenai and Shuswap</span>, about average in size and proportion.
-Original in the Museum of the American Indian, New York.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The canoes had 3-part gunwales consisting of inwale,
-outwale, and cap, but in many the arrangement of
-these was such that this nomenclature is misleading.
-In the latter construction, a lower inwale was used, as
-in the above drawing; rather small in cross section,
-it was almost square, with rounded edges. The rib
-ends, after passing through slits in the bark cover
-below the lower inwale, continued upward past it,
-outside the bark cover. Above the lower inwale and
-inside the bark cover was a larger upper inwale;
-this was flat on the outboard and bottom sides, the
-top and inboard sides being rounded into one another.
-The outwale, roughly rectangular in cross section,
-clamped the bark cover and heads of the ribs between
-it and the upper inwale. The ribs and bark were
-trimmed off flush with the tops of the outwale and upper
-inwale. The thwart amidships was caught, at the
-ends, between the lower and upper inwales. The gunwale
-members and bark cover were secured by group
-lashings of small extent and rather widely spaced.</p>
-
-<p>The methods of fitting the thwarts differed in this
-class of canoe, and it cannot be determined with certainty
-whether this variation was tribal or the choice
-of the individual builder. In canoes having the lower
-inwale arrangement there was but one thwart amidships.
-As has been said, its ends were caught between
-the upper and lower inwales. Directly beneath it
-was a rib whose head was not brought up outside
-the bark cover but, after being secured to the uppermost
-sheathing batten, was brought around inboard
-in a quick hard turn and secured along the underside
-of the thwart with a close spiral lashing. Under this
-rib at the topmost batten was secured a short false
-rib head by forcing the beveled foot of the false rib
-between the batten and the true rib, after lashing;
-the head of the false rib was then brought up through
-and outside the bark cover in the customary manner,
-or it might be forced under the lower inwale, inside
-the bark cover. In this construction, the endmost
-ribs were at the gunwale ends, and the heads of these
-were lashed to the stem battens outside the gunwale
-ends, on the outside of the bark cover.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 155</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Ojibway Canoe Construction.</span>
-(See pp. <a href="#Page_122">122</a>-131.)</p>
-<p>(<em>Canadian Geological Survey
-photos.</em>)</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i186a.jpg" width="700" height="408" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Peeling bark.</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i186b.jpg" width="700" height="415" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Staking out bark.</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i186c.jpg" width="700" height="413" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Assembling bark over on building
-site.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span></p>
-</div>
-
-<img src="images/i187a.jpg" width="700" height="408" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Making root thongs.</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i187b.jpg" width="700" height="405" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Setting ribs inside bark cover
-with a mallet.</p></div>
-
-<img src="images/i187c.jpg" width="700" height="410" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Fitting gunwale caps on new
-canoe.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>In canoes having the usual gunwales of inwale,
-outwale, and cap, the inwale and outwale were
-roughly rectangular, with their top sides horizontal,
-and the cap, very small and light, was flat on the
-bottom and rounded on top. In this construction,
-the rib heads usually were clamped between the inwale
-and outwale, inside the bark cover.</p>
-
-<p>The ribs of the ends were lighter than those of the
-main body and more closely spaced, say 2 or 3 inches
-apart. These began about 8 or 9 inches inboard of
-the gunwale ends; the heads did not reach the gunwales,
-but instead were caught in the horizontal seam
-of the side panel and then cut off. Usually three ribs
-were so fitted. The rest of the end ribs, usually eight
-in number, either had their heads caught in the stem
-lashings or were made up as hoops with the heads
-overlapped and lashed together, the ribs being placed
-so that the overlap came to one side or the other of the
-canoe. Each hoop was usually caught by a turn in
-the end-closure lashing.</p>
-
-<p>To strengthen the ram, the lower ends of the three
-stem battens were lashed to the extremities of the
-inside keel-piece, which was brought through the
-bark cover at this point. The opening resulting from
-this was sealed with gum or pitch. Minor variations
-in construction have been noted in the canoes exhibited
-in museums; in one, for example, only every
-fourth rib was caught in the topside panel stitching.</p>
-
-<p>In canoes having the usual arrangement of gunwale
-members, with the cap over the ends of the ribs, the
-ends of the thwart were sometimes carried some 6 to 8
-inches beyond the gunwales, at each end, and much
-reduced in thickness by cutting away about half the
-depth of the thwart. This part was then wrapped
-tightly around the inwale, brought inboard along the
-underside of the thwart, and there lashed. Examples
-show that the amount of end brought inboard under
-the thwart varied with the builder. It should be
-added that the thwarts were usually no more than
-barked saplings and were obviously installed in the
-canoe when green and treated with hot water so they
-would not break when wrapped around the inwales.
-In canoes having three thwarts, all were fitted in this
-manner, but often the thwarts on each side of the
-middle were also wrapped in a long spiral with a
-thong whose ends were tied to each gunwale. In 3-thwart
-canoes, there was commonly a cross tie,
-located roughly 12 inches from the gunwale ends and
-consisting of three or more turns of cord, or thong,
-around the gunwale members on each side and
-athwartships, secured by turns of the ends around
-the cross tie. In one canoe there was a thwart amidships
-and one at one end, about halfway between the
-middle thwart and the gunwale ends; at the other end
-were two cross ties, one replacing the thwart and
-another a foot inboard of the ends of the gunwales.
-In this canoe the ribs at the gunwale ends were hoops
-and there were only three hoop ribs in the ram ends.</p>
-
-<p>One canoe, from Stevens County, Washington,
-had a peculiar double framing. The sheathing
-battens, instead of being on the inside of the bark
-cover, rested on light ribs, spaced about 6 inches apart,
-that ran only far enough up the sides to have their
-ends caught in the stitching at the bottom of the topside
-birch-bark panel along the gunwales. The longitudinal
-battens were placed inside these, with the
-batten nearest the gunwale lashed to the light ribs.
-Inside these battens and spaced about a foot apart
-was another set of ribs whose heads were secured
-between the inwale and outwale inside the bark cover;
-each of these inside ribs was also lashed to the uppermost
-batten. Only the keel batten was under the
-small ribs. The thwart ends were wrapped around
-the main gunwale members, and the stem battens
-were secured to the birch topside panels by but one
-group lashing, near the gunwales. The bottom cover
-was stiff pine bark.</p>
-
-<p>The topside panel of birch bark was placed in these
-canoes so that its grain was horizontal instead of the
-usual vertical. Presumably this was done as a maintenance
-solution: the panel was much easier to repair
-or replace than the bottom bark; and by having the
-panel placed in this weak mode, it would split before
-the bottom bark if too much pressure were brought on
-the framework in loading.</p>
-
-<p>These canoes paddled well in strong winds and in
-smooth water, and worked quietly in the marshes
-where they were much used. Canvas canoes of the
-same model replaced the bark canoes, indicating that
-the model was suitable for its locality and use. These
-sturgeon-nose canoes were so different from other
-North American bark canoes that they have been the
-subject of much speculation, particularly since ram-ended
-canoes, though of different construction, existed
-in Asia.</p>
-
-<p>The size of the Kutenai-Salish sturgeon-nose canoes
-varied; the most common size appears to have been
-between 14 and 20 feet over the ends of the rams,
-24 to 28 inches beam, and with a depth ranging
-from 12 to 13 inches amidships and from 14½ to 17½
-inches at the ends of the gunwales. However, records
-exist that show rather large canoes were built on this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span>
-model, 24 feet over the rams, 48 inches beam and 24
-inches depth.</p>
-
-<p>The building methods of this type of canoe have
-never been reported. Probably some kind of a rough
-building frame was used. Perhaps this was comprised
-of a couple of the battens and the keel piece, weighted
-with stones. The building bed was probably level.
-The main gunwale members were apparently made up
-temporarily and the bark cover shaped and staked out.
-From that point the work may have followed the usual
-canoe-building practices except that the ends could
-not be closed until the framing there was complete,
-otherwise it would have been impossible to fasten the
-small ribs in the rams. The structure of these canoes
-appears to have been almost entirely cedar, except
-for the bark and lacings which, in some instances,
-were partly some bark fiber as well as roots. In
-general, the construction of this class of canoe did not
-match in quality that of the other bark canoes of the
-Northwest.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i189.jpg" width="700" height="458" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 156</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Indians with Canoe</span> at Alert Bay, on Cormorant
-Island, B.C.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Chapter Seven</em><br />
-
-ARCTIC SKIN BOATS<br />
-
-<em>Howard I. Chapelle</em></h2>
-
-
-<p>Among the three primitive watercraft of
-North America (the others being the dugout and the
-bark canoe of the American Indians), the Arctic skin
-boats of the Eskimos are remarkable for effective
-design and construction obtained under conditions
-in which building materials are both scarce and
-limited in selection. The Arctic skin boat is almost
-entirely to be found in the North American Arctic
-from Bering Sea to the East Coast of Greenland.
-In Russian Siberia, only in a small area of the eastern
-Arctic lands adjacent to the North American continent
-are any employed.</p>
-
-<p>These craft, an important and necessary factor in
-the hunting lives of most Eskimo tribal groups, have
-long attracted the attention of explorers and ethnologists,
-and many specimens have been deposited
-in American and European museums. Like bark
-canoes, they have unfortunately proved difficult to
-preserve under conditions of museum exhibit. As a result,
-examples of once numerous types have become so
-damaged that they no longer give an accurate
-impression of their original form and appearance,
-and some have so deteriorated that they have had to
-be destroyed. Among the latter may have been
-examples of types long since out of use. One such
-type was represented by a single kayak, now destroyed;
-as a result this form has become extinct, and only a
-poor scale model remains to give a highly unsatisfactory
-representation of it.</p>
-
-<p>In 1946 the late Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who was
-then projecting his <cite>Encyclopedia Arctica</cite>, asked me to
-prepare for it a technical article on the Arctic skin
-boat. The decision of the sponsors to discontinue
-the publication, after the first volume had appeared,
-prevented appearance of the article, but in 1958,
-through the kindness of Dr. Stefansson, it was returned
-to the author for publication by the U.S.
-National Museum. I have since revised and added
-to it, after receiving criticisms and suggestions from
-Henry B. Collins, of the Smithsonian's Bureau of
-American Ethnology, from John Heath, and from
-other authorities.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> For their aid to him the author takes this occasion to extend
-particular thanks. He also thanks his Smithsonian Institution
-colleagues in the Division of Ethnology, U.S. National Museum;
-members of the staffs of The American Museum of Natural
-History and The Museum of the American Indian in New
-York, of the Peabody Museum at Harvard, and of the Stefansson
-Library at Dartmouth; and the Washington State Historical
-Society and Museum, and others in the Northwest who gave
-both aid and encouragement.</p></div>
-
-<p>The object of the study, as will be seen, was to
-measure the skin boats and to make scale drawings
-that would permit the construction of a replica
-exact in details of appearance, form, construction,
-and also in working behavior. Special regard was
-given to the diversity of types with respect to hull
-form and construction methods; but questions of
-ethnic trends, tribal migrations, and such matters,
-being outside the scope of the study, were not considered.
-Wherever possible, full-size craft were used
-as the source, but where only fragments existed,
-these had to be supplemented by reference to and
-interpretation of models of the same type.</p>
-
-<p>In spite of the difficulty of locating skin boats of
-some Arctic areas, examples of most of those mentioned
-by explorers since 1875 have been found and
-recorded, so that, as far as possible, every distinctive
-tribal type of Arctic skin boat which in 1946 was
-represented by museum exhibits in the eastern
-United States is represented in plans here.</p>
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span></p>
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i191.jpg" width="700" height="354" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 157</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Eighteenth-Century Lines Drawing</span> of a kayak, from Labrador or southern
-Baffin Island (according to Dr. Kaj Birket-Smith of the Danish National
-Museum). Note the long stem that is characteristic of present day kayaks from
-Labrador. The lettering apparently reads:</p>
-
-
-<div class="center">
-<ul><li>From Strait's S<sup>nt</sup>. David</li>
-<li>A Canoe&mdash;N.B. The sections are 2 feet asunder from forward</li>
-<li>Length 21'-6"</li>
-<li>Breadth 2'-1½"</li>
-<li>Depth 0'-8¼"</li>
-</ul></div>
-
-<p>(<em>Courtesy National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, England.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>With the material available it was not possible,
-of course, to explore all the individual types and forms
-in full; hence, the geographical range of a type can
-be stated only approximately, owing to the overlapping
-of tribal groups and the almost constant
-migratory movement of the Eskimo. Originally the
-2-and 3-cockpit kayaks of Russian colonial Alaska
-had been omitted as being probably the results of
-Russian influence. John Heath, however, believing
-attention should be given to this type, has very kindly
-prepared for me a fine draught of such a kayak, or
-"baidarka" (other spellings of this name are common);
-this is shown on page <a href="#Page_197">197</a>.</p>
-
-<p>Although the scale drawings accurately represent
-the form and details of construction, they necessarily
-idealize somewhat the primitive boat design. Also,
-in showing the hull-form, the usual method of projecting
-the "lines" of the hull was discarded as
-unsuitable. Instead structural features have been
-emphasized, with the result that "round"-bottom
-kayaks appear as multi-chine hulls, as they properly
-are. In view of the fluid state of design in Eskimo
-craft it is obvious that the examples shown represent
-the stage of development at the given date, though
-the alteration in most designs has been so gradual that
-the representation could serve to illustrate with
-reasonable accuracy a tribal or area type for a decade
-or more.</p>
-
-<p>The Eskimos have produced two types of skin boats
-that have proved remarkably efficient craft for
-small-boat navigation in Arctic waters: an open
-boat ranging from about 15 to approximately 60
-feet in length for carrying cargo and passengers for
-long distances, and a small decked canoe developed
-exclusively for hunting. With few exceptions these
-Arctic skin boats are wholly seagoing craft.</p>
-
-<p>The open boat, called the umiak, is propelled by
-paddles or oars or sail or, in recent years, by an
-outboard gasoline engine, or it may be towed. While
-fundamentally a cargo carrier the umiak has been
-employed by some Eskimo in whaling and in walrus
-hunting. For these purposes a faster and more
-developed design is used than that used only to
-carry families, household goods, and cargo in the
-constant Eskimo search for new hunting grounds.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span>
-To a far greater degree than any other boat of
-similar size, this Eskimo boat is characterized by
-great strength combined with lightness.</p>
-
-<p>The decked hunting canoe, the kayak, is propelled
-by paddle alone when used for hunting and fishing,
-but is occasionally towed by the umiak when the
-owner travels. The kayak is perhaps the most efficient
-example of a primitive hunting boat; it can be propelled
-at high speed by its paddler and maneuvered
-with ease. These hunting kayaks are commonly
-built to hold but one person, though one group of
-Eskimo built the kayaks to carry two or three. The
-kayak, remarkable for its seaworthiness, lightness and
-strength, has been perhaps one of the most important
-tools in the Eskimo fight for existence. Few tribes
-have been unacquainted with its use. Because of its
-employment, the kayak often has to be designed to
-meet very particular requirements and so there is
-greater variation in its form and dimensions than in
-the umiak.</p>
-
-<p>Seagoing skin boats have not been common outside
-the Arctic in historical times. In fact only the
-European Celts are known with certainty to have
-used such craft. The Irish, in particular, employed
-large seagoing skin boats as late as the reign of
-Queen Elizabeth of England; a drawing of one preserved
-in the Pepysian Library was reproduced in the
-<cite>Mariner's Mirror</cite> (vol. 8, 1922, facing p. 200). Although
-there can be little doubt that large seagoing
-skin craft had been more widely used in prehistoric
-times, the perishable nature of the skin covering and
-the light framework probably account for the lack
-of any archeological remains that would indicate its
-range. The availability of the materials required in
-its construction, however, suggest that its use could
-have been very widespread. The long voyages made
-by the Irish, in the dawning of recorded history,
-could well have made its design and construction
-known to others.</p>
-
-<p>There are still many skin boats in use by primitive
-people and even a few survivals in Europe, but with
-the exception of the Irish "curragh," these craft are
-designed for inland waters and are either rather
-dish-shaped, or oval in plan, like half a walnut shell.
-In design they are related to the coracle of ancient
-Britain rather than to a seagoing skin boat of the
-Irish or Eskimo type. Both the Irish curragh and
-the British coracle, now, of course, are covered with
-canvas rather than hide.</p>
-
-<p>Traditions of long voyages by the ancient Irish in
-the skin-covered curragh make it apparent that such
-voyages were relatively common, and the design
-and construction of existing models of the curragh
-and umiak indicate that these voyages could have
-been made with reasonable safety. Compared to the
-dugout canoe, the skin boat was far lighter and
-roomier in proportion to length and so could carry
-a far greater load and still retain enough freeboard
-to be safe. The size of the early skin boats cannot
-be established with certainty; the modern Irish
-curragh is probably debased in this respect, but
-early explorers of Greenland reported umiaks nearly
-60 feet in length and there is no structural reason
-why the curragh could not have been as large or
-even larger.</p>
-
-<p>Compared with the curragh, the umiak is lighter,
-stronger, and more resistant to shock. The curragh
-was built with closely spaced bent frames and longitudinal
-stringers to support the skin cover, whereas
-the umiak has very widely spaced frames and few
-longitudinals, giving the skin cover little support.
-The difference in construction is undoubtedly a result
-of the type of covering used, for the curragh was
-covered with cattle hides, which were less strong
-than the seal or walrus skins used by the Eskimo.
-The strong and elastic skin cover of the umiak and
-the lack of a rigid structural support gives this boat
-an advantage in withstanding the shocks of beaching
-or of working in floating ice; and because of its relatively
-light framework and the method of securing
-the structural members, its frame is far more flexible
-than that of the curragh, adding to this ability.</p>
-
-<p>The skin cover of the curragh was made watertight
-by rubbing the hides with animal fat, and the sewn
-seams were payed with tallow. The Eskimo soak
-the skin cover of the umiak with animal oil and pay
-the seams with blubber or animal fat. Both treatments
-produced a cover initially watertight but
-requiring drying and reoiling to remain so. Under
-most climatic conditions in the North Atlantic or
-Pacific the oiled skins remain watertight from four
-days to a week. This period can be lengthened by
-various methods; skin boats travelling in company
-can be dried out in turn by unloading one and placing
-it aboard a companion craft. There is evidence
-of other methods of treating the skin covering;
-waterproofing it with melted tallow, for example,
-or with a vegetable gum or a resin such as pitch, would
-enable it to remain watertight for a much longer time,
-though such treatments would make the covering
-less elastic. Pitch was also used at one time in curragh
-building, and it would be unwise to assume that the
-oil treatment used by the Eskimo was their only
-method of producing watertight skin covers in the
-period before they were first observed by Europeans.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i193a.jpg" width="700" height="546" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 158</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Western Alaskan Umiak</span>
-with eight women paddling,
-Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska,
-1936. (<em>Photo by Henry
-B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i193b.jpg" width="700" height="544" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 159</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Western Alaskan Umiak</span>
-being beached, Cape Prince
-of Wales, Alaska, 1936.
-(<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i194a.jpg" width="700" height="355" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 160</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Repairing Umiak Frame</span> at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, 1930.
-(<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 676px;">
-<img src="images/i194b.jpg" width="676" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 161</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Eskimo Woman Splitting Walrus Hide</span> to
-make umiak cover, St. Lawrence Island,
-Alaska, 1930. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The fundamental difference between the construction
-of the curragh and that of the umiak lies in the
-type of longitudinal strength members and the transverse
-framing used. The curragh, like the birch-bark
-canoe, depended entirely upon its gunwales for
-longitudinal strength, whereas the umiak has a strong
-keel, or, properly, a keelson since the keel was inside
-the skin cover. The curragh used longitudinal
-battens to support the skin cover. The umiak, on
-the other hand, has in its chine timbers rather strong
-longitudinal members that give additional strength
-to the bottom. Its transverse frames, unlike those of
-the curragh which were continuous from gunwale to
-gunwale, are in three sections, two side pieces and a
-floor, or bottom, member and the frame members
-are joined to gunwale, chines and keelson by lashings
-of sinew, whalebone, or hide, a method that, together
-with three-part frames, gives great flexibility to the
-framework. The frame of the early curragh may have
-been lashed, but because of the other fundamental
-differences in design and construction it was less
-flexible than that of the umiak.</p>
-
-<p>The basic features of the umiak frame are not
-found in the kayak, the structure of which in most
-types approaches that of the curragh. The gunwale
-is the strength member in the kayak, and some types
-have a rather extensive longitudinal batten system
-as well. In only a few types of kayak is the keelson
-an important strength member, and even here the
-gunwales are of primary importance. The hypothesis
-has been offered that this indicates a different parentage
-for the kayak than for the umiak, and that the
-umiak represents the earlier type, it being argued that
-this type of boat was the one more required in migratory
-periods, and so would be first developed. Such
-theories should be accepted with caution, however,
-as the fundamentally different use requirements for
-the two types of craft might readily explain the variation
-in their principles of construction. Hunting
-would also have been necessary during migrations,
-as existence depended upon food; the earlier appearance
-of the umiak cannot be assumed on such
-limited grounds.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i195a.jpg" width="700" height="478" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 162</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Fitting Split Walrus-Hide Cover</span> to
-umiak at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska,
-1930. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i195b.jpg" width="700" height="380" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 163</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Outboard Motor Installed on Umiak</span>,
-Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, 1936.
-(<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i195c.jpg" width="700" height="373" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 164</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Launching Umiak in Light Surf</span>, with
-crew of 12 men. (Note outboard motor
-attached), Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska,
-1936. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>Eskimo skin boats possess remarkable advantages
-for their employment and conditions of use. Their
-hulls are light in weight, simple to build, and relatively
-easy to repair, yet they are highly shock resistant.
-They can carry large loads, yet are fast, they are
-capable of being propelled by more than one means,
-and they are exceptionally seaworthy.</p>
-
-<p>Floating ice is considered a major hazard to craft
-of all sizes, but the umiak, for example, can resist the
-shocks of ramming the ice to a degree beyond the
-tensile strength of the skin covering, by reason of the
-method of attaching the skin cover to the framework
-of the hull, and to some extent the form of the boat
-itself. The skin cover of the umiak is not rigidly
-attached to the frame in a number of places, but
-rather is a complete unit secured only at the gunwales
-and to the heads of stem and stern. This permits the
-skin cover to be greatly distorted by a blow, so that
-the elasticity of the material at point of impact is
-assisted by the movement of the whole skin cover on
-the frame. Also, the frame itself is flexible and allows
-distortion and recovery not only within the limits of
-the elasticity of the wooden frame but also by the
-movement of the lashed joints in the transverse frames.
-Some kayaks have similar characteristics, though
-their small size and the light weight of both boat and
-loading make its resistance to shock of far less importance
-than that of the umiak.</p>
-
-<p>Light weight is a highly desirable characteristic for
-small craft in the Arctic, since it permits the boat without
-the aid of skids or other mechanical contrivances
-to be removed from the water and carried over obstructions,
-and to be transported either by sledge or
-by manual portage over long distances. Lightness
-is obtained in the Eskimo skin boats by the small
-number and small size of the wooden structural members
-used in their construction. The resulting light
-weight hull permits heavy loading in proportion to
-the size of the boat, and it allows building with a
-minimum of material, in a country where such materials
-as wood are scarce and hard to obtain.</p>
-
-<p>For all small craft in Arctic waters, where distances
-between sources of supply may be great and the time
-that the water is open to navigation is relatively
-short, speed is an important and desirable attribute
-that permits movement with a minimum of effort.
-The exigencies of Arctic travel make it further desirable
-that small craft be capable of propulsion under paddle,
-oars, sail, or low-powered gasoline motors. The
-umiak, because of its form and weight, can be modified
-to meet this requirement without loss of other
-desirable attributes, and to a slightly lesser degree,
-the same may be said of the kayak.</p>
-
-<p>Simplicity in construction and repair are also
-basic requirements in the Arctic, where an emergency
-may make it necessary to repair or rebuild a damaged
-boat out of materials available nearby with the minimum
-of tools and under adverse weather conditions.
-The Eskimo has produced a boat construction that,
-as will be seen from the descriptions that follow, to a
-high degree meets this requirement.</p>
-
-<p>Exceptional seaworthiness is required, as most
-Arctic waters are subject to violent storms; the Arctic
-skin boats have been developed with forms and
-proportions to meet this condition. In this matter,
-the light and flexible hull structure gives a special
-advantage. The kayak, in its highest state of evolution
-and in skillful hands is perhaps the most seaworthy of
-all primitive small craft. The umiak is a close second,
-but of the two, the kayak is safer under all conditions
-of Arctic travel.</p>
-
-<p>The load-carrying capacity of skin boats has been
-mentioned. The Eskimo umiak is notable in this
-respect, exceeding the curragh and even craft produced
-by modern civilization. The umiak possesses
-this advantage because of its very light hull
-weight in combination with a nearly flat bottom
-and flaring sides. The resulting hull-form allows
-heavy loading with relatively little increase in draft,
-as the flaring sides cause the displacement to increase
-rapidly with the slightest increase in draft.
-Though a similar form exists in the lumberman's
-drive boat, the greater hull weight of this type makes
-it inferior to the umiak. Light draft when loaded
-has very definite advantages in the Arctic, for it
-allows loading and unloading on the beach or afloat,
-and allows the boat to be beached at points where
-this would not be possible with a deeper hull. The
-light draft also makes the umiak easy to propel
-manually.</p>
-
-<p>The imperative need for very efficient watercraft
-has made the Eskimo seek improvements, and
-as his needs altered, so have his skin boats. Con<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span>sequently
-the designs of these craft have gone through
-numerous changes since the first of the types were
-placed in American museums. It is noticeable that,
-among other changes, the amount of freeboard of
-umiaks has been altered as their owners met new
-conditions imposed by longer voyages, heavier
-cargo, and the outboard motor. The high-sided
-umiak, while suited for heavy loads and very seaworthy,
-was almost impossible to paddle or even row
-against a strong gale. When this condition had
-to be met, the freeboard and flare were reduced to
-minimize the windage. In recent years umiaks have
-appeared with round bottoms to give greater speed
-under paddle, the resulting boat being an enlarged
-kayak in construction. These changes to meet
-differing use requirements are not necessarily basic
-improvements, for they result in the sacrifice of some
-of the other qualities of the type. Nevertheless,
-they indicate the fluid state of primitive boat design
-in the Arctic, a condition that has been accentuated
-in most areas by the increasing influence of white
-men, their boats and their motors.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i197.jpg" width="700" height="420" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 165</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Umiaks on Racks</span>, in front of village on Little Diomede Island, July 30, 1936.
