SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIONUNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 2 30WASHINGTON, D.C.1964 MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY TheBark Canoes and Skin BoatsofNorth America Edwin Tappan AdneyandHoward I. ChapelleCurator of Transportation SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C.1964 Publications of the United States National Aiuseum 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 workof 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 specialistsand others interested in the different subjects.The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers fromthe Museum of Natural History. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date ofeach 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 consistingof 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 papersrelating to the botanical collections of the Museum of Natural History have been published in the Bulletinseries under the heading Contributions Jrom the United States National Herbarium, and since 1959, in Bulletinstitled "Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology," have been gathered shorter papersrelating to the collections and research of that Museum.This work, the result of cooperation with the Mariners' Museum, the Stefansson Library, the Museum ofthe American Indian, Heye Foundation, and the American Museum of Natural History, forms number 230of the Bulletin series. Frank A. TaylorDirector, United States National Aiuseum U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEWASHINGTON : 1964 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402 - Price S6.75iigiMTHSOWTSj*JUN 2 ^ '"ORifSRARt^ special acknoivUdgmentIs here gratefully made to The Mariners' Museum,Newport NewSj Virginia, under whose auspices wasprepared and ivith ivhose cooperation is here publishedthe part of this work based on the Adney papers;also to the late Vilhjalmur Stefansson, for whoseEncyclopedia Arctica ivas ivritten the chapteron Arctic skin boats Contents PageIntroduction 11. Early History 72. Materials and Tools 143. Form and Construction 27Form 27Construction 364. Eastern Maritime RcEjion 58Micmac 58Malccitc 70St. Francis 88Bcothuk 945. Central Canada 99Eastern Cree 101TetesdeBouie 107Altjonkin 113Ojilnvay 122Western Cree 132Fur-trade Canoes 1356. Northwestern Canada 154Narrow-Bottom Canoe 155Kayak-Form Canoe 1 58Sturgeon-Nose Canoe 1687. Arctic Skin Boats: by Howard I. Chaprlte 174The Umiak 181The Kayak 1 908. Temporary Craft 212Bark Canoes 212Skin Boats 219Retrospect 221Appendix: The Kavak Roll, hyjo/m D. /^nM 223Bibliography 231Index 235 Illustrations Figure Page1 Fur-trade canoe on the Missinaibi River, 1901. {Canadian Geological 2Survey photo.)2 Page from a manuscript of 1771, "Observations on Hudsons Bay," by 9Alexander Graham, Factor. (In archives of Hudson's Bay Com-pany.)3 Canoes from LaHontan's Xoureaux Voyages . . . dans I'Amerique septen- 11Irionale, showing crude representations typical of early writers.4 Lines of an old birch-bark canoe, probably Micmac, brought to England 12in 1749 from New England. (From Admiralty Colleclion of Draughts,National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.)5 Ojibway Indian carrying spruce roots, Lac Seul, Ont., 1919. {Canadian 15Geological Survey photo.)6 Roll of bark for a hunting canoe. Algonkin Reserve, at Golden Lake, 16Ont., 1927.7 Sketch: wood -splitting techniques, cedar and spruce 178-19 Sketches of tools: 8, stone axe; 9, stone hammer, wedge, and knife; 1710, mauls and driving sticks; 11, stone scraper; 12, bow drill; 13,modern Hudson Bay axe; 14, steel fur-trade tomahawk; 15, steelcanoe awls; 16, crooked knives; 17, froe; 18, shaving horse; 19, buck-saw.20 Peeling, rolling, and transporting bark. (Sketches hy Adney.) 2521 Sketch: Building frame for a large canoe 2622, 23 Sketches: Effect on canoe bottom of crimping and goring bark . . . . 3()24 Sketch: Canoe formed by use of gores and panels 3125 Gunwale ends nailed and wrapped with spruce roots. {Sketch hy 31Adney.)26 Gunwales and stakes on building bed, plan view. {Sketch hy Adney.) . . 3227 Photo: Gunwale lashings, examples made by Adney 3328 Photo: Gunwale-end lashings, examples made by Adney 3329 Sketch: Splints arranged in various ways to sheath the bottom of a canoe 3430 End details, including construction of stem-pieces. {Sketches hy Adney.) . 3531 Lines of 2j2'-fathom St. John River Malecite canoe 3632 Malecite canoe building, 1910. {Canadian Geological Survey photos.) ... 3933 First stage of canoe construction: assembled gunwale frame is used to 40locate stakes temporarily on building bed. {Sketch by Adney.)34 Second stage of canoe construction: bark cover is laid out on the building 41bed, and the gunwales are in place upon it. {Sketch hy Adney.) Figure Page35 Photo: Malecite canoe Guilders near Frcdcricton, N.B., using wooden 42plank building bed.36 Sketch: Two common styles of root stitching used in bark canoes ... 4337 Comparison of canoe on the building bed and canoe when first removed 44from building bed during fifth stage of construction. {Detail sketchesby Adney.)38 Third stage of canoe construction: the bark cover is shaped on the build- 45ing bed. {Sketch by Adney.)39 Cross section of canoe on building bed during third ,ukI fourth stages of 46construction. {Sketch by Adney.)40 Sketch: Multiple cross section through one side of a canoe on the building 46bed, at the headboard, middle, first, and second thwarts.41 Fourth stage of canoe construction: bark cover has Ijccn shaped and all 47stakes placed. {Sketch by Adney.)42 Fifth stage of canoe construction: canoe is removed from building bed and 49set on horses to shape ends and complete sewing. {Sketch by Adney.)43 Ribs being dried and shajied lor Ojibway canoe. {Canadian Geological 50Surrey photo.)44 Sketch: Details of ribs and method of shaping them in pairs 5145 Si.xth stage of canoe construction: in this stage splints for sheathing 53(upper left) are fixed in place and held by temporary ribs (lower right)under the gunwales. {Sketch by Adney.)46 General details of birch-bark canoe construction, in a drawing by Adney. 54(From Harper's Voung People, supplement, July 29, 1890.)47 Gunwale construction and thwart or crossbar fastenings, as shown in a 56sketch by .Adney. (Harper's Tomg People, supplement, July 29, 1890.)48 "Peter Joe at Work." Drawing by Adney for his article "How an Indian 57Birch-Bark Canoe is Made." {Harper's Young People, supplement,July 29, 1890.)49 Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe 5950 Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe 6051 Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe 6152 Lines of 2,'2-fathoin Micmac big-river canoe 6253 Lines of 3-fathom Micmac ocean canoe fitted for sailing 6354 Micmac rough-water canoe, Bathurst, N.B. {Canadian Geological Survey 64photo.)55 Micmac Woods canoe, built by Malecite Jim Paul at St. Mary's Reserve 64in 1911. {Canadian Geological Survey photo.)56 Micmac rough-water canoe fitted for sailing. {Photo M'. //. Mechling, 651913.)57 Micmac rough-water canoe, Bay Chaleur. {Photo H. V. Henderson, West 66Bathurst, X.B.)58 Micmac rough-water sailing canoe, Bay Chaleur. {Canadian Geological 66Survey photo.)59 Drawing: Details of Micmac canoes, including mast and sail 6760 Micmac canoe, Bathurst, N.B. {Canadian Geological Survey photo.) . ... 6861 Micmac woman gumming seams of canoe, Bathurst, N.B., 1913. {Ca- 69nadian Geological Survey photo.)62 Lines of 2'2-fathom Malecite river canoe, 19th century. Old form with 71raking ends and much sheer. Figure P".?'63 Lines of old form of Malecite-Abnaki 2|4-fathoin ocean canoe of the 72Penobscots in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.64 Lines of large 3-fathom ocean canoe of the Passamaquoddy porpoise 73hunters.65 Lines of old form of Passamaquoddy 2'/^-fathom ocean canoe 7466 Lines of Malecite racing canoe of 1888, showing V-shaped keel piece be- 75tween sheathing and bark to form deadrise.67 Lines of sharp-ended 2!.2-fathom Passamaquoddy hunting canoe, for use 76on tidal river.68 Lines of Malecite 2J4-fathom St. Lawrence River canoe, probably a hybrid 77model.69 Lines of Malecite 2'2-fathom river canoe of 1 890 from the Riviere du Loup 78region.70 Lines of Modern (1895) 2,'.2-fathom Malecite St. John River canoe ... 7971 Drawing: Malecite canoe details, gear, and gunwale decorations ... 8072 Drawing: Malecite canoe details, stem profiles, paddles, sail rig, and 81salmon spear.73 Lines and decoration reconstructed from a very old model of a St. John 81River ancient woods, or pack, canoe.74 Lines of last known Passamaquoddy decorated ocean canoe to be built 82(1898).75 Drawing: Malecite canoe details and decorations 8376 Sketches: VVulegessis decorations 84-8577 Photo: End decorations, Passamaquoddy canoe 8678 Photo: End decorations, Passamaquoddy canoe 8779 Photo: Passamaquoddy decorated canoe 8780 Lines of 2-fathom St. Francis canoe of about 1865 8981 Lines of "14-foot" St. Francis canoe of about 1910 9082 Lines of 2)^-fathom low-ended St. Francis canoe 9183 Lines of St. Francis-Abnaki canoe for open water, a type that became 92extinct before 1890. From Adney's drawings of a canoe formerlyin the Museum of Natural History.84 Photo: Model of a St. Francis-Abnaki canoe under construction ... 9385 Photo: St. Francis-Abnaki canoe 9386 A 15-foot Beothuk canoe of Newfoundland {Sketch by Adney) 9587 Lines based on Adney's reconstruction of 15-foot Beothuk canoe .... 9788 Montagnais crooked canoe. {Canadian Geological Survey photo) 1 0089 Birch-bark crooked canoe, Ungava Cree. {Smithsonian Institution photo) . 10190 Lines of 3-fathom Nascapee canoe, eastern Labrador 10291 Lines of 2-fathom Montagnais canoe of southern Labrador and Quebec 10292 Lines of 2)^-fathom crooked canoe of the Ungava Peninsula 10393 Lines of hybrid-model 2-fathom Nascapee canoe 10394 Eastern Cree crooked canoe of rather moderate sheer and rocker. {Cana- 104dian Pacific Railway Company photo.)95 Photo: Straight and crooked canoes, eastern Cree 10596 Montagnais canvas-covered crooked canoe under construction. (Cana- 106dian Geological Survey photo.)97 Sketch: Fiddlehead of scraped bark on bow and stern of a Montagnais 107birch-bark canoe at Seven Islands, Que., 1915. Figure Pog*98 Sketch: Disk of colored porcupine quills decorating canoe found at 107Namaquagon, Que., 1898.99 Fleet of 51 birch-bark canoes of the Tetes de Boule Indians, assembled 108at the Hudson's Bay Company post. Grand Lake Victoria, ProcessionSunday, August 1895. {Photo, Post-Factor I.. A. Christoplierson.)100 Photo: Tetes de Boule canoe 109101 Photo: Tetes de Boule canoes 110102 Lines of 1,14-fathom Tetes de Boule hunting canoe Ill103 Lines of 2'2-fathom Tetes de Boule canoe, with construction details 111104 Lines of 2-fathom Tetes de Boule hunting canoe 112105 Photo: (^Id Algonkin canoe 113106 Lines of 2'^-fatlioin old model, Ottawa Riser, .\lgonkin canoe .... 114107 Photo: Models made by Adney of Algonkin and Ojibway stem-pieces . . 115108 Lines of light, fast 2-fathom hunting canoe of the old Algonkin model . . 116109 Lines of hybrid 2%- and 2-fathom Algonkin canoes 117110 Lines of 2-fathom Algonkin hunter's canoe, without headboards ... 118111 Photo: Algonkin canoe, old type 119112 Photo: Algonkin "Wabinaki Chiman" 120113 Algonkin canoe decorations, Golden Lake, Ont 121114 Lines of 2-fathom Ojibway hunter's canoe, built in 1873 123115 Lines of 3-fa thorn Ojibway ok! model ricc-har\estin]? canoe and 2-fathom 124hunter's canoe.116 Lines of 3-fathom Ojibway freight canoe 1241 17 Lines of 2'2-fathom (Ojibway, old form, canoe and a 16-foot long-nose Crce- 125Ojibway canoe.118 Eastern Ojibway canoe, old form. (Canadian Pacific Railway photo.) . . 126119 Photo: Ojibway Long-Nose canoe, Rainy Lake District 126120 Lines of 2-fathom Ojibway hunter's canoe, 1849 and long-nose Minnesota 127Ojibway rice-harvesting canoe.121 Photos: Canoe building, Lac Seul, Canada, 1918 128-129122 Long Lake Ojibway long-nose canoe. {Canadian Geological Survey photo.) . 130123 Photo: Ojibway 19-foot canoe with 13 Indians aboard (1913) .... 131124 Lines of 2'2-fathom western Cree canoe, Winisk River district, northwest 133of James Bay.125 Lines of a 6-fathom fur-trade canoe of the early 19th century 134126 Inboard profile of a 6-fathom fur-trade canoe, and details of construction, 135fitting, and decoration.127 Lines of small 3-fathoin north canoe of die Tetes de Boule model . . . 136128 Photo: Models of fur-trade canoes 137129 "Fur-Trade Maitre Canot With Passengers." From an oil painting by 138Hopkins {Public Archives of Canada photo).130 "Bivouac in E.xpedition in Hudson's Bay Canoe." From an oil painting 139by Hopkins {Public Archives of Canada photo) . 131 Ojibway 3-fathom fur-trade canoe, a cargo-carrying type, marked by 139cut-under end profiles, that was built as late as 1894.132 Lines of a 5-fathom fur-trade canoe. Grand Lake Victoria Post, Hudson's 140Bay Company.133 "Hudson's Bay Canoe Running the Rapids." From an oil painting by 141Hopkins {Public Archives of Canada photo). Figure ""g'134 "Repairing the Canoe." From an oil painting by Hopkins {Public 142Archives of Canada photo) . 135 Lines of a 4}ffathom Hudson's Bay Company "North Canoe," built Ijy 143Crees near James Bay, mici-19th century.136 Photo: 5-fathorn fur-trade canoe from Brunswick House, a Hudson's 144Bay Company post.137 Fur-trade canoes on the Missinaibi River, 1901. {Canadian Geological 145Survey photo.)138 Photo: Fur-trade canoe brigade from Christopherson's Hudson's Bay 146Company post, about 1885.139 Forest rangers. Lake Timagami, Ontario. {Canadian Pacific Railway 147Company photo.)140 Piioto: Models made by Adney of fur-trade canoe stem-pieces 149141 Photo: Models by Adney of fur-trade canoe stem-pieces 151142 Portaging a 4}^-fathom fur-trade canoe, about 1902, near the head of the 152Ottawa River. {Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo.)143 Decorations, fur-trade canoes (W^at48 Fifth Stage of Canoe Construction: canoe is removed from building bed and set on horsein order to shape ends and complete sewing. Bark cover has dried out in a flat-bottomed andwall-sided form. {Sketch hy Adney.) the outboard face of each stem-piece is about Yi inchwide, making it a truncated triangle in cross-section.Then, along lines parallel to the base of the truncatedtriangle, it is split into si.