diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/50828-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50828-0.txt | 14128 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 14128 deletions
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. - |