-(<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-
-<h3><em>The Umiak</em></h3>
-
-<p>The umiak was undoubtedly more widely employed
-by the Eskimo before the coming of the white
-man than existing records indicate. It was a type
-of boat most necessary for family migration by sea,
-and with it the early Eskimos could establish themselves
-on islands far from the mainland and could
-cross large bodies of water. From some areas where
-early explorers mention having seen the type, the
-umiak has disappeared; this suggests the possibility
-that tribes now unacquainted with the umiak had
-at some time in the past reached a location where
-such a boat was no longer necessary.</p>
-
-<p>The umiak was common in open waters and was
-found from Kodiak Island through the Aleutians and
-north and eastward along the west and north coast of
-Alaska to the mouth of the Mackenzie River. On the
-Siberian coast, opposite Alaska and for a short distance
-westward, the umiak was also employed. From the
-Mackenzie eastward to Hudson Bay the umiak has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span>
-not been employed in recent times, though it is highly
-probable that it was used in the migrations that
-populated this part of the Arctic coast with Eskimo.
-Early explorers found umiaks in use along the northwestern
-coast of Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin; the
-umiak disappeared from these areas during the last
-century, but its use continued in Hudson Strait and
-in Greenland, where it became highly developed.</p>
-
-<p>Among the various tribes of Eskimo known to
-have employed the umiak in the last century, the
-form of the hull varied a good deal, as did its
-dimensions. In general its form was something like
-that of the lumberman's "drive boat," except that
-most umiaks had a slight <strong>V</strong>-bottom and were quite
-different from it in the shape of the bow and stern.
-The size of the umiak does not seem to have been
-established by a set of measurements as distinct as
-that used in the building of kayaks, but rather as
-the result of utilizing material available locally, with
-due regard to the intended use of the craft for relatively
-heavy transport. Such matters as the flare of the
-sides, rake and shape of bow and stern, and width
-varied from tribe to tribe. The Asiatic and Alaskan
-umiaks were usually rather sharp-ended, with little
-spread to the gunwales at bow and stern; one of the
-Asiatic types has the gunwales brought round in a
-full curve at the ends of the boat. In the East the
-umiaks have rather upright bows and sterns and the
-gunwales are often rather wide apart to form square
-ends to the hull. Some of the western umiaks were
-navigated with paddles only; with others, before the
-appearance of the Russians in the area, both oar and
-sail may have been used. In the East the umiaks
-were being paddled, rowed, and sailed when white
-men reached the Arctic in the 17th century.</p>
-
-<p>The Greenland umiak frame is much heavier and
-more rigid than the Alaskan. In comparing eastern
-and western umiaks the frame of the eastern umiak
-seems to be somewhat better finished, but the models
-of the western umiak are undoubtedly the better.
-The eastern umiak is not intended for use in hunting
-but is primarily a cargo carrier; its use has been
-confined to women and its chief employment is moving
-the family and household effects from one hunting
-ground to another. While it is highly probable that
-this condition is the result of the disappearance of
-whaling in this region, the use of the umiak as a hunting
-boat ceased so long ago that the eastern umiak
-model may have degenerated to a great degree. It
-has been otherwise in the western Arctic where the
-use of the umiak in hunting has continued and the
-boats have been managed, to a very great extent, by
-the men. As a result, the boats are held in greater
-respect by their builders and the better models have
-survived. The tribal distinctions between the western
-umiaks are therefore more marked than in the east; including
-Siberia, at least three basic models and a very
-large variety of tribal variations, are to be found, as can
-be proved by existing models. In the east only two basic
-and distinct umiak models are known to have existed,
-the Baffin Island type used on both the north side
-and on the Labrador side of Hudson Strait, and
-the Greenland type. In the latter, there were slight
-tribal distinctions it is true, but these were minor.</p>
-
-<p>The Asiatic umiaks may be classed into two types,
-the Koryak type of Eastern Siberia and the Chukchi
-model of the Siberian side of Bering Strait. The
-Koryak umiaks illustrated by Jochelson show a
-highly developed boat, rather lightly framed compared
-to boats on the American side. In profile the
-bow has a long raking curve and the stern much less;
-as a result the bottom is rather short compared to the
-length over the gunwales. Viewed in plan, the gunwales
-are rounded in at bow and stern to form almost
-a semicircle. At the bow the gunwales are bent around
-a horizontal headboard tenoned over the stem head
-but at the stern there is no headboard. The sheer is
-moderate and very graceful. The flare of the sides
-is great and there appears to be a little <strong>V</strong> in the bottom
-transversely. There is also a slight fore-and-aft
-rocker in the bottom. The construction is similar to
-that of the Alaskan umiaks except that the Koryak
-umiaks have double-chine stringers and also a double
-riser, or longitudinal stringer, halfway up the sides.
-The riser is not backed with a continuous stringer, as
-is the chine; instead three short rods are lashed inside
-the side frame members. The side stringers do not
-reach bow and stern. The four thwarts are located
-well aft, and between the first and second thwarts is a
-larger space than between the others, for cargo. The
-boats are rowed, two oarsmen to a thwart. The
-cover was formerly walrus hides split and scraped
-thin but more recently the skin of the bearded seal
-has come into use. A rectangular sail of deer skin
-is sometimes lashed to a yard and set on a tripod mast
-about amidships. Two legs of the mast are secured
-to the gunwale on one side, the remaining leg is
-lashed to the opposite gunwale. Judging by the
-drawing made by Jochelson<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> this umiak is perhaps
-the most graceful of all those known today.</p>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Reproduced in <span class="smcap">James Hornell</span>, <cite>Water Transport</cite> (Cambridge:
-University Press, 1946), p. 160.</p></div>
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span></p>
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i199.jpg" width="700" height="255" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 166</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Umiak Covered With Split Walrus Hide</span>, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska.
-The framework can be seen through the translucent hide cover. (<em>Photo by
-Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The Asiatic Chukchi umiak is somewhat similar to
-that used on the American coast but with less beam
-in proportion to its length and less flare to the sides.
-The skin cover is of bearded seal. Bogoras measured
-an example and found her 35 feet 9 inches long,
-4 feet 6 inches wide amidships, 2 feet 6 inches wide
-on the bottom over the chines. (An Alaskan umiak
-measured 34 feet 9 inches long, 8 feet 2 inches wide
-at gunwales and 2 feet 8 inches over the chines.)
-The Chukchi also use a very small hunting umiak,
-15 to 18 feet long and having two or three thwarts,
-much like the small hunting umiaks once used in the
-Aleutians. The larger Chukchi umiaks have rectangular
-sails set on a pole mast; some boats carry a
-square topsail. The sails are lashed to their yards
-and the lower sail, or "course," is controlled by sheets
-and braces. The topsail, when used, has braces
-only. The sails were formerly of reindeer skins, but
-now drill is used. These umiaks were formerly paddled,
-as indicated by their narrow beam, but since
-the advent of the white man oars have come into use,
-and it is quite certain that the topsail also is the result
-of white man's influence, if not the whole rig.</p>
-
-<p>In stormy weather some of these umiaks and also
-some of those in Alaska employ weather cloths, 18 or
-20 inches high above the gunwales, raised on short
-stanchions lashed to the hull frames. The ends of
-the stanchions are inserted in slits in the top of the
-weather cloth, and in fair weather the cloths are
-folded down inside the gunwale out of the way. Also
-in some of these Asiatic and Alaskan umiaks, inflated
-floats, of seal skin, are lashed to the gunwales to
-prevent capsizing in a heavy sea.</p>
-
-<p>The Alaskan umiaks varied much in size but are
-rather similar in form. The small hunting umiaks
-used by the Aleuts are about 18 feet long, while the
-large cargo carrying umiaks range up to about 40 feet
-long, so far as available records show. They are
-marked by heavily flared sides and often have a
-rather strong sheer; a few, however, are rather
-straight on the gunwales. Nearly all existing models
-and boats were built since 1880; and no information
-is now available on the forms and dimensions of earlier
-craft.</p>
-
-<p>On page <a href="#Page_184">184</a> is a drawing of a small umiak, used in
-walrus hunting, from the Alaskan coast in the neighborhood
-of the Aleutians. In the U.S. National
-Museum are the remains of a similar boat obtained
-in 1888 from Northern Alaska. This type of small
-umiak is also employed in fishing and is rather
-widely used as a passage boat for short voyages along
-shore. These craft, propelled by paddles, are primarily
-fast, handy hunting canoes rather than boats
-for migration or cargo-carrying. For this reason
-they are quite sharp-ended and shallow. The construction
-of this example will serve to illustrate the
-methods common to this type.</p>
-
-<p>The umiak shown is 20 feet 8½ inches over the
-headboards, 4 feet 9½ inches extreme beam and
-17⅜ inches depth&mdash;apparently an average-sized boat
-of her class. The width of the bottom over the chine<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span>
-members is 2 feet 7 inches. The keelson is rectangular
-in section and in two pieces, hooked-scarphed together;
-each piece is shaped out of the trunk of a
-small tree with the root knees employed to form the
-bow and stern posts. The floor timbers are quite
-heavy and support the chine members by having
-the floor ends tenoned into the chine pieces. At bow
-and stern the chines are joined to the keelson in a
-notched scarph; at these places the keelson is sided
-rather wide to give good bearing. It is evident
-that this portion of the boat's structure is the first
-built and forms a rigid bottom to the hull. The floor
-timbers are lashed to the keelson by lacings of sinew,
-whalebone, or hide, passed through holes bored in
-both, as indicated in the plan. The ends of the
-floors are pegged where they tenon into the chines
-and the ends of the chines are pegged to the keelson,
-but this was evidently not a universal practice, as
-there are models showing lashings at floor ends and
-at chine ends. The headboards are carved out of
-blocks in a <strong>T</strong>-shape and are stepped on top of the
-stem and stern posts and lashed. The fit is extremely
-accurate. The bow headboard is narrower athwartship
-than the stern headboard. The detail of the
-hook scarph in the drawing shows a method of
-lashing that is widely used.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i200.jpg" width="700" height="341" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 167</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Small Umiak for Walrus Hunting</span>, west coast of Alaska, 1888-89. Reconstructed
-from damaged umiak formerly in U.S. National Museum, and from
-models.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Because of the manner in which the keelson is
-cambered and the floor fitted, the bottom of the
-covered hull shows in cross section a slight <strong>V</strong>, reducing
-toward the bow and stern, that is typical of the
-Alaskan umiak. The amount of deadrise seems to
-have been determined by the manner of fitting the
-floor timbers and it helps the boat to run straight
-under paddle and oars. In present day umiaks the
-amount of <strong>V</strong> in the bottom is slight; too much would
-make the boat difficult to sledge overland without
-employing chocks to steady the hull. Perhaps in the
-past, where sledging was not required, the deadrise
-was greater, as indicated by some old models.</p>
-
-<p>After the chines and floor are fitted to the keelson,
-the frames at the thwarts are made and set up at the
-desired flare and height, being held in place by
-temporary spreaders lashed or braced. These are
-sometimes stiffened by thongs from frame head to
-keelson at each pair, to steady the frame while the
-gunwale is being bent. As the lengths of the thwarts
-are controlled by the fairing of the gunwales, the
-thwarts are not fitted until after the latter are in
-place. As shown in the figure above, the gunwales
-are round poles, slightly flattened on the lower side
-at the headboards, where they are secured by lash<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span>ings.
-In building, the gunwales are shaped and
-secured by lashing them to those side frames selected
-to shape the hull. The lashings that secure the side
-frames to both gunwale and chine are passed through
-holes in each member and are hove taut by means
-of a short lever with a hole bored in it to take the end
-of the lashing, which is also wrapped around the
-lever to give temporary purchase. The side frames
-have saddle notches to bear on the chine and gunwale.
-All lashings in the frame, it will be noted, pass
-through holes bored in the members and in some
-cases the lashings are let in, so that the sinew is flush
-with the surfaces of the members, to prevent the
-lashing from being damaged by chafing.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i201.jpg" width="700" height="464" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 168</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Umiaks Near Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska</span>, showing walrus-hide cover and
-lacing. Frame lashings are walrus-hide thongs. (<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>With the gunwales faired, the remaining frames are
-then put in position and lashed to the gunwales and
-chines. An outside batten is run along each side
-and lashed by turns of sinew over the batten and
-around the side frames, with the lashings let into each
-member to prevent slipping and chafing. The
-batten is lashed at bow and stern in some umiaks, but
-in many it is stopped just short of coming home on
-the posts. Next, the short frames at bow and stern
-are put in place and the risers secured inside the side
-frames, then, with the thwarts fitted and lashed to
-the risers, and the ends of the gunwales are lashed
-together at bow and stern, the boat is ready to be
-covered. When ready to cover, the frame is stiffened
-by diagonal thong ties, each of which has one end
-secured by turns around the gunwale, with the other
-end passed through holes in the keelson and secured.
-These are commonly found in western umiaks;
-the small umiak has but one pair placed amidships.
-The timber used in such craft is fir, spruce, and willow,
-and is usually driftwood obtained at river-mouth.</p>
-
-<p>When this umiak was examined, the skin cover
-was in such a condition that the number of hides
-used could not be determined, but it probably is comprised
-of three sea-lion skins sewn together. New
-skin covers are made by removing the hair and fat
-from the skins and then sewing them together by the
-method illustrated on page <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, to obtain proper<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span>
-dimensions. Green skins are generally preferred,
-since they stretch into shape better than partly or
-wholly cured ones. Once stretched to shape and
-cured, the cover can be readily removed and replaced,
-without resewing. In fitting a new skin cover the
-skins are first thoroughly soaked in seawater. The
-cover is then stretched over the frame and worked
-taut by lacings. It is wide enough to reach from
-gunwale to gunwale and a little down inside the boat
-on each side, and is laced to the rising batten with
-turns of rope spaced 3 to 5 inches apart amidships
-and closer together in the ends of the hull. At the
-headboards the cover is laced around the gunwales
-and through holes in the headboards, two independent
-lacings of two turns each being used on each side.
-At the extreme bow and stern the cover is laced to
-the gunwale lashings. Where the cover will not
-stretch smooth in fitting, gores appear to have been
-cut out and the skin resewn. After being laced,
-the cover is allowed to shrink until it becomes smooth
-and tight, then it is heavily oiled and the seams rubbed
-with tallow or blubber. This treatment is repeated
-at regular intervals. While the boat is in service
-care is taken to dry out the skin cover once a day,
-if possible.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i202a.jpg" width="700" height="249" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 169</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Umiak, West Coast of Alaska</span>, King Island, 1886. Taken off umiak at
-Mariner's Museum.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i202b.jpg" width="700" height="435" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 170</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Making the Blind Seam</span>: two stages of method
-used by the Eskimo to join skins together. The
-edge of the skins are placed flesh side to flesh
-side with one overlapping the other about 2
-inches. Then, by means of a thin needle and
-slender sinew, the skins are sewn together, with
-an over-and-over stitch, care being taken not
-to penetrate through the lower skin. When this
-is completed the skins are opened out and the
-second seam made on the grain side to complete
-a double seam without penetration of
-either skin. The width of the seam varies
-somewhat.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The sequence of construction described is not
-followed universally; sometimes spreaders are fixed
-between the gunwales, which are then sheered by
-thongs to the keelson, after which the side frames are
-put in and the side and rising battens, and finally the
-thwarts, are added. Judging by the numerous models
-seen, the small hunting umiaks varied a good deal in
-the rake and sweep of the bow and stern, even in the
-same village. These hunting umiaks worked with
-kayaks in Aleutian walrus and sea-lion hunting; a
-practice that seems to have once been common along<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span>
-the Western Alaskan coast and among the islands.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i203.jpg" width="700" height="255" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 171</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">North Alaskan Whaling Umiak</span> of about 1890. Drawn from damaged
-frame, formerly in a private collection, now destroyed.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The drawing on page <a href="#Page_186">186</a> represents a large Alaskan
-umiak from King Island. Two boats of this model,
-but with modern metal fastenings, are in the Mariners'
-Museum, Newport News, Virginia, but the
-drawing shows the methods of fastenings used in 1886.
-The plan is of a burdensome model, such as is used for
-travel or other heavy cargo work. The boat is 34
-feet 2½ inches over the gunwales, 8 feet ½ inch
-extreme beam, 2 feet 3⅜ inches deep and 2 feet 10
-inches beam on the bottom over the chines. The
-construction follows the general plan of the small
-umiak just described, except that another method of
-fitting the floor timbers to the chines is employed.
-Due to the size and use of the umiak, two side battens
-are employed with a single riser. The thwarts are
-not notched over the frames, but instead fall between
-them. As diagonal thong braces from gunwale to
-keelson would be ineffective in this situation, two sets
-of wooden braces that resist not only tension but also
-compression are used to take the thrust off the thwart
-lashings. These brace-frames are staggered slightly
-to allow room to fit them at the keelson. The drawing,
-which requires no additional explanation, shows
-the plan of construction and the important lashings,
-and the method of fitting oars with thong thole loops.</p>
-
-<p>Boats such as these carried a square sail lashed to a
-yard, the mast being stepped in a block on the keelson.
-No mast thwart is used; instead stays and shrouds of
-hide rope supported the mast, a method that made it
-easy to step or unstep the mast in a seaway. Early
-umiaks in this area are said to have had mat sails;
-later ones used sails of skin and drill. Modern umiaks
-of this class often have rudders hung on iron pintles
-and gudgeons and the floors fastened to the keelson
-with iron bolts or screws. The scarphs are also bolted,
-but the remaining fastenings are lashings in the old
-style, to obtain flexibility in the frame.</p>
-
-<p>A North Alaskan whaling umiak, supposed to have
-been built about 1890, is represented in the drawing
-of figure 171. The remains of the boat were sufficient
-to permit reconstruction of the frame. This umiak is
-about the size of, and in profile greatly resembles, a
-New Bedford whaleboat. However, the model is
-that of the umiak, rather sharp-ended and strongly
-sheered. The boat is 29 feet 4¾ inches over the
-headboards, 5 feet 10½ inches extreme beam, and 2
-feet 1¾ inches deep. Umiaks of this model were
-used at Point Barrow and vicinity in offshore whaling,
-and were also used for travel and cargo carrying.
-Paddles were used in whaling, but in more recent
-times sail, oars, and outboard engines have been employed.
-The boats of this class appear to have been
-marked by a very graceful profile and strongly
-raking ends. Despite the resemblances of this type
-of umiak to the whaleboat, it is highly doubtful that
-its model was influenced by the white man's boat.
-In fact, it might just as well be claimed that since the
-whaleboat appears to have been first employed in the
-early Greenland whale fishery, the latter had been
-influenced by the umiaks found in that area. However,
-one might also point to the fact that the model of
-the early European whaleboat is much like that of
-a Viking boat, from which will be seen the danger in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span>
-accepting chance similarities in form or detail as
-evidence of relationship, particularly when it is not
-impossible that similarities in use and other requirements
-have produced similar boat types, the users
-never having come into contact.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i204.jpg" width="700" height="235" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 172</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Baffin Island Umiak.</span> Drawn from model and detailed measurements of a
-single boat.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The whaling umiak has been much used in the
-western Arctic by explorers and Arctic travellers,
-who regarded highly its lightness and strength,
-and its ability to be easily driven. It is much wider
-than the Chukchi umiak and has far more flare.
-From a study of models and numerous photographs
-it can be said that the amount of fore-and-aft camber
-in the bottom varies greatly between individual
-umiaks, some of which are almost straight on the
-bottom. The light framework and elastic construction
-often cause these umiaks to camber a good deal
-when heavily loaded; when sledged, they are sometimes
-fitted amidships with a support for a line
-from bow to stern, that forms a "hogging-brace,"
-to prevent the boat from losing its camber. It is
-also apparent that there is no standard practice in
-fitting floors to the chines; Murdock<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> shows a rough
-sketch that indicates the floor ends are often tenoned
-into the chines, as in the small umiak. Tree-nailing
-of the floors and chines, and the keelson, is
-common, and sometimes both treenails and lashings
-are used in scarphs. In some umiaks both the
-single side batten and the riser are at the same height,
-but only the riser has its ends secured to the posts,
-the side battens being cut short and their ends lashed
-to the riser a few inches inside the posts.</p>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> See bibliography.</p></div>
-
-<p>The skin cover of the north Alaskan whaling umiak
-is made of bearded seal or of walrus hide, which has
-to be split, because of its weight. Occasionally
-polar-bear skins are used. Lashings of the frame
-are of whalebone, sinew, and hide. The skins are
-treated with seal oil and caribou fat, and when
-the whaling umiak is taken ashore it is usually
-stored on a stage to keep dogs from destroying the
-skin cover. In travelling, however, it is sometimes
-propped upside down on one edge and used as a
-shelter. In winter the skin is removed and stored;
-when it is necessary to be replaced on the frame, the
-skin cover is soaked in sea water for three to five
-days, after which it is laced on in the usual manner,
-dried, and then thoroughly oiled. Low, rather
-wide sledges are sometimes built to carry the umiak
-overland, or on the ice, but often the regular sledge
-is used. The boats cannot be sledged against a
-strong gale because of their windage.</p>
-
-<p>The north Alaskan umiak is usually propelled by
-paddles, like the Chukchi umiak. These paddles
-range in length from about 50 to 76 inches,
-and as a rule have a rather long narrow blade,
-though a short and wide blade is occasionally found,
-particularly at Kotzebue Sound and Point Hope.
-Oars for the Alaskan umiaks range in length from
-6 feet 3 inches to 8 feet 6 inches, and also have rather
-long narrow blades, 3 to 4 inches wide.</p>
-
-<p>The three examples of Alaskan umiaks serve to
-show the features that are most common in the area.
-However, models in the U.S. National Museum
-suggest that there was a greater variety of form and
-appearance in the past. One model shows the
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span>gunwale ends lengthened by pieces shaped very much
-like the projecting gunwales of the Malay prah.
-Some show extreme rake at the bow like that of
-the Koryak umiak but without the rounded gunwale
-ends. It is impossible to estimate how far the
-western Alaska umiak model has been affected by
-the early Russian traders in this area, but it is
-quite certain that the use of oars can be traced to
-this influence. The full-sized umiaks, and models
-and photographs, from the Bering Strait area give
-no real clues to the possible parentage or direction
-of spread of the Alaskan umiak types. Occasional
-details in fittings or construction, such as the gunwale
-extensions mentioned, seem to duplicate details
-in primitive Asiatic craft, but the evidence is too
-scanty to allow a hypothesis based on design and construction
-alone.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i205.jpg" width="700" height="245" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 173</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">East Greenland Umiak</span>, drawn from measurements taken off by a U.S. Army
-officer in 1945.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>No models or photographs have been found of the
-extinct types of umiaks once used in the northern
-part of Hudson Bay and the sketches of early explorers
-are too crude to allow useful discussion.
-From such slight evidence it is impossible to say
-whether the umiaks in this area were of the western
-or eastern type.</p>
-
-<p>The drawing of a Baffin Island umiak on page <a href="#Page_188">188</a>
-is based on measured dimensions of a single boat and
-upon a small model in the U.S. National Museum.
-This model conforms in most respects with the
-drawings and sketches made by Boas.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> The umiak
-is a small one, 24 feet 7¼ inches long, 5 feet 8⅜ inches
-extreme beam, 3 feet 10 inches wide over the chines,
-and 1 foot 10½ inches deep. These measurements
-show that the bottom of this type of umiak is wider
-than that of western types. The bottom is flat, and
-sheer and camber are both slight. The stem and
-stern are practically upright and are not formed of
-knees; rather, they are made by fitting the post into
-the keelson with an open tenon. Instead of the
-carved block headboards seen in the Alaskan umiaks,
-the Baffin Island boat has very wide headboards, and
-these are tenoned over the posts as in the Asiatic
-Koryak umiaks. The details of the rest of the framing
-are not dissimilar from those of the Alaskan umiaks,
-except that the Baffin Island umiak does not employ
-any short frames in the end of the hull. The framework
-is rather heavy and the square-ended appearance
-of this class of umiak makes it appear more clumsy
-than is actually the case. The side battens and risers
-stop short of the posts, and the risers used in this
-umiak are notched into the side frames, whereas in
-the Alaskan umiak only the lashings of the riser are
-let into the frames. The Baffin Island umiaks carry
-a square sail lashed to a yard, and the mast is placed
-right up in the eyes of the boat. Boas shows that
-some of these umiaks have rudders hung on metal
-pintles and gudgeons, a result of the influence of the
-white traders, whalers, and sealers who had operated
-in these waters long before Boas made his investigations.
-The umiak is rowed in the usual manner,
-using thong loops as tholes, and is usually steered
-with an oar or long paddle.</p>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> See bibliography.</p></div>
-
-<p>The ends of the gunwales of the Baffin Island
-umiak are cut off a little inside the forward edges of
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span>the headboards, making this the only American type
-that does not have projecting gunwales at bow and
-stern. The projection of the gunwales undoubtedly
-serve a practical purpose in lifting the boat out of
-water, but obviously this is of minor importance.
-Probably the real reason for these projections is that
-they originally made building easier by providing
-space for a retaining lashing when the gunwales were
-being bent. As the headboards became wider and
-the spring of the gunwales, in plain view, became less
-acute, less strain was put on the lashings of the gunwales
-at the headboards, but by then the projecting
-gunwales and their retaining lashings were being
-utilized in lashing on the skin covering at bow and
-stern. Thus, beginning as a practical solution of a
-building problem, the projecting gunwales may have
-eventually become a traditional tribal feature of the
-umiak in many localities.</p>
-
-<p>The drawing of an eastern Greenland umiak on
-page <a href="#Page_189">189</a> was made from measurements taken off
-during World War II and checked against dimensions,
-photos, and descriptions of boats from the
-same territory. In general design and in construction
-this umiak differs little from umiaks of the southwest
-coast of the same island. The eastern Greenland
-boats are, on the average, much smaller than those
-on the southwest coast due to the more severe ice
-conditions met in the east. Some of the Greenland
-umiaks have flat bottoms like the Baffin Island boats,
-but the <strong>V</strong>-bottom appears to be more common. The
-chief characteristics of the Greenland umiaks are the
-slight rake in the bow and stern, the moderate sheer
-and camber, and the conservative flare of the sides.
-The drawing shows the important structural details
-seen in most of the Greenland umiaks. The floor
-timbers are on edge instead of on the flat as in Alaskan
-boats and this seems to be characteristic of all eastern
-umiak construction, as is the arching of the underside
-of the floors. Another common structural detail
-is the passing of the risers through the side frames;
-in some, however, the risers lie in deep notches fashioned
-in the inside of the frames. The eastern
-Greenland umiaks generally have rather wide headboards
-and somewhat more projection to the gunwales.
-Like the Baffin Island umiaks, the side battens and
-risers of the Greenland boats are cut short of the
-posts, but the ends of these members are commonly
-supported by frames placed very far fore and aft,
-and often these frames form brace-supports to the
-headboard, as in the drawing. The headboards
-of these umiaks are always tenoned over the top of
-the posts. Some of the Greenland umiaks have
-curved side frames which cause the side battens to
-form knuckles in the skin cover. The eastern Greenland
-umiaks rarely if ever carry sail, but this is
-common on the western and southwestern coasts,
-where a square-sail on a yard is popular, with the mast
-usually well forward. Hans Egede in 1729<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> found
-Greenland umiaks fitted with sails of seal intestines
-and also saw boats about 10 fathoms (60 feet) long;
-another early writer, Crantz<a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> states that umiaks were
-commonly 36, 48, and even 54 feet long. In the
-larger umiaks two side battens were employed. The
-thongs and brace-frames seen in many Alaskan umiaks
-do not seem to have been used in eastern waters,
-the use of bracing-frames from stem or stern post to
-the gunwales probably serving the purpose, but it is
-noticeable that pictures of Greenland umiaks preserved
-in some European museums show that the
-hulls have a tendency to twist not seen in Alaskan
-boats. The old Greenland umiaks were built with
-lashed joints combined with pegging, or treenailing.