\ laminations which arccarried to within 6 or 7 inches of the end selected tobe the heel of the stem-piece. Just clear of thelaminations a notch is cut into the top side of the heel,to hold the headboard, as will be seen. The piece isthen treated with boiling water until the laminationsare flexible, and the curve of the stem-piece can beformed and either pegged out or tied with cordsimtil it dries in the desired shape. When dry thelaminations are tightly wrapped with basswood barkcord, leaving the form of the stem-piece a quarterarc of a circle, with short tangents at each end, asshown in the illustration (p. 35).Next, the ends of the outwales are cut to a lengthdetermined by the quality of the bark already inplace; if the bark in one end is not very good, it maybe cut away somewhat and the canoe made shorterby this amount at both ends in finishing. After theends of the outwales have been cut, botli are notchedon the inside at the extreme ends to take the head ofthe stem-piece. The outwales may or may notproject Yi or }^ inch beyond the stem and the stemhead may project J^ or 1 inch above the top of theoutwales of the canoe; these matters, at the builder'soption, decide the length of the notch and the fittingof the stem-pieces.The stem-piece is now placed between the foldedbark end of the canoe with the heel resting for a small distance along its length on the bark Ijotlom;the head must come to the right height above the out-wales, as noted. While one worker holds the stem-piece in place, another trims away the excess bark atthe end to the profile of the outboard face of thestem-piece. Thus the profile of each end is cut and therake of the ends is established. The bark is nextlashed to the stem-piece. In this canoe it is donewith a spiral over-and-over stitch, a batten made ofa large split root being placed over the edges of thebark, as the lashing proceeds, to form a stem band.The turns pass alternately from outboard around theinboard face of the stem-piece and through it; theawl inserted in the laminations from one side opensthem enough to allow the strand to be forced through.Care is taken to pull up the strand very hard eachtime. As the outwalc is approached, the bark is cutaway at the notching in each so that the outwalescan be brought snugly against the sides of the stem-piece. Here the strand is brought up one or twotimes over the outwales, abaft the stem head, beforethe bitter end is tucked, thus locking the outwales tothe stem-piece and the bark. Then a lashing isplaced around the outwales just inboard of thestem-piece, passing through a hole in the flap of theend deck-piece of bark and through the side bark.This lashing holds the outboard end of the deckpiece flap. At the inboard end of the flap, anotherlashing is required, but the pinched-in outwalesrequire additional securing outboard of this point;hence a lashing is passed just inboard of the middle49 Ribs Being Dried and Shaped for Ojibway Canoe. {Canadian Geological Survey photo?) of the flap, a little outboard of the ends of the inwales,and about six inches inboard from this lashinganother is passed through the side bark and aroundthe gunwale and outwale on each side. These threelashings hold the outwales snug to the ends of thegunwales and against the projecting bark ends in thepinched-in form of projecting outwales.The heels of the stem-pieces rest on the bottombark and the sewing is carried down to where thecutting of the profile makes an end to the seam, thesolid part of the heels extending about 6 to 8 inchesinboard of this. Next, any sewing required on thebottom is done. When the bark cover has beengiven a final inspection on the outside and all sewinghas been completed, the canoe is lifted from itssupports, righted, and set on the bed or on a smoothgrassy place.All seams are now payed with gum on the inside ofthe bark while this can still be done without interfer-ence from the sheathing or those parts of the structureremaining to be installed. The Malecites used onlyspruce gum tempered with animal fat. The gum,heated until it is sufiiciently soft to pour like heavysyrup, is spread with a small wooden paddle or spoon. and is then worked into the seam and smoothed byrubbing with the thumb dipped in water to preventthe gum from sticking and burning. It is first workedinto the ends, between the bark and each side of thestem-pieces, particularly near the heel below thewaterline. When the crevices are filled, a piece ofbark (in later times a piece of cloth was used) wideenough to cover the gum alongside is well smearedwith warm gum and pressed down along the insideof the stem-pieces. On each seam, at gores, and onside panels a thin narrow strip of bark is smearedwith gum and pressed over the seam after the latterhad been well payed. The bark is now carefullyscrutinized for small splits, holes, or thin spots sincethese can be easily patched from the inside at thisstage of construction. In fitting bark strips and ingumming, great care is taken to obtain a flat surface;the edges of the strips inside are faired to the insideface of the bark by smearing gum along the edges.The canoe is now ready to be sheathed and ribbedout.The sheathing for this canoe has been split inadvance out of clear white cedar in splints about 5to 9 feet long, 3 to 4% inches wide, and % inch thick.50 The butts of each piece have been whittled to a featheredge, the bevel extending back about 2 inches. Also,some pieces of basket ash have been split out of sap-lings for temporary ribs to hold the sheathing in place.A total of 50 or more ribs in five lengths, the longestabout 5 feet, have been made up from white cedarheartwood and bent to the desired shape.In deciding the rough lengths of the ribs, the buildercan resort to various methods. He can prebend ribsin 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 sectionbetween the middle and first pair of thwarts; a third,of five pairs, to the section at the first thwarts eachway from the middle; a fourth, of four pairs, to thesection between the end and the first pair of thwartseach way from the middle; a fifth, of three pairs,to the section at the end thwarts; and a sixth, of twoor three pairs, for the section at or near the head-boards. This makes from 50 to 52 frames in a canoemeasuring 18 or 19 feet overall.Each frame piece is treated with Ijoiling water andthen bent, over the knee or around a tree, to a slightlygreater degree than is needed. While thus bent,each pair is wrapped lengthwise over the end with astrip of basswood or cedar bark to hold the ribs inshape. Sometimes a strut is placed under the barkstrips to maintain the desired form, or a cross-tie ofbark may be employed. The ribs are then allowedto season in this position.Another method, which will be illustrated later(p. 53), involves placing ribs of green spruce in theirapproximate position and forcing them against thebark. In this method, a number of long battens areplaced over the roughly bent ribs laid loosely ins'idethe bark cover, and are spread by forcing a series ofshort crosspieces, or stays, between them athwartships.The bark is given a good wetting with boiling water tomake it flexible and elastic, so that the pressureapplied to the battens by the temporary crosspiecesbrings the bark to the shape desired for the canoe.The rough lengths of the ribs are determined by useof a measuring stick or by measurements madearound the bark with a piece of flexible root or abatten of basket ash. The ribs, in any case, are madesomewhat longer than required to allow a final fittingwhen being placed over the sheathing.It can be seen that the exact form the canoe takesis largely a matter of judgment and of the flexibilityand elasticity of the bark, rather than of precisemolding on a predetermined model, or lines. r /r'jb, Cra-f^- Jf^^^'^^ J /r'/S ey^c^ Details of Ribs and method of shaping them inpairs 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 2% or 2 inches toward theends. The thickness is an even J^ inch. Most birch-bark canoes have ribs of even thickness their fulllength, but in a few the thickness is tapered slightlyabove the turn of the bilge, usually when the tumble-home is high on the sides and rather great. Thewidth, as previously explained, is usually carried allacross the bottom; above the bilges there is a moderatetaper.The sheathing of the canoe is now first to be put inplace. In the Malecite canoe the center pieces arethe longest; they are tapered each way from theirbutts, which overlap about 2 inches amidships. Theends are made narrow enough to fit readily into thesharp transverse curve of the bottom and are longenough to pass under the heels of the stem pieces foran inch or two. The pieces of sheathing on each sideof the center pieces are fitted in the same manner, andby the time two or three courses are in place theymust be held in some manner at the ends. This isaccomplished by means of the rough temporary ribsmentioned earlier. The sheathing is laid edge-to-edge, with the butts overlapping, and, if there arcnot enough long pieces to complete the bottom amid-ships, three or four lengths, with overlapped butts,will be used. As the sheathing progresses, moretemporary ribs will have to be added. At the turn of51 the bilge, the sheathing will bend transversely aspressure is applied by the temporary ribs; the barkmust be again wetted so that the angular bilge canbe forced into a roughly rounded form. Particularcare is required in finishing the sheathing below thegunwale to be certain that the top strake will be closeup against the sewing of the bark at gunwales, butno particular attempt is made to make the edgesof the sheathing in the topsides maintain edge-to-edge contact.The pressure of the temporary ribs, the heads ofwhich are forced under the gunwales, and the elas-ticity of the bark due to treating it with boiling waterare enough to rough-shape the canoe.Before the permanent ribs are placed the sheer ischecked. If it appears to have straightened, the endsof the gunwales are supported by means of short postsplaced under them, with the heels standing on theheels of the stem pieces or on the sheathing. Thensome stakes, each having a projecting limb or root,are cut and are driven into the ground with the limbhooked over the gunwale to force it down.After measurements have been made for the firstrib with a strand of root or an ash batten, it is now cutto a length slightly more than would permit the rib tobe forced upright when in place. The ends of therib are set in place in the bevel, or notch, on the under-side of the gunwales, against the bark cover, and withthe bottom part of the rib standing inboard of thehead. Then, with one end of a short batten placedagainst its inboard side, the rib is driven toward theend of the canoe with blows from a club on the headof the batten. If the rib drives too easily it is removedand laid aside; if too hard, it is shortened. It must gohome tightly enough to stretch slightly the bark coverby bringing pressure to bear on the whole width of thesheathing. Care is taken, in this operation, to keepmoist not only the bark but also the sewing, particu-larly along the gunwales, so that all possible elasticityis obtained. The ribs are set, one by one, working towithin two or three frames of the midship thwart;then the other end of the canoe is begun. The lastthree or four ribs to be placed are thus amidships.In every rib driven, the tension is great, but no rib isdriven so that it stands perpendicular to the base.Those first driven stand with their bottoms nearer themidship thwart than the ends, and this angle, or slant,continues to amidships; the ribs in the other end ofthe canoe slant in the opposite direction.It will be evident that skill is required to estimatehow much pressure the bark will stand before bursting under the strain of the driven ribs. It is also apparentthat the shape of the canoe is controlled by the shap-ing given the ribs in the prebending, for this fixes theamount of tumble-home and the amount of round, orrounded-V, given to the bottom athwartships. Nofixed rules appear to exist; the eye and judgment ofthe builder are his only guides. To show how muchstrain is placed on the bark, however, it may be notedthat inspection of two old canoes showed that thegunwale pegs had been noticeably bent between theinner and outer gunwales.It appears to have been a rather common practice,after all the ribs had been driven into place, to allowthe canoe to stand a few days and then again to set theframes (where unevenness appears in the topsides)with driving batten and maul, the bark cover and theroot sewing or lashings having been again thoroughlywetted.The headboards are now to be made. These areshaped in the form of an elongate-oval from a widesplint of white cedar about 4 inches wide at mid-length and Yi inch thick. The narrow end is first cutoff square or nearly so; the bottom end is notched tofit in the notch in the heel of the stem-piece and thetop has a small tenon at the centerline that will befitted into a hole drilled or gouged in the undersideof the inner gunwales where they join at the ends.The length of the headboards in the canoe being builtis \S% inches over all, and when they have been madefor each end, they are checked as to width and heightto see that they can be fitted. Next, the extremeends of the canoe between the stem and the head-boards are stuffed with dry cedar shavings or drymoss so that the sides stand firm on each side of thebow outboard of the ends of the sheathing, whichends rather unevenly, just outboard of where the head-boards will stand. This completed, the headboardsare forced into position by first stepping the heelnotch in the stem-piece notch and then bending theboard by placing one hand against its middle andpulling the top toward the worker. This shortens theheight of the board enough so the tenon projectingon its head can be sprung into the small hole underthe inner gunwales, where it becomes rigidly fixed.Its sprung shape pushes up the gunwales and makesthe side bark of the ends very taut and smooth, whilesupporting the gunwale ends.Two thin strips about 19 feet long are next splitout of white cedar to form the gunwale caps; theseare Y^ to Y^ inch thick, and taper each way from about2 inches wide in the middle to 1 inch wide at the ends.52 Sixth Stage of Canoe Construction: canoe has been righted and placed on a grassy orsandy spot. In this stage splints for sheathing (upper left) are fixed in place and held bytemporary ribs (lower right) under the gunwales. The bark cover has been completely sewnand the shape of the canoe is set by the temporary ribs. (Sketch hy A//riev.) These are laid along the top of the inner gunwalesand fastened down with pegs placed clear of thegunwale lashings. The ends of the strips are usuallysecured by two or three small lashings; the caps thusformed often stop short of the ends of the innergunwale members. If the caps are carried rightout to the stems, as was the practice of some Malecitebuilders, the lashings of the outwale are not turnedin until after the caps are in place, in which casethe bark deck pieces, or flaps, are put in just beforethe final lashing is made.Next, the canoe is turned upside-down and all seamsare gummed smoothly on the outside. The ends, fromthe beginning of the seam to above the watcrline, maybe heavily gummed and then covered with a narrowstrip of thin bark, heavily enough smeared with gumto cause it to adhere over the seam. In more recenttimes a piece of gummed cloth was used here. Abovethis protective strip, the end seams are filled withgum so that the outside can be smoothed off flushon the face of the cutwater between the stitches. Allseams in the side and bottom are gummed smoothand any holes or patches remaining to be gummed arctaken care of in this final inspection.If the canoe is to be decorated (not many typeswere) the outside of the bark is moistened and the rough, reddish winter bark, or inner rind, is scrapedaway, leaving only enough to form the desired decora-tions. When paints of various colors could be ob-tained, these were also employed, but the use of theinner rind was apparently the older and more commonmethod of decorating.The paddles are made from splints of spruce ormaple, ash, white cedar, or larch. Two forms ofblade were used by the Malecite. The older form islong and narrow, with the blade wide near the topand the taper straight along each edge to a narrow,rounded point. Above the greatest width, the bladetapers almost straight along the edge, coming intoan oval handle very quickly. At the head, thehandle is widened and it ends squared oflf, but thetaper toward the handle is straight, not flared asin modern canoe paddles; there is no swelling.Paddles of a shape similar to this, some without awide handle, were used by other eastern Indians.The more recent form of Malecite paddle has along leaf-shaped, or beaver-tail, blade, much likethat of the modern canoe paddle, except that it endsin a dull point; the handle is as in the old form butthe head is swelled to form the upper grip. The faceof the blade, in both old and new form, has a notice-able ridge down the centerline. 53 ^MGeneral Details of Birch-Bark Canoe Construction, in a drawing by Adney. (FromHarper's Young People, supplement, July 29, 1890.) The eastern style of construction described hereproduced what might be called a wide-bottom canoewith some tumble-home above the turn of the bilge,but a different method of construction was used toproduce canoes having a narrow bottom and flaringsides. These canoes were not set up on the buildingbed, in the first steps of shaping the hull, with thegunwale frame on the cover bark. Instead, a specialbuilding frame, mentioned earlier, was used. Eachtribe using the building frame had its own style,but the variations were confined to minor matters orto proportion of width to length.In general, the building frame is made of twosquared battens, about 1}^ inch square for an 18-footcanoe. These, sometimes tapered slightly towardeach end, are fitted with crosspieces with halvednotches in each end to fit over the top of the battens. There may be as many as nine or as few as three ofthese crosspieces, with seven apparently a commonnumber. Where ends of the long battens join theyare beveled slightly on the inside face and notchesare 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 crosspiecefor this purpose. The lashings, commonly bark orrawhide thongs, are all temporary, as the buildingframe has to be dismantled to remove it from thecanoe. Sometimes holes are drilled in the ends ofthe crosspieces, or in the long battens, and in themare stepped the posts used to fix the sheer of thegunwales.The methods of construction, using the buildingframe, varied somewhat among the tribes. Since thegunwale was both longer and wider across than the54 building frame, the posts for sheering were set withoutljoard flare. However, some builders made thegunwales hogged by staking them out when green,and then set them above the building frame withvertical posts. These gunwales would not be fittedwith thwarts nor would the thwart tenons always becut at this stage. The bark was lashed to the gun-wales while they were in the hogged position withthe ends secured; the gunwales were then spread byinserting spreaders, or stays, between them, afterwhich the thwarts were fitted. This method requiredknowledge of just how much hog should be given tothe gunwales, and it must be stated that not allbuilders guessed right enough to produce a good-looking sheer. Judging the hogging required in thegunwales was complicated by the fact that most ofthese canoes had laminated ends in the gunwales atbow and stern, and a quick upturn there as well.This method of construction persisted, however,because the straight sides made easy the sewing ofgores and side panels. In some Alaskan birch-barkcanoes the building frame was, in fact, part of thehull structure and remained in the canoe. In these,the building frame was hogged and then flattened bythe ribs in construction so as to smooth the bottombark by placing it under tension. In some canoesthe posts for sheering the canoe rested under thethwarts rather than under the gunwales. In mostcanoes the building frame was taken apart and re-moved from the canoe when the gunwale structurewas complete and in place, sheered.Where large sheets of bark were available, thesetting up with the building frame or gunwale wasmade easier than where the bark had to be piecedout for both length and width. If large pieces ofbark could be obtained there was little or no sewingon the bjottom; only the gores or laps, and the panels,in the side required attention after the bark had beenlashed to the gunwales. In such instances, the set-updid not require perpendicular sides, as the sidescould be completed after the canoe was removed fromthe building bed and the building frame had beenremoved from the hull. There were many minorvariations in the set-up and in the sequence of thesewing. In view of the slight opportunities that nowe.\ist for examining the old building methods andconstruction sequences, it is impossible to be certainthat the one used by a tribe in recent times was thatemployed in prehistoric times by their ancestors.Instead of a laminated stem-piece, a large rootwhittled to the desired cross section was sometimes used by builders among the Malecites and othereastern tribes. This was bent into the ends whilegreen and to it was lashed the bark, so that the stemdried in place to the desired profile curve. No innerstem-piece was used by the Micmacs, who formedthe end structure by placing a split-root batten oneach outside face of the bark and passing the lashingaround both. When a plank-on-edge was used to formthe stem-piece, as mentioned earlier, no headboardwas required, as the gunwales ends could be broughtto the plank structure. In canoes having the compli-cated stem structure seen in the large fur-trade canoesand some others, the headboard became an integralpart of the stem structure, rather than an independentunit, and was placed in the canoe during buildingwith the stem-pieces.There was much variation in the form of gunwalestructure employed in bark canoes. A strip of barkwas added all along the outwale by some tribes, sothat between the gunwale members and for a shortdistance below the sewing the bark was doubled; thebottom of this strip was, in fact, a flap not secured andthus was much like the flaps at the ends of the Malecitecanoe, but without covering the top of the main gun-wales. The outwale and inwale cross sections ofsome canoes were almost round. The use of a singlegunwale member is commonly followed by continuouslashing of the bark along it. On some northwesterncanoes having continuous lashing, the ends of theribs were made in sharp points that could penetratebetween the turns of root sewing, under the gunwales.The ends of the ribs in some of these were securedmore firmly by tying them to long battens placedbetween the ribs and the bark cover just below thegunwales. The northwestern canoes built in thismanner had double gtmwales, an outwale and aninwale, but no bevel or notch for the rib heads. Theends of the gunwales, inner and outer, were securedin many ways. Some, instead of being pegged andlashed, were simply tied together; others were fastenedby a rather elaborate lashing through the bark andaround the gunwales. Caps were sometimes allowedto overlap at the ends and were pinned together withpegs or lashed. In some canoes the outwales werelashed, rather than pegged, to the inwales, and forthis and for the caps rawhide appears to have oncebeen widely used. In some canoes the head of thestem-piece was bent inboard sharply and lashed tothe ends of the inwales or outwales. In many canoesthe gunwales, instead of stopping short of the stem-piece, ran to it and were lashed there. 55 At the start of ribbing out a canoe, the first twoor three ribs might not be put at each end until afterthe headboards had been fitted, and sometimes a ribwas placed on each side of the middle thwart, appar-ently to hold securely the sheathing butted amid-ships while the ribbing progressed toward them fromthe ends. When a canoe was short and rather wide,the ribs usually were bent by placing them inside thefaired bark cover before the sheathing was installed,there to dry and set or to season, depending on whetherthey 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 exactlythe same over the length of the canoe. Ribs nearthe ends were usually spaced at greater intervals thanthose in the middle third of the length.The extension of the bark beyond the ends of theinner gunwale in an eastern canoe was often about onefoot on each end, but this distance was actually deter- mined by the length of the bark available and by theusual reluctance of the builder to add a panel at theend.For the height of the end posts, in sheering thegunwales, a common Malecite measurement was thelength of the forearm from knuckles of clenched fistto back of elbow. These posts were often left in placeuntil the stems were fitted.The use of a building frame is known to havebeen common in areas where, normalh', the gunwaleframe would be employed in the initial steps in build-ing. In a few instances this occurred when a builderhad a number of canoes of the same size to construct.It seems probable that the use of the building framespread into Eastern areas comparatively recently asa result of the influence of the fur-trade canoes onconstruction methods. The employment of the plankbuilding bed in the East is known to have occurredamong individual canoe builders late in the nineteenthcentury as a result of this influence.The use of nails and tacks instead of pegs androot lashing or sewing in bark canoe constructionbecame quite widespread early in the nineteenthcentury; it is to be seen in many old canoes preservedin museums. The bark in these is often secured to thegunwales with carpet or flat-headed tacks, and boththe outwale and the cap are nailed to the inner gun-wales with cut or wire nails. Various combinationsof lashings and nailing can be seen in these canoes,although such combinations are sometimes the resultof comparatively recent repairs or restorations ratherthan evidence of the original construction. No datecan be placed on the introduction of nails into Indiancanoe building, although it may be said that nailingwas used in many eastern areas before 1850.Among the many published descriptions of themethod of building bark canoes the earliest give veryincomplete information on the building sequence56 and usually contain obvious errors as to proportionsand materials. (An example is that of Nicolas Denys,who, sometime between 1632 and 1650, saw barkcanoes being built in what is now New Brunswickand Cape Breton.) The best descriptions are rela-tively recent and, as a result, may describe methodsof construction that are not aboriginal.The description given here is based upon notesmade by Adney in 1889-90 and upon inspection ofold canoes from the various tribal areas. It was notedthat, although among canoes of the same approxi-mate length there was some variation in dimensionsand some variety in end form, the constructionappeared to vary remarkably little, and it is apparentthat the Malccites held very closely to a fixed sequencein the building process. There was, however, greatvariation in detail. The number of gore slashes incanoes 18 to 19 feet long varied from 10 to 23 on aside. The number was not alwavs the same on both sides of a canoe nor were the gores always oppositeone another. Canoes with long, sharp ends oftenhad a large number of closely spaced gores in themiddle third of the length, with widely spaced gorestoward the ends. Full-ended canoes, on the otherhand, had rather equally spaced gores their fulllength. The amount and form of rocker was also afactor in spacing the gores, and when the rocker wasconfined to short distances close to the ends therewould naturally be rather closely spaced gores inthese portions of the sides.A number of the building practices remain to bedescribed, but these will be best understood when theindividual tribal canoe forms are examined. Nowritten description of building canoes can be under-stood without reference to drawings, and to promotethis understanding construction details have beenshown on many of those of individual canoes of eachtribal type. "Peter Joe at Work." Drawing by .Xdiiey for his article "How an IndianBirch-Bark Canoe is Made" [Harpeis Young People, supplement, July 29, i8go). 