-In recent times the use of pegging has increased and
-iron fastenings are now quite common. Rigid
-fastenings of the peg and metal types are used only
-in scarphs and in securing the chines and keelson to
-the floors timbers, as in the modern Alaskan umiaks.</p>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> See bibliography.</p></div>
-
-
-<h3><em>The Kayak</em></h3>
-
-<p>The Eskimo hunting boat, the kayak, is more
-widely employed in the Arctic than the umiak, and
-its variations in model, construction, and appearance
-are more distinct and numerous. The kayak is a
-long, usually narrow, decked canoe and is commonly
-very well finished. In Alaska a few undecked skin-covered
-canoes, used in rivers, are built on kayak
-proportions, but the model of these is quite different
-from that of the Alaskan sea-kayaks; the river canoes
-are <strong>V</strong> or flat bottomed, much like the Greenland
-kayaks. A similar kayak-type canoe, flat bottomed
-but birch-bark covered, is used by the Yukon Indians.
-Undoubtedly a number of such types once existed but
-most of these became extinct before any attempt
-was made to preserve models or canoes in museums.</p>
-
-<p>Few Eskimo tribes are without kayaks, only those
-living inland or where the sea is rarely open are
-unacquainted with these hunting craft. In very
-recent times some tribes have ceased to use kayaks,
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span>employing purchased canoes instead. The kayaks
-of the Asiatic Eskimos, and those from the Mackenzie
-to Hudson Bay, are now crudely built and of
-inferior design. Both the Greenland and the Alaskan
-kayaks are highly developed. The Greenland kayaks
-are undoubtedly given more intricate equipment
-in the way of weapons and accessories than the
-Alaskan craft, but it would be difficult to decide
-which is superior in construction and design.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i207.jpg" width="700" height="334" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 174</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Frame of Kayak</span>, Nunivak Island, Alaska, with young owner beneath.
-(<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The basic models used in Eskimo kayaks are the
-multi-chine, the <strong>V</strong>-bottom and the flat bottom. The
-multi-chine models, except for the river kayak-canoe
-just mentioned, which probably should be classed as
-a true open canoe rather than a kayak, are employed
-throughout Alaskan waters. The geographic boundaries
-of each basic hull form are rather ill-defined.
-The multi-chine kayak appears as far eastward as
-the northwest coast of Hudson's Bay. In this area,
-however, a <strong>V</strong>-bottom kayak, now extinct, seems to
-have been in use on Southampton Island. A flat-bottom
-kayak, with the chines snied off much like a
-Japanese sampan, is in use in Hudson Strait, along
-the shores of Baffin Island and Labrador; a flat-bottom
-kayak shaped like a sharpie is used on the
-northwest coast of northern Greenland; and a
-<strong>V</strong>-bottom hull is employed on the eastern, southwest,
-and south coasts of Greenland.</p>
-
-<div class="bbox">According to the Danish classification of the coasts of
-Greenland, "Polar" is north of Cape York, "Northern"
-is above Disko Island, "Central" is from Frederikshaab
-to north of Disko Bay, "Southern" is from
-Julianhaab to Cape Farvell, and "East" is Angmagsalik
-and vicinity.</div>
-
-<p>There are variations in each of the basic models, of
-course, as the tribal designs used vary a good deal.
-On the whole, the kayak is very carefully built to
-meet the local conditions of hunting, sea, and land
-or ice portaging. As a result, some types are far
-more seaworthy than others and the weight of hull
-varies a great deal, even within a basic model. The
-appearance of all the kayaks models, by tribal
-classifications, show the influence of tradition and, in
-many cases display, in either shape or decoration, a
-tribal totem or mark.</p>
-
-<p>The basic requirements in nearly all kayaks are
-the same; to paddle rapidly and easily, to work
-against strong wind and tide or heavy head sea, to be
-maneuverable, and to be light enough to be readily
-lifted from the water and carried. The low freeboard
-required makes decking a necessity. In
-general, the kayak is designed to carry one paddler,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span>
-but in Alaska are kayaks that can carry two or three
-paddlers, each in a manhole or cockpit, or a paddler
-and one or two passengers. It is generally conceded
-that the kayak built to carry three in this fashion
-is the result of Russian influence. Nunivak Island
-kayaks had large manholes that carried two people
-back-to-back. Where it is desirable to portage the
-kayak over ice or land for a great distance the boat
-is very light and is capable of being carried like a
-large basket, by inserting one arm under the decking
-at the manhole or cockpit, but where such a requirement
-is not an important factor, the kayaks are often
-rather large and heavy. In the majority of types,
-the degree of seaworthiness obtained is very great.
-Some types are built very narrow and sharp-ended;
-these usually require a skillful paddler. Others are
-wide and more stable, requiring less skill to use. In
-areas where severe weather is commonly met, the
-kayaks are usually very strong and well-designed.
-Where ice or other conditions do not allow a heavy
-sea to make up, the kayaks are often light, narrow
-and very low sided&mdash;more like racing shells than
-working canoes. Most Alaskan kayaks come stern
-to the wind when paddling stops, but most of the
-eastern craft come head to the wind. Nearly every
-type has been developed by long periods of trial and
-error, to produce the greatest efficiency in meeting
-the conditions of use in a given locality. This has
-made the kayak a more complicated and more
-developed instrument of the chase than is to be
-found in any other form of hunting canoe, due in
-part, perhaps, to the great craftsmanship of the
-Eskimo.</p>
-
-<p>The construction of the kayak follows a basic plan.
-In all kayaks the gunwales are the main strength
-members, longitudinally. A few designs employ, in
-addition, a stiff keel member, but most have rather
-slender and light longitudinal batten systems having
-little longitudinal strength value, but which in combination
-with very light frames, give transverse
-support to the skin cover. Even in the flat-bottom
-models, the kayaks, unlike the umiaks, depend
-entirely upon the gunwales for longitudinal strength.
-The frames are bent and in one piece from gunwale
-to gunwale in all but a few flat-bottom kayaks, of
-the sampan cross section; these employ bent frames.
-The longitudinal batten systems show great variety.
-The eastern kayaks of the flat-bottom and <strong>V</strong>-bottom
-models have three longitudinal battens (including the
-keel or keelson) in addition to the heavy and often
-deep gunwale members; these are supported at bow
-and stern either by stem and stern post of shaped
-plank on edge as in the Greenland <strong>V</strong>-bottom kayaks,
-or by light extensions of the keelson and small end-blocks
-as in the northern Greenland, Baffin Island,
-and Labrador types. The multi-chine types of the
-western Arctic have from seven to eleven longitudinals
-(including the keelson) in addition to the gunwales.
-In some of these kayaks there are no stem and stern
-posts, the battens and keelson coming together at a
-blunt point in small head blocks; but many types have
-rather intricate stem-pieces, carved from blocks of
-wood, and plank-on-edge stern posts. The Asiatic kayaks,
-curiously enough, exhibit the construction of both
-eastern and western Arctic kayaks, the crude, small
-Koryak kayak having a 3-batten <strong>V</strong>-bottom, while the
-Chukchi kayak is built like the kayaks on the east side
-of the Bering Strait. The decking of kayaks is of very
-light construction; usually there are two heavy thwarts
-to support the manhole and from one to three light
-thwarts afore and abaft these. The Alaskan kayaks
-from Kotzebue Sound southward have ridged decks
-supported by fore-and-aft ridge-battens from the
-ends of the hull to the manhole. Elsewhere the deck
-of the kayak is flat athwartship except at the manhole,
-where there is some crown or ridging to increase the
-depth inside the boat, particularly forward of the
-manhole. In the majority of these kayaks short
-fore-and-aft battens are laid on the thwarts forward
-of the manhole to support the skin cover in its sweep
-upward to the manhole. The transverse frames do
-not come into contact with the skin cover, to avoid
-transverse ridges being formed in it; and the longitudinal
-battens which support the skin cover form
-longitudinal ridges, or chines, in it.</p>
-
-<p>The timber used in the Eskimo kayak building is
-usually driftwood. Fir and pine, spruce or willow
-are available in much of the Arctic for longitudinals.
-Bent frames are commonly of willow. Scarphing in
-the framework of kayaks was far less common than in
-umiaks; the scarphs when found are only in the gunwales.
-All scarphs are of the hooked type and are
-usually quite short (the hooked scarph is the best one
-when the fastenings are lashings). Sinew is generally
-used in all lashings and for sewing material. The
-heads of frames are commonly tenoned into the
-underside of the gunwales and are then either lashed
-or pegged with treenails of wood or bone to hold
-them in place. In the joining of frames and longitudinals,
-the lashings are commonly individual, but
-in some types of kayak continuous lashings (connections
-in series using one length of sinew) are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span>
-occasionally found. Where possible, the lashings are
-turned in so that the turns cross right and left. In
-some parts of the framework two pieces of timber
-are "sewn" together; holes are bored along the edges
-to be joined and a lacing run in with continuous
-over-and-over turns. These laced joints are common
-in the stems of the Alaskan kayaks. Gunwales and
-battens are most commonly lashed through holes
-bored in them and in the bow and stern members.
-Care is taken that all lashings are flush on the outside,
-so that the skin cover is smooth and chafing will
-be avoided. Bone knobs at stem and stern heads
-are used in the Coronation Gulf kayaks in the west
-and in many Greenland models. Bone stem bands
-are more widely employed, however, being in use
-at Kodiak and Nunivak Islands, in the Aleutians, at
-Norton Sound in Alaska, and in Greenland and Baffin
-Island in the east. It is probable that these bands
-were once in wider use than thus indicated. Strips of
-bone are also used to prevent chafing at gunwale in
-paddling and for strengthening scarphs in the manhole
-rim.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i209.jpg" width="700" height="343" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 175</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Frame of Kayak at Nunivak Island</span>, Alaska, 1927. <em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em></p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>It will be noted that all Eskimo skin boats have a
-complete framing system, which is first erected and
-then fitted with the skin cover. This is a method of
-construction very different from that of the birch-bark
-canoes of the Indians living to the southward of
-the American Eskimo. The birch-bark canoe is
-built by forcing a framing system into an assembled
-cover and holding it in place there by a rigid gunwale
-structure, to which the bark cover is lashed.
-This basic structure is used even in the Alaskan
-area, where there are birch-bark canoes that in hull
-form and proportions strongly resemble the flat-bottom
-kayak. The basic difference between the two
-craft is illustrated by the fact that whereas the removal
-of the skin cover of the kayak leaves the frame intact,
-the removal of the bark cover of the kayak-like
-birch-bark canoes would result in the collapse of
-the framework, except for the gunwale-thwart
-structure or, in a few, the chine-floor structure.
-Because of this basic difference the superficial resemblance
-of some Indian bark canoes to kayaks
-has no meaningful relationship to the possibility of
-the influence of the kayak on the bark canoe, or
-vice-versa. Some Indian tribes have in fact built
-skin-covered canoes, as will be seen in chapter 8, but
-the framework and structural system used is always
-that of the bark canoe, never that of the Eskimo
-skin boat. Nor is there evidence that the Eskimo
-ever used the bark canoe frame-structure in their
-kayaks or umiaks. Hence, in spite of contact between
-these peoples, the watercraft of each remains
-basically different in structural design.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The almost universal method of constructing the
-kayak is first to shape and fasten together the gunwales
-and thwarts, with stem and stern pieces fitted as
-required, then to fit and place a few transverse
-frames to control the shape of the craft. Next the
-longitudinals are fitted and, finally, the remaining
-transverse frames are put in place. In some types
-the manhole rim is now fitted but in others the manhole
-rim is put on after the skin cover is in place, as
-some kayaks (the Alaskan) have the skin cover placed
-over the manhole rim and others have it passed
-under. The skin cover is stretched and sewn over
-the frame and is rarely secured to it by lashings
-except at the manhole. Due to the shape of bow and
-stern, in some types, difficult and tedious sewing is
-required to stretch the skins over the ends of the hull.
-Much of the sewing is completed after the skins are
-stretched over the hull and held by temporary lacings.
-The blind seam is used but in many kayaks the lap
-is very short, about ⅜ inch being common.</p>
-
-<p>The covering most widely used in Alaskan kayaks
-was the bearded seal skin and with the Aleuts the
-skin of the sea lion was the most popular. Throughout
-the eastern Arctic seal skin was the preferred covering
-though caribou skin was occasionally used by the
-caribou Eskimos in the central Arctic. The heavy,
-thick hides were first piled and "sweated," until the
-hair became loose then the skins were scraped until
-they were clean. They were thin and light and
-could be air dried and stored until ready for use.
-The skins had to be well soaked before being stretched
-over the frame of a kayak or umiak. When dried out
-on the boat frame they were oiled in the usual manner.
-It is claimed by the Eskimos that walrus skin, though
-strong, is not as good as the bearded seal or the
-sea-lion skin for boat covers, as the latter two held the
-oil longer and did not become water soaked as
-quickly as the walrus hide.</p>
-
-<p>The paddler's seat in most kayaks consists of a portion
-of heavy skin with fur attached. Sometimes this is
-supported by a few short, thin battens laced loosely
-together. These, and the fur seat sometimes are
-as long as the paddler's legs. No back rest is known
-to be used. The seat, and any batten supports, are
-loosely fitted and are not part of the permanent kayak
-structure.</p>
-
-<p>The kayak is usually entered by floating the boat
-near a stone or low bank and stepping into it with one
-foot, which has first been carefully wiped. With the
-body steadied by placing the paddle upright on the
-shore, or outside the kayak, the other foot is then
-wiped and placed in the boat. The paddler then
-slides downward and works his legs under the deck
-until he is seated with his hips jammed into the manhole
-rim. Getting out of a kayak is almost the reverse
-of this process. Great care is exercised to avoid
-getting dirt into a kayak, as it might chafe the hide
-cover. Hence the care in wiping the feet before
-entering. The practice of entering the boat ashore
-and throwing man and kayak into the water, undoubtedly
-very rare, is said to have been practiced
-not only at King Island but in some parts of Greenland.
-Both Alaskan and Greenland hunters often
-lashed two kayaks together, in order to rest in rough
-weather. Many kayakers using the narrow models
-laid the paddle athwartships across the deck to
-help steady the kayak when resting or throwing
-a weapon; this is basically the same as holding
-the sculls of a racing shell in the water, to
-steady the boat. Lashing two kayaks side by side, or
-parallel with spacing rods, was commonly done to
-enable the craft to ferry persons or cargo across
-streams. Some Alaskan Eskimo thus converted
-kayaks into catamarans and then fitted a mast and
-sail, but such an arrangement was never used in
-rough water.</p>
-
-<p>The methods used by a paddler to right a capsized
-kayak, without aid and while he was still in the
-cockpit, have aroused the interest of many canoeists.
-It was used by the King Islanders, some of the Aleuts,
-and the Greenlanders, who at times, it is said, would
-deliberately capsize their kayak to avoid the blow of a
-heavy breaking sea, then right it when the sea had
-passed. The Eskimo are reported to be gradually
-losing this skill, but in late years European and
-American kayakers have learned this method, called
-the "kayak roll," of righting a decked canoe with
-paddler in place. It follows in general the Greenland
-method. In the Appendix (p. <a href="#Page_223">223</a>) is an
-illustrated description of the kayak roll, supplied by
-John Heath.</p>
-
-<p>Traditionally, the weapons used by kayakers were
-darts and harpoons, the bow not being employed,
-since wetting would damage the weapon. Various
-forms were used, and many were thrown with the
-"throwing-stick" to increase the range and force. An
-inflated bladder or skin was often carried to buoy the
-harpoon line and tire the game. Bolas and knives
-were also carried. All eastern kayaks appear to have
-been propelled with the double-blade paddle, but
-folklore suggests that the single-blade kayak paddle<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span>
-may have once been used. Greenland kayaks have
-been reported as carrying a small square sail, but this
-was actually a hunting screen, or camouflage, to hide
-the paddler and cause the seal to mistake the canoe
-for a cake of ice. It was a 19th-century addition, as
-was a fin attached to the kayak to counteract the
-effect of the screen in a beam wind. Any effect it had
-as a sail in a kayak was unintentional, of course: it
-was dismounted in strong winds or when not required
-for hunting.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i211.jpg" width="700" height="220" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 176</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Koryak Kayak</span>, drawn from damaged kayak in the American Museum of
-Natural History, 1948.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Shown above is the plan of an Asiatic Koryak
-kayak. This type, used in the Sea of Okhotsk and on
-the Siberian coast of Bering Sea, is the only distinctive
-Asiatic type; the Chukchi of the Siberian side of
-Bering Strait uses a kayak that is on the same model
-as the one found at Norton Sound, in Alaska. The
-Chukchi kayak differs only in the ends, which are
-wholly functional and without the handgrips that
-distinguish the Alaskan type. There is also a crude
-Chukchi river kayak, covered with reindeer skin,
-but its design is not represented in an American
-museum.</p>
-
-<p>The Koryak kayak is a hunting boat well designed
-for use in protected waters, but is rather weakly built.
-In general form it is much like the hunting and fowling
-skiffs formerly used in America. The plan idealizes
-the kayak somewhat, for the boat is crude in finish.
-The only example available for study, in the American
-Museum of Natural History, is in poor condition.
-The hull is short, wide and shallow, rather <strong>V</strong> in cross
-section, and there is a slight camber in the deck. The
-length of the Koryak kayak rarely exceeds 10 feet, the
-beam is from 24 to 26 inches, and the depth between 8
-and 9½ inches. The manhole rim is of large diameter,
-high and without rake. The gunwales, although rather
-slight, are the strength members. The keelson, a thin,
-flat batten, forms the stem and stern posts; it is
-stiffened amidships by a short batten lashed inside the
-frames. The chine battens are also slight and do not
-reach the stem and stern. The frames are widely
-spaced and are wide and thin, in one piece from gunwale
-to gunwale. There are but two thwarts;
-these are strong and support the manhole rim,
-showing inside the cockpit. Two thin longitudinal
-battens afore and abaft the manhole, support the
-deck, in addition to a light centerline ridge-batten.
-On the kayak illustrated the outboard battens appear
-to have had additional support at one time from two
-pairs of stanchions standing on frames at the chines,
-with their heads secured to the deck battens; a pair
-being placed before and abaft the manhole. A small
-plank seat appears to have been used and the boat was
-propelled by two short one-hand paddles, secured to
-the manhole rim by lanyards made of thongs; these
-would be only efficient in smooth water. The cover
-is made from bearded seal skins and passes under the
-manhole rim being sewn to the rim on the inside at
-the top, by coarse sewing passed through holes bored
-in the manhole rim. There are two thong lifting
-handles or loops, one at bow and stern. This kayak is
-the most primitive of all types and the smallest as well.
-The Koryaks are not daring canoemen and do not
-venture into rough water. Nevertheless, this type of
-kayak is said to be fast and highly maneuverable.</p>
-
-<p>Compared to the Koryak, the Alaskan kayak is
-tremendously advanced. The Aleuts are daring and
-accomplished kayakers, and their craft are among
-the finest in the Arctic. The Kodiak Island kayak<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span>
-of 1885, shown above, represents one type used in
-this area and that from Unalaska, shown below,
-the other. The Kodiak boat is rather short and
-wide, measuring 15 feet 1 inch in length, 29 inches
-beam and 14 inches depth to ridge batten of the
-deck just forward of the manhole. The boat has the
-humped sheer found in many Alaskan kayaks and
-is intended for use in stormy waters. Its large
-manhole, also a feature of the Nunivak Island
-kayak, permits two persons to be carried, one facing
-forward to paddle and the passenger facing aft,
-or the space can be used to carry cargo. The drawing
-shows the construction and requires no detailed
-explanation. Kayaks from the Aleutian Islands
-eastward to Kodiak use rod battens; only the
-gunwales and keelson are rectangular in section.
-The frames are thin flat strips bent in one piece
-from gunwale to gunwale. The ridge-batten of the
-deck is laminated, in two pieces. The deck beams
-and thwarts are notched into the ridge-batten and
-lashed. The bow piece is carved from a block,
-and the longitudinals are lashed to it, each in a
-carefully fitted notch. The sternpost is formed of
-a plank. The skin cover passes over the manhole
-rim and a line passed outside the rim holds the skin
-down enough to form a breakwater. The skin
-cover is sewn to the inside lower edge of the rim,
-thus covering it almost completely.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i212a.jpg" width="700" height="258" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 177</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Kodiak Island Kayak</span>, 1885, in U.S. National Museum (USNM 76285). The
-identification of this kayak has been questioned by Henry B. Collins and John
-Heath, but it may represent an old form out of use in the twentieth century.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i212b.jpg" width="700" height="196" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 178</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Aleutian Kayak</span>, Unalaska, 1894, in U.S. National Museum (USNM 76282).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The Unalaska kayak of 1894 (below) is a better
-known type. This design is used throughout the
-Aleutians and on the adjacent mainland as far east
-as Prince William Sound. It was also employed in
-the Pribilof Islands and at St. Matthew, having been
-used by Aleuts engaged in sealing expeditions there.
-All kayaks of this type do not have the same bow and
-stern profiles as the example; some have the bifid<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span>
-bow built with the portion above the slit arched
-upward higher than the outer stem-piece and so
-more prominent; there are also minor variations in
-the stern. The shape of the hull, however, is consistently
-maintained throughout the area in which
-this type is used. Though the deck is ridged, it is
-relatively low compared to that of the Kodiak kayak,
-and the thwarts supporting the manhole are heavily
-arched and in one piece from gunwale to gunwale.
-The construction is like that of the Kodiak kayak,
-but the gunwales and upper longitudinal battens,
-instead of meeting the stern post, end on a crosspiece
-well inside the stern to give the effect of a transom
-stern. However, some Aleut kayaks have the
-normal sharp stern after the fashion of the Kodiak
-kayak, but without the projecting tail or handgrip,
-and nearly all have two thwarts between the after
-manhole thwart and the stern and three forward
-of the fore manhole thwart. The skin cover passes
-over the manhole rim as in the Kodiak type. The
-bow block is sometimes built up of two blocks sewn
-or laced together. Strengthening pieces of light
-plank are sometimes fitted from the bow block aft;
-these are laced to the top inside edge of the gunwales
-and pinned to the stem block to form long
-breast-hooks. In some kayaks with the square stern,
-only the gunwale is supported by the crosspiece on
-the stern, the two battens on each side being supported
-by the last frame only, about 6 inches inboard
-of the crosspiece.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i213.jpg" width="700" height="166" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 179</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Kayak From Russian Siberia</span>, 2-hole Aleutian type, in Washington State
-Historical Society and Museum. Taken off by John Heath, 1962.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>This type of kayak is the only one known to have
-been built with more than one manhole. The
-two-hole kayak is an Aleut development used in
-whaling and sea-otter hunting, so far as is known;
-the paddler sits in the after manhole. Measurements
-of a two-hole kayak in the United States
-National Museum show it to be 20 feet 7¼ inches
-long, 23 inches beam, and 9½ inches deep to top of
-gunwale. The manholes are about 46 inches apart
-edge to edge and the foremost is about 8 feet from
-the bow.</p>
-
-<p>The three-holer, commonly believed to have been
-introduced by the Russians, was used by Russian
-officers, inspectors, and traders in their explorations
-and travels on the Alaskan coast. One of these
-boats measures 24 feet 8⅜ inches long, 30 inches
-beam, and 10½ inches deep to top of gunwale. The
-center manhole is commonly larger in diameter than
-the other two and is used for either a passenger or
-cargo. The fore edge of the fore manhole is 8 feet
-to 8½ feet from the bow and the other manholes are
-from 4 to 4½ feet apart edge to edge. A large
-example of this class of kayak measures 28 feet
-1½ inches long, 38½ inches beam and 12 inches
-deep to top of gunwale. Probably none exceed 30
-feet in length. Both the single-and the double-blade
-paddle are used by the Aleuts, but the double blade
-is preferred in hunting. The paddle blades are
-rather narrow and leaf-shaped, with pointed tips.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i214a.jpg" width="700" height="211" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 180</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Nunivak Island Kayak, Alaska,</span> 1889, in U.S. National Museum (USNM
-160345), showing painted decoration of the mythological water monster
-Palriayuk.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i214b.jpg" width="700" height="200" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 181</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">King Island Kayak</span>, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National Museum (USNM
-160326), collected by Capt. M. A. Healy, U.S. Revenue Steamer <em>Bear</em>.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i214c.jpg" width="700" height="191" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 182</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Norton Sound Kayak</span>, Alaska, 1889, U.S. National Museum (USNM 160175).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The plan of a kayak from Nunivak Island (about
-due north of Unalaska and roughly halfway to St.
-Lawrence Island) is shown on page <a href="#Page_198">198</a> (fig. 180).
-This type of kayak is obviously related to that of Kodiak
-Island, for it has approximately the same lines and
-proportions. Only the profiles of bow and stern exhibit
-marked differences. Perhaps the most striking feature
-of the Nunivak kayak is its bow, which might represent
-a seal's head; a hole through the whole bow
-structure forms the eyes and also serves functionally
-as a lifting handle. The stern profile is simpler
-than that used in the Kodiak kayaks. The example
-shows the mythological water monster Palriayuk, a
-painted totem that once distinguished the Nunivak
-kayaks; missionary influence has long since erased
-such decorations from Alaskan kayaks. Whereas the
-Kodiak kayak has eleven battens (including the
-keelson) in its frame, the Nunivak kayak has nine,
-and all the longitudinals in it are rectangular in
-section. Differences in dimensions of Nunivak and
-Kodiak kayaks are remarkably slight, the greatest
-length reported for either type is about 15 feet 9 inches
-and the greatest beam is about 32 inches. Both
-types have a large manhole and carry a passenger
-back-to-back with the paddler. The single-bladed
-paddle is used. The kayak is sometimes transported
-over ice by means of a short sledge, by one man, but
-it is otherwise rather heavy to portage. Highly regarded
-by all who have had contact with it, this is
-generally considered one of the safest and most
-useful of the Alaskan kayaks.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i215a.jpg" width="700" height="322" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 183</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Nunivak Island Kayak</span> with picture of mythological water monster Palriayuk
-painted along gunwale. (Photo by Henry B. Collins.)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i215b.jpg" width="700" height="187" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 184</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Nunivak Island Kayak</span> in U.S. National Museum (USNM 76283) with cover
-partly removed to show framework. Collected by Ivan Petroff, March 30,
-1894.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>King Island, at the entrance to Bering Strait, is
-the home of the kayak shown on page <a href="#Page_198">198</a> (fig. 181).
-The King Islanders are noted as skillful kayakers and
-their kayak generally follows the Nunivak pattern,
-but is narrower and more <strong>V</strong>-shaped in cross section,
-and the stem and stern are also distinctly different.
-The King Island craft has a bold upturned stem
-ending in a small birdlike head, with a small hole
-through it to represent eyes and to serve for a lifting
-grip; the stern is low and without the projections
-seen in the Nunivak type. The fitting of the cockpit
-rim of the U.S. National Museum kayak is unusual;
-the rim is not supported by thwarts but rather is
-made part of the skin cover and therefore can be
-moved. This seemed to be intentional, for there is
-no evidence of broken or missing members, but
-John Heath considers this not typical. A watertight
-jacket with the skirt laced to the manhole rim
-is worn by the kayaker to prevent swamping. This
-practice was common among Eskimo working in
-stormy waters. A warm-weather alternate was a
-wide waistband, with its top supported by straps<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span>
-over the shoulders and the bottom laced to the
-manhole.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i216.jpg" width="700" height="384" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 185</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Western Alaskan Kayak</span>, Cape Prince of Wales, 1936.
-(<em>Photo by Henry B. Collins.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>A somewhat similar but slightly smaller kayak was
-used at Cape Espenberg; in these the upturned bow
-ended in a simple point. The sterns were alike in
-both types. The Cape Espenberg kayak had a
-fixed cockpit rim however, as in the Nunivak type.
-Both types employed the single-bladed paddle.</p>
-
-<p>A little to the South, in Norton Sound, the long
-narrow kayak shown on page <a href="#Page_198">198</a> (fig. 182) is popular.
-These are somewhat like the Nunivak kayaks in cross
-section but with far less beam. They have a slight
-reverse, or humped, sheer and are very sharp ended.
-The peculiar handgrips at bow and stern are characteristic,
-though the shape and size of the grips vary
-among the villages; the style shown is that of St.
-Michaels. A single-bladed paddle is used. This
-type is very fast under paddle, but requires a skillful
-user in rough water. The Norton Sound kayaks
-are very well finished and strongly built.</p>
-
-<p>From Kotzebue Sound, at Cape Krusenstern,
-along the north coast of Alaska to near the Mackenzie
-Delta, the kayaks are very low in the water, long,
-narrow, and spindle-shaped at the ends. They are
-distinguished by a very strong rake in the manhole
-rim, with an accompanying prominent swell in the
-deck forward of the manhole. They are built with
-seven longitudinal battens (including the keelson) in
-addition to the gunwales. In several examples seen,
-the latter are sometimes slightly channelled on the
-inside, but this may have been the result of shrinkage
-in the pith of the timber used and not intentional.
-These kayaks are very light and easily carried. Both
-single-and double-blade paddles are employed; the
-single blade is usually used in travelling.</p>
-
-<p>On page <a href="#Page_201">201</a> are shown a kayak from Cape Krusenstern
-(fig. 186) and one from Point Barrow (fig. 187).
-It is reported that these types have now gone out of
-use. In these boats no stem or stern posts exist, these
-usually being replaced by small end blocks. The only
-important difference in the two types shown is in the
-style of crowning the deck, which is ridged in the Cape
-Krusenstern kayak but more rounded in the Point
-Barrow kayak. In spite of their narrow beam and
-obviously unstable form, these kayaks are said to
-have been used by rather unskillful paddlers. In
-general, they were not employed in rough weather
-but were seaworthy in skillful hands.</p>
-
-<p>Though the North Alaska type of kayak, as illustrated
-by the Point Barrow model (fig. 187), may be
-said to represent the structural design of kayaks to the
-eastward as far as Foxe Basin, the Mackenzie Delta
-kayaks are on an entirely different model. Due to
-migration of numerous groups of Eskimo to this area
-in the last seventy years, the design of kayaks here
-has undergone a great change. In figure 188 appears
-the plan of a modern Mackenzie Delta kayak.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i217a.jpg" width="700" height="196" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 186</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Kotzebue Sound Kayak</span> (Cape Krusenstern), Alaska, formerly in U.S.
-National Museum, now in Mariner's Museum.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i217b.jpg" width="700" height="185" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 187</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Point Barrow Kayak</span>, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National Museum (USNM
-57773).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i217c.jpg" width="700" height="197" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 188</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Mackenzie Delta Kayak</span>, in Museum of the American Indian, Heye
-Foundation.</p></div>
-</div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span>
-The design is marked by a very narrow flat bottom
-or a wide keel combined with the <strong>V</strong>-bottom. These
-boats are well-built and are light and graceful. The
-wide keel is formed by a thick plank keelson which
-narrows at bow and stern and is bent up to form the
-stem and stern. The chine pieces run fore and aft
-and are lashed to the stem and stern thus formed.
-The gunwales are about ¾ by 1⅛ inches. The frames
-are about ¼ by ⅝ inch bent in a strongly <strong>U</strong>-shaped
-form, with their ends tenoned into the bottom of the
-gunwales. The keelson is only about ⅜ inch thick
-and the chines are rather wide thin battens; about
-<sup>5</sup>⁄<sub>16</sub> by 1¼ inch. Some kayaks have an additional
-batten in the sides above the chines. The deck is
-slightly ridged for nearly the length of the boat. The
-stem and stern are carried up above the sheer to form
-prominent posts; some builders carry them higher
-than shown. The construction is neat and light and
-the boat is very easily paddled. Its narrow beam
-makes it somewhat treacherous, however, in unskilled
-hands. A double-bladed paddle is generally used
-with this kayak. While the form appears to vary
-little among individuals of this class, the construction
-varies, particularly in the number and dimensions of
-the longitudinals. Frames are spaced rather consistently
-5 to 6 inches apart.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i218a.jpg" width="700" height="133" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 189</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Kayak From Point Barrow</span>, Alaska, in U.S. National Museum (USNM
-57773). Collected by Capt. M. A. Healy, U.S. Revenue Steamer <em>Bear</em>, 1888.
-(<em>Smithsonian photo</em> MNH-399-A.)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 401px;">
-<img src="images/i218b.jpg" width="401" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 190</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Cockpit of Kayak</span> from Point Barrow (USNM
-57773), showing method of lashing skin cover
-to manhole. (<em>Smithsonian photo</em> MNH-399.)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i219a.jpg" width="700" height="189" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 191</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Kayak in U.S. National Museum</span> (USNM 160325) cataloged as from Mackenzie
-River area, 1885, but apparently an eastern kayak of unidentified origin.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i219b.jpg" width="700" height="164" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 192</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Coronation Gulf Kayak</span>, Canada, partially reconstructed from a damaged
-privately owned kayak (now destroyed).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i219c.jpg" width="700" height="166" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 193</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Caribou Eskimo Kayak</span>, Canada, in American Museum of Natural History.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i219d.jpg" width="700" height="192" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 194</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Netsilik Eskimo Kayak</span>, King William Island, Canada, in the American
-Museum of Natural History.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span></p>
-
-<p>The foregoing design differs greatly in every respect
-from the example in figure 191, collected by the
-U.S. Fish Commission in 1885 and identified as a
-Mackenzie River kayak. It is a large heavy boat
-compared to the one just described. The model of
-this old kayak, and the construction too, is on the
-eastern pattern, such as is used in Hudson Strait.
-The strongly upturned stern and less rising bow
-resembles the old Greenland kayaks. The <strong>V</strong>-bottom
-and 3-batten construction combined with heavy
-deep gunwales is not to be found in any of the known
-Alaskan kayaks. There is unfortunately no record
-of the exact location where this kayak was found,
-nor any information on the builders; if it is from the
-Mackenzie, the type now appears to be wholly
-extinct and there has been nothing in recent times
-in the vicinity faintly resembling it. The kayak is a
-well-built, safe, strong boat; the high stern would aid
-it in coming head to sea and wind when paddling
-stopped; and it resembles, more than most, the early
-explorers' drawings of Arctic kayaks. The very high
-ends indicate that it was not used where high winds
-are common, despite the otherwise seaworthy design
-and construction, and regardless of the documentation,
-it now seems certain that this kayak came from somewhere
-in the eastern Arctic.</p>
-
-<p>To the eastward of the Mackenzie, the kayaks are
-narrow, spindle-shaped and very low sided, in the
-manner of the northern Alaskan boats. The drawing
-of figure 192 was made from the remains of a kayak
-from Coronation Gulf and to insure accuracy was
-compared with photographs and measurements of
-some Copper Eskimo kayaks. This kayak is characterized
-by a rather marked reverse sheer and a
-strongly raked manhole rim. The deck forward of
-the manhole sweeps up very sharply, but with a
-different profile than is seen on the north coast of
-Alaska; the deck of these eastern kayaks sweeps up
-in a very short hollow curve instead of the long convex
-sweep popular in Alaska. The ends of the hull
-finish in small bone buttons; the skin cover passes
-under the manhole rim, as in the Cape Krusenstern
-and Point Barrow types. A two-bladed paddle is
-commonly used. The hull design is more stable
-than that at Point Barrow and the ends are somewhat
-fuller, giving the boat a rather parallel sided appearance;
-it has longitudinal battens from the bottom of
-the hull, one the keelson; the gunwales are channelled
-on the inside and are very light and neatly made.
-The frames are split willows, round on the inside.</p>
-
-<p>The Caribou Eskimo kayak preserved in the American
-Museum of Natural History is the best example of
-the type found. The drawing of figure 193 shows the
-features of this particular type; the construction is
-about the same as that of the Point Barrow kayak
-but is much lighter and weaker. The peculiar projecting
-stem is formed of a stem block, scarphed to
-the gunwales; to it the beak piece is attached with a
-lashing. The sharply turned-up stern is formed in a
-similar manner by two pieces joined together at
-the tip and lashed to the stern block; this stern
-construction is similar to that of the eastern Arctic
-kayak shown in figure 192. Both caribou hides and
-seal skins are used to cover the Caribou Eskimo kayak.
-The seams are rubbed with fish oil and ochre, a
-method also used extensively along the north coast
-of Alaska to paint the framework of both kayaks
-and umiaks.</p>
-
-<p>The Netsilik Eskimo kayak is related to the Caribou,
-but is less stable and has different bow and stern
-profiles. The example shown in the drawing of
-figure 194 requires little discussion; the cover is of seal
-skin. These kayaks are used only in hunting caribou
-at stream crossings and are not employed in sealing.
-The very narrow bottom and narrow beam make
-this the most dangerous of all kayaks in the hands
-of a paddler unaccustomed to such craft. Neither
-the Caribou nor the Netsilik kayaks are very seaworthy
-and their construction is inferior. They are
-characterized by rather heavy gunwales but the other
-members of their structures are very slight.</p>
-
-<p>No examples remain of the old kayaks once used on
-the Gulf of Boothia, at Fury and Hecla Strait, and
-on the west side of Foxe Basin. Early explorers in
-this area found kayaks, but the types used have been
-long extinct. One kayak, supposed to have been
-built at Southampton Island, had been preserved by
-a private collector, but when measured was in a
-damaged state. Shown in figure 195, it does not conform
-with the old description of kayaks from the Melville
-Peninsula but does agree reasonably well with
-the Boas model of a kayak from Repulse Bay in the
-U.S. National Museum (USNM 68126). On this
-basis it would appear that in Boas' time this form of
-kayak was also used on the east side of the Melville
-Peninsula. The design resembles to some extent the
-kayaks from the southwest coast of Greenland,
-but the stern is like that used in some Labrador
-craft. This old kayak was very light and sharp,
-rather slightly built, but very graceful in model
-so far as could be determined from the remains of
-the craft. The foredeck camber is ridged and
-carried rather far forward. If the identification of
-this kayak should be correct, it is apparent that the
-eastern model of the kayak once extended as far
-west as the west side of Foxe Basin.</p>
-
-<p>The kayak of lower Baffin Island, in figure 196,
-is flat-bottomed, long, and rather heavy. The
-gunwale members are very deep and the keelson and
-chine battens are quite heavy. This type has a
-slight side-batten between chine and gunwale&mdash;in
-all, five longitudinal members besides the gunwales&mdash;hence
-this example is the sole exception to the
-3-batten construction that may be said to mark the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span>
-eastern kayaks. The Baffin Island kayak is rather
-roughly built and the two examples found had many
-frames cracked at the chines. However, this kayak
-has many excellent features, being easily paddled,
-very stable, and seaworthy. The double-blade paddle
-used is like that of the Labrador kayak, very long
-with narrow blades. When the paddler is seated,
-these kayaks, like many of their eastern sisters, draw
-more water forward than the illustration would
-indicate (it should be remembered that the trim of
-the kayaks in the water is not indicated by the base
-lines used in the plans). The deeper draft at the bow,
-which allows the kayak to hold her course into the
-wind and to come head to the wind when at rest,
-gives a long easy run in the bottom toward the stern.
-The slight rocker in the bottom shown in the drawing
-is thus misleading. The stem is formed by the extension
-of the keelson, producing the "clipper-bow"
-seen in many eastern boats. The stern is shaped by
-a stern block of simple form into which the gunwales,
-keelson and chines are notched. The batten
-between chine and gunwale stops a little short of
-both bow and stern.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i221a.jpg" width="700" height="166" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 195</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Old Kayak From Vicinity of Southampton Island</span>, Canada. Plan made
-from a much damaged kayak, now destroyed, once privately owned.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>A somewhat similar kayak is used on the Labrador
-side of Hudson Strait but, as shown in figure 197
-on page <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, the appearance of the craft is distinctive.
-The kayak is flat-bottomed, with the snied-off chines
-seen in the Baffin Island boat, giving a cross section
-form like that of many Japanese sampans. The 3-batten
-system is used in construction, and the gunwales
-are very heavy and deep, standing vertical in
-the sides of the boat. The sheer is slightly reversed
-and there is little rocker in the bottom. One of the
-most obvious features of the Labrador kayak is the
-long "grab" bow, which is formed by a batten
-attached to the end of the keelson. The stern is
-formed with a very small block inside the gunwales,
-and to this the keelson is laced or pegged. It will be
-noticed that the rake of the manhole is very moderate.
-These kayaks are heavy and strong, paddle well,
-particularly so against wind and sea. Shown in the
-drawing is the type of long-and narrow-bladed
-paddle used.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i221b.jpg" width="700" height="146" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 196</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Baffin Island Kayak</span>, from Cape Dorset, Canada, in the Museum of the
-American Indian, Heye Foundation.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>This example illustrates better than the Baffin
-Island kayak the combination of deep forefoot and
-the greatest beam well abaft the midlength that marks
-many eastern models. When paddled, the craft<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span>
-always trims so that the kayak draws most water at
-the fore end of the keelson and the bottom of the
-stern is usually just awash. This makes the bottom
-sweep up from the forefoot in a very slight gradual
-curve to the stern, when the boat is afloat. As a result,
-the kayak may be said to be of the "double-wedge"
-form that has been popular in fast low-powered
-motor boats, since having the beam far aft gives
-to the bow a wedge shape in plan, while the deep
-forefoot and shallow stern produce an opposite wedge
-in profile. It would appear that this form had been
-found by trial and error to produce a fast, easily
-paddled rough-water kayak in an otherwise heavy
-hull. The North Labrador kayaks are the largest in
-the Arctic for a single person; some are reported as
-long as 26 feet. The long-and narrow-bladed paddle
-may be explained by the fact that the Eskimo never
-produced a "feathered" double paddle, with blades
-set at right angles to one another. To paddle against
-strong winds, he developed a blade that was very
-long and very narrow for a double-paddle, and
-therefore offered less resistance to the wind, yet
-could be dipped deep so that little propulsion effect
-was lost.</p>
-
-<p>The kayak used on the northeast coast of Labrador,
-shown in figure 198, differs slightly from that of
-Hudson Strait. The northeast-coast kayak has a
-very slight <strong>V</strong>-bottom and a strong concave sheer with
-relatively great rocker in the bottom. While the craft
-trims by the bow afloat, the rocker probably makes it
-more maneuverable than the Hudson Strait kayak,
-though less easily paddled against strong winds. The
-<strong>V</strong>-bottom is formed by using a keelson that is heavier
-and deeper than the chines. The latter are thin,
-wide battens, on the flat. The <strong>V</strong>-bottom appears to
-help the boat run straight under paddle and may be
-said to counteract, to some extent at least, the effect
-of the strongly rockered bottom.</p>
-
-<p>The Polar coast of Greenland is the home of sharpie-model
-kayaks having flat bottoms and flaring sides;
-the kayaks in figures 199 and 200 are representative
-of those used in the extreme north. These have
-"clipper" bows, with sterns of varying depth and shape,
-concave sheer and varying degrees of rocker in the
-bottom. Most have their greatest beam well aft and
-draw more water forward, as do the Labrador and
-Baffin Island types. The chief characteristic of the
-construction of this type is that the transverse frames
-are in three parts, somewhat as in the umiak. However,
-these kayaks depart from umiak construction in
-having the frame heads rigidly tenoned into the
-gunwales. This is done to give the structure a
-measure of transverse rigidity which would otherwise
-be lacking, since light battens are used for the
-keelson, stem, and chines. Figure 199 shows the details
-of the construction used.</p>
-
-<p>These kayaks are highly developed craft&mdash;stable,
-fast, and seaworthy&mdash;and the construction is light
-yet strong enough to withstand the severe abuse
-sometimes given them. The cap on the fore part of
-the manhole is a paddle holder, for resting the paddle
-across the deck. Some Eskimos used this as a thole,
-and when tired, "rowed" the kayak with the paddle,
-to maintain control. It will be noted that oval or
-circular manholes are seldom found in the eastern
-types of kayaks already described; <strong>U</strong>-shaped manholes,
-or bent-rim manholes approaching this form, appear
-in those very stable types which do not require to be
-righted at sea by the paddler and in which the watertight
-paddling jacket or waistband is not used.</p>
-
-<p>Farther south, on the northern coast of Greenland,
-and apparently also on the opposite coast
-of Baffin Island, a modified design of kayak is used.
-This type, illustrated in figure 205, shows relationship
-to both the flat-bottom kayak of northern
-Greenland and to the northeastern Labrador type.
-In this model the "clipper" bow is retained but the
-stern and cross section resemble those of the Labrador
-kayaks. The construction, however, is fundamentally
-that employed in northern Greenland.
-As in the Labrador type, the deadrise in the bottom
-is formed by using in the keelson members that
-are deeper than those in the chine. The gunwales
-do not flare as in the Greenland model, but stand
-vertical in the side flaring slightly at bow and extreme
-stern. The frame heads are rather loosely
-tenoned and are commonly secured to the gunwales
-with lashings. Transverse stiffness is obtained
-in this model by employing a rather heavy, rigid
-keelson fixed to the stern block, and by a tripod
-arrangement forward consisting of the stem batten
-and a pair of transverse frames placed at the junction
-of stem and keelson with their heads firmly lashed
-and tenoned into the gunwales. The construction,
-though strong, is rather rough compared to that of
-other Greenland types. The manhole rim in this
-type is not bent, but is made up of short straight
-pieces, as shown in the drawing; and the double-bladed
-paddle shown resembles that used in Labrador.
-This is a rather heavy kayak of very good
-qualities but not as maneuverable as some of the
-flat-bottom kayaks found farther north.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i223a.jpg" width="700" height="140" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 197</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Kayak From North Labrador</span>, Canada, in the Museum of the American
-Indian, Heye Foundation.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i223b.jpg" width="700" height="166" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 198</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Labrador Kayak</span>, Canada, in the U.S. National Museum (USNM 251693).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i223c.jpg" width="700" height="208" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 199</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">North Greenland Kayak</span>, in the Museum of the American Indian, Heye
-Foundation.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i223d.jpg" width="700" height="157" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 200</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">North Greenland Kayak</span>, in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass. Taken
-off by the late Norman L. Skene, 1921.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i224a.jpg" width="700" height="152" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 201</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Profile of Greenland Kayak</span> from Disko Bay, in the National
-Museum (USNM 72564). Collected by Maj. Wm. M.
-Beebe, Jr., 1882. (<em>Smithsonian photo 15726-D.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Ross found that the Greenland Eskimos north of
-Cape York had ceased to use kayaks in 1818. Not
-until about 1860 was the kayak reintroduced here,
-by Eskimos from Pond Inlet, north Baffin Island,
-who walked over the sea ice. This fact probably
-accounts for the various sharpie and modified sharpie
-forms used along the northern and Polar coasts of
-Greenland.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i224b.jpg" width="700" height="140" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 202</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Deck of Greenland Kayak</span> from Disko Bay (USNM
-72564). (<em>Smithsonian photo 15726-C.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The model of the kayak used on much of the central
-and southern coasts of Greenland has changed rather
-extensively since 1883, and this change has apparently
-affected the kayaks used on the east coast as well.
-In this part of the Arctic, the Eskimo are notable
-kayakers and the boat is not only well designed
-but also carries highly developed equipment and
-weapons for its work. The basic model used is a
-graceful <strong>V</strong>-bottom one, with raking ends and rather
-strong sheer. In the old boats represented by the
-drawings of figures 206 and 207, the sheer is strong at
-bow and stern, but this form has been gradually
-going out of favor. The kayaks are narrow but
-their shape gives them much stability. Pegged to
-the bow and stern are plates of bone to protect
-them from ice; in rare cases these bone stem bands,
-or bang plates, are lashed in place. The first drawing
-shows the construction used: light strong gunwales
-and a 3-batten longitudinal system with bent transverse
-frames. The keelson and chines&mdash;light, rectangular
-in section and placed on edge&mdash;are shaped
-slightly to fair the sealskin covering. The cover
-passes under the manhole rim. Bow and stern are
-made of plank on edge, shaped to the required
-profile. The gunwales are strongly tapered in depth
-fore and aft. Eight to twelve thwarts, or deck
-beams, are used in addition to the two heavy thwarts
-supporting the manhole; usually there is one more
-forward of the manhole than there is aft, and all
-are very light scantlings. The thwart forward of
-the manhole stands slightly inside the cockpit and is
-strongly arched; the after one is clear of the cockpit
-opening and has very little arch. Two light, short
-battens, or carlins, 24 to 36 inches long support the
-deck, where it sweeps up to the raked manhole, and
-usually there are two abaft the manhole as well.
-Lashings are used as fastenings except at the ends
-of the hull, where pegs secure the keelson to the
-stem and stern; at this point, on some kayaks examined,
-sinew lashings are also found. The whole
-framework is strong, light, and neatly made. In
-a few instances the gunwales do not flare with the
-sides the whole length and, thus, near the stern, a
-knuckle is formed in the skin cover, as in figure 207,
-opposite. The exact amount of flare and deadrise
-varies village to village. The old kayaks used in
-eastern Greenland had more rake in the bow than
-the examples illustrated, and also were marked by a
-sheer almost straight from the bow to within a foot
-or so of the stern, where it turned up sharply to a
-high stern, as in the drawing (fig. 191, p. <a href="#Page_203">203</a>.) These
-kayaks also had less flare and deadrise than most of
-the southwestern Greenland models. The amount
-of rocker in the keelson varies a good deal, that
-shown in figure 206, opposite, appears to have been
-about the maximum; a straight keelson does not
-seem ever to have been used. The manholes are
-fitted to allow use of the watertight paddling jacket;
-the projecting rim shown at the after-side of the
-manhole in the drawing is primarily to strengthen
-the manhole rim, but may also serve to prevent the
-drawstring holding the skirt of the jacket to the
-rim from slipping over the top. This old form of
-Greenland kayak, which has been widely described
-and much admired, was a fast and handy hunting
-boat; but it has become obsolete in most areas,
-and seems to have gone out of use more rapidly on
-the east coast than the west, where the type represented
-in the drawing was built as late as 1959
-at Umanak Fjord.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 298px;">
-<img src="images/i225a.jpg" width="298" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 203</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Cockpit</span> of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.
-(USNM 72564). (<em>Smithsonian photo 15726.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 331px;">
-<img src="images/i225b.jpg" width="331" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 204</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Bow View</span> of Greenland kayak from Disko
-Bay (USNM 72564). (<em>Smithsonian photo
-15726-A.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i226a.jpg" width="700" height="204" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 205</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Northwestern Greenland Kayak</span>, in the U.S. National Museum (USNM
-160388).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i226b.jpg" width="700" height="198" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 206</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Southwestern Greenland Kayak</span>, 1883, in the U.S. National Museum
-(USNM 160328).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i226c.jpg" width="700" height="181" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 207</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Southwestern Greenland Kayak</span>, in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.
-Taken off by the late Norman L. Skene, 1921.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i227.jpg" width="700" height="166" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 208</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">South Greenland Kayak</span>, in the American Museum of Natural History.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Since the 1880's it has been gradually replaced by
-the type shown above. The modern version has
-the same construction as the old but, as can be seen,
-the model has undergone much alteration. The rake
-of the bow and stern have become much greater;
-the sheer is now almost straight. The flare of the
-sides has been increased and the deadrise in the
-bottom has been reduced. The new model is undoubtedly
-an improvement over the old type, being
-faster (particularly against a headwind) and quicker
-turning. However, it would probably be found to
-be somewhat harder than the old model to right
-when capsized. And although the new model is
-more stable than the old, it is not suited for unskilled
-users; a few American soldiers drowned during World
-War II through rashly venturing into rough water
-before becoming practiced in the use of these kayaks.</p>
-
-<p>The intricate arrangement of deck lashings shown
-are required to hold weapons and accessories.