57 Chapter FourEASTERN MARITIME REGION eO T' UDY OF THE TRIBAL FORMS of bark canoes mightWell be started with the canoes of the eastern coastalIndians, whose craft were the first seen by white men.These were the canoes of the Indians inhabiting whatare now the Maritime Provinces and part of Quebec,on the shores of the St. Lawrence River and in New-foundland, in Canada, and of the Indians of Maineand New Hampshire, in New England. Within thisarea were the Micmac, the Malecite, and the mixtureof tribal groups known as the Abnaki in modern times,as well as the Beothuk of Newfoundland. All thesegroups were expert canoe builders and it was theirwork that first impressed the white men with thevirtues of the birch-bark canoe in forest travel. Micmac The Micmac Indians appear to have occupied theGaspe Peninsula, most of the north shore of NewBrunswick and nearly all the shores of the Bay ofFundy as well as all of Nova Scotia, Prince EdwardIsland, and Cape Breton. They may have also oc-cupied much of southern and central New Brunswickas well, but if so they had been driven from thesesections by the Malecites before the white men came.The Micmacs were known to the early French in-vaders under a variety of names; "Gaspesians," "Canadiens," "Sourikois," or "Souriquois," whilethe English colonists of New England called themmerely "Eastern Indians." The name Micmac issaid to mean "allies" and not known, but this namewas in use early in the 18th century, if not before 1700.The Micmac were a hunting people with warlikecharacteristics; they aided the Malecite and otherNew England Indians in warfare against the early New England colonists and in later times aided theFrench against the English in Nova Scotia and NewBrunswick. These Indians lived in an area wherewater transport represented the easiest method oftravel and so they became expert builders and usersof birch-bark canoes, which they employed in hunting,fishing, general travel, and warfare.The area in which they lived produced fine birchbark and suitable wood for the framework. Throughexperience, they had become able to design canoesfor specific purposes and had produced a variety ofmodels and sizes. The hunting canoe was the small-est, being usually somewhere between 9 and 14 feetlong, with an occasional canoe as long as 15 feet.This light craft, known as a "woods canoe" and some-times as a "portage canoe," was intended for navigat-ing very small streams and for portaging. Anothermodel, the "big-river canoe," somewhat longer thanthe woods canoe, was usually between 15 and 20 feetlong. A third model, the "open water canoe," was forhunting seal and porpoise in salt water and ranged fromabout 18 feet to a little over 24 feet in length. Thefourth model, the "war canoe," about which little isknown, 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-barkcanoes were to be seen in the form of the midsection,in certain structural details, and in their generallysharp, torpedo-shaped lines. The construction wasvery light and marked by good workmanship. Thedistinctive profiles of bow and stern, which do notappear in the canoes of other tribes in so radical aform, were almost circular, fairing from the bottomaround into the sheer in a series of curves. Thebreak in the profile of the ends at the sheer, a breakthat marks in more or less degree, the end profileof other tribal forms, never occurs in the Micmaccanoe. At most, a slight break in the "streamlined"58 ^ foMom A/kh>oc m/mJi'ar '/iiei- Canw MicMAC 2-Fathom Pack, or Woods, Canoe for woods travel with light loads,used by the Nova Scotia Micmacs. curve might occur at the point where the profile wasstarted in the bottom, at which point there might bea short, hard curve.The form of the sheer Hne of the Micmac canoesapparently varied with the model: the woods canoehad the usual curved sheer with the point of lowestfreeboard about amidships, the big river canoe hadeither a nearly straight sheer or one very slightlyhogged, while the open-water canoe had a stronglyhogged sheer in which the midship portion was oftenas much as 3 or 4 inches above that just inboard of theends. However, there is a possibility that, at one time,the sheer of all Micmac canoes was more or lesshogged. The little that is known of the war canoes ofcolonial times indicate that they had the stronglyhogged sheer that now marks the open-water model,through it is also known that some of these werereally of the big-river model, which in later times hadusually no more than a vestige of the hogged sheer.The hull-forms of the Micmac canoes were markedin the topsides by a strong tumble-home, carried thefull length of the hull, that gave these canoes morebeam below than at the gunwale. The form of the midsection varied with the model; the woods canoeusually had a rather flat bottom athwartships, thebig river canoe a slightly rounded bottom, and theopen water canoe either a well-rounded bottom orone 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 thebottom. This condition will be again referred to indiscussing the building beds used in this type. Theends were usually fine-lined; in plan view the gun-wales came into the ends in straight or slightly hollowlines. The level lines below the gunwales might alsobe straight as they came into the ends, but werecommonly somewhat hollow; a few examples showmarked hollowness there. Predominantly, the Mic-mac canoes were very sharp in the ends and paddledswiftly. Early Micmac canoes seem to have beennarrower than more recent examples, which areusually rather broad as compared to the types usedh\ some other tribes.Structurally, the Micmac canoes were distinguishedby the construction of the ends and by their light59 Scc^/f in reef ^ /w/^flv? M/c/7?ac /hc/r Ca^oe3ean^ JO" //7//i^e ?^c/r?tva/ej ^C" MiCMAC 2-Fathom Pack, or Woods, Canoe with Northern Lights decorationon bow, and seven thwarts. build throughout. The canoes had no inner frame-work to shape the ends; stiffness there was obtainedby placing battens outside the bark, one on each sideof the hull, that ran from the bottom of the cut in thebark required to shape the ends to somewhat inboardof the ends of the gunwales at the sheer. These twobattens, as well as a split-root stem-band covering theraw ends of the cut bark, were held in place bypassing a spiral over-and-over lashing around allthree. Sometimes thicker battens reaching from thehigh point of the ends inboard to the end thwartswere added, in which case the side battens werestopped at the high point of the ends and therefaired into the thick battens.The gunwale structure was rather light, the max-imum cross section of the main gunwale in largecanoes being rarely in excess of \){ inches square.These members usually tapered slightly toward theends of the canoe and had a half-arrowhead formwhere they were joined. Old canoes had no guardor outwale, but some more recent Micmac canoeshave had a short guard along the middle third of thelength. 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 out-board faces stood vertically. Instead, the tenons inthe gunwales were cut to slant upward from theinside, so that installation of the thwarts would causethe outboard face to fiare outward at the top. Be-tween this face and the inside of the bark cover wereforced the beveled ends of the ribs, which were cutchisel-shape. However, some builders beveled orrounded the lower outboard corner of the maingunwale, as described under Malecite canoe building(p. 38). The bark cover in the Micmac canoe wasalways brought up over the gunwales, gored toprevent unevcnness, and folded down on top of thembefore being lashed. The gunwale lashing was acontinuous one in which the turns practically touchedone another outboard, though they were sometimesseparated under the gunwale to clear the ribs, whichwidened near their ends, so the intervals betweenthem were very small.The other member of the gunwale structure wasthe cap; its thickness was usually ){ to ^s inch, reducedslightly toward the ends. Its inboard face and the60 MiCMAC 2-Fathom Pack, or Woods, Canoe with normal sheer and flat bottom. 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 withpegs and with short lashing groups near the ends, butin late examples nails were used. The ends of thecaps were bevelled off on the inboard side, so thatthey came together in pointed form. The cap usuallyended near the end of the gunwale but in some canoes,particularly those that were nail-fastened, the capwas let into the gunwale (see p. 50) so that the topwas flush with end of the gunwale.The ends of the gunwales were supported by head-boards that were bellied outboard to bring tensionvertically on the bark cover. The heel of the boardstood on a short frog, laid on the bottom with theinboard end touching or slightly lapping over theendmost rib. The frog supported the heels of theheadboard and also the forefoot of the stem-piece,which otherwise would have but partial supportfrom the sewing battens outside the ends at thesepoints. The headboard was rather oval-shaped andthe top was notched on each side to fit under thegunwale; the narrow central tenon stood slightly above the top of the main gunwales when the head-board was sprung into place and was held in positionby a lashing across the gunwales inboard of the top ofthe headboard. The heel was held by the notch inthe frog. Cedar shavings were stuffed into the endsof the canoe between the stempicce and the headboardto mold the ends properly, as no ribs could be insertedthere. All woodwork in these canoes was white cedar,except the headboards and thwarts, which weremaple, and the stem battens, which were usuallybasket ash but sometimes were split spruce roots.The more recent Micmac canoes usually had nomore than five thwarts; this number was found evenon small woods canoes. However, old records indi-cate that canoes 20 to 28 feet long on the gunwaleswere once built with seven thwarts. The shape of thethwarts varied, apparently in accordance with thebuilder's fancy. The most common form was nearlyrectangular in cross-section; in elevation, it was thickat the hull centerline and tapered smoothly to theoutboard ends; and in plan it was narrowest at thehull centerline and increased in width toward theends, the increase being rather sharp at the shoulders61 -Tcajir //7 feff Figure 52 MiCMAC 2}<-Fathom Big-River Canoe, built for fast paddling and of moderatecapacity. of the tenon. In some, the tenon went through themain gunwales and touched the inside of the barkcover; in others the ends of the thwarts were pointedin elevation, square in plan, and were inserted inshallow, blind tenons on the inboard side of the maingunwales. A single 3-turn lashing through a hole inthe shoulder and around the main gunwale was usedin every case.Sometimes the thwarts just described were straight(in plan view) on the side toward the middle of thecanoe, and only the middle thwart was alike on bothsides. In others the straight side of the end thwartand of that next inboard were toward the bow andstern of the canoe. In still others, the middle thwarthad a rounded barb form in plan, with the barblocated within 6 or 7 inches of the shoulder and pointedtoward the tenon; the ne.\t thwarts out on each side ofthe middle thwart were shaped like a cupid's bow butslightly angular and aimed toward the ends of thecanoe, and the end thwarts were of similar plan. Inone known example having such thwarts, there weretwo very short thwarts at the ends of the canoe, of theusual plain form described earlier, each a few inches inboard of the headboard. Thus this canoe hadseven thwarts in the old fashion.The ribs, or frames, were thin, about )\ or ){f, inchthick, and across the bottom of the canoe they wereoften 3 inches wide. In the topsides the ribs weretapered to about 2 inches in width; when the bottomand outboard corner of the main gunwales were notbeveled, the rib ends were cut square across on thewide face and chisel-shaped. When the gunwalecorner was beveled, the ribs were formed with asharply tapered dull point at the ends. From themiddle of the canoe to the first thwarts each way fromthe middle, the ribs were spaced 1 inch edge-to-edge.From the first thwarts to the ends, the spacing wasabout 1 Yi inches. Most builders made the ribs nar-rower toward the ends; if those in the middle of thecanoe were 3 inches wide, those near the ends mightbe 2y Wafer Cor/OfSfa/T? ^^ inj/i^e gunnaJfi 34" MiCMAC 3-Fathom Ocean Canoe Fitted for Sailing. Short outwales orbattens project gunwales to strengthen the ends of the canoe. Some specimensof this type of canoe had almost no rocker in the bottom. water before assembly and then staking them out todry in the required sheer curves. The building bedwas well crowned, usually 2 to 2]'i inches because ofthe very wide bottom and the tumble-home of thesecanoes. Most Micmac canoes appear to have hadonly slight fore-and-aft rocker in the bottom; thebottoms of the seagoing type were often quite straight,and the other two types had a slight rocker of perhaps\)'i inches, most of it near the ends. When the sheerwas hogged, the amount of hog was probably close tothe amount of crown in the building bed. The endsof the gunwales, when laid on the bed, were blockedup to about the desired amount of rocker to be giventhe bottom.The bark cover was selected with great care fromthe 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 weretrimmed edge-to-edge, without overlap, as the Micmac preferred a smooth surfaced canoe, and thesewing was the common spiral, over and over. Thewidth of the bark cover was usually pieced outamidships on each side (at least in existing models)by the addition of narrow panels. These may nethave been necessary in the very old canoes, whichappear to have been much narrower than more recentexamples. The horizontal seams of the panels werestraight, or nearly so, and did not follow the sheer.The closely spaced spiral over-and-over stitch wassewn over a batten, the lap being toward the gunwale.As has been said, a continuous over-and-over gunwalelashing was used. The thwart lashings were throughsingle holes in the thwart shoulders, three turnsbeing usual, and two turns around the gunwale oneach side were added, all passing through the barkcover, of course. The .sewing was neat and thestitches were even.The wood lining, or sheathing, of the Micmaccanoe was like that described for the Malecite canoein the last chapter. The sheathing was a full Jg to63 ences, it is apparent that the early canoes were muchnarrower than later ones, in proportion to length, asmentioned earlier. An 18-foot rough-water canoe ofthe 18th century appears to have had an extremebeam of between 30 and 34 inches and a gunwalebeam, measured inside the members, of 24 to 28inches, the depth amidships being about 18 to 20inches. A similar canoe late in the 19th centurywould have had an extreme beam of nearly 40 inches,a beam inside the gunwales of 33 or 34 inches, and adepth of about 18 inches or