-Just ahead of the paddler a stand or tray on low legs
-holds the coiled harpoon line; and under the deck
-lashings are held such weapons as the lance, darts,
-and harpoons. Toggles of bone or ivory, often carved,
-are used to tighten and adjust these lines. The
-Greenland kayaks carry deck fittings and gear that
-are far better developed than those seen in any of the
-western types.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Chapter Eight</em><br />
-
-TEMPORARY CRAFT</h2>
-
-
-<p>Use of temporary craft seems to have been
-confined to the Indians, who for the most part built
-them of bark, although some tribes used skins. However,
-very little in the way of information exists on
-the forms used by the individual tribes, for early
-travelers did not always have opportunities to see
-these emergency craft, and when they did they
-rarely took the trouble to record their construction
-and design.</p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Bark Canoes</em></h3>
-
-<p>There is ample evidence to support the belief that
-a great many of the tribes building birch-bark canoes
-also used temporary canoes of other barks such as
-spruce and elm, as has been mentioned in earlier
-chapters. Invariably, the qualities of these other
-barks, particularly spruce, were such that their use
-was often somewhat more laborious and the results
-less satisfactory than with birch; but the necessities
-of travel and the availability of materials were controlling
-factors, and with care spruce bark could be
-used to build a canoe almost as good as one of birch
-bark. The forms of these canoes do not appear to
-have been as standardized as the tribal forms of the
-better-built bark canoes; rather, the model of the
-temporary canoe was entirely a matter to be decided
-by the individual builder on the basis of the importance
-of the temporary canoe to his needs, the
-limitation on time allowed for construction, and the
-material available.</p>
-
-<p>The reasons for using substitute material are fairly
-obvious. In forest travel it was not always possible
-or practical to portage a canoe for a long distance
-simply to make a short water passage somewhere
-along the route. War parties and hunters, therefore,
-often found it necessary to build a temporary canoe,
-one that could be utilized for a limited water passage
-and then abandoned. Since such a limited use did
-not warrant expenditure of much time or labor on
-construction, the canoe was prepared quickly from
-readily available material and in order to meet these
-requirements many Indian tribes developed canoe
-forms and building techniques somewhat different
-from the more elaborate construction using birch or
-spruce bark.</p>
-
-<p>It is obvious that much time and work could be
-avoided by use of a single large sheet of bark that
-was reasonably flexible and strong. But many of
-the barks meeting this specification had a coarse
-longitudinal grain that split easily, so forming a
-canoe by cutting gores was out of the question. This
-difficulty was avoided by folding, or "crimping,"
-the bark cover along the gunwales at two or more
-places on each side of the canoe; this permitted the
-bottom to be flattened athwartships and the keel
-line to be rockered, both desirable in a canoe.</p>
-
-<p>The problem of closing the ends also had to be
-solved. This was done by clamping the ends of the
-bark between two battens and, perhaps, a bark cord
-as well, and then lashing together the battens, bark
-ends, and cord with wrappings of root thongs. Cord
-made from the inner bark of the basswood and other
-trees could also be used for this purpose. The ends
-of the canoe could then be made watertight by a
-liberal application of gum or tallow, while grass,
-shavings, moss, or inner bark mixed with gum or
-even clay could be used to fill the larger openings
-that might appear in hurried construction.</p>
-
-<p>Obviously, a simple wood structure was required
-by the specifications. Therefore, the gunwales were
-usually made of saplings with their butts roughly
-secured together or spliced. This allowed length to
-be obtained without the necessity of working down
-large poles to usable dimensions, a laborious and
-time-consuming undertaking with primitive tools.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span>
-The thwarts were commonly of saplings with the
-ends cut away so that the thin remainder could be
-wrapped around the main gunwales and lashed underneath
-the thwarts inboard. Ribs were usually of
-split saplings, but there is some evidence that in very
-hurriedly built canoes the whole small sapling was
-used. The kind of sheathing employed in these
-canoes during the pre-Columbian era is a mystery. It
-would be quite unlikely that time was taken to split
-splints such as were used in the late elm-and spruce-bark
-canoes, when steel tools were available. The
-writers believe that for small canoes it may have
-been the practice to use a second sheet of stiff bark
-inside the first and extending only through the middle
-two-thirds of the length, across the bottom and up
-above the bilge but short of the gunwales. This,
-with the ribs and a few poles lashed to each rib along
-the bottom, would have given sufficient longitudinal
-strength and a stiff enough bottom for practical use.
-However, in large canoes of the type reputedly employed
-by Iroquois warriors, a stronger construction
-seems necessary, and these canoes may have had a
-number of split or whole poles lashed to the ribs
-along the bottom.</p>
-
-<p>With small variations in details, the general construction
-outlined above was employed by many North
-American Indians for building temporary canoes
-for emergency use. In at least one case, however,
-it was also used in canoes of somewhat more permanent
-status within the boundaries of the powerful
-Iroquois Confederation. On large bodies of water
-within their territory, the Iroquois used dugouts, but
-for navigating streams and for use in raiding their
-enemies they employed bark canoes. While some
-birch bark was available there, it was probably
-widely scattered; therefore these great warriors used
-elm or other bark for their canoe building.</p>
-
-<p>Early French accounts show that the Iroquois
-built bark canoes of greater size than ordinary;
-Champlain wrote that their canoes were of oak
-bark and were large enough to carry up to 18 warriors;
-later French accounts, as we shall see, indicate
-that the Iroquois used even larger canoes than these.
-Champlain may have been in error about the Iroquois
-use of oak bark, as suggested earlier (p. <a href="#Page_7">7</a>), for
-experiments have shown that the inner bark of this
-tree is too thin and weak for the purpose; the canoes
-Champlain saw may have been built of white or red
-elm bark. The barks of the butternut, hickory,
-white pine, and chestnut might also have been
-employed, as they were usually suitable.</p>
-
-<p>It was noted by the early French writers that
-the Iroquois built their bark canoes very rapidly
-when these craft were required by a war party in
-order to attack their enemies or to escape pursuit.
-In one case at least the canoes for a war party were
-apparently built in a single day. This was accomplished,
-it seems, by the excellent organization of
-their war parties, in which every man was assigned
-a duty, even in making canoes.</p>
-
-<p>When it was deemed necessary to build a canoe,
-certain warriors were to search out and obtain the
-necessary materials in the order required for construction.
-To do this effectively, they had to know
-the materials in order of their suitability for a given
-purpose, for the most desirable material might not
-be available at the building site. Other warriors
-prepared the materials for construction, scraping the
-bark, making thongs, and rough-shaping the wood.
-Others built the canoe, cutting and sewing the bark,
-and shaping and lashing the woodwork. These
-duties, too, required intimate knowledge of the
-different materials that could be used in canoe
-construction. It would be natural, of course, to find
-that the methods used to construct a temporary
-craft for a war-party would also be employed at
-home by the hunter or fisherman, even when a
-rather more permanent canoe was desired. These
-were smaller craft and easily built. Only when a
-long-lasting watercraft was desired would the bark
-canoe be unsatisfactory; then the dugout could be
-built. The early French observers agree that though
-the Iroquois occasionally used birch-bark canoes,
-these were acquired from their neighbors by barter or
-capture and were not built by the tribesmen of the
-Confederation.</p>
-
-<p>The details of the construction of elm canoes (and
-of other bark than birch) by the Iroquois are speculative,
-since no bark canoe of their construction has
-been preserved. This reconstruction of their methods
-is, therefore, based upon the incomplete accounts of
-early writers and upon what has been discovered
-about the construction of spruce-and elm-bark
-temporary canoes by other Eastern Indians.</p>
-
-<p>In view of what has been reported, it must be kept
-in mind that the construction was hasty and that
-a minimum of labor and time was employed; hence,
-the appearance of the elm-bark canoe of an Iroquois
-war-party had none of the gracefulness that is supposed
-to mark the traditional war canoe of the Indians.
-The ends are known to have been "square," that is,
-straight in profile, and the freeboard low. The use<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span>
-of saplings for the gunwales would cause an uneven
-sheer, and its amount must have been small; the high,
-graceful ends seen in some birch-bark canoes did not
-exist in the Iroquois model. The rocker of the bottom
-profile was not a fair curve, but was angular, made
-of straight lines breaking under the folds, or "crimps,"
-in the bark cover at the gunwales. The amount of
-bark in each crimp and the location of the crimps
-fore-and-aft would determine the shape of the bottom
-profile and the amount of rocker, as well as the flatness
-of the bottom athwartships in the midbody. It
-appears that two crimps to the side were employed
-in most of these canoes, but perhaps more, say four
-to a side, might have been employed in a very large
-canoe. The tendency in forming these canoes must
-have been toward an almost semicircular midsection,
-a condition which would have produced an unstable
-craft if not checked.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i230.jpg" width="700" height="434" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 209</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Malecite and Iroquois Temporary Canoes.</span> The Iroquois 3-fathom elm-bark
-canoe, below, is designed to carry ten to twelve warriors.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The early French writers agree that the canoes of
-Iroquois war parties were sluggish under paddle.
-This was due to the fact that the hull form of these
-canoes was not good for speed, and also because the
-bulges at the bottom of the crimps caused them to
-be markedly unfair at and near the waterline. This
-handicap in their canoes may have been an inducement
-for the Iroquois to waylay their victims at
-portages when the travellers were usually spread
-out and easily cut down while burdened with goods.
-The Algonkin tribes countered by moving in very
-large numbers when within striking distance of
-Iroquois raiders. Hence there were very few recorded
-instances of battles in canoes; these took place only
-when sudden meetings occurred without preparation
-on either side, such as when war parties surprised
-canoemen in narrow waters. The shortcomings of
-their canoes did not seriously affect the deadliness
-of the Iroquois warriors, for their usual practice
-was to raid in winter, when they could travel rapidly
-on snowshoes and surprise their enemies in winter
-camps wholly unprepared for defense, a most pleasing
-prospect for the attacking warrior.</p>
-
-<p>It would be a mistake, however, to assume that
-these factors made the Iroquois poor canoemen; the
-French repeatedly stated that they were capable in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span>
-handling their craft and ran rapids with great daring
-and skill, showing that the apparently crude and
-weak elm-bark canoes were far better craft than they
-first appeared.</p>
-
-<p>The theory that the Iroquois type of canoe was very
-like the emergency or temporary elm-and spruce-bark
-canoes of neighboring tribes is supported by some
-statements of the early French writers, as well as by a
-comparison of the rather incomplete descriptions of
-Iroquois canoes by later travellers with what is known
-about the spruce and other temporary bark canoes
-used in more recent times by the eastern Indians.
-M. Bacqueville de la Poterie, writing of the adventures
-of Nicholas Perrot in the years 1665 to 1670,
-tells of an instance in which Perrot's Potawatomi
-mistook the emergency canoes of some Outaouais
-(Ottawa) for Iroquois canoes.</p>
-
-<p>LaHontan (1700) gives some general information as
-well as specific opinions on the speed and seaworthiness
-of Iroquois canoes, saying that&mdash;</p>
-
-<div class="blockquot">
-
-<p>the canoes with which the Iroquois provide themselves are
-so unwieldy and large that they do not approach the speed
-of those which are made of birch bark. They are made of
-elm bark, which is naturally heavy and the shape they give
-them is awkward; they are so long and so broad that thirty
-men can row in them, two-by-two, seated or standing, fifteen
-to each rank, but the freeboard is so low that when any little
-wind arises they are sensible enough not to navigate the
-lakes [in them].</p></div>
-
-<p>LaFiteau, writing before 1724, stated definitely that
-the Iroquois did not build any birch-bark canoes, but
-obtained them from their neighbors, and that the
-Iroquois elm-bark canoes were very coarsely built of
-a single large sheet of bark, crimped along the gunwales,
-with the ends secured between battens of split
-saplings. He noticed that the gunwales, ribs, and
-thwarts were of "tree branches," implying that the
-bark was not removed from them. The most detailed
-description was by a Swedish traveller, Professor Pher
-Kalm, who gave extensive information on the construction
-of an elm-bark canoe in 1749; this account
-is particularly useful when interpreted in relation to
-the spruce-and elm-bark canoes of the eastern Indians.
-It is upon the basis of Kalm's account that the procedures
-used to build an Iroquois war canoe have been
-reconstructed.</p>
-
-<p>The bark most favored by the Iroquois was that of
-the white elm. Next most favored was red elm, and
-then other barks&mdash;certain of the hickories and chestnut
-are mentioned in various early references. It was
-necessary to find a tree of sufficient girth and height
-to the first limbs to give a sound and fairly smooth
-bark sheet in the length and breadth required. If
-possible the bark was stripped from the standing tree;
-even after steel tools were available, felling was avoided
-for fear of harming the bark. Great care had to be
-taken in the operation, to avoid splitting or making
-holes in the bark, and often two or more trees had to
-be stripped before a good sheet of bark was obtained.
-In warm weather the bark could be removed without
-much difficulty, but in the spring and fall it might be
-necessary to apply heat; this was apparently done by
-means of torches or by the application of hot water
-to the tree trunk.</p>
-
-<p>When the bark was removed from the tree, the
-rough outer bark was scraped away; if the builder
-was hurried this scraping was confined to the areas
-to be sewn or folded. The bark was then laid on a
-cleared piece of ground, the building bed, with the
-outside of the bark up, so that it would be inside the
-finished boat. The building bed does not appear to
-have required much preparation; apparently not
-raised at midlength, it was merely a plot of reasonably
-smooth ground, located in the shade of a large tree if
-building was to be done in summer.</p>
-
-<p>It is not wholly clear from the descriptions whether
-the gunwales were shaped before or after being secured
-to the bark. However, extensive experiments in
-building model canoes show very plainly that it would
-be easiest to assemble the main gunwale frame and
-use it in building, after the fashion of eastern birch-bark
-canoe construction. With the main gunwales
-assembled, the stakes would be placed on the bed,
-the bark replaced, the frame laid on it and weighted,
-and the stakes then redriven in the usual way and their
-heads lashed together in pairs.</p>
-
-<p>Each gunwale was formed either of two small saplings
-or of split poles, with the butts scarfed at the
-canoe's midlength. The canoe of an Iroquois war
-party would probably have gunwales of split saplings
-so that inwale and outwale for half the length of one
-side of the canoe would be from a single pole; this
-would allow the flat sides to be placed opposite one
-another, on each side of the edge of the bark, to
-form a firm gunwale structure. However, when a
-rather permanent craft was being built, the poles
-might be split twice, or quartered, to give pieces to
-make half of the gunwales of a canoe; these too might
-be worked nearly round before assembly.</p>
-
-<p>That the gunwale joints were scarfed is reasonably
-certain. The elm-bark canoes of the St. Francis<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span>
-Indians are known only from a model, as are the
-spruce-bark hunters' canoes of the Malecite, but the
-testimony of old St. Francis and Malecite builders
-support the evidence of the models; therefore it is
-probable that the use of scarfed gunwales was common
-in these canoes, and, hence, also in the canoes of the
-Iroquois, who dwelt nearby. The manner of scarfing
-is not certain. Probably the butts were snied off so
-that the lap would be flat face, as was usual in the
-Malecite spruce-bark canoes of this same class. The
-butts were secured together by lashings&mdash;apparently
-let into shallow grooves around the members. In a
-very hastily built canoe the butts might be merely
-lapped for a short distance, one butt above the other,
-and lashed; this, of course, would make a jog in the
-sheer, but do no harm, as the jog would occur in
-both inwale and outwale, and the bark would lay up
-between these and be trimmed to suit.</p>
-
-<p>The thwarts were described in old accounts as
-very small saplings, or tree branches, with their ends
-sharply reduced in thickness so that they were thin
-and pliable enough to be bent around the gunwales
-and brought inboard under the thwart, as done by
-some Kutenai in the West (see p. <a href="#Page_169">169</a>). The thwart
-ends might be lashed or, as in some eastern spruce-bark
-canoes, brought up through a hole in the thwarts
-to the top where it could be jammed or lashed.
-In the Iroquois canoe it seems probable that the
-thwart ends passed around the main gunwales
-only and were secured under the thwarts for, as
-noted, the evidence strongly suggests that the main
-gunwale members were preassembled, a procedure
-that requires the thwarts to be in place. In the small
-hunters' canoes, however, some eastern builders
-apparently put in a temporary spreader in place of
-a single thwart until the canoe was completed to the
-point where the outwales were in place, then the
-thwarts were added, the ends passing over and
-around both inwale and outwale and through the
-bark cover below, to the underside of the thwart.</p>
-
-<p>One requirement in building these canoes was to
-crimp the edges of the bark at the gunwales in such
-manner that the bottom of the canoe would be
-rockered and at the same time would be moulded
-athwartships. First steps in the process were to set
-into the building bed two heavy stakes on each side
-of the stems, a little inboard of the ends, and to tie
-the heads of each pair together with a heavy bark
-cord or a rawhide thong. Then a sling was made,
-the bight of which went under the bottom of the bark
-cover near its ends, and the ends of the sling were
-made fast to the heads of the stakes. By taking up
-on these slings, the ends of the bark cover were
-sharply lifted and then the folding of the bark along
-the gunwales could be easily accomplished, as they
-then formed naturally, without strain. The crimps
-were commonly located a fourth to a fifth the length
-of the canoe inboard of the ends, about where the
-end thwarts would be located. In small hunters'
-canoes the end thwarts were often replaced by twisted
-cords across the gunwales, but in the large Iroquois
-canoes there were probably five or seven or perhaps
-as many as nine thwarts according to length.</p>
-
-<p>The ends of the gunwales were simply lashed
-together with cords or thongs in shallow grooves to
-prevent slipping. They were raised by a small inside
-post, its heel placed on the bark near the stem and
-its head brought under the gunwales, so that it
-served the purpose of a headboard in sheering the
-gunwales.</p>
-
-<p>The procedure in building to this point, then,
-appeared to follow the general plan used in birch-bark
-construction. Next, the stakes were redriven in the
-bed around the gunwale frame, which was weighted
-on the bark with stones, and the sides of the bark cover
-were brought upright. Apparently only a few stakes
-were considered necessary&mdash;three or four to a side
-and two pairs of end stakes to raise the stems. The
-gunwale frame was then lifted to the required height
-of side and lashed temporarily to the side stakes, the
-ends of the bark cover were creased to form bow and
-stern, and the headboard posts were inserted to support
-the ends of the inwales and to sheer the canoe.
-Before this, of course, the ends of the bark cover had
-been raised by means of the slings to the end stakes.</p>
-
-<p>The outwales of split saplings were now put into
-place, with the edges of the bark cover lashed between
-the flat surfaces of the inwale and outwale, the gunwales
-having been assembled with the flat face of the
-longitudinal members outboard. The lashings were
-in small groups spaced 5 to 7 inches apart so as not to
-split the bark, and these not only secured the bark
-in place but also held the inwales and outwales
-tightly together, to clamp the edges of the bark cover.
-At the thwarts, the outwales were notched on their
-inboard face to allow them to come up against the
-bark pressed against the face of the inwales (in some
-eastern canoes the bark cover was notched at the
-thwart ends to lay up smoothly there, and this may
-have also been done in the Iroquois canoes). In
-placing the outwales, the crimps were carefully formed
-and held by the clamping action of the inwale and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span>
-outwale, and reinforced by a lashing through the
-crimp or by two lashings close to the sides of the fold.
-The fold of the bark forced the outwale away from
-the inwale, and although this was counteracted to
-some extent by the lashings, the gunwales were unfair
-at these points. The crimps were formed so that the
-maximum fold in the bark took place at the gunwales;
-below this the fold tapered away to nothing, ending
-low in the side with an irregular bulge in the bark.
-Such a bulge could only be avoided by goring,
-which is impractical with elm, pine, chestnut, or
-hickory barks.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i233a.jpg" width="700" height="417" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 210</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Hickory-Bark Canoe Under Construction</span>, showing the sling with which
-the ends are elevated and the crimp which takes up the slack in the sides of the
-bark. Excess bark above the gunwales to be trimmed off. Completed model
-in The Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Va.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i233b.jpg" width="700" height="99" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 211</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Detail of Thwart</span> used in Malecite temporary
-spruce-bark canoe.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>The ends of the canoe were closed, as has been
-mentioned, by use of split-sapling battens on the outside
-of the bark. The Iroquois and some other
-builders also employed at the stems a thong or a
-twisted cord made of the inner bark of some such tree
-as the basswood; this was wrapped around the ends of
-the bark cover abreast the headboard posts inside the
-canoe, so that the lashing stood vertically. Then the
-split battens were placed on each side of the bark
-cover, just outboard of the cord, and the whole was
-secured by a coarse spiral lashing of root or rawhide,
-which passed inboard of the cord lashing and the
-headboard post, as well as around them and the split
-battens outside of the bark cover. Some builders
-apparently added a split-root batten over the edges of
-the bark cover, as a sort of stem-band; this was secured
-by the turns of the stem closure lashing, which passed
-around them as well as the edges of the bark and the
-split side battens. It can be seen that this closure
-formed a strong stem structure. Watertightness was
-insured by merely forcing clay into the stems from the
-inside, or by forcing in a wad of the pounded inner
-bark of a dead red elm which would swell when damp.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span>
-Still other methods included the use of grass or moss
-impregnated with warm tallow from the cooking pot.
-If available, the stems would be liberally smeared with
-spruce or other gum, of course.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i234.jpg" width="700" height="203" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 212</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Iroquois Elm-Bark Canoe</span>, after a drawing of 1849, equipped with paddles
-for a crew of six, with owners' personal marks on blades. Length of canoe 25
-feet, with capacity for a war party of a dozen or more men. Note supporting
-piece of cord tied in with the end battens. Far gunwales are improperly
-sketched.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>While the ribs were customarily tree branches or
-small saplings, in some canoes the saplings were split
-and bent so their flat face was against the bark. In
-the East, hunters' canoes were often given the lath-like
-ribs of the birch-bark canoes, for when steel tools
-became available such ribs were easily made during
-the winter for use in the spring, when the temporary
-canoe would be needed.</p>
-
-<p>According to the early reports, the ribs were placed
-some 6 to 10 inches apart in the bark cover, with the
-heads forced under the inwales against the bark, and
-were supported there by the outwales as well. No
-mention is made of any sheathing; Kalm refers to a
-piece of bark and some saplings or tree branches laid
-over the ribs to protect the bottom inboard. In the
-large Iroquois canoes it would have been possible and
-practical to employ a piece of bark inside the main
-bark cover, as noted on page <a href="#Page_213">213</a>; this inside piece
-needed to be only long enough to reach to the end
-thwarts, or abreast the crimps, and wide enough to
-cover the bottom and bilges up to 3 or 4 inches short
-of the inwales. With the ribs over this inner sheet, a
-stiff bottom would result. In a long canoe, split poles
-could be laid lengthwise inside the bottom of the
-canoe and fastened there by lashing them to a few
-ribs; these would serve to protect the bottom in loading
-and to stiffen the bark cover. However, in a
-small canoe the stiffness of elm bark when the rough
-outside layer was not fully scraped off would make
-sheathing of any kind unnecessary, and the bark mat
-inside the ribs, mentioned by Kalm, would be sufficient.</p>
-
-<p>The difficulty in reconstructing the building methods
-of the large Iroquois canoes on the same basis is that
-Kalm's description is of a rather small canoe; the
-information on the temporary canoes of the eastern
-Indians also deals with short craft. It is evident,
-however, that poles were not usually placed between
-the bark and the ribs, as in temporary skin canoes
-built by Indians. It is also apparent that splints were
-not used by the Iroquois for sheathing large canoes.</p>
-
-<p>The ends of the outwales in the Iroquois canoes
-seem to have been secured by snying them off on the
-outside face and holding these thin ends by the cord
-around the ends, as well as by the closure battens
-of the stems. In some eastern canoes, notably the
-elm-bark canoes of the St. Francis, the outwale ends
-projected slightly outboard of the stems and were
-lashed across them by a simple athwartship lashing
-which passed through the bark cover and under and
-over the lashing at the inwale ends.</p>
-
-<p>In a drawing of an Iroquois canoe made about
-1849, the cord around the stems is shown together
-with the outside stem battens and lashing; the ends of
-the outwales are apparently under the cord and perhaps
-under the stem battens. The stem batten is in
-one piece sharply bent under the stems in <strong>U</strong>-form.
-The end lashing shown seems to be in groups and the
-bottom, for a little distance inboard of the stems,
-is also shown as lashed. Three thwarts are shown.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span>
-It may be that this drawing was made not from a full-size
-canoe but from a model, for the proportions are
-obviously incorrect. This possibility casts some
-doubt on the picture as evidence of the building
-practices, for in Indian-built models simplified
-construction details not used in actual canoe building
-are often found.</p>
-
-<p>According to early accounts and the statements of
-eastern Indians, these emergency canoes were often
-heavy and unsuitable for portaging. By 1750, at
-least, the Iroquois were using blanket square-sails in
-their elm-bark canoes.</p>
-
-
-<h3><em>Skin Boats</em></h3>
-
-<p>Among the other forms of temporary or emergency
-canoes used by North American Indians, the most
-widespread was some form of skin boat. These
-would not require description here were it not for the
-fact that the Indian skin boats were usually built by
-bark-canoe methods of construction rather than by
-methods such as used by the Eskimo. To build their
-skin boats&mdash;kayaks and umiaks&mdash;the Eskimo first constructed
-a complete framework, and this was then
-covered with skins sewn to fit. This process of building
-required a rigid framework capable of not only
-standing without a skin covering but also of giving
-both longitudinal and transverse strength sufficient
-to withstand loading, without the slightest support
-from the skin covering. Hence, the framework of the
-Eskimo craft was made with the members rigidly
-lashed and pegged together. The majority of Indian
-skin canoes, however, required the covering to hold
-the framework together, as in a birch-bark canoe.
-An example is the Malecite skin-covered hunters'
-canoe. According to available information, the
-Malecite hunter would leave two or three moose
-skins on stretchers for use in building a skin canoe in
-the early spring. Sometimes the hair was removed
-from the hides and sometimes it was not. Spare
-time during the winter hunt might be spent in preparing
-the wooden framework, but if this were not
-done the delay would not be very great.</p>
-
-<p>The gunwale frame was first made of four small
-sapling poles roughly scarfed at the butts. From a
-small sapling a middle thwart was made in the
-manner of the elm-bark canoe thwarts, the ends
-tapered enough to allow them to be wrapped around
-the gunwales and secured under the thwart by lashings.
-The ends of the gunwales were merely crossed
-and lashed. Where end thwarts would be placed,
-it was usual to use a cross tie made of twisted rawhide
-or cords of bark fiber. Holes were then drilled at
-intervals in the underside of the gunwale to take the
-heads of the ribs. Stem-pieces about 3 feet long were
-prepared of short saplings and bent to the desired
-profile; one builder used a full-length keel-piece,
-instead of the short stem-pieces. The ribs were
-usually of small saplings that could be bent green
-without the use of hot water. For sheathing a number
-of small saplings were also gathered, and from them
-were made poles in lengths about equal to three-quarters,
-or a little more, of the intended length of
-the canoe, which would be determined by the size
-of the skins available. The average canoe was about
-12½ feet long, roughly 40 inches beam, and 14 to
-19 inches in depth.</p>
-
-<p>The skins were sewn together lengthwise, lapped
-about 6 inches or a little less, and secured by a double
-row of stitching. If the hair had not been removed, it
-had to be scraped away along the sewn edges. In
-such a case the hair would usually be on the outside
-of the finished canoe. Also, before work was started on
-assembling a canoe, the skins were worked pliable,
-and tallow and gum were accumulated.</p>
-
-<p>When an emergency canoe was ready to be
-assembled a smooth place was prepared; either an
-open bit of ground or the floor of the hunter's hut,
-if large enough, might be used. The outlines of
-the gunwales were fixed by a few stakes temporarily
-driven around it and then pulled up. The skins
-were then laid on the bed and the gunwale frame
-placed on them and weighted with stones. Then
-the skins were left to dry for awhile until they became
-somewhat stiff; the proper condition was indicated
-by the curling of the edges.</p>
-
-<p>When the skin was sufficiently stiff, the gunwale
-frame was lifted and temporarily secured to the stakes
-redriven in the bed, the sides of the skin were turned
-up, the skin was gored, and sometimes the ends of
-the gunwales were sheered up slightly at the end
-stakes; this latter was not always done, for in some
-canoes the sheer was quite flat.</p>
-
-<p>The skins were now trimmed to the sheer of the
-gunwales and the edges lashed to these members with
-rawhide, the gores also having been sewn. Next the
-stem-pieces were put into place and the stem heads
-lashed inside the apex formed by the ends of the
-gunwales. Some ribs were then bent and forced<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span>
-down on the stiff skin cover, the rib ends being worked
-into the holes prepared for them on the underside
-of the gunwales. These ribs usually stood approximately
-square to the curve, or rocker, of the bottom.
-Now the skin could be trimmed to the stem profiles
-and sewn. The stitching was usually done so as to
-be outside the stem-pieces, with an occasional turn
-going around inside them to help hold the structure
-in place. Some builders first put in the stems temporarily
-and then trimmed the skins to match; after
-this was done the stem-pieces were removed to allow
-easy sewing. When they were replaced and secured
-permanently, a few more stitches were added along
-the stems to secure the woodwork.</p>
-
-<p>The next step was to sheath the canoe inside with
-the small poles; these were placed a few inches apart
-transversely and their ends worked under the most
-inboard of the ribs on the stem-pieces, then held in
-place, while the necessary adjustments were made, by
-a few temporary ribs. Then the ribs were forced into
-place, one by one, each prebent to the desired section,
-just as in birch-bark canoe construction. In this final
-shaping, the skin cover might have to be wetted again
-to soften the material and to allow stretching. The
-seams were then payed with gum or tallow, and the
-canoe was ready for launching.</p>
-
-<p>The description is for canoes of minimum finish;
-builders often used split and shaped gunwales, split
-ribs, and splint sheathing if these could be prepared
-during the winter. The construction of a skin canoe
-was not a specialized process in which a hunter consistently
-built this one type; the selection was determined
-by natural conditions. If he were to come out
-of the woods too early in the spring to make the
-construction of a spruce-bark canoe easy, then he
-would resort to skin construction; the statements of
-old Malecite hunters leads to the conclusion that as
-emergency craft they used spruce-bark canoes most
-often.</p>
-
-<p>Perhaps the most primitive of the skin boats built
-by the North American Indian was the so-called
-bull-boat of the Plains Indians. These were not
-canoes but coracles&mdash;bowl-shaped and suitable only
-for use on streams, where ferrying would be the main
-requirement. The boats were covered with buffalo-hides
-and their framework was usually made of the
-willow shoots found along the streams. The framework
-followed, to some extent at least, the basketwork
-principle, a circular gunwale or rim being used. The
-ribs were set in two groups, half at right angles to the
-other half in very irregular fashion. This construction
-formed a sort of rough grating in the bottom. The
-ribs were lashed together with rawhide and apparently
-the craft was built up on the skin as were the Malecite
-skin canoes. Battens in circular form were used on
-the sides to fair the cover. The form of the bull-boat
-varied somewhat among individual builders; sometimes
-it assumed almost a dish shape with shallow
-flaring sides, but more commonly the sides were
-nearly upright; the bottom was always flat, or
-nearly so. These bull-boats appear always to have
-been small. Judging by the examples preserved, a
-bull-boat 5 feet over the rim or gunwale, or made of
-more than one skin, was extremely rare, and most
-examples are nearer 4 feet and built on a single skin.
-Many were too small to carry a person; these were
-intended to be loaded with cargo to be kept dry and
-towed by a swimmer. When they were large enough
-to be paddled, the paddler worked over the "bow,"
-as in a coracle. Probably all the Plains Indians
-living near streams once used the bull-boat, but
-existing records show only the Mandan, Omaha,
-Kansas, Hidatsa, and Assiniboin to have used it.
-The Blackfoot (Siksika) and Dakota are said to
-have used some kind of a skin boat in which their
-tepee poles were employed as a temporary frame,
-but nothing is recorded of their form.</p>
-
-<p>The use of spruce bark as a building material in
-the Northwest and throughout the extreme northern
-range of the birch-bark canoe has been discussed in
-earlier chapters (pp. <a href="#Page_155">155</a> to 158). In these areas, the
-emergency canoe was usually built of caribou skin.
-On the Alaskan coast seal skin may also have been
-used, but generally it was used for the permanent
-kayak-type canoe and not for a hastily built temporary
-craft. The caribou-skin canoe was also built as a
-permanent type, in either kayak form or somewhat on
-the model of the spruce-or birch-bark canoe of the
-area. However, although references to temporary
-craft covered with caribou skin exist in early accounts
-of the fur trade, there is no record of their form or
-details of their construction. Early in the present
-century some of the Indians of the Mackenzie River
-country built skin canoes much like the modern canvas-covered
-freight canoes. Also, some of these skin
-canoes were built so that they resembled York boats
-or the whaleboats of the white man. No observer has
-described the methods used to construct the emergency
-canoe of the Northwest; we do not know
-whether they resemble those used in the Indian bark
-canoe or in the Eskimo skin boat.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Retrospect</em></h2>
-
-
-<p>In view of the inclusion of skin boats in this discussion
-of bark canoes, it may be well to emphasize
-again the fact that the North American Indian's
-method of constructing bark canoes and of temporary
-skin canoes was on an entirely different principle
-than that used by the Eskimo in building their skin
-boats. This is even true of the kayak-form bark
-canoes of the Northwest, despite their superficial similarity
-in design and proportions to the Eskimo skin
-kayak.</p>
-
-<p>As has been stated, the Eskimo construction required
-a rigid frame, with all members fastened together
-with lashings and pegs, the skin cover being
-merely the watertight envelope and not a strength
-member. This system of construction marks primitive
-skin-boat design in most parts of the world. The
-Indian bark construction, on the other hand, did
-not have a rigid frame, and all but a few of the
-structural members were held in place by pressure
-alone: the sheathing was held against the bark cover
-by pressure of the ribs; the stem-pieces, in most cases,
-were held in place by pressure of the ribs, gunwale
-sheering, or headboards. In fact without the bark
-cover in place, the greater part of the wooden structure
-of the bark canoe would collapse. Not only
-was the bark cover the fundamental basis of construction,
-it was to a great extent a strength member,
-though by clever design the loading of the bark was
-minimized.</p>
-
-<p>This fundamental difference in construction must
-be recognized in comparisons of Eskimo and North
-American Indian watercraft. Here, too, it might be
-observed that one should view with skepticism any
-claim that widespread similarity of certain structural
-practices is evidence of some ancient connection between
-types of canoes. In most cases these similarities
-were imposed by the working characteristics of the
-materials employed. Similarly, limitations in materials
-available for construction have their effect upon
-building techniques.</p>
-
-<p>The practice of employing pressure members in
-bark-canoe construction, particularly where birch
-bark was employed, was the result of the need to
-stretch this material by gentle and widespread pressure,
-whereas the skin cover could be stretched by
-the concentrated pull of stitching alone, or by force
-applied in a small area. Bark canoes built in areas
-where skin-kayak construction is carried on nearby
-show a greater rigidity of structure. Thus, in the
-lower Yukon Valley in Alaska the bottom frame of
-the canoes built there was a rigidly constructed unit,
-even though the side longitudinals were held in place
-by rib pressure alone. And it is reasonable to
-theorize that the Malecite, who through habit still
-employed bark-canoe construction practices in building
-their skin craft, would have eventually come to
-the Eskimo method of construction had conditions
-required them to use skins exclusively.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i237.jpg" width="700" height="260" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 213</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Large Moose-hide Canoe</span> of upper Gravel River, Mackenzie
-valley. (<em>Photo, George M. Douglas.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a><br /><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Appendix</em><br />
-
-<span style="margin-right: 67%">The Kayak Roll</span>
-<span style="margin-left: 67%"><em>John D. Heath</em></span></h2>
-
-
-<p>The most extraordinary feat of kayak handling
-is the ability to right the craft after a capsize. This
-maneuver, called "rolling," is usually practiced by
-capsizing on one side and recovering on the other.
-Under emergency conditions, a kayaker will recover
-on whichever side is more convenient. When rolling,
-a kayaker wears a waterproof jacket having long
-sleeves and a hood. The waist, face, and wrist
-openings are fitted with drawstrings, so that when
-the waist opening is fitted over the cockpit rim, the
-kayak and kayaker become a waterproof unit.
-Thus equipped, the kayak is the most seaworthy
-craft of its size, this quality being limited only by the
-skill and stamina of the kayaker.</p>
-
-<p>The art of kayak rolling was highly developed in
-Alaska and Greenland. Eskimos in both of these
-regions depended upon seal hunting by kayak as a
-major part of their economy, hence the ability to
-roll was an important means of survival. Very little
-detailed information exists regarding Alaskan kayakers,
-but the Greenlanders have been the object of
-intensive study by ethnographers and explorers.
-The earliest detailed record of rolling was that of
-David Crantz, a European missionary, who in 1767
-enumerated ten methods of rolling in his <cite>History of
-Greenland</cite>.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> His description follows.</p>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> See bibliography.</p></div>
-
-<div class="blockquot">
-
-<p>1. The Greenlander lays himself first on one side, then
-on the other, with his body flat upon the water, (to imitate
-the case of one who is nearly, but not quite overset) and
-keeps the balance with his <em>pautik</em> or oar, so that he raises
-himself again.</p>
-
-<p>2. He overturns himself quite, so that his head hangs
-perpendicular underwater; in this dreadful posture he
-gives himself a swing with a stroke of his paddle, and raises
-himself aloft again on which side he will.</p>
-
-<p>These are the most common cases of misfortune, which
-frequently occur in storms and high waves; but they still
-suppose that the Greenlander retains the advantage of
-his <em>pautik</em> in his hand, and is disentangled from the seal-leather
-strap. But it may easily happen in the seal-fishery,
-that the man becomes entangled with the string, so that he
-either cannot rightly use the <em>pautik</em>, or that he loses it
-entirely. Therefore they must be prepared for this
-casualty. With this view</p>
-
-<p>3. They run one end of the <em>pautik</em> under one of the cross-strings
-of the kajak, (to imitate its being entangled) overset,
-and scrabble up again by means of the artful motion
-of the other end of the <em>pautik</em>.</p>
-
-<p>4. They hold one end of it in their mouth, and yet move
-the other end with their hand, so as to rear themselves
-upright again.</p>
-
-<p>5. They lay the <em>pautik</em> behind their neck, and hold it there
-with both hands, or,</p>
-
-<p>6. Hold it fast behind their back; so overturn, and by
-stirring it with both their hands behind them, without
-bringing it before, rise and recover.</p>
-
-<p>7. They lay it across one shoulder, take hold of it with
-one hand before, and the other behind their back, and
-thus emerge from the deep.</p>
-
-<p>These exercises are of service in cases where the <em>pautik</em> is
-entangled with the string; but because they may also
-quite lose it, in which the greatest danger lies, therefore,</p>
-
-<p>8. Another exercise is, to run the <em>pautik</em> through the water
-under the kajak, hold it fast on both sides with their face
-lying on the kajak, in this position overturn, and rise again
-by moving the oar <i lang="la">secundum artem</i> on the top of the water
-from beneath. This is of service when they lose the oar
-during the oversetting, and yet see it swimming over them,
-to learn to manage it with both hands from below.</p>
-
-<p>9. They let the oar go, turn themselves head down, reach
-their hand after it, and from the surface pull it down to
-them, and so rebound up.</p>
-
-<p>10. But if they can't possibly reach it, they take either
-the hand-board off from the harpoon, or a knife, and try
-by the force of these, or even splashing the water with the
-palm of their hand, to swing themselves above water;
-but this seldom succeeds.</p></div>
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span></p>
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i240a.jpg" width="700" height="311" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 214</p>
-
-<p>THE STANDARD GREENLAND ROLL</p>
-
-<p>The solid lines represent the starting position for a clockwise roll (disregard the phantom
-lines until later). The paddle is held blade-on-edge along the starboard gunwale, with one
-end near the right hip, and the other end toward the bow. The kayaker leans forward and
-faces slightly to starboard. His left forearm is against, or near, the foredeck, and his left
-hand reaches across the starboard gunwale to grasp the paddle near, but short of, the middle.
-The right hand holds the paddle near the end, about even with the hip. The palms of both
-hands pass over the paddle, so that the knuckles are outboard. The kayaker takes a deep
-breath, leans to starboard and capsizes.</p>
-
-<p>(Now turn the page upside down)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i240b.jpg" width="700" height="311" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 214</p>
-
-<p>The same lines which represented the starting position now represent a fish-eye view of
-the fully capsized position. The phantom lines represent the upright position, or goal.
-To right himself, the kayaker&mdash;</p>
-
-<p>(1) Flicks his wrists to swing his knuckles toward his face, thus causing the outboard
-edge of the paddle to assume a slight planing angle (not shown) with the water surface.
-The remaining steps constitute one continuous movement, to be done as quickly as
-possible.</p>
-
-<p>(2) With his hips and right hand serving as pivot points, he sweeps his forward paddle
-blade, and his torso, outward in a 90-degree planing arc on the water surface, as shown
-from position (1) to (3), while pulling down on his left hand and pushing up on his right,
-thus lifting himself to the surface.</p>
-
-<p>(3) Completes the roll by flicking his wrists to flatten the blade angle, then sharply increasing
-his opposing hand pressures, thus raising himself in a chinning attitude as the
-paddle blade sinks and is drawn inward. The roll is now completed.</p></div>
-</div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span>
-Since Crantz's time, various authors have described
-kayak rolling. At least 30 methods of rolling have
-been known in Greenland. There are possibly many
-more, because the variations and combinations are
-numerous.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i242.jpg" width="700" height="225" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 215</p>
-
-<p>THE CRITICAL STAGE OF A CAPSIZE RECOVERY</p>
-
-<p>The start (solid lines) and finish (phantom lines) of a planing sweep are shown head-on.
-Success is almost certain if the kayaker has surfaced by the time he has completed the 90-degree
-sweep. Some minor refinements of rolling are apparent. The left forearm is shown
-right against the foredeck (a convenient means of orientation), the leading shoulder is nearer
-the surface (to gain lift when the torso is swung outward), and the hips right the kayak as far
-as possible while the torso is still partly submerged (to avoid having to lift torso and kayak at
-the same time).</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Although kayaking as a sport first became popular in
-the 1860's, it was not until the 1920's that the value of
-learning to roll began to be fully realized by the
-recreational kayaker. Interest has grown steadily
-since that time, and rolling instruction has been
-included as a regular part of many club training
-courses. A preliminary step in mastering the roll
-consists of using the paddle to prevent a capsize, by
-turning the blade parallel to the water surface and
-pressing down sharply on the side toward which the
-kayak is capsizing, while exerting an upward
-pressure with the other hand. This produces a
-rotary movement which restores the kayak to an
-even keel. Recreational canoeists call this maneuver
-a "paddle brace."</p>
-
-<p>Most kayak rolls are based upon one or more of
-three basic movements. These are the paddle brace,
-the "sculling" stroke, from which lift is obtained by
-moving the paddle back and forth through a small
-arc with the leading edge of the blade at a slight
-planing angle, and the "sweep," from which lift
-is obtained by sweeping the blade through a large
-arc at a slight planing angle. The method of rolling
-shown in the sketches is the standard Greenland
-roll, so called because it is the most common roll
-encountered in Greenland. A slightly modified
-version of this roll is called by recreational canoeists
-the Pawlata roll in honor of the European who
-introduced it to them. Many skillful kayakers could
-not roll, and sometimes a highly skilled roller would
-fail to recover. Such men could be rescued by their
-companions by either of two common methods. One
-method was executed by placing the bow of the
-rescue craft within reach of the capsized paddler's
-hand, so that he could pull himself up by a one-handed
-chinning motion. The other method was
-executed by bringing the rescue kayak alongside
-the capsized kayak so that the two craft were parallel
-and about two feet apart. The rescuer then laid<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span>
-his paddle across both craft and holding it with one
-hand, reached down and grabbed the capsized
-paddler's arm. He then pulled him up between the
-two kayaks. This method enabled an enfeebled or
-unconscious kayaker to be rescued.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 591px;">
-<img src="images/i243a.jpg" width="591" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 216</p>
-
-<p>Hand positions used with the standard roll:</p>
-
-<p>(1) The extended paddle position is the
-common method, and it gives maximum
-leverage. It is similar to the "Pawlata
-Roll" position used by recreational
-kayakers.</p>
-
-<p>(2) The normal paddling position is more
-convenient, but gives less leverage. This
-is called the "Screw Stroke" position.</p>
-
-<p>(3-6) Difficult trick positions demonstrated
-by Enoch Nielsen of Igdlorssuit, West
-Greenland, to Kenneth Taylor, a Scottish
-canoeist, in 1959.</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i243b.jpg" width="700" height="427" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 217</p>
-
-<p>Kayak rescue, bow-grab method</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i243c.jpg" width="700" height="568" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 218</p>
-
-<p>Kayak rescue, paddle-grab method</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p>Both of the above methods of rescue were completed
-with the capsized victim still in his craft. This prevented
-his kayak from swamping and also protected
-him from exposure, since his waterproof kayak
-jacket remained tied to the cockpit hoop. Little
-detailed information has been recorded on the
-methods of rolling known outside of Greenland, but
-there are many photographs of Bering Strait kayakers
-rolling with the single bladed paddle. A study of
-Alaskan rolling methods is now in progress, and it
-is hoped that much information can be recovered
-and preserved.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 536px;">
-<img src="images/i244.jpg" width="536" height="700" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 219</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Preparing for Demonstration.</span> Jonas Malakiasen puts on
-his tuvilik (a waterproof kayak jacket, pronounced in English
-"tooey-leek"). When it is fastened tightly about his face,
-wrists, and the cockpit hoop, he can capsize without getting
-water in the kayak. Igdlorssuit, West Greenland, summer
-1959. (<em>Photo by Kenneth Taylor.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i245a.jpg" width="700" height="465" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 220</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Getting Aboard.</span> Enoch Nielsen, best kayak roller in the village of
-Igdlorssuit, West Greenland, wriggles into his kayak on the beach before
-embarking on a kayak rolling exhibition. Note that he is leaving the
-harpoon line stand and gun bag in place. (<em>Photo by Kenneth Taylor.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i245b.jpg" width="700" height="417" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 221</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Pausing on Surface.</span> Kayaker
-supports himself on the
-surface of the water by a sculling
-stroke before starting the
-roll. Note that Enoch Nielsen's
-body is twisted so that
-his shoulders are parallel with
-the surface, thus submerging as
-much of the body as possible in
-order to gain buoyancy. (<em>Photo
-by Kenneth Taylor.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span></p>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i246a.jpg" width="700" height="412" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 222</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Fully Capsized</span>, view from
-forward quarter, looking aft.
-Enoch Nielsen prepares to roll
-up by the standard method.
-Note the planing angle of
-his paddle blade as he prepares
-for the next step, the planing
-sweep of the blade across the
-surface. (<em>Photo by Kenneth
-Taylor.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i246b.jpg" width="700" height="416" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 223</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Emerging From Roll</span>, view
-from forward quarter, looking
-aft. From the position of
-Enoch Nielsen's hands, this
-appears to be the standard roll.
-He has just completed the
-planing sweep and is halfway
-up. The inboard hand is a
-pivot point for the sweep and a
-fulcrum for the lift. (<em>Photo by
-Kenneth Taylor.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<div class="figcenter" style="width: 700px;">
-<img src="images/i246c.jpg" width="700" height="417" alt="" />
-<div class="caption"><p>Figure 224</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Righting the Kayak.</span> Enoch
-Nielsen emerges from roll with
-a final downward thrust of the
-paddle blade. (<em>Photo by Kenneth
-Taylor.</em>)</p></div>
-</div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a><br /><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2><em>Bibliography</em></h2>
-
-
-<div class="hangindent">
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Adney, Edwin Tappan.</span> <cite>Klondike stampede.</cite> New York: Harper &amp; Bros., 1900.</p>
-
-<p>----. How an Indian birch-bark canoe is made. <cite>Harper's Young People</cite> (July 29,
-1890). Supplement.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Beard, Daniel Carter.</span> <cite>Boatbuilding and boating.</cite> New York: C. Scribner's Sons,
-1911. (Chapter 6, pages 48-61, is a revision of Adney's articles on canoe
-building.)</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Beauchamp, William M.</span> Aboriginal use of wood in New York. (New York
-State Museum Bulletin 89.) Albany, 1905, pp. 139-149.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Birket-Smith, Kai.</span> <cite>Ethnography of the Egedesminde district.</cite> (Vol. 66 of Meddelelser
-om Grønland, 1879-1931.) Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel, 19?</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Boas, Franz.</span> <cite>The Central Eskimo.</cite> (Pp. 409-669 in U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology,
-Sixth Annual Report, 1884-85.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution,
-1888.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Bogoras, Vladimir.</span> <cite>The Chukchi.</cite> New York: G. E. Stechert, 1904-09. [Also as
-Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 11; and as publications
-of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 7, issued in three parts.]</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Cartier, Jacques.</span> <cite>$1</cite>ite> (Canadian Archivist Publications
-No. 11.) Transl. H. P. Biggar. 1914. (Another edition: Ottawa: F. A.
-Acland, 1924.)</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Cartwright, Captain George.</span> <cite>Captain Cartwright and his Labrador journal.</cite> Edit.
-Charles W. Townsend. Boston: D. Estes &amp; Co., 1911.</p>
-
-<p>----. <cite>A journal of transaction and events, during a residence of nearly sixteen years on the
-coast of Labrador</cite> ... 3 vols. Newark, England: Allin and Ridge, 1792.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Champlain, Samuel de.</span> <cite>Les Voyages de la nouvelle France.</cite> Paris: C. Collet, 1632.</p>
-
-<p>----. Oeuvres de Champlain. 5 vol. in 6. Quebec: G. E. Desbarats, 1870.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Crantz, David.</span> <cite>The history of Greenland.</cite> Ed. and transl. [of part] John Gambold.
-2 vols. London: Moravian Brethren Society, 1767.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Dawson, George Mercer.</span> Notes on the Shuswap people of British Columbia.
-<cite>Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada for the year 1891</cite> (Montreal,
-1892), vol. 9, sec. 2, pp. 3-44.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Denys, Nicolas.</span> <cite>The description and natural history of the coasts of North America.</cite>
-Transl. and edit. W. F. Ganong. Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1908.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Dunbar, Seymour.</span> <cite>A history of travel in America.</cite> 2 vols. New York: Tudor Publishing
-Co., 1937.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Durham, Bill.</span> <cite>Canoes and kayaks of Western America.</cite> Seattle: Copper Canoe
-Press, 1960.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span></p>
-
-<p><cite>Early narratives of the Northwest, 1634-1699.</cite> Edit. L. P. Kellogg. New York: C.
-Scribner's Sons, 1917.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Eckstrom</span>, [Mrs.] <span class="smcap">Fannie Hardy.</span> <cite>The handicrafts of the modern Indians of Maine.</cite>
-(Lafayette National Park Museum Bulletin.) Bar Harbor, 1932.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Egede, Hans.</span> <cite>A description of Greenland.</cite> Transl. from the Danish. London: C.
-Hitch, 1745.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Elliott, Henry Wood.</span> <cite>The Seal Islands of Alaska.</cite> Washington (Government
-Printing Office), 1881.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Franquet</span>, Col. Voyages et mémoires sur le Canada, par Franquet. <cite>Institut
-canadien de Québec</cite>, Annuaire (1889), pp. 29-129.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Godsell, Phillip H.</span> The Ojibwa Indian. <cite>Canadian Geographical Journal.</cite> (January
-1932).</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Hadlock, Wendell S.</span> and <span class="smcap">Dodge, Ernest S.</span> A canoe from the Penobscot
-River. <cite>American Neptune</cite> (October 1948), vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 289-301. (Detailed
-description of early birch-bark canoe, with lines and numerous drawings of
-construction details.)</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Hearne, Samuel.</span> <cite>A journey from Prince of Wales fort in Hudson's Bay to the Northern
-Ocean, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772.</cite> Dublin: P. Byrne and J. Rice, 1796.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Henry, Alexander</span>, Jr. <cite>New light on the early history of the greater Northwest. The
-manuscript journals of Alexander Henry ... and of David Thompson ... 1799-1814.</cite>
-Ed. Elliott Coues. New York: F. P. Harper, 1897.</p>
-
-<p>----. <cite>Travels and adventures in Canada and the Indian territories.</cite> Ed. James Bain.
-Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1901.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Hoffman, Walter James.</span> <cite>The Menomini Indians.</cite> Part 1, (pp. 3-328 of U.S. Bureau
-of American Ethnology: 14th Annual Report, pt. 1, 1892-93.) Washington:
-Smithsonian Institution, 1896.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Holm, Gustav Frederik.</span> <cite>The Ammassalik Eskimo, contributions to the ethnology of
-the East Greenland natives.</cite> Vol. 1. Ed. William Thalbitzer. Copenhagen:
-B. Luno, 1914. [Also as vols. 39-40, Meddelelser on Grønland.]</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Hornell, James.</span> <cite>British Coracles and Irish Curraghs.</cite> London: Society for Nautical
-Research, 1938.</p>
-
-<p>----. <cite>Water transport, origins &amp; early evolution.</cite> Cambridge: The Cambridge
-University Press, 1946.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Howley, James Patrick.</span> <cite>The Beothucks, or red Indians.</cite> Cambridge: Cambridge
-University Press, 1915. (A very complete study.)</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Jenness, Diamond.</span> <cite>The Indians of Canada.</cite> (Bulletin 65, Anthropological Series
-No. 15, National Museum of Canada.) 5th ed. 1960.</p>
-
-<p><cite>The Jesuit relations and allied documents, 1610-1791.</cite> Ed. R. G. Thwaites. Cleveland:
-Burrows Bros. Co., 1896-1901.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Jochelson, Waldemar [Vladimir].</span> <cite>The Koryak.</cite> New York: G. E. Stechert,
-1908. [Also as Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 9;
-and as Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 6, published in
-two parts, 1905-08.]</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Kalm, Pehr.</span> <cite>Travels into North America.</cite> Transl. John R. Forster. 2 vols. London,
-1770-71.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Kroeber, Alfred Louis.</span> The Eskimo of Smith Sound. <cite>Bulletin of the American
-Museum of Natural History</cite> (Feb. 19, 1900), vol. 12, art. 21, pp. 265-327.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">LaFiteau, Joseph François.</span> <cite>Moeurs des sauvages Ameriquains.</cite> Paris: Saugrain, 1724.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">LaHontan, Louis Armand, Baron de.</span> <cite>Nouveaux voyages de M. le baron de LaHontan,
-dans l'Amerique septentrionale.</cite> La Haye: Chez les Frères l'Honore, 1703.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span></p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">LeClerq</span>, Father <span class="smcap">Chrétien.</span> <cite>Nouvelle relation de la Gaspesie.</cite> Paris, 1691.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Lyon, George Francis.</span> <cite>The private journal of Captain Lyon of N. M. S. "Hecla."</cite>
-Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1824.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Mackenzie</span>, Sir <span class="smcap">Alexander.</span> <cite>Voyages from Montreal, ... to the frozen and Pacific
-Oceans; ... 1789 and 1793.</cite> 2 vols. From York: New Amsterdam Book Co.,
-1903.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Mason, Otis T.</span> and <span class="smcap">Hill, Meriden S.</span> <cite>Pointed bark canoes of the Kutenai and Amur.</cite>
-(Pp. 523-537 of Report of U.S. National Museum for 1899.) Washington:
-Smithsonian Institution, 1901.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Mitman, Carl Weaver.</span> <cite>Catalogue of the watercraft collection in the United States
-National Museum.</cite> (U.S. National Museum Bulletin 127.) Washington: Smithsonian
-Institution, 1923.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Morgan, Lewis Henry.</span> <cite>League of the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee, or Iroquois.</cite> New York:
-M. H. Newman &amp; Co., 1851.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Murdoch, John.</span> <cite>Ethnological results of the Point Barrow expedition.</cite> (Pp. 3-441 of
-U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology, 9th Annual Report, 1887-88.) Washington:
-Smithsonian Institution, 1892.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Murray, Alexander Hunter.</span> <cite>Journal of the Yukon, 1847-48.</cite> Ottawa (Government
-Printing Bureau), 1910.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Nansen, Friotjof.</span> <cite>The first crossing of Greenland.</cite> 2 vols. Transl. Nubert M. Gepp.