less. An early woodscanoe, about 14 feet long overall, appears to have hadan extreme beam of only 29 inches and a beam insidethe gunwales of about 25 or 26 inches. A woodscanoe of 1890 was 15 feet long, 36)^ inches extremebeam, and 30 inches inside the gunwales, with thedepth amidships about 11 inches. A big-river canoeof this same date was a little over 20 feet in extremelength, 18 feet over the gunwales, 41 inches extremebeam, and 34 inches gunwale width inside, with adepth amidships of about \2% inches. An 18-footbig-river canoe of an earlier time was reported asbeing 37 inches extreme beam, 30% inches inside thegunwales, and 1 3 inches depth amidships. The maxi-mum size of the rough-water seagoing canoe, in earlytimes, may have been as great as 28 feet but with anarrow beam of roughly 29 or 30 inches over thegunwales, and say 24 inches inside, with a depthamidships as much as 20 or 22 inches due to thestrongly hogged sheer there. In modern times, suchcanoes were rarely over 21 feet in overall length andhad a maximum beam of about 42 inches, a beaminside the gunwales of 36 or 37 inches, and a depthamidships of 16 or 17 inches.In early colonial times, and well into the 18th cen-tury, apparently, the Micmac type of canoe was usedas far south as New England, probably having beenbrought there by the Micmac war parties aiding theMalecite and the Kennebec in their wars against theEnglish. The canoe in the illustration on page 12 isobviously a Micmac canoe and apparently one usedby a war party. As it was brought to England in 1749in the ship America, which was built in Portsmouth,New Hampshire, and probably sailed from there, itseems highly probable that the canoe had beenobtained nearby, perhaps in eastern Maine.The small woods canoe, most commonly about 12feet long, appears first to have been used by all theMicmac. By the middle of the 1 9th century, however,this type was to be found only in Nova Scotia, owing tothe movement of most of the tribe toward the north Micmac Rough-Water Canoe fitted forsailing. (Photo W. H. Mechling, 1913.) shore in New Brunswick, where their inland naviga-tion 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 waslast used in tlie vicinity of the head of Bay Chaleurand was often called the Restigouche canoe, after theMicmac village of that name. It was replaced by a3-board skifT-canoe and finally by a large woodencanoe of the "Peterborough" type with peaked endsand lapstrake planking; some of the latter may stillbe seen on the Gaspe Peninsula.The use of sail in the Micmac canoes cannot betraced prior to the arrival of the white men. The useprobably resulted from the influence of Europeans,but it is possible that the prehistoric Indians mayhave set up a leafy bush in the bow of their canoes toact as a sail with favorable winds. The old NovaScotia expression "carrying too much bush," meaningover-canvassing a boat, is thought by some to haveoriginated from an Indian practice observed thereby the first settlers. In early colonial times, theMicmac used a simple square sail in their canoes andthis, by the last decade of the 19th century, wasreplaced by a spritsail probably inspired by the dory-sail of the fishermen. The Indian rig was unusualin several respects. The sheet, for example, wasdouble-ended; one end was made fast to the clewof the sail and the other to the head of the sprit, sothat it served also as a vang. The bight was secured65 MiCMAC Rough-Water Canoe, Bay Chaleur.Bathurst, N.B.) {Photo H. V. Hendei ir?/ within reach of the steersman by a half hitch to acrossbar fixed well aft across the gunwales. Thesail, nearly rectangular and with little or no peak,was laced to the mast, and the sprit was supported bya "snotter" lanyard tied low on the mast. A spritboom was also carried by some canoes; this wassecured to the clew of the sail and to the mast, asnotter lanyard being used at the latter position.The mast was secured by a thwart pegged, ornailed, across the gunwale caps. Sometimes, the thwart was also notched over the caps, so that theside-thrust caused by the leverage of the mast wouldnot shear the fastenings. The crossbar for the sheetwas sometimes similarly fastened and fitted, with itsends projecting outboard of the gunwales. The heelof the mast was sometimes stepped into a block,which was usually about 5 inches square and IK inchesthick, nailed or pegged to the center bottom board,or sometimes it was merely stepped into a hole in thecenter bottom board. The bottom boards, usually Micmac Rough-Water Sailing Canoe, Bay Chaleur.(Canadian Geological Survey photo.)66 Cap. ?Al>i' or^'^lSl Seo/e //? /ne>7rs Details of Micmac Canoes, Including Mast and Sail. three in number were of wide, thin stock and wereclamped in place over the ribs by three or four falseframes driven under the thwarts, just as were thecanoe ribs under the gunwales.The canoes could not sail close-hauled, as a rule,though some Indians learned to use a leeboard inthe form of a short plank hung vertically over the leeside and secured by a lanyard to a thwart, the boardbeing shifted in tacking. An alternate was to have apassenger hold a paddle vertically on the lee side.There seems to have been no fixed proportions to thearea of sail used; the actual areas appear to havebeen somewhere between 50 and 100 square feet,depending upon the size of the canoe. JosephDadaham, a Micmac, stated in 1925 that he used "24 yards" in the sail of a "rough-water canoe" 20feet long and about 44 inches beam, while one 18feet long and about 36 inches extreme beam carried "16 to 18 yards"; it is obvious that the "yards" are ofnarrow sail cloth and not square yards of finishedsail. In the last days of sailing bark canoes, masthoops and a halyard block were fitted so that thesail could be lowered instead of having to be furled around the mast (to accomplish this the "crew" hadto stand). Dadaham also stated that for his sheetbelay he used a jamb-hitch which could be releasedquickly when the canoe was found to be overpoweredby the wind. It appears that during the last era ofthese bark canoes the rig had been improved to fit itfor open-water sailing.The paddles used by the Micmac appear to havevaried in shape. If the canoe shown in Chapter 1 (p. 12)was indeed a Micmac canoe as supposed, the paddleshown there is quite different from the later tribalforms illustrated above, and it is possible that thetop grips shown in the more modern forms were neverused in prehistoric times, when the pole handle shownwith the old canoe may have been standard.The Micmac canoes were decorated by scrapingaway part of the inner rind of the birch bark, leavingportions of it in a formal design. It seems veryprobable that the Micmac seldom used this form ofdecoration in early times, but later they used it agreat deal in their rough-water canoes, perhaps as aresult of contact with the Malecite. The formaldesigns used as decoration by the Micmac did not67 have any particular significance as a totem or religioussymbol; they were used purely as decoration or toidentify the owner. Such forms as the half-moon, astar in various shapes, or some other figure might beused by the builder, but these were apparently onlyhis canoe mark, not a family insignia or his usualsignature, and could be altered at will.The usual method of decoration was to place thecanoe mark on both sides of the canoe at the ends andto have along the gunwales amidships a long narrowpanel of decoration, usually of some simple form.The panel decorations are said by Micmacs to havebeen selected by the builder merely as pleasingdesigns. One design used was much like the fleur-de-lis, another was a series of triangles supposed torepresent camps, still another was the northern lightsdesign, a series of closely spaced, sloping, parallellines (or very narrow panels) that seem to representa design much used in the quill decoration for whichthe Micmac were noted. Canoes are recorded ashaving stylized representations of a salmon, a moose,a cross, or a very simple star form; these may havebeen canoe marks or may once have been a tribalmark in a certain locality. A series of half-circleswere sometimes used in the gunwale panels, whichwere rarely alike on both sides of the canoe, and it isprobable that use was made of other forms that havenot been recorded. Colored quills in northernlights pattern were used in some model or toy canoesbut not in any surviving example of a full-size canoe.It is quite possible, however, that such quill-work wasonce used in Micmac canoe decoration. Painting of the bark cover for decorative purposes in Micmaccanoes has not been recorded.Historical references to the canoes of the Micmacare frequent in the French records of Canada; itmust have been Micmac canoes that Cartier saw in1534 at Prince Edward Island and in Bay Chaleur.The most complete description of such canoes is inthe account of Nicolas Denys, who came to theMicmac country in 1633 and remained there almostcontinuously until his death at 90, in 1688. Histravels during this period took him into Maine asfar as the Penobscot and throughout what are nowNew Brunswick and Nova Scotia. While his descrip-tions are primarily concerned with the Malecite dress,houses, and hunting and fishing techniques, his noteson birch-bark canoes seem to indicate very clearlythat he is describing a hogged-sheer Micmac rough-water canoe. He says, for example, that the lengthof these canoes was between 3 and 4}^ fathoms,the fathom being the French brasse, so that theyranged in length from 16 to 24 feet over thie gunwales.This gunwale length seems reasonable, since Denysgives the beam as only about 2 English feet, obviouslya gunwale measurement in view of the great tumble-home in these canoes. That the Micmac rough-watercanoe is the subject of Denys' observations is furtherindicated by his statement that the depth was suchthat the gunwales came to the armpits of a manseated on the bottom. This could only be true in acanoe having a hogged sheer in the lengths given,and is, in fact, a slight exaggeration unless the manreferred to was of less than average height. The Micmac C^anoi;, Bathurst, N.B. {(..'nninltcm Geological Survey photo.)68 depth would be about 22 English inches, great evenfor a 24-foot canoe. Denys states that the insidesheathing of these canoes was split from cedar. Healso states that the splints were about 4 inches wide,were tapered toward the ends, and ran the full lengthof the canoe. It is probable that they were buttedamidships, as in known examples; this, however,would have been covered by a rib and might nothave been noticed.Denys says that the Indians "bent the cedar ribsin half-circles to form ribs and shaped them in thefire." Adney believed this meant by use of hot water.However, this bending could have been done by whatwas known in 17th-century shipbuilding practice asstoving, in which green lumber was roasted over anopen fire until the sap and wood became hot enoughto allow a strong bend to be made without breakage.Wood thus treated, when cooled and seasoned some-what, would hold the set. While it is certain thatlater Indians knew how to employ hot water, it doesnot follow that all tribes used this method, partic-ularly in early times.Denys also states that the roots of "fir," split intothree or four parts, were used in sewing. He ap-parently used "fir" as a general name for an evergreen.It is probable that the roots used were of the blackspruce. The technique of building he describesis about the same as that outlined in the last chapter.He says that the gunwales were round and thatseven beech thwarts were employed, practices thatdiffer from those in more recent Micmac canoebuilding, and he notes the goring of the bark cover.Denys states the paddles were made of beech (insteadof maple as was perhaps the case) with blades about6 inches wide and their length that of an arm (about27 inches), with the handle a little longer than theblade. He also says that four, five, or six paddlersmight be aboard a canoe and that a sail was oftenused. "Formerly of bark," the sail was made ofa well-dressed hide of a young moose. Since it couldcarry eight or ten persons, the canoe Denys is referringto is obviously a large one. In his building descrip-tion he does not mention headboards, rail caps,or the end forms. It may be assumed that he wasthen describing a canoe he had seen during construc-tion but whose building he did not follow step by step.De la Poterie, in his book published in 1722, givesa profile and top view of what must have been aMicmac canoe. The probable length indicated musthave been about 22 English feet overall and about32 inches extreme beam; seven thwarts are shown. Late in the 19th century there appears to havebeen some fusion of Micmac and Malecite methods ofconstruction, as Malecite built to Micmac forms andvice versa. This apparently did not produce a hybridform so far as appearance was concerned but it didaffect construction, in that inner end-frames wereused and other details of the Micmac design werealtered. The Micmac, having early come into closecontact with the Europeans, were among the firstIndians to employ nails in the construction of barkcanoes, and this resulted in an early decadence intheir building methods. Hence, some examples oftheir canoes show what the Indians termed brokengunwales, in which the ends of the thwarts were nottenoned into the gunwales, but rather were let flushinto the top by use of a dovetail cut or, less securely,by a rectangular recess across the gunwale, and wereheld in place with a nail through the thwart end andthe gunwale member.From scanty references by early writers, it appearsthat a spiral over-and-over lashing was originallyused by the Micmac on the ends and gunwales. Thelower edges of the side panels were sewn over-and-over a split-root batten. In some extant examplesthe gores are sewn with a harness stitch; in others asimple spiral stich is used. The cross-stich does notappear to have been used by the Micmac. The gun-wale caps were certainly pegged and the ends lashed;the bark cover was folded over the gunwale tops andclamped by the caps as well as secured by the gunwalelashings. Tacking the bark cover to the top of thegunwales, with the cap nailed over all, marks thelater Micmac canoes. The use of nails and tacksseems to have begun earlier than 1850.In spite of decadent construction methods used inthe last Micmac i)irch-l)ark canoes, the model re- MicMAC Woman gumming seams of canoe,Bathurst, N.B., 1913. {Canadian GeologicalSurvey photo.) 69 mained a very good one in each type. The half-circular ends, sharp lines, and standard midsectionalforms were unaltered; the hogged sheer was retainedin some degree in at least two of the canoe types, therough water and the big river, right down to the end ofbark-canoe building by this tribe. The very finedesign and attractive appearance of the Micmaccanoe may have contributed to the early acceptanceby the early explorers and traders of the birch-barkcanoe as the best mode of water transport for foresttravel. M.alecite Another tribe expert in canoe building and usewas the Malecite. These Indians were known to theearly French explorers as the "Etchimins" or "Tar-ratines" (or Tarytines). Many explanations havebeen given for the name Malecite. One is that itwas applied to these people by the Micmac andis from their word meaning "broken talkers," sincethe Micmac had difficulty in understanding them.When the Europeans came, these people inhabitedcentral and southern New Brunswick and the shore ofPassamaquoddy Bay, with small groups or tribal sub-divisions in the area of the Penobscot to the Kennebec.These were early affected by the retreat of the NewEngland Indians before the whites into eastern andnorthern Maine and southeastern Quebec. As aresult, the Penobscot and Kennebec Indians becamepart of the group later known as Abnaki, while thePassamaquoddy Indians remained wholly Maleciteand closely attached to those living along the St. JohnRiver in New Brunswick. Like their neighbors theMicmac, the Malecite were hunters and warlike;during the colonial period they were usually friendlyto the French and enemies of the English settlers intheir vicinity. It is not certain that the tribe nowcalled by that name were actually of a single tribalstock; it is possible that this designation really coversa loose federation of small tribal groups who even-tually achieved a common language. In addition,the tribal designation cannot be wholly accuratebecause of the fact that much of the original groupliving in New England were absorbed in the Abnakiin the 17th and 18th centuries. Therefore, the Male-cite are considered here to be those Indians formerlyinhabiting valleys of the St. John and the St. CroixRivers, and the Passamaquoddy Bay area. The remaining portions, the Kennebec and PenobscotIndians, must now be classed as Abnaki, of whommore later (see p. 88).In considering the birch-bark canoes of the Male-cite, it is important to understand that this tribalform includes not only the types used in more recenttimes in New Brunswick and on Passamaquoddy Bay,but also an overlapping type related to the laterAbnaki models. The old form of Malecite canoeused on the large rivers and along the coast appearsto have had rather high-peaked ends, with a markedoverhang fore and aft. The end profiles had asloping outline, strongly curved into the bottom, anda rather sharply lifting sheer toward each end. Thisform 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 latein the 19th century, however, this style of canoe hadbeen replaced by canoes having rounded ends, theprofiles being practically quarter-circles and some-times with such small radii that a slight tumble-homeappeared near the sheer. The small radius of the endcurves is particularly marked in some of the seagoingporpoise-hunting canoes of the Passamaquoddy. Inmodern forms, the amount of sheer is moderate andthe quick lift in the sheer to the ends is practicallynonexistent. On the St. Lawrence, the radii of theend curves are very short and the upper part of thestems stands vertical and straight; the sheer, too, isusually rather straight. The older type, with high-peaked ends, was also marked by very sharp lines for-ward and aft, and had a midsection with tumble-homeless extreme than in the Micmac canoes. The bot-tom, athwartships, was usually somewhat rounded(in coastal canoes the form might be a rounded V)and the bilges were rather slack, with a reversecurve above, to form the tumble-home rather closeto the gunwales. The river model probably hadlower ends and less rake than the coastal type, butsurviving examples of both give confusing evidence.The river canoes usually had a flatter bottom thanthe coastal type, the latter having somewhat morerocker fore-and-aft. The sections near the ends wererather V-shaped in the coastal canoes, U-shaped inthe river canoes.The old form of small hunting canoe is representedby but one poor model (see p. 72) in which the ends arelower and with much less rake than those of the rivertype. From this very scant evidence, it seems probablethat the small woods canoes were patterned on theriver canoe in all respects but the profile of the ends.70 I .11.1 Sca/r '/7 Ffff " - ?^^p ? ^^J'C^^ ^unkvo/f/ JO Malecite 2!.2-Fathom River Canoe, igxH Century. Old form with rakingends and much sheer. P'roni the early English and French accounts, it isevident that none of the maritime Indians used verylarge or long war canoes, capable of holding manymen. The old war canoes of the Malecite appear tohave been either of the coastal or river types as thecircumstances of their place of building and usedictated. The slight information available in theseaccounts suggests that the war canoe did not differ inappearance from the other types of Malecite canoes,and that they were not of greater size. The Maleciteappear to have followed the same practices as theMicmac, using for war purposes canoes of standardsize and appearance but narrower and built for speed,since a war party sought to travel rapidly to andfrom its objective in order to surprise the enemy andescape before organized pursuit could be formed.The Malecite placed four warriors in each canoe,two to paddle and two to watch and use weaponswhile afloat. However, only on rare occasions werebows and arrows used from canoes afloat; mostfighting was done on land. Each canoe carried thepersonal mark of each of the four warriors, apparentlyone mark on each flap, or wulegessis, under the gun- wales near the ends. When a war leader was carriedhowever, only his mark was on his canoe. After asuccessful raid, the Malecite used to race for the lastmile or so of the return journey, and the winningcanoe was given, as a distinction, some mark orpicture, often something humorous such as a carica-ture of an animal. This practice, however, was notconfined to war canoes; in rather recent times it hasbeen noted that such pictures were placed on anycanoe that had shown outstanding qualities in racingcompetition or in exhibitions of skill.When making long canoe trips, the Malecitefollowed the widespread Indian practice of using thecanoe as a shelter at night. When a camping placewas reached, the canoe was unloaded, carried ashore,and turned upside down so that the tops of the endsand one gunwale rested on the ground. If the endswere high enough, as in the old Malecite type, onegunwale was raised ofT the ground far enough topermit a man to crawl under. If, as in the Micmaccanoes, the ends were too low to allow this, theywere raised off the ground by short forked sticks,with the forks resting against the end thwarts and71 :5cc/r m Frel' 3eo/7? 37^ " /r7j/?^e qu^tva/e/ 33 " Old Form of Malecite-Abnaki 2' j-Fathom Ocean Canoe of the Penobscots.In the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass. the upper gunwale and the heels stuck into the earth.The dunnage (provisions or other cargo) was thenstowed on the ground under the ends of the canoeand the two men would sleep under a single blanketwith their feet pointed in opposite directions, eachwith his head on a pile of dunnage. If there weretoo many men aboard to do this, in bad weather acrude shelter was made by resting some poles on theupturned bilge and covering them with sheets ofbark; under such a shelter meals could be cooked.As did many of the eastern Indians, the old M'ale-cite tribesmen built canoes of materials other thanbirch bark. When a canoe was required for a tem-porary use such as in hunting, it could be made ofspruce bark. (As the designs of such canoes wererather standardized, they will be dealt with in Chapter8.) When bark was unobtainable, the Malecite builtcanoes covered with moosehide, or, in rare instances,they built wooden dugouts.The old Malecite river canoe shown on page 71will serve to Illustrate a description of the details ofconstruction that were used. These canoes wereobviously 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 head-boards stepped on the heels of the inner stem-pieces,and the stems raked outward from their heels. Thegunwale ends were joined to the head of the stem-piece by the outwales and the gunwale caps. Barkwas used to the ends of the canoe. One side of thebark cover was cut so that it stood well above the sheerline from the gunwale end outboard, and the oppositeside was cut to the level of the sheer. The first piecewas then folded over the opposite side and down, sothat it covered both the extreme ends of the gunwalesand the top of the inner ^tem-piece. Another pieceof bark was then fitted over this fold, and this new-piece formed the flaps below the outwales on eachside, the wulegessis. The outwales ran past the gun-wale ends and were cut off flush with the outboardface of the stem; the caps ran likewise and covered thebark over the head of the inner stem piece. Thecharacteristic sheer of these canoes, where the risetoward the ends began, showed a quick curve thatfaired into a rising straight line at the gunwale andthen continued straight and rising to the stem head.72 J /'aZ/po/Ty /^a/fa/TTOii^vodaty 0(ran Conor , ^87J/p/7/^//7 Oi^fra// ^0'0f'\ etyrr ^t/ntYa/ej I7'7 Large 3-Fathom Ocean Canoe of the Passamaquoddy porpoise hunters.These canoes were sometimes fitted to sail or outriggcd for rowing. Thelast of this type had much lower ends. The wulegcssis was therefore quite long. The ends ofthe gunwales were not of the half-arrowhead shape,but were snled off on their inboard sides so that theymet on a rather long bevel; the lashing was slightlylet in to the outboard faces to keep it from slippingover the gunwale ends. The caps of the gunwaleswere similarly reduced in width, where they cametogether over the ends of the canoe.The main gunwale members were about 1 )4 inchessquare amidships, tapering to % inch at the ends.The lower outboard corner was beveled to take theends of the ribs, as shown on page 71, and the lowerinboard corner was also beveled or rounded, but to alesser degree. The upper inboard corner, shownbeveled in the drawing of figure 62, was sometimesslightly rounded, as were the outwales. Amidshipsthe outwale was about 1 inch deep, and it taperedtoward the ends, where its depth was about % inch,the thickness being ji inch amidships and a scant %inch at the ends. On the canoe shown, the cap w'as% inch thick, tapering to about Y^ inch at the ends,and 1 Yf inches wide amidships, tapering to about %or ); 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 Yia inchthick on the average. On the bottom and sides itwas in two lengths, overlapping slightly amidships.Toward the ends of the canoe the sheathing was ta-pered, maximum width of the splints being about 4inches amidships.The canoe, which was 18 feet 6 inches long overall,had 46 ribs. These were about 3 inches wide and Ysinch thick from the center to the first thwart out-board on each side, and 2 inches wide from thesethwarts to the ends, except for the endmost five ribs,which were roughly 1 % inches wide. The drawing onpage 71 shows the shape of the thwarts. The endswere tenoned through the gunwales, and there werethree lacing holes in the ends of the middle and firstthwarts and two in the end thwarts. The beam ofthe canoe inside the gunwales was 30 inches and out-side, 3U4 inches; the tumble-home made the extremebeam 35^2 inches. The canoe was rather flat bottomedathwartships and quite shallow, the depth amidshipsbeing 10^4 inches.The building bed must ha\c had about a IJ2 inchcrown at midlength. It is probable that the stempieces were not fixed in place until after the gun-73 Sca/e //? /Irer ^/ fa//7o/7? ,'-hj/i>r/?ai:fL/c/c^oy "Oeeary Ca//cf /37S Old Form of Passamacjuoddy 2}^-Fathom Ocean Canoe with characteristicbottom rocker and sheer. This rather small, fast canoe for coastal huntingand fishing was common in the igth century. wales had been raised to sheer height. The gunwaleswere lashed with the Maleclte group lashings, eachof four turns through the bark and spaced at 3 to 3)^inches apart in the midlength and at 2 inches fromthe end thwarts to the headboards. Two auxiliarylashings were placed over the outwales and capsoutboard of the gunwale ends, one about 6 inchesbeyond the ends of the gunwales and the other againstthe inboard side of the stem-piece. The end closurewas accomplished by the usual spiral lashing passedthrough the laminated stem pieces. The latter weresplit (to within about 4 inches of the heel), into six ormore laminae that were closely wrapped with barkcord. The headboards were bellied toward the endsto keep the bark cover under tension, and the endsoutboard of the headboards were stuffed with shavingsor moss.A canoe from the Penobscot River, obtained in 1826by the Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts, anddescribed in The American Neptune for October 1948,shows that the Penobscot built their canoes on theold Malecite model. The canoe is apparently a coastal type. It has some round in the bottomamidships and V-sections toward the ends; it is18 feet 7 inches long overall, 37}^ inches maximumbeam, 15J^ inches deep amidships, and the ends stand26 to 28 inches above the base line, the bow beingslightly higher and with more rake than the stern.The rocker takes place within 4 feet of the ends, withthe bottom straight for about 8 feet along the mid-length. The bilges amidship are slack, and the re-verse curve to form the tumble-home starts within6 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 lengthsranging from 18 to 20 feet overall, the maximum beamwas between 25 and 44 inches, and the beam insidethe gunwales was between 29}^ and 36 inches. Thedepth amidships ranged from about 18 to 21 inches,and the height of the ends above the base was from28 or 30 inches to as much as 45 inches. The ribsnumbered from 42 to 48 and were 3 inches wide and74 I.. I.. I.. I.. I /*/?