-London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1870.</p>
-
-<p>----. <cite>The Norwegian north polar expedition, 1893-1896.</cite> 6 vols. London: Longmans,
-Green and Co., 1900-06.</p>
-
-<p>----. <cite>In northern mists.</cite> Transl. Arthur G. Chater. 2 vols. New York: Frederick
-A. Stokes Co., 1911.</p>
-
-<p>----. <cite>Farthest north.</cite> 2 vols. New York: Harper Brothers, 1897.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Nelson, Edward William.</span> <cite>The Eskimo about Behring Strait.</cite> (Pp. 3-518 of U.S.
-Bureau of American Ethnology, 18th Annual Report, 1896-97.) Washington:
-Smithsonian Institution, 1899.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Paris, Edmond.</span> <cite>Essai sur la construction navale des peuples extra-européens.</cite> Paris: A.
-Bertrand, [n.d.].</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Parry</span>, Sir <span class="smcap">William Edward.</span> <cite>Journal of a second voyage for the discovery of a northwest
-passage.</cite> London: J. Murray, 1824.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Patterson</span>, Rev. <span class="smcap">George.</span> The Beothiks or red Indians of Newfoundland. <cite>Proceedings
-and transactions of the Royal Society of Canada for the year 1891</cite> (Montreal,
-1892), vol. 9, p. 137.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Poterie, Claude Charles Le Roy Bacqueville de la.</span> <cite>Historie de l'Amerique
-septentrionale</cite> ... 2 vols. Paris, 1722.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Richardson</span>, Sir <span class="smcap">John.</span> <cite>Arctic searching expedition: A journal of a boat voyage ... in
-search of discovery ships ... of Sir John Franklin.</cite> London: Longman, Brown,
-Green, and Longmans, 1851.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Ritzenhalter, Robert Eugene.</span> The building of a Chippeway Indian birch-bark
-canoe. <cite>Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee</cite> (November 1950),
-vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 53-90. (The modern method of building.)</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Rosier, James.</span> <cite>A true relation of the most prosperous voyage made this present year, 1605, by
-Captain George Waymouth in the land of Virginia.</cite> Londini; 1605.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Ross, Alexander.</span> <cite>The fur hunters of the Far West.</cite> London: Smith, Elder and Co.,
-1855.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe.</span> <cite>Information respecting the history conditions and prospects
-of the Indian tribes of the United States.</cite> 6 vols. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo,
-1852-57.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span></p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe.</span> <cite>The Indian tribes of the United States.</cite> 2 vols. Philadelphia:
-J. B. Lippincott &amp; Co., 1884.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Skinner, Alanson Buck.</span> Notes on the eastern Cree and northern Saulteaux.
-(<cite>Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History</cite>, vol. 9, pt. 1).
-New York, 1911.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Snell, George F.,</span> Jr. Pine country Hiawatha. <cite>Sports Afield</cite> (August 1945), vol. 120,
-no. 2. (Describes modern Ojibway canoe building.)</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Stefansson, Vilhjalmur.</span> <cite>My life with the Eskimo.</cite> New York: The Macmillan
-Company, 1913.</p>
-
-<p>----. <cite>Ultima Thule.</cite> New York: Macmillan Company, 1940.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Turner, Lucien McShaw.</span> <cite>Ethnology of the Ungava District: Hudson Bay Territory.</cite>
-Edit. John Murdoch. (Pp. 159-350 of U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology,
-11th Annual Report.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1894.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Warren, William Whipple.</span> <cite>History of the Ojibways.</cite> St. Paul: Minnesota Historical
-Society Collections, 1885. Vol. 5, pp. 21-394.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Whitbourne</span>, Sir <span class="smcap">Richard.</span> <cite>Westward hoe for Avalon in the new-found-land.</cite> Edit. and
-illus. T. Whitburn. London: S. Low and Marston, 1870.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Willoughby, Charles Clark.</span> <cite>Antiquities of the New England Indians.</cite> Cambridge,
-Mass.: Peabody Museum of American Archaeology, Harvard Univ., 1935.</p>
-
-<p><span class="smcap">Wissler, Clark.</span> <cite>Indians of the United States.</cite> New York: Doubleday, Doran &amp; Co.,
-1940.</p>
-
-<p><cite>Wood: A manual for its use in wooden ships.</cite> Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
-1945.</p>
-
-<p><cite>Wood handbook.</cite> Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1955. (Basic information
-on wood as a material for construction.)</p></div>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span></p>
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-
-
-
-<h2>Index</h2>
-
-
-<ul id="index"><li class="ifrst">Abitibi, Lake, Post (Hudson's Bay Company), <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>Abitibi River, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>Abnaki (Indians), <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>-89;</li>
-<li class="isub2">dimensions, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>-115</li>
-
-<li>Admiralty Collection of Draughts, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>Adney, Edwin Tappan, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>-5, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">papers, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">parents, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">wife, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">work and career, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>-5</li>
-
-<li>Adney, Glenn (son of E. T. A.), <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>Adney, H. H. (father of E. T. A.), <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>Adney, Minnie Bell Sharp (wife of E. T. A.), <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>Adney, Ruth Shaw (mother of E. T. A.), <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>Adney papers, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
-
-<li>Alaska, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li>
-
-<li>Alaskan canoe, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-
-<li>Alaskan kayak, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li>
-
-<li>Alaskan umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a> ff.</li>
-
-<li>Albany boat, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>Alberta, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>Aleutian Islands, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a> ff.</li>
-
-<li>Aleutian kayak, <a href="#Page_195">195</a> ff.</li>
-
-<li>Algonkian Family, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
-
-<li>Algonkin (Indians), <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>-122</li>
-
-<li><em>America</em> (44-gun ship, RN), <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-
-<li><em>American Neptune</em> (periodical), <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li>
-
-<li>American Museum of Natural History, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>Androscoggin (Indians), <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-<li>Anson, Lord, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-
-<li>Art Students' League of New York, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>ash, white, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">black, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">splitting qualities, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
-
-<li>Asiatic kayak, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li>
-
-<li>Assiniboine (Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>Athabaska, Lake, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-
-<li>Athabascan Indians, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li>
-
-<li>awl, bone, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">steel (canoe), <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-
-<li>axe, steel, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">cedar, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">Baffin Island, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_204">204</a> ff.</li>
-
-<li>baidarka (Russian kayak), <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li>
-
-<li>bang plate, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li>
-
-<li>bark, basswood, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">birch, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">description, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>-15;</li>
-<li class="isub2">selection and preparation, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>-26;</li>
-<li class="isub2">handling, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>-31;</li>
-<li class="isub2">use in building canoes, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>-51</li>
-<li class="isub1">butternut, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">chestnut, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">cottonwood, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">elm, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a> ff.</li>
-<li class="isub1">hickory, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">spruce, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">white pine, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li>
-
-<li>bark cover, piecing, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Beothuk, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li>
-
-<li>Barrière, Lake, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li>
-
-<li>basket (pack), in fur trade, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li>
-
-<li>basswood, bark, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>
-
-<li>bateau, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>bateau-shape canoe, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>-161</li>
-
-<li>batten (in skin boat construction), <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a> ff., <a href="#Page_195">195</a> ff., <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a> ff., <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li>
-
-<li>Beard, Daniel, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>Beaver (Indians), <a href="#Page_154">154</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li>
-
-<li>Beothuk (Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>-98</li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">dimensions, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">form, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">keel, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">reconstruction of, <a href="#Page_96">96</a> ff.</li>
-
-<li>Bering Sea, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li>
-
-<li>Bering Strait, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li>
-
-<li>bifid bow, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li>
-
-<li>big river canoe, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-
-<li>birch bark, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">description, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>-15;</li>
-<li class="isub1">selection and preparation, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>-26;</li>
-<li class="isub1">handling, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>-31;</li>
-<li class="isub1">use in building canoes, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>-51</li>
-
-<li>bladder, skin (float), <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-
-<li>Boas, Franz, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>boat, Arctic skin, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>-212;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Viking, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary skin, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>-220;</li>
-<li class="isub1">bull, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li>
-
-<li>Bogoras, Vladimir, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li>
-
-<li>bola (hunting), <a href="#Page_194">194</a>
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span></li>
-<li>bone fittings, kayak, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li>
-
-<li>Bonshere River, Ontario, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
-
-<li>bottom-frame, kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_160">160</a> ff.</li>
-
-<li>bow drill, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
-
-<li>breakwater, canoe, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li>
-
-<li>British Columbia, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose canoe, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li>
-
-<li>bucksaw, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-
-<li>building bed, locating, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">preparation of, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">stakes, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a> ff., <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">repair to, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">of plank, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">St. Francis, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Beothuk, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary canoe, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></li>
-
-<li>building frame, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li>
-
-<li>bull-boat, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li>
-
-<li>butternut bark, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">camber (rocker of bottom), <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a> (see also rocker)</li>
-
-<li>canoe, birch bark, Adney on, <a href="#Page_4">4</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub2">scale models of, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">plans of, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">speed of, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">origin of name, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">requirements for, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">types, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">forms discussed, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>-36 ff., <a href="#Page_59">59</a> (see also under tribal types);</li>
-<li class="isub2">tribal classification, <a href="#Page_27">27</a> ff. (see under tribal names);</li>
-<li class="isub2">effects of bark characteristics on, <a href="#Page_29">29</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub2">construction discussed, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>-57 (see also under tribal types);</li>
-<li class="isub2">compared with Eskimo skin boat, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">elm bark, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">hickory bark, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">skin, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>-221;</li>
-<li class="isub2">moosehide, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">temporary, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>-221</li>
-<li class="isub1">spruce bark, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>-221</li>
-
-<li>canoe awl, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-
-<li>canoe birch (see under bark)</li>
-
-<li>canoe brigade, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li>
-
-<li>canoe building, Trois Rivières factory, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">for fur trade, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a> ff.; <a href="#Page_148">148</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">at Hudson's Bay Company Posts, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>canoe ends, details of construction, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Chipewyan, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Dogrib, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">slave, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li>
-
-<li>canoe loading, fur-trade, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li>
-
-<li>canoe portaging, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li>
-
-<li>canoe roads, <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li>
-
-<li>canoe sails (see sails)</li>
-
-<li>canoe shoes, Malecite, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
-
-<li>canoe types,</li>
-<li class="isub1">Abnaki, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>-89</li>
-<li class="isub1">Alaskan, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>-122</li>
-<li class="isub1">Beaver, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Beothuk, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>-98</li>
-<li class="isub1">Big River, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">bateau-shape, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>-161</li>
-<li class="isub1">British Columbia, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Chipewyan, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-158</li>
-<li class="isub1">Cree, Central, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Eastern, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>-106;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Western, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>-134, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">crooked, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Dogrib, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-158</li>
-<li class="isub1">express, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade (see under fur-trade)</li>
-<li class="isub1">hunting (Micmac), <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form (see under kayak-form)</li>
-<li class="isub1">light, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">long nose, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Loucheux, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Mackenzie Basin, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Montagnais, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>-57, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>-93, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>-69</li>
-<li class="isub1">Nahane, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>-158</li>
-<li class="isub1">Northwest, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-157 (narrow-bottom);</li>
-<li class="isub2"><a href="#Page_158">158</a>-168 (kayak-form)</li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>-131</li>
-<li class="isub1">one-piece, <a href="#Page_212">212</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">open-water, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Passamaquoddy, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Peterborough, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">porpoise hunting, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">portage, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Restigouche, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">river (Malecite), <a href="#Page_70">70</a>-79</li>
-<li class="isub1">St. Francis, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>-93, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">skiff-canoe, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Slave, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-158</li>
-<li class="isub1">straight-bottom, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>-173</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>-219</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>-112, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">V-bottom, <a href="#Page_74">74</a> ff., <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">war, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">wide-bottom, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">woods, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>-134, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Yukon River, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-
-<li><em>canot</em> (canoe), <a href="#Page_13">13</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1"><i lang="fr">du maître</i> (see fur-trade canoe), <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1"><i lang="fr">du nord</i> (see fur-trade canoe), <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1"><em>léger</em> (see light canoe), <a href="#Page_137">137</a></li>
-
-<li>Cape York, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li>
-
-<li>Carib Indians, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>Caribou Eskimo kayak, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>caribou-skin boat, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li>
-
-<li>Cartier, Jacques, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-
-<li>Cartwright, Lieut. John, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li>
-
-<li>cedar, northern white, roots, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">splitting qualities, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
-
-<li>Celts, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span></li>
-<li>Champlain, Samuel de, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li>
-
-<li>Champlain, Lake, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>
-
-<li>Chatham dockyard, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-
-<li>chestnut bark, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li>
-
-<li>chine, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li>
-
-<li>Chippewa (Chippeway; Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
-
-<li>Chipewyan (Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-158;</li>
-<li class="isub2">ends, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">spreading gunwales, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">dimensions, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li>
-
-<li>chisel, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-
-<li>Christopherson, L. A. (Hudson's Bay Company Factor), <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">on fur-trade canoe construction, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>Chukchi umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li>
-
-<li>cockpit, kayak, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a> ff., <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li>
-
-<li>Coffin, Samuel, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li>
-
-<li>Collins, Henry B. (Bureau of American Ethnology), <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li>
-
-<li><cite>Colliers</cite> (magazine), <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>construction methods, Malecite, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>-57, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>-74;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>-64;</li>
-<li class="isub1">St. Francis, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>-93;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Beothuk, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>-98;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>-106;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>-112;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>-122;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>-151;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_155">155</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_160">160</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>-172;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_176">176</a> ff., <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>-187;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>-194;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary canoes, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>-218;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary skin boats, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>-220</li>
-
-<li>Copper Eskimo kayak, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>Coppermine River, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-
-<li>coracle, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li>
-
-<li>Coronation Gulf, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>Coronation Gulf kayak, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>cottonwood bark, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>
-
-<li>Cowassek (Coosuc; Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-<li>Crantz, David (missionary), <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a></li>
-
-<li>Cree Indians, central, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">eastern, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>-106;</li>
-<li class="isub1">western, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>-134, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-
-<li>crew, fur-trade canoe, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li>
-
-<li>crimping bark (in canoe building), <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a></li>
-
-<li>crooked canoe, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
-
-<li>crooked knife (tool), <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-
-<li>curragh, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">waterproofing skins for, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">compared with umiak and kayak, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li>
-
-<li>Coosuc (Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">dart (for hunting), <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-
-<li>deck, kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a> ff., <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li>
-
-<li>decorations, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_82">82</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">St. Francis, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li>
-
-<li>Dènè (Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li>
-
-<li>Denys, Nicolas, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li>
-
-<li>Dibble, Lt. Col. Herbert, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
-
-<li>dimensions, canoe (see under tribal type); old canoes, <a href="#Page_7">7</a> ff.</li>
-
-<li>Dogrib Indians, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-158</li>
-
-<li>drill (tool), <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
-
-<li>dugout, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">eastern canoe construction, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
-
-<li>Eastern Cree Indians, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>-106</li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>-106;</li>
-<li class="isub2">dimensions, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
-
-<li>Eastport (Maine), <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
-
-<li>Egede, Hans (missionary), <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-
-<li>elm bark, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li>
-
-<li><cite>Encyclopedia Arctica</cite>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
-
-<li>ends (canoe), <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a> ff., <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a></li>
-
-<li>engine, outboard gasoline, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
-
-<li>Eskimo, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li>
-
-<li>Eskimo roll, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>-227</li>
-
-<li>Eskimo skin boat (see kayak, umiak)</li>
-
-<li>Espenberg, Cape, kayak, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li>
-
-<li>express canoe, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">Fort Chimo, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
-
-<li>Foxe Basin, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>frames (ribs), <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">number of, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">making and bending, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fitting, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">St. Francis, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_184">184</a> ff., <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a> ff., <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a> ff., <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">rough construction of, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">for temporary bark canoe, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">for temporary skin canoe, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></li>
-
-<li>Franquet, Colonel (French military engineer-in-chief), <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>froe (steel tool), <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-
-<li>"frog" (headboard support), <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
-
-<li>fur trade, canoe cargoes in, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">handling furs, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">pack loads, <a href="#Page_142">142</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">bundles and boxes, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">brigades, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li>
-
-<li>fur-trade canoe, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a> ff., <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>-153, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">described, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">names applied to, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">forms and categories, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">dimensions of, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">construction methods, <a href="#Page_146">146</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">gunwales, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sheathing, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">stem-pieces, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">headboards, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">paint, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>Fury Strait, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">Gay, John, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li>
-
-<li>Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li>
-
-<li>gimlet (tool), <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-
-<li>Golden Lake Algonkin Reserve (Canada), <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
-
-<li>gores (bark canoes), <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">spacing, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">in umiak, skin cover, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li>
-
-<li>Grand Victoria Lake, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li>
-
-<li>great canoe (see fur-trade canoe), <a href="#Page_135">135</a>
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span></li>
-<li>Great Lakes, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-
-<li>Great Slave Lake, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-
-<li>Greenland, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-
-<li>Greenland kayak, <a href="#Page_190">190</a> ff., <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1"><a href="#Page_206">206</a> (northern coast, Polar coast), <a href="#Page_208">208</a> (southern coast), <a href="#Page_211">211</a>  (modern)</li>
-
-<li>Greenland roll, <a href="#Page_223">223</a> ff.</li>
-
-<li>Greenland umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-
-<li>Gulf of Boothia, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>gum, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">spruce, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">tempering, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">repairs with, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">paying seams with, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li>
-
-<li>gunwale, making, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">profile of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">plan view of, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">forms of, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">ends of, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">inner, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">outer, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a> ff., <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">lashing, <a href="#Page_31">31</a> ff., <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a> (see also under lashing);</li>
-<li class="isub1">securing bark to, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">setting up, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">use as building frame, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">size of, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">variations in construction of, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">hogged, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_72">72</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">St. Francis, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Beothuk, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">spreading, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a> ff., <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_192">192</a> ff., <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary canoe, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li>
-
-<li>gunwale cap, making and fitting, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">handgrip, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li>
-
-<li>Hare (Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li>
-
-<li><cite>Harper's Weekly</cite>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li><cite>Harper's Young People Magazine</cite>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>harpoon (hunting weapon), <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-
-<li>headboard, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">support, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">making and fitting, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">St. Francis, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">post used as, <a href="#Page_217">217</a></li>
-
-<li>Hearne, Samuel (explorer), <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li>
-
-<li>Heath, John, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a></li>
-
-<li>Hecla Strait, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>Henry, Jr., Alexander, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>hickory bark, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li>
-
-<li>Hill, Frederick (Director, Mariners' Museum), <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>hogged bottom (center upcurved lengthwise), <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li>
-
-<li>hogged gunwale, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>
-
-<li>hogging brace, umiak, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li>
-
-<li>hot water, use of in bending wood, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
-
-<li>Howley, James Patrick, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li>
-
-<li>Hudson Bay, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li>
-
-<li>Hudson Strait, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li>
-
-<li>Hudson's Bay Company, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>hunting canoe, Micmac, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li>
-
-<li>hunting screen, kayak, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li>
-
-<li>Huron Indians, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>Huron, Lake, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">Indian migrations, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a> (see also under tribal names)</li>
-
-<li>ice, skin-boats in, <a href="#Page_180">180</a></li>
-
-<li>Illinois Indians, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>Irish, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">curragh, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li>
-
-<li>"Iroquois canoe," in fur trade, <a href="#Page_136">136</a> (see fur-trade canoe)</li>
-
-<li>Iroquois Indians, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe (temporary), <a href="#Page_213">213</a>-219</li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">jack pine roots (for canoe lashings), <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
-
-<li>jacket, watertight, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li>
-
-<li>James Bay, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>Japanese sampan, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li>
-
-<li>Jochelson, Waldemar, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li>
-
-<li>Joliet, Louis, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">kayak, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>-211;</li>
-<li class="isub1">multi-chine hull, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">cockpit, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a> ff., <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">deck, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a> ff., <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">structure, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">keelson, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">gunwales, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a> ff., <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">geographic distribution, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">v-bottom, <a href="#Page_190">190</a> ff., <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">risers, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">flat bottom, <a href="#Page_190">190</a> ff., <a href="#Page_204">204</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Alaskan, <a href="#Page_190">190</a> ff., <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">distribution, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">design, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">handling and use, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">portaging, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">construction, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>-194;</li>
-<li class="isub1">keel, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">frames, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a> ff., <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a> ff., <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">bone fittings, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">seat, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">skin cover, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">paddle, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">as catamaran, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">righting, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>-227;</li>
-<li class="isub1">hunting screen, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">thwarts, <a href="#Page_195">195</a> ff., <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Koryak, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Kodiak Island, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">breakwater, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">decorations, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Aleutian, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Unalaska, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">two-passenger, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">three-passenger, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Nunivak Island, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">King Island, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Cape Krusenstern, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Cape Espenberg, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Point Barrow, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Norton Sound, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Mackenzie Delta, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Kotzebue Sound, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sheer, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a> ff., <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Copper Eskimo, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Coronation Gulf, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Caribou, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Netsilik, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Baffin Island, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Labrador, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">rocker (camber) of bottom, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Greenland, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">flare, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">rake of ends, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li>
-
-<li>kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>-168;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Sekani, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Nahane, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">bateau-shaped, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">rake of ends, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Loucheux, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">bottom frame of, <a href="#Page_160">160</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">paddler's seat, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">hunting, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">British Columbia, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">family, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">keel, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Chipewyan, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li>
-
-<li>keel, Beothuk canoe, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
-
-<li>keelson, umiak, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span></li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li>
-
-<li>keg (in fur trade), <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li>
-
-<li>Kennebec Indians, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-
-<li>King Island kayak, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li>
-
-<li>King Island umiak, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
-
-<li>Kipewa Post (Hudson's Bay Company), <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>knife, stone, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">crooked, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-
-<li>Kodiak Island, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
-
-<li>Kodiak Island kayak, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li>
-
-<li>Koryak umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li>
-
-<li>Koryak kayak, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li>
-
-<li>Kotzebue Sound, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li>
-
-<li>Krusenstern, Cape, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>Krusenstern kayak, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>Kutenai (Kootenay) Indians, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">Labrador, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li>
-
-<li>Labrador kayak, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li>
-
-<li>Laet, Joann de, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li>
-
-<li>LaFiteau, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li>
-
-<li>LaHontan, Baron de, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li>
-
-<li>larch, splitting qualities, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
-
-<li>La Salle, Robert Cavalier de, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>
-
-<li>lashing, canoe gunwale, <a href="#Page_31">31</a> ff., <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>-166;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li>
-
-<li>lashing skin cover, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a> (see also sewing, stitching)</li>
-
-<li>lathing (see sheathing)</li>
-
-<li>light (express) canoe, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li>
-
-<li><cite>London Chronicle</cite>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>long-nose canoe, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>longitudinal strength (see gunwale, keelson chine, keel, stringers, etc.)</li>
-
-<li>Loucheux Indians, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">MacKenzie, Alexander, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>MacKenzie Basin canoe, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li>
-
-<li>Mackenzie River, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li>
-
-<li>Mackenzie River kayak, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li><i lang="fr">maître canot</i> (see fur-trade canoe), <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li>
-
-<li>Malecite Indians, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">composition of tribe, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sheathing, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">construction, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>-57;</li>
-<li class="isub1">bark covers over gunwale ends, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">described, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>-88;</li>
-<li class="isub1">ends, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">of spruce bark, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary (skin), <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">dimensions of, <a href="#Page_73">73</a> ff., <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
-
-<li>Manitoba, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>maple, hard, splitting qualities, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
-
-<li>Marquette, Father Jacques, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>
-
-<li>Mariners' Museum (Newport News, Va.), <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
-
-<li>mast, Micmac, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">tripod, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li>
-
-<li>Matachewan Post (Hudson's Bay Company), <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>Matagama Post (Hudson's Bay Company), <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>maul, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
-
-<li>McGill University Museum, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>measurement, of canoes, early, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">units of (French), <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Indian, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>
-
-<li>Melville Peninsula, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>Memphremagog, Lake, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-<li>Menominee Indians, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li>
-
-<li>Micmac Indians, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">sheathing, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">described, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>-69;</li>
-<li class="isub2">ends, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">form, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">construction, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">range, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-
-<li>migrations, Indian, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">effect on canoes, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
-
-<li>Missinaibi River, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>Missinaibi Post (Hudson's Bay Company), <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>Mohigan Indians, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-<li>Montagnais Indian canoe, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
-
-<li>Montreal, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>Moose Factory (Hudson's Bay Company Post), <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>moosehide canoe, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></li>
-
-<li>multi-chine hull, kayak, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">nabiska (rabeska; see fur-trade canoe), <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li>
-
-<li><em>nadowé chiman</em> (see fur-trade canoe), <a href="#Page_136">136</a></li>
-
-<li>Nahane Indian kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li>
-
-<li>nail, in canoe construction, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
-
-<li>narrow-bottom canoe, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>-158;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Northwest, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">spruce bark, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li>
-
-<li>Nascapee Indians, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
-
-<li>National Maritime Museum (Greenwich, England), <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
-
-<li>Netsilik kayak, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>New Bedford whaleboat, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
-
-<li>Nipigon, Lake, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li>
-
-<li>North Alaskan whaling umiak, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li>
-
-<li>North Bay (Ontario), <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
-
-<li>north canoe (see fur-trade canoe), <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li>
-
-<li>North West Company, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li>
-
-<li>North West narrow-bottom canoe (see narrow-bottom), <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-157</li>
-
-<li>Norton Sound kayak, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li>
-
-<li>Nunivak Island kayak, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">Oar, umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a> ff.</li>
-
-<li>Ojibway Indians, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, sheathing, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">construction, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>-131, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li>
-
-<li>Oka, Lake, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
-
-<li>one-piece bark canoe, <a href="#Page_212">212</a></li>
-
-<li>open-water canoe, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sails, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">dimensions, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-
-<li>Ossipee Indians, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-<li>Ottawa River, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
-
-<li><cite>Outing Magazine</cite>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>outwale (see gunwale)</li>
-
-<li>owner's mark, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
-
-<li>overhang, in ends of kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">paddle, material and manufacture, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Beothuk, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boules, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span></li>
-<li>paddle guard, Micmac, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
-
-<li>paddler's seat, kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-
-<li>paint (on canoes), Malecite, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>Passamaquoddy Indians, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
-
-<li>Peabody Museum (Salem, Mass.), <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li>
-
-<li>peg, outwale, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">keel, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li>
-
-<li>Peterborough canoe, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-
-<li>Pennacook Indians, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-<li>Penobscot Bay, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>
-
-<li>Penobscot Indians, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-
-<li>Pepysian Library, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li>
-
-<li>Pequawket Indians, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-<li>Perrot, Nicholas, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li>
-
-<li>Pillagers (Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
-
-<li>pine, white, bark, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li>
-
-<li>plane, smoothing (tool), <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-
-<li>planking (see sheathing)</li>
-
-<li>Plains Indians, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li>
-
-<li>Point Barrow (village), <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
-
-<li>Point Barrow kayak, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>Point Hope (village), <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li>
-
-<li>Pond Inlet, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li>
-
-<li>porpoise-hunting canoe, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
-
-<li>portage canoe, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a> (Ojibway)</li>
-
-<li>portaging, canoe, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Umiak, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li>
-
-<li>Poterie, Bacqueville de la, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li>
-
-<li>prah, Malay, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li>
-
-<li>Pribilof Islands, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li>
-
-<li>Prince William Sound, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">quill decoration, Micmac, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">rabeska (see fur-trade canoe), <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li>
-
-<li>rake of ends, kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li>
-
-<li>ram-form, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li>
-
-<li>Ramezay, chateau de, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
-
-<li>rawhide, sewing with, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a> (see sewing; stitching; lashing)</li>
-
-<li>Red Paint People (Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li>
-
-<li>Repulse Bay, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>Restigouche canoe, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-
-<li>ribs (see frames)</li>
-
-<li>risers, umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a> ff.,</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-
-<li>river canoe, Malecite, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>-79</li>
-
-<li>Rivière du Loup, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
-
-<li>rocker (camber; convex lengthwise curve of keel), <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">effect of gores on, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>:</li>
-<li class="isub1">Labrador, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Northwest, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">elm-bark canoe, <a href="#Page_214">214</a></li>
-
-<li>roots, for sewing, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">varieties used, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">splitting and peeling, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
-
-<li>Ross, Sir James Clark, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li>
-
-<li>rudder, umiak, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li>
-
-<li>Russian influence on skin boat design, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">Saginaw (Michigan), <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li>
-
-<li>Saguenay River, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
-
-<li>sails, canoe, Micmac, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Passamaquoddy, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Malecite, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">blanket (Iroquois), <a href="#Page_219">219</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">umiak, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-
-<li>St. Croix River, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-
-<li>St. Francis Abnaki Indians, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>-93;</li>
-<li class="isub2">dimensions, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
-
-<li>St. John Lake, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
-
-<li>St. John River, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-
-<li>St. Joseph Lake, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>St. Lawrence Island, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li>
-
-<li>St. Lawrence River, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
-
-<li>St. Matthew (Alaska), <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li>
-
-<li>St. Maurice River, <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li>
-
-<li>St. Michaels kayak, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li>
-
-<li>Salish Indians, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li>
-
-<li>Saltreaux (Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
-
-<li>sampan, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li>
-
-<li>scale-model canoe, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li>
-
-<li>Schenectady boat, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>scow, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>scraper (tool), <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
-
-<li>sea otter hunting, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li>
-
-<li>seal, bearded, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li>
-
-<li>Sekani Indians, kayak-form canoe, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li>
-
-<li>setting up canoe (on building bed), <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li>
-
-<li>Seton, Ernest Thompson, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>sewing (stitching, lashing), <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">on building bed, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">St. Francis Abnaki, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">rawhide, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">skin cover, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary canoe, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li>
-
-<li>Sharp, Minnie Bell (Mrs. Edwin Tappan Adney), <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
-
-<li>Sharpie (boat type), <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li>
-
-<li>shaving horse (tool), <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
-
-<li>sheathing, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fitting of, <a href="#Page_32">32</a> ff., <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">St. Francis, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary canoe, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li>
-
-<li>sheer (rise in lengthwise line of gunwale), <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">hogged, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Beothuk, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Northwest, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a> ff., <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span></li>
-<li>shelter, Malecite canoe as, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li>
-
-<li>Sioux (Dakotas), <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li>
-
-<li>skiff-canoe (3-board), <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-
-<li>skin boat arctic, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>-211;</li>
-<li class="isub1">seagoing, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">voyages, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">shape and size, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">in ice, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">loading, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>-189;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>-211;</li>
-<li class="isub1">compared with bark canoe, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">caribou skin, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li>
-
-<li>skin cover, umiak, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_192">192</a> ff., <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">for temporary canoe, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></li>
-
-<li>skin canoe, temporary, construction of, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>-221</li>
-
-<li>Siberia, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li>
-
-<li>Slave Indians, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-158</li>
-
-<li>sledge, for transporting umiak, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">for transporting Nunivak Island kayak, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li>
-
-<li>Sokoki Indians, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-<li>Southampton Island, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>Spars, Micmac, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
-
-<li>Spruce, black, bark, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">roots for sewing, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">splitting qualities, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">in kayaks, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">red, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
-
-<li>spruce-bark canoe, Malecite, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li>
-
-<li>spruce gum, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">preparation, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">tempering, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>
-
-<li>stakes, building bed, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a> ff., <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
-
-<li>stanchion, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li>
-
-<li>Stefansson, Vilhjalmur, v, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li>
-
-<li>stem-piece, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">construction, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">root as, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Micmac, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">plank, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">temporary skin canoe, <a href="#Page_218">218</a></li>
-
-<li>stitching bark cover, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary canoe, <a href="#Page_220">220</a> (see also sewing, lashing)</li>
-
-<li>stone tools, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>-20;</li>
-<li class="isub1">use of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">cutting edge, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
-
-<li>straight-bottom canoe, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-
-<li>Strut (headboard brace), <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li>
-
-<li>sturgeon-nose canoe, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>-173;</li>
-<li class="isub1">British Columbia, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">ends, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">size, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li>
-
-<li>Superior, Lake, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">Taconnet Indians, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-<li>tamarack (hackmatack), in canoe construction, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
-
-<li>Tanana Indians, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li>
-
-<li>tapering wooden members, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a></li>
-
-<li>tarpaulin (in fur trade), <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li>
-
-<li>Temiscaming, Lake, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li>
-
-<li>temporary canoe, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>-219</li>
-
-<li>Têtes de Boule Indians, <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>-112, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">sheathing, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">described, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>-112;</li>
-<li class="isub2">dimensions, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">construction, <a href="#Page_108">108</a> ff., <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li>
-
-<li>Teton Indians, <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li>
-
-<li>thong braces, umiak, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-
-<li>throwing stick, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-
-<li>thwarts, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fitting of ends, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">location, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">supporting on building bed, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">St. Francis, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Eastern Cree, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Ojibway, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Western Cree, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">fur-trade, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">narrow-bottom, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sturgeon-nose, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_195">195</a> ff., <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">rough construction of, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">temporary skin canoe, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></li>
-
-<li>Timagami (Ontario), Lake, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>tomahawk, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
-
-<li>tongs, wooden, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
-
-<li>topsail, umiak, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li>
-
-<li>Tonti, Chevalier Henri de, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>
-
-<li>tools, primitive, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>-20;</li>
-<li class="isub1">modern, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>-24</li>
-
-<li>tree felling, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
-
-<li>treenail, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
-
-<li>Trois Rivières, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
-
-<li>tumble-home (incurving of upper sides of canoe), Micmac, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
-
-<li>tump line, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li>
-
-<li>Two Mountains, Lake of, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">Umiak, Eskimo, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>-190;</li>
-<li class="isub1">qualities, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">use, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">design, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>-183;</li>
-<li class="isub1">compared with curragh, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">skin cover, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">construction, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>-187, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">oars and paddles, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">headboards, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">flare of sides, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">sheer, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">rake of ends, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">rocker of bottom (camber), <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">thwarts, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">risers, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">v-bottom, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">gunwales, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a> ff., <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Alaskan, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a> ff.;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Chukchi (Asiatic), <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Koryak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Greenland, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">frames (ribs), <a href="#Page_184">184</a> ff., <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">keelson, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">thong brace, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">rudder, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">whaling, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">King Island, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">hogging brace, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">portaging, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Baffin Island, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-
-<li>Unalaska kayak, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li>
-
-<li>United States Fish Commission, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li>
-
-<li>United States National Museum, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx"><strong>V</strong>-bottom canoe, Malecite, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">St. Francis, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Beothuk, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Têtes de Boule, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub2">Algonkin, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak, <a href="#Page_190">190</a> ff., <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li>
-<li class="isub1">umiak, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li>
-
-<li><strong>V</strong>-Form (see <strong>V</strong>-bottom)</li>
-
-<li>Viking boat, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
-
-<li>voyageur, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">loads carried by, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">number required for a canoe, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">paddle requirement, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">wabinaki chiman (Algonkin canoe), <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a></li>
-
-<li>walrus skin, for umiak, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">for kayak, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li>
-
-<li>war canoe, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Micmac, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;
-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span></li>
-<li class="isub1">Malecite, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
-
-<li>war party, Malecite, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">traveling, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">Iroquois, <a href="#Page_214">214</a></li>
-
-<li>Waswanipi, Lake, Post (Hudson's Bay Company), <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li>
-
-<li>water, Indian methods of boiling, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
-
-<li>weapons, for kayaks, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li>
-
-<li>weather cloth, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li>
-
-<li>wedge, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li>
-
-<li>Western Cree Indians, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">canoe, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>-134, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
-
-<li>Wewenoc Indians, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
-
-<li>Weymouth, Captain George, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>
-
-<li>whaleboat, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
-
-<li>whaling umiak, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li>
-
-<li>Whitbourne, Captain Richard, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li>
-
-<li>White Fish People (Indian tribe), <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li>
-
-<li>wide-bottom canoe, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
-
-<li>willow, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
-
-<li>Winnipeg, Lake, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
-
-<li>wood (for kayaks), <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li>
-
-<li>wood bending, by hot water, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">over a fire, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li>
-
-<li>wood splitting, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
-
-<li>woods canoe, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
-
-<li>Woodstock, New Brunswick, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
-
-<li>wulegessis, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li>
-
-
-<li class="indx">York boat, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li>
-
-<li>Yukon Indians, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-
-<li>Yukon River canoe, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li>
-<li class="isub1">kayak-form, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
-</ul>
-
-<p class="right p6">U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 O&mdash;491-230</p>
-
-<div class="chapter"></div>
-<hr class="chap" />
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div id="transnote">
-
-<h2>TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE</h2>
-
-<p>Silently corrected simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors.</p>
-
-<p>Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed.</p>
-
-</div>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<hr class="full" />
-<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BARK CANOES AND SKIN BOATS OF NORTH AMERICA***</p>
-<p>******* This file should be named 50828-h.htm or 50828-h.zip *******</p>
-<p>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:<br />