/<-c,>2,p Carroc, // Jo/>n /f/yer- /S3d/e/7t^/h oy^rts// /9'C^' oyer ot/zftve^/ef /T'S" Malecite Racing Canoe of 1888, showing V-shaped keel piece placedbetween sheathing and bark to form deadrisc. ]i inch thick. The sheathing was from J4 to % inchthick and the rocker of the bottom, from 4 to 6inches, took place within the last 4 or 5 feet of theends. The midsection showed a well-rounded bot-tom, a slack bilge, and the high reverse to formthe tumble-home seen in the old Penobscot canoe atSalem. These canoes were still being built wellinto the 1880's, if not later, and are to be seen in someold U.S. Fish Commission photographs of porpoiseand seal hunting at Eastport, Maine. Seal- and por-poise-hunting canoes carried a sail, usually the spritsailof the dory. While this model probably was littlechanged in construction from early times, the survivingexamples and models are of the period when nailswere employed. The drawing on page 74 is of a smallcoastal hunting canoe of the same clafs, built in 1875.The reasons for the gradual decline in the buildingof canoes of the old style are not known, and thetransition from the high-peaked ends to the moremodern low and rounded ends was not sudden. Itapparently began in some irland areas, particularlyon the St. Lawrence and the St. John Rivers, at leastas early as 1849, and the new trend in appearance finally reached the coast about 25 years later. Inthe period of transition, the high-peaked modeldeveloped toward the St. Francis type, or that of themodern "Indian" canvas canoe, as well as towardthe low-ended type.One of the later developments took place on theSt. John River, in New Brunswick, where two Indians,Jim Paul and Peter Polchies, both of St. Marys, in1888 built for a Lt. Col. Herbert Dibble of Woodstockthe racing canoe illustrated above (fig. 66). Thiscanoe, 1 9 feet 6}^ inches long overall and only 30}i inchesextreme beam, was of a design perhaps not charac-teristic of any particular type of Malecite canoe, butit nevertheless shows two elements that may haveappeared during the period of change in model.The sides amidships not only are without tumble-home, they flare outward .slightly, but tumble-homeis developed at the first thwart each side of the middleand continues to the headboards. The bottom showsa marked V-deadrise achieved by an unusual con-struction in a birch-bark canoe: the center strake ofthe sheathing is shaped in a shallow V in cross section,its width being about 2% inches amidships and taper-75 Sca/r /n /'rrt -' ^^ /h/ho/n /h//?/7faanyoc/c// ^/yer Canoe' /8^0 ?2/^/7^/>j oye^ta// /S'y, oyer ^on^^a/rj /-f'S ^//A rrc^ ^/^c^J. fo /bz-rrt ^ Sharp-Ended 2^^-Fathom Hunting Canoe for use on tidal river. Built bythe Passamaquoddy Indian Peter Denis, it shows what may be the primitiveconstruction method of obtaining a V-form in hull. ing each way toward the ends, and its thickness alongthe longitudinal centerline being about )'% inch andtapering to about ){ inch at the edges; the two lengthsof the strake are butted, not lapped, amidships,though the rest of the sheathing is lapped at the buttsin the usual way and is uniformly )\ inch thick. Inthis manner a ridge that gives a V-deadrise is formeddown the centerline of the bottom, though the framesare bent in a flattened curve from bilge to bilge.The bottom has very little rocker, the rise being only1 inch, and this takes place in the last 2 feet inboardof the heel of the stem piece.Another feature in this canoe is the end profile;the curved ends are strongly raked, the curve usedbeing the same as that in the old Malecite type, butwith the stem-pieces reversed, so that the quick turnis 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 16)^ inches rather than as asudden lift near the ends. The stem-heads stand alittle above the rail caps. The headboards bellytoward the ends and are raked in the same direction. The use of a V-shaped keel piece in the sheathinghas been found in a St. Francis canoe from the St.Lawrence country; this may be a rather old prac-tice. This racing canoe is very lightly built andmuch decorated, the date 1888 being worked intothe hull near one end.Another canoe having a marked V-deadrise wasbuilt sometime between 1890 and 1892 by Nicola(sometimes called Peter) Denis (sometimes spelledDana), a Passamaquoddy, for his son Francis, whoused it at Frenchman's Bay, Maine. The drawingabove (fig. 67) shows a coastal-type hunting canoe,nailed along the gunwales but sewn elsewhere, andpainted. The craft is 15 feet 9 inches overall and14 feet 5 inches over the gunwales. The beam amid-ships is 32 inches over the gunwales, 29)^ inches inside.The depth amidships is 1 1 inches, and at the head-boards, 14)^ inches. The ends are of the low roundedform; the profile shows a moderate tumble-homejust below the sheer, which is a long fair curve withoutany quick lift toward the ends. The constructionis of the usual Malecite type described in Chapter 3.76 J7\ /n//?/f ^u/7wf?/e^ J?' /"ramri ^'r 3i ^ ea^.Malecite 2^2-Fathom St. Lawrence River Canoe, probably a hybrid model.The high ends show a western influence. The midsection shows a remarkable amount of Vin the bottom without any tumble-home anywherein the topsides. The V-bottom is rounded at theapex, where the keel would be; this is done by bendingthe ribs very sharply where they cross the centerlineof the hull. A narrow strake of thin sheathing runsalong the centerline of the canoe, and this is bentathwartwise to follow the bends in the ribs there.The canoe had 46 ribs, each 2)'i inches wide and ^(einch thick, tapered slightly from the middle up to thegunwales. The gunwales, as previously noted, arenailed and the main gunwale members are of sawedspruce. The rest of the framework is cedar.The outside of the canoe was painted red, theinside was a pale yellow, the gunwales and middleportions of the thwarts were cobalt blue, the endsof the thwarts were red. The wulegessis was blue,and the "canoe mark" was a painted representation ofthe spread eagle of the United States Seal, the borderbeing in black and white and the eagle in black,yellow, and white, holding a brown branch withgreen 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 "FrenchmansBay" in black capital letters. This canoe was usedfor fishing and also for porpoise and seal hunting.The construction employed to form the V-bottomin a birch-bark canoe can be seen to have been donein two ways; that described on page 76 is undoubtedlythe method used in prehistoric times, since laboriousforming of a V keel-piece in the sheathing, usingstone scrapers, would be avoided. The V-bottom, itshould be noted, usually appears in canoes used inopen waters, as this form tends to run straight underpaddle, in spite of a side wind, and thus requires theminimum of steering to hold it on its course. It wasthis characteristic, too, that made the V-bottom suit-able for the racing canoe on the St. John River, sincestopping the stroke momentarily to steer diminishesthe driving power of the stern paddler.The various river canoes of the Malecite, built tothe modern low, rounded-end profiles, or to the short - radii and straigiit-line forms, held rather closely tothe same linos, that is, sharp ends with a ratherflat bottom amidships and an easy bilge. Some ofthe canoes retained the characteristic tumble-home77 Sca/r //7 rrrf ("f Fa!'/?om Mer/irc/Ze /Piiffr Canoe, /ejOZrr>if//? oy^ra// /i '//^ ofer giuniva/eJ /S'Bi 'Seam 33^ , //7J/e/r ^univaJef 3/ " ' (f//otv 1/ /ar/T7Malecite 2}2-Fathom River Canoe of 1890 from the Riviere du Loup region.Canoes in this area had straight stems and sharp Hnes from at least as early as1857-but others had nearly vertical sides or the curve ofthe bilge was carried so high that it ended at thegunwales.On the St. Lawrence there was apparently a canoehaving rather peaked ends as well as the ratherstraight-stemmed, low-ended type. A St. LawrenceRiver canoe found in the Chateau de Ramezay andbuilt sometime before 1867 provides an example of therather high-peaked ends. The canoe, as illustratedon page 77 , has a well-rounded bilge working into avery round tumble-home above and into a ratherflat bottom below, the tumble-home being carriedinto the extreme ends, so that the headboards arerather wide. The ends round up rather quickly andthen continue up to the sheer in a very slight curve,having a very moderate tumble-home near the sheer.The latter follows somewhat the characteristicsheer of the old Malecite canoes, but the straightportion just inboard of the ends is much shorter, sothat the quick upsweep of the sheer begins nearer theends and thus appears somewhat more pronounced.The construction is in the usual manner. Therocker of the bottom is 2 inches. The ribs are wider amidships than near the ends. The outwale isrounded on the outboard face so that the cap isslightly narrower than the thickness of inner gunwaleand outwale combined. The headboard is ratherunusual, however, as it is not bellied but standsstraight and vertical. The lashing at the upperportion of the stems is the crossed stitch, below it isspiral. The gunwale groups are made up of six passesthrough the bark, and the spaces between groups areabout 2)'i inches. The side panels are sewn withthe harness stitch. The canoe is 16 feet long overalland 14 feet 5 inches inside the gunwales; the extremebeam amidships is 37 inches and inside the gunwales32 inches. The depth amidships is about 13 inchesand the height of the ends 25 inches, with 2 inchesof rocker at the headboards. This canoe, retainingthe high ends, marks the transition from the old formto the new.A later canoe built on the St. Lawrence about 1890,probably near Riviere de Loup, is shown above.It is 16 feet 11 inches long overall, the beam over thegunwales is 331^ inches and inside it is 31 inches, thecurve of the bilge being carried up to the gunwales.78 Sco/e *r? /^fft ej: /"a/^om J/ Jo^n fi/fer J*faJrci/r Canoe /S3S/r/7^//6 ot^era// /7'/' o^rrr ^u/liva/ef /<'//"3C //?j/f^e ^tfnt^a/ej JO" Modern (1895) Malecite sH-Fathom St. John River Canoe, with low endsand moderate sheer, developed late in the 19th century. The bottom is flat for only a short width. The depthamidships is 11)4 inches and the height of the ends is20 inches, with 1 inch of rocker in the last two feet oflength. The sheer is a long fair sweep without anyquick upward lift near the ends. The headboardsare very narrow and belly only very slightly towardthe ends. The end profile illustrates the short radiiand straight line form that marked many of the lastMalecite birch-bark canoes of the St. LawrenceValley. It is possible that the end-form was copiedfrom the white man's St. Lawrence skiff, which usuallyhad ends that were straight and nearly vertical, witha sharp turn into the keel.Since a Malecite canoe of the form having roundedlow ends was the subject used to describe the construc-tion of a birch-bark canoe in Chapter 3 (see p. 36),there is no need to discuss all the details here. Therewas some variety in the sewing and lashing usedin Malecite canoes; the combination of cross andspiral stitches in the ends and the use of a batten andthe over-and-over stitch in the side panels are, ofcourse, very common in these canoes. The occasionaluse of other stitches in the side panels and even in the gores would probably be normal, since individualpreferences in such details were not controlled by anarrow tribal practice.The Malecite are known to have hauled theircanoes overland in the early spring, before the snowwas entirely gone, by mounting the canoe on twosleds or toboggans in tandem, binding the canoe toeach. This was done as late as the 1890's for earlyspring muskrat hunts. The Malecite also fitted theirriver canoes with outside protection when much run-ning of rapids or "quick water" work was done. Thisprotection consisted of two sets of battens (see p. 80),each set being made up of five or six thin splints ofcedar about % inch thick and 3 inches wide, taperingto 2 or 1}^ inches at one end. These were held togetherby four strips of basket ash, bark cord, or rawhide.Each cord was passed through holes or slits madeedgewise through each splint. The cords were locatedso that when the splints were placed on the bottomof the canoe, the cords could be tied at the thwarts.The tapered ends of the splints were at the ends ofthe canoe; the butts of the two sets being lapped amid-ships with the lap toward the stern. This formed a79 J'/cf/-/ fro/77 //7s/i/e /^rov^^ Ao/e- 'J/?o/^ *!/ //?^/? i3roi/rj^ giynkvo/r /77P/nS^r3, ''v?/77 //7j/a'e* ou/, //7rot/^/h ec^c/? /?^/e /-?JoC?-^j-j/o/7 fJf/7//7a f/rj/ pafs, //o 3,au/iroart^ ty/ /jo/^ ^ C^ ////? r/7c^ /jpaj/e?^ //7Soa/-e>' o^ /ro/r "S' e7/7af Malecite Canoe Details, Gear, and Gunwale Decorations. wooden sheathing, outside the bottom, to protect thebaric from rocks and snags or floating ice that mightbe met in rapids and small streams. The fitting wasused also by the Micmac and Ojibway; it is not knownwhether this was an Indian or European invention.The French canoemen called it hane (Tahordage andthe Malecite, P's-la' k'n; the English woodsmencalled the fitting "canoe shoes."The Malecite paddle was of various forms, as illus-trated in figures 71 and 72, the predominant formbeing very similar to the paddle now used with canvas "Indian" canoes. The total length of the blade wasusually about 28 to 30 inches; at 10 or 11 inches fromthe tip it was about 2}^ inches wide. The handle wasabout 36 inches long. At just above the blade itwas \}i inches wide and 1 inch thick. The handlewas not parallel-sided. Near the top it widened grad-ually to about 2}i inches at 2]{ inches from the top;here the cross-grip was formed. The thickness of thehandle reduced gradually from that given for justabove the top of the blade to about }^ inch at about5 inches below the cross-grip, and widened again to % inch at the point where the cross-grip was formed.The blade was ridged down its center. The lowerend was rounded and the lower half of the blade wasapproximately half an ellipse in shape. The Passa-maquoddy blade had its wide point within 7 inches ofthe lower tip, where it was about 6 inches wide. Thehandle was about \)i inches in diameter just abovethe blade, and then tapered in thickness until it firstbecame oval and then flat in cross section. Thewidth remained nearly constant to a point within 12to 16 inches of the cross-grip, then gradually widenedto nearly 3 inches at the top. The blade was 33 to36 inches long and the whole paddle somewherebetween 73 and 76 inches long. The cross-grips weresometimes round, at other times they were merelyworked off" in an oval shape to fit the upper hand.The usual width of the cross-grip was just under 3inches.Formerly, the Malecite placed his personal mark, ordupskodegun, on the flat of the top of his paddle nearthe cross-grip. The mark was incised into the woodand the incised line was filled with red or black pig- Ovn^vct/f /a/h'^^ Malecite Canoe Details, Stem Profiles, Paddles,Sail Rig, and Salmon Spear. .1 1 I ,^-, L^ca/^ /r? /*>!