-<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/0/8/2/50828">http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/8/2/50828</a></p>
-<p>
-Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
-be renamed.</p>
-
-<p>Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
-law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
-so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
-States without permission and without paying copyright
-royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
-of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
-concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
-and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
-specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
-eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
-for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
-performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
-away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
-not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
-trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
-</p>
-
-<h2>START: FULL LICENSE<br />
-<br />
-THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br />
-PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</h2>
-
-<p>To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
-distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
-(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
-Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
-www.gutenberg.org/license.</p>
-
-<h3>Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works</h3>
-
-<p>1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
-and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
-(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
-the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
-destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
-possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
-Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
-by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
-person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
-1.E.8.</p>
-
-<p>1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
-used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
-agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
-things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
-paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
-agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.</p>
-
-<p>1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
-Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
-of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
-works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
-States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
-United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
-claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
-displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
-all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
-that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
-free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
-works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
-Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
-comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
-same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
-you share it without charge with others.</p>
-
-<p>1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
-what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
-in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
-check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
-agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
-distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
-other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
-representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
-country outside the United States.</p>
-
-<p>1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:</p>
-
-<p>1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
-immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
-prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
-on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
-phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
-performed, viewed, copied or distributed:</p>
-
-<blockquote><p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
-  States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost
-  no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use
-  it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with
-  this eBook or online
-  at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you
-  are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws
-  of the country where you are located before using this
-  ebook.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
-derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
-contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
-copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
-the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
-redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
-either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
-obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
-trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p>
-
-<p>1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
-with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
-must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
-additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
-will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
-posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
-beginning of this work.</p>
-
-<p>1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
-work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.</p>
-
-<p>1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
-electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
-prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
-active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm License.</p>
-
-<p>1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
-compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
-any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
-to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
-other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
-version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
-(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
-to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
-of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
-Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
-full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.</p>
-
-<p>1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
-performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
-unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p>
-
-<p>1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
-access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-provided that</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li>You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
-  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
-  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
-  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
-  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
-  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
-  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
-  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
-  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
-  Literary Archive Foundation."</li>
-
-<li>You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
-  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
-  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
-  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
-  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
-  works.</li>
-
-<li>You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
-  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
-  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
-  receipt of the work.</li>
-
-<li>You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
-  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.</li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
-are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
-from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
-Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
-trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.</p>
-
-<p>1.F.</p>
-
-<p>1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
-effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
-works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
-Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
-contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
-or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
-intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
-other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
-cannot be read by your equipment.</p>
-
-<p>1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
-of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
-liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
-fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
-LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
-PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
-TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
-LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
-INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
-DAMAGE.</p>
-
-<p>1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
-defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
-receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
-written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
-received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
-with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
-with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
-lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
-or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
-opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
-the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
-without further opportunities to fix the problem.</p>
-
-<p>1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
-in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
-OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
-LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.</p>
-
-<p>1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
-warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
-damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
-violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
-agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
-limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
-unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
-remaining provisions.</p>
-
-<p>1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
-trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
-providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
-accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
-production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
-including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
-the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
-or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
-additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
-Defect you cause.  </p>
-
-<h3>Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm</h3>
-
-<p>Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
-electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
-computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
-exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
-from people in all walks of life.</p>
-
-<p>Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
-assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
-goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
-remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
-and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
-generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
-Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
-www.gutenberg.org.</p>
-
-<h3>Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation</h3>
-
-<p>The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
-501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
-state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
-Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
-number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
-U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.</p>
-
-<p>The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
-mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
-volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
-locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
-Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
-date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
-official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact</p>
-
-<p>For additional contact information:</p>
-
-<p> Dr. Gregory B. Newby<br />
-    Chief Executive and Director<br />
-    gbnewby@pglaf.org</p>
-
-<h3>Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation</h3>
-
-<p>Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
-spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
-increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
-freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
-array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
-($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
-status with the IRS.</p>
-
-<p>The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
-charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
-States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
-considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
-with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
-where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
-DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
-state visit <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/donate">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>.</p>
-
-<p>While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
-have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
-against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
-approach us with offers to donate.</p>
-
-<p>International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
-any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
-outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.</p>
-
-<p>Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
-methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
-ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
-donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate</p>
-
-<h3>Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.</h3>
-
-<p>Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
-freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
-distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
-volunteer support.</p>
-
-<p>Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
-editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
-the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
-necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
-edition.</p>
-
-<p>Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
-facility: www.gutenberg.org</p>
-
-<p>This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
-including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
-subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.</p>
-
-</body>
-</html>
-
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/102.png b/old/50828-h/images/102.png
deleted file mode 100644
index e203ea6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/102.png
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/cover.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bd1771e..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/cover.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i001.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i001.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9c2c0f5..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i001.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i018.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i018.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 252268c..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i018.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i025.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i025.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3763509..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i025.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i027.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i027.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 56211d7..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i027.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i028.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i028.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2a62369..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i028.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i031.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i031.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d37d0e1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i031.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i032.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i032.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 582563e..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i032.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i033a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i033a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2f26764..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i033a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i033b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i033b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 52a4c13..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i033b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i034.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i034.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 817f101..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i034.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i035a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i035a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 04d0c4e..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i035a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i035b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i035b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 372f7ce..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i035b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i036a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i036a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1784eb6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i036a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i036b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i036b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index db4904b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i036b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i037a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i037a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1c4175f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i037a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i037b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i037b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index fd19757..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i037b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i037c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i037c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ad8a422..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i037c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i038a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i038a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3fba8f5..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i038a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i038b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i038b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 648409d..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i038b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i039.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i039.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 71375f2..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i039.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i041.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i041.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9b5ca0c..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i041.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i042.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i042.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d32ae1a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i042.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i046a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i046a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c9b259d..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i046a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i046b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i046b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index dd4f28e..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i046b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i047a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i047a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8b01e66..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i047a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i047b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i047b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3328f63..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i047b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i048.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i048.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d3ab3fb..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i048.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i049a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i049a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c27b41f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i049a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i049b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i049b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 88720df..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i049b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i050.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i050.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7150cd8..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i050.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i051.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i051.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1cd9207..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i051.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i052.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i052.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1c0698a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i052.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i055a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i055a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c8b13ab..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i055a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i055b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i055b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d17a814..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i055b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i055c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i055c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 82986b5..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i055c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i056.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i056.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a068218..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i056.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i057.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i057.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c00c77c..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i057.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i058.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i058.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1b7c7d1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i058.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i059.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i059.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 052e67a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i059.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i060a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i060a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index feecfba..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i060a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i060b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i060b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 44a053b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i060b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i061.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i061.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 80810ab..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i061.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i062a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i062a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0e023da..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i062a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i062b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i062b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 10e5c9b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i062b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i063.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i063.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0a095e2..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i063.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i065.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i065.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6ef14aa..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i065.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i066.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i066.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2a6991f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i066.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i067.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i067.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5e2185c..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i067.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i069.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i069.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c79c2c7..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i069.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i070.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i070.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index abe33f8..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i070.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i072.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i072.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 12cdfe6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i072.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i073.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i073.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 13c354d..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i073.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i075.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i075.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ecfcc5a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i075.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i076.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i076.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5104aed..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i076.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i077.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i077.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index acd65de..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i077.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i078.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i078.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9445f2f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i078.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i079.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i079.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c0ce462..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i079.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i080a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i080a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5ae9668..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i080a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i080b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i080b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6afb8ed..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i080b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i081.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i081.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index adb1c58..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i081.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i082a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i082a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 18324a0..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i082a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i082b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i082b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e72c23a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i082b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i083.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i083.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6fc6c76..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i083.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i084.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i084.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 781ef3b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i084.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i085.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i085.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 020d608..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i085.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i087.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i087.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f9abd18..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i087.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i088.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i088.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index fb22759..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i088.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i089.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i089.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d593dfc..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i089.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i090.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i090.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2906c49..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i090.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i091.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i091.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 71363a1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i091.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i092.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i092.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5be258d..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i092.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i093.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i093.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a028d63..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i093.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i094.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i094.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b04af11..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i094.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i095.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i095.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 90df61a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i095.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i096.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i096.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e7fffee..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i096.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i097a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i097a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 377a208..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i097a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i097b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i097b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8c3a072..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i097b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i098.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i098.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a600d1a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i098.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i099.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i099.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 28f67b0..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i099.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i100a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i100a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 53f8404..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i100a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i100b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i100b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 32877d2..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i100b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i100c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i100c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9d92085..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i100c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i100d.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i100d.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 510d19f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i100d.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i100e.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i100e.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 84a9ed3..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i100e.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i101a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i101a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 50d386a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i101a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i101b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i101b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c92b7ab..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i101b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i101c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i101c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f243241..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i101c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i101d.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i101d.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c152fa6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i101d.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i101e.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i101e.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6b5a9eb..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i101e.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i102.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i102.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ef317e1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i102.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i103a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i103a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1d3d05e..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i103a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i103b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i103b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bf2c0d7..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i103b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i105.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i105.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4211d0c..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i105.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i106.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i106.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f7c809e..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i106.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i107.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i107.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 41cd307..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i107.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i108.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i108.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 72bd80f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i108.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i109a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i109a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 035d92a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i109a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i109b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i109b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1222a28..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i109b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i111.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i111.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index aff4ce1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i111.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i113.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i113.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index aff35cb..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i113.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i116.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i116.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b886058..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i116.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i117.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i117.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9b2c4a9..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i117.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i118a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i118a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a243bb5..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i118a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i118b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i118b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 728be94..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i118b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i119a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i119a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 38abaa0..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i119a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i119b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i119b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f9a0b22..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i119b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i120.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i120.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9929ae0..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i120.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i121.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i121.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 51ee3ba..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i121.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i122.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i122.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b023f69..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i122.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i123a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i123a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c35c603..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i123a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i123b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i123b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d2e9227..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i123b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i124.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i124.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 32dec19..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i124.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i125.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i125.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0b681a5..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i125.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i126.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i126.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9353f63..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i126.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i127a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i127a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0622be0..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i127a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i127b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i127b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8376c5f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i127b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i128.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i128.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 058969d..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i128.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i129.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i129.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 594a28f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i129.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i130.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i130.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f90a490..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i130.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i131.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i131.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bbb6864..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i131.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i132.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i132.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3988d78..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i132.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i133.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i133.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index cf5beac..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i133.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i134.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i134.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2690008..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i134.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i135.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i135.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6e347fe..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i135.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i136.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i136.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e0703d3..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i136.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i137a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i137a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7e6b07f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i137a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i139.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i139.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f4b5a1d..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i139.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i140a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i140a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8b5dbd1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i140a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i140b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i140b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 05d5838..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i140b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i141.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i141.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2c98879..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i141.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i142a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i142a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3fdfbf3..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i142a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i142b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i142b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4145790..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i142b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i143.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i143.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 690e590..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i143.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i144a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i144a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7b22041..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i144a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i144b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i144b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index afcf1b9..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i144b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i144c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i144c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3eb245e..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i144c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i145a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i145a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b1f5150..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i145a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i145b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i145b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index deb5e06..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i145b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i145c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i145c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 635d141..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i145c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i146.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i146.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5d33648..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i146.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i147.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i147.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index eabedb5..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i147.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i149.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i149.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5c44da8..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i149.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i150.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i150.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 31211ce..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i150.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i151.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i151.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b5b7441..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i151.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i152.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i152.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6721509..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i152.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i153.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i153.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f37d63b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i153.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i154.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i154.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index aba1598..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i154.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i155a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i155a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a0d47ad..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i155a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i155b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i155b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 19b9904..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i155b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i156.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i156.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 28303f4..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i156.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i157.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i157.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 905505e..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i157.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i158.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i158.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d04f95f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i158.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i159.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i159.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a37f126..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i159.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i160.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i160.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2d40339..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i160.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i161.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i161.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3fb7e89..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i161.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i162.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i162.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index afcba22..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i162.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i163.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i163.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 69e6464..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i163.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i165.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i165.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 35a383c..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i165.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i167.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i167.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 32d22d2..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i167.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i168.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i168.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b5bd230..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i168.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i169.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i169.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c44e289..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i169.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i171.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i171.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 195c3c6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i171.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i172.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i172.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 577efb6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i172.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i173.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i173.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index a617bcd..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i173.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i175.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i175.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ec442fe..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i175.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i176.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i176.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 28a06ca..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i176.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i177.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i177.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 39ba629..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i177.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i179.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i179.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 677b4e9..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i179.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i180.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i180.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3305825..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i180.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i181.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i181.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e4daaf2..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i181.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i183.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i183.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 013c950..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i183.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i185.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i185.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index dec3027..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i185.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i186a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i186a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bb58bc2..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i186a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i186b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i186b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 76c6cd2..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i186b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i186c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i186c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 49ef0e6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i186c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i187a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i187a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0124626..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i187a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i187b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i187b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2af78ce..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i187b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i187c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i187c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f01d36c..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i187c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i189.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i189.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 83650b0..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i189.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i191.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i191.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 47030eb..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i191.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i193a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i193a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f65be4f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i193a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i193b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i193b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d428cea..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i193b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i194a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i194a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 50a1690..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i194a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i194b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i194b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2477e1d..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i194b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i195a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i195a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f7a1653..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i195a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i195b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i195b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2dc3bf6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i195b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i195c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i195c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 95dae58..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i195c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i197.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i197.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 51a1dcf..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i197.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i199.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i199.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4b25e0a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i199.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i200.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i200.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 91b74bc..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i200.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i201.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i201.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 6318921..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i201.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i202a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i202a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1f0b9aa..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i202a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i202b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i202b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index d2347a7..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i202b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i203.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i203.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7b4a283..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i203.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i204.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i204.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e9206df..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i204.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i205.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i205.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 58894e1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i205.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i207.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i207.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 35f0a72..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i207.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i209.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i209.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0ce9a0a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i209.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i211.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i211.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 3eef416..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i211.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i212a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i212a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 11cda35..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i212a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i212b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i212b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1e7f1e4..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i212b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i213.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i213.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8d0876d..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i213.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i214a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i214a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index dd623c6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i214a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i214b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i214b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2bec0a6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i214b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i214c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i214c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 286e0b1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i214c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i215a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i215a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bdd4640..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i215a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i215b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i215b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e2e0a5b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i215b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i216.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i216.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1d0301d..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i216.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i217a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i217a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 50d6fc6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i217a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i217b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i217b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 515247b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i217b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i217c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i217c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index c849820..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i217c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i218a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i218a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4d15617..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i218a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i218b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i218b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0d0676a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i218b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i219a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i219a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 856216b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i219a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i219b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i219b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index bb78c13..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i219b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i219c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i219c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 99b4477..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i219c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i219d.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i219d.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 81267d6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i219d.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i221a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i221a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 42cdbb2..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i221a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i221b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i221b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f0cddf6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i221b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i223a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i223a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e13569b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i223a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i223b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i223b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4da7b05..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i223b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i223c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i223c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 890b4b7..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i223c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i223d.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i223d.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 8cb40a1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i223d.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i224a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i224a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 70c4440..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i224a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i224b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i224b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 49354cc..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i224b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i225a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i225a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 7ee4f07..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i225a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i225b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i225b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 57a00b1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i225b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i226a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i226a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ad28411..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i226a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i226b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i226b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 265111a..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i226b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i226c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i226c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b8c8a41..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i226c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i227.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i227.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 36636de..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i227.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i230.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i230.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4f48b7c..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i230.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i233a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i233a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5ddecca..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i233a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i233b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i233b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b7e401c..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i233b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i234.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i234.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 9acc19b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i234.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i237.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i237.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4aa67ba..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i237.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i240a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i240a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 60b5978..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i240a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i240b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i240b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 99324c6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i240b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i242.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i242.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 5aeb49e..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i242.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i243a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i243a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e2e1905..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i243a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i243b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i243b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index e0fe06c..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i243b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i243c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i243c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4bb425f..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i243c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i244.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i244.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index f07308b..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i244.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i245a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i245a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 1e497e6..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i245a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i245b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i245b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 93cecd1..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i245b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i246a.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i246a.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 4c58e3d..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i246a.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i246b.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i246b.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 0ba4482..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i246b.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/50828-h/images/i246c.jpg b/old/50828-h/images/i246c.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 579b4d2..0000000
--- a/old/50828-h/images/i246c.jpg
+++ /dev/null
author	nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org>	2025-02-05 05:28:56 -0800
committer	nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org>	2025-02-05 05:28:56 -0800
commit	f8b99563735fdcc21b709b36daf1390a4ce0a091 (patch)
tree	f97d7edbb273572388a602527404e9dc86552ec4
parent	35b1fc48e6636a4d3064a1fb4b0a84d5d160ec9e (diff)