-/ /?^cor7sfruc//'on, /rom an o/?^ /uoc/f/ ofa/7 i?/?*'/**/?/ ^^am J5 , //7//e*^ go ~- - '-'Drpth /?^- Lines and Decoration Reconstructed From a Very Old Model of anancient woods, or pack, canoe, showing short ends and use of fiddlehead andfiresteel form of decoration. Oecoro/fd Ocran Canoe, /iiua/T^a^uocyc/y, /398 Last Known Passama^uoddy Decorated Ocean Canoe to be built. Con-structed in 1898 by Tomah Joseph, Princeton, Maine, on the same model as acanvas porpoise-hunting canoe. ment when available. Sometimes the whole paddle,including the blade, was covered with incised lineornamentation. This was usually a vine-and-leafpattern, or a combination of small triangles andcurved lines. The Passamaquoddy used designssuggesting the needlework once seen on fine linens.Sometimes other designs showing animals, camps, orcanoes were used.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 decorationjust along the gunwales; occasionally the whole canoewas decorated in this manner above the normalload waterline as described on page 87. Usually,however, the bark decoration was confined to a longpanel just below the gunwales and to the ends of thecanoe. The personal "mark" of the owner-builderwould u.sually be on the flaps near the ends, thewulegessis, meaning the outside bark of a tree or achild's diaper, but in canoe nomenclature used toindicate the protective cover which it formed for the gunwale-end lashings. Sometimes the Malecite placedhis mark in the gunwale decoration. Sometimes heplaced a picture or a sign on each side of the endsbelow the wulegessis, in about the position used forinsignia on the canvas "Indian" canoe.The swastika was used by the Passamaquoddy in awar 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) wasoften on the wulegessis, and on a relatively moderncanoe this mark, or gogelch, was a picture of "a funny-locking kind of doll." A common form of decorationin Passamaquoddy canoes was the fiddlehead curvewhich resembles the top of young fern shoots. Thisappears in numerous combinations; often double andback to back, joined with a long bar, or "cross."This particular combination is known as the "fiddle-head and cross" or as the "fire steel"; the latterbecause of a fancied resemblance of the form to theshape of the old firemaking steels of colonial times.A zigzag line appears to represent lightning to mostIndians. A series of half-circles along the gunwales,82 ^jf?i/77gf C^i/oc/e^y /'enoijioi' I // John fVu/fije/j/jT/jomaj Jojep/> /Vepfi/Of Common Spo//?/ J/artMalecite Canoe Details and Decorations. with the rounded side down and just touching oneanother at the top, having a small circle in the centerof each, represents "clouds passing over the moon."A similar series of half-circles without the centercircles might mean the canoe was launched during anew moon; the number of half-circles shown wouldindicate the month.Yet there is not full agreement among Indiansabout the meaning of decorative forms; the crookedor zigzag line might also mean camps or the crookedscore stick used in a Malecite game. The circlecould mean sun or moon or month. A half-moonform might also be "a woman's earring," or a newmoon. A circle with a very small one inside might bea "brooch," as well as "money." Right triangles,in a closely spaced series along the gunwales, appar-ently meant "door cloth," or tent door ("what youlift with your hand"). Shown on pages 84 and 85 aresome Indian marks on the wulegessis, based upon thestatements of old Malecites or upon their sketches.After the Malecite had become Roman Catholic,a fish on the middle panel of a canoe meant thatit had been launched on Friday. Pictures on acanoe sometimes indicated a mythological story; a picture of a rabbit sitting and smoking a pipe onone side of the canoe and a lynx on the other would besuch a case. In Malecite mythology the rabbit wasthe ancestor of the tribe. He was also a great magi-cian. The lyn.x was the mortal enemy of the rabbit,but in the mythological tales he was always overcomeand defeated by the rabbit's magic. Hence, the ideaconveyed is that "though the lynx is near, the rabbitsits calmly smoking his pipe and as he knows he canovercome his enemy," or, in short, "self-confidence."The Indian's mark on his canoe or weapons is nota signature to be read by anyone. The mark may, ofcourse, be identified as to what it represents, but unlessit is known as the mark used by a certain man itcannot be "read." Any mark could be used by anIndian, either because it had some connection withhis activities or habits, or because he "likes it."The stone tobacco pipe used by Peter Polchies (seep. 85) as his mark had no known connection withthis Indian's habits or activities. However, his son,of the same name and well known also as "DoctorPolchies," took the same mark, but in his case it hada personal meaning since he was noted locally forhis skill in making stone pipes. Another case was83 ooooo '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 onmiddle" (Charlie Bear) 'mark of Noel John Sapier" (tomahawk) 84 'mark of Noel Polchies" (paddle) WuLEGESsis Decorations "mark of old Peter Polchies" (stone pipe) 'mark of Chief Neptune" (Passarnaquoddy) "mark of Louis Paul" 'canoe was finished on new moon" (Joe Ellis) 'mark of old Solomon Paul" 85 End Decorations, Passamacjuoddy Canoe built by Tomah Joseph. a Passamaquoddy who at every opportunity usedto pole his canoe in preference to paddling. As aresult he had become known as "Peter of the Pole"or "Peter Pole" and he then used as a canoe marka representation of a setting pole. In submittingsketches of the marking on the wulegessis of canoesto old Indians it was seldom possible to learn theidentity of the owner or builder, since the marks wereusually not known to those questioned. In morerecent times, the educated Malecite signed his namein English on his canoe and thus gave it more per-manent identification.In duplicating a design, the Malecite apparentlyused a pattern, or stencil, which was preserved toallow duplication over a long period of time. Thestencil was usually cut from birch bark, apparentlyan old practice, although whether it was done inprehistoric times cannot be determined. The longcontact of the Malecites with Europeans is a factorto be considered in such matters. This is sometimesshown in picture-writing on a canoe; one, for instance,showed a white man fishing with rod and line from acanoe with an Indian guide. On the opposite sidewas the representation of an Indian camp beside twotrees, a kettle over the fire and the brave sitting cross-legged smoking his pipe, indicating, of course, "com-fort and contentment." Asking old Indians to identify or give the namesof decorations, Adney recorded statements whichindicate 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 pointswhich plainly indicated a half-moon, but the otherwas more nearly closed: (JJ) Mrs. Billy Ellis, widowof Frank Francis, a Malecite, said of them, "OldIndian earrings, that is only what I can call them.Also in nose. Wild Indian made them of silver ormoosebone, I guess he thought he looked nice; itlooked like the devil." Joe Ellis, an old canoebuilder, also called this form "earrings" and whenasked why an Indian would put these on a canoe,replied "He will think what he will put on here. Hemight have seen his wife at bow of canoe, and putit on [there]." Shown the right-triangle-in-seriesdesign, Mrs. Ellis said " I fergit it but I will remember;what you lift with your hand, we call it that?campdoor" (referring to the cloth or hide hung over acamp door, and raised at one corner to enter, sothat the opening is then divided diagonally).In a later period, the Malecite usually confineddecoration to the wulegessis and to the pieced-outbark amidships, the panel formed on each side. Thewulegessis was of various forms; its bottom was some-times shaped like a cupid's bow, sometimes it was86 End Decorations, Passamacjuoddy Canoe built by Tomali Joseph. rectangular. A common form was one representingthe profile of a canoe. Being of winter bark, it wasred or brown, with the part where the design wasscraped showing white or yellow. The center panelwas also of winter bark, and the design on it showeda similar contrast in color. Even when the bark coverwas not pieced out, the panel was formed by scrapingall the cover except a panel amidships on each side.Old models indicate that the early Malecite canoesmay have used decoration all over above the water-line (see p. 81) far more frequently than has been therecent custom. The decorations were a fiddlehead design in a complicated sequence so that it bore afaint resemblance to the hyanthus in a formal scroll,but the design apparently had no ceremonial signifi-cance; it was used for the same reason given Adneyfor so many forms of bark decoration, "it looked nice."The drawings and plans on pages 71 to 87 will .serve better than words to show these characteristicdesigns and decorations. It is doubtful that color,paint or pigment, was used in decorating the Malecitebark canoes before the coming of Europeans, but itwas employed occasionally in the last half of the 19thcentury. The beauty of the Malecite canoe designs Passamaquoddy Decorated Canoe built by Tomah Joseph.87 lay not in the barbaric display of color characteristicof the large fur-traders' canoes, but in the tastefuldistribution of the scraped winter bark decorationalong the sides of the hull. The workmanship ex-hibited by the Malecite in the construction of theircanoes was generally very fine; indeed, they wereperhaps the most finished craftsmen among Indiancanoe-builders. St. Francis The tribal composition of the Abnaki Indians issomewhat uncertain. The group was certainly madeup of a portion of the old Malecite group, the Kenne-bec and Penobscot, but later also included thewhole or parts of the refugee Indians of other NewEngland tribes who were forced to flee before theadvancing white settlers. It is probable that amongthe refugees were the Cowassek (Coosuc), Penna-cook, and the Ossipee. There were also someMaine tribes among these?the Sokoki, Andro-scoggin, (Arosaguntacook), Wewenoc, Taconnet,and Pequawket. It is probable that the tribalgroups from southern and central New Englandwere mere fragments and that the largest number tomake up the Abnaki were Malecite. The latter inturn were driven out of their old homes on the lowerMaine coast and drifted northwestward into the oldhunting grounds of the Kennebec and Penobscot,northwestern Maine and eastern Quebec as far as theSt. Lawrence. The chief settlement was finally onthe St. Francis River in Quebec, hence the Abnakiwere also known as the "St. Francis Indians." Thesetribesmen held a deep-seated grudge against the NewEnglanders and, by the middle of the 18th century,they had made themselves thoroughly hated in NewEngland. Siding with the French, the St. Francisraided the Connecticut Valley and eastward, takingwhite children and women home with them after asuccessful raid, and as a result the later St. Francis hadmuch white blood. They were generally enterprisingand progressive.Little is known about the canoes of these Abnakiduring the period of their retreat northwestward.It is obvious that the Penobscot, at least, used the oldform of the Malecite canoe. What the canoes of theother 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-barkcanoe of distinctive design and excellent workmanship.These they began to sell to sportsmen, with the resultthat the type of canoe became a standard one forhunting and fishing in Quebec. When other tribalgroups discovered the market for canoes, they wereforced to copy the St. Francis model and appearanceto a very marked degree in order to be assured ofready sales. It is obvious, from what is now known,that the St. Francis had adapted some ideas in canoebuilding from Indians west of the St. Lawrence, withwhom they had come into close contact. However,they had also retained much of the building tech-nique of their Malecite relatives. Hence, the St.Francis canoes usually represent a blend of buildingtechniques as well as of models.The St. Francis canoe of the last half of the 19thcentury had high-peaked ends, with a quick upsweepof the sheer at bow and stern. The end profile wasalmost vertical, with a short radius where it fairedinto the bottom. The rocker of the bottom tookplace in the last 18 or 24 inches of the ends, theremaining portion of the bottom being usuallystraight. The amount of rocker varied a good deal;apparently some canoes had only an inch or so whileothers had as much as four or five. A few canoeshad a projecting "chin" end-profile; the top portionwhere it met the sheer was usually a straight line.The midsection was slightly wall-sided, with arather quick turn of the bilge. The bottom wasnearly flat across, with very slight rounding untilclose to the bilges. The end sections were a U -shapethat approached the V owing to the very quick turnat the centerline. The ends of the canoe were verysharp, coming in practically straight at the gunwaleand at level lines below it. The gunwales were longerthan the bottom and so the St. Francis canoes werecommonly built with a building-frame which wasnearly as wide amidships as the gunwales but shorterin length.At least one St. Francis canoe, built on LakeMemphremagog, was constructed with a tumble-home amidships the same as that of some Malecitecanoes. The rocker of the bottom at each end startedat the first thwart on each side of the middle andgradually increased toward the ends, which fairedinto the bottom without any break in the curves.The end profiles projected with a chin that was fulland round up to the peaked stem heads. The sheerswept up sharply near the ends to the stem heads. Jca/e ,n ^fft ^ /~a/Ac>/r> J"/ /ranc/j ^Srr/a^ri /^un/rr'j ^or?oeSram J2' /nj/ea/f gtfrtivci/eJ JO' \ St. Francis 2-Fathom Canoe of About 1865, with upright stems. Built forforest travel, this form ranged in size from 12 feet 6 inches overall and aGji-inchbeam, to 16 feet overall and 34-inch beam. This particular canoe represented a hybrid designnot developed for sale to sportsmen, and the soleexample, a full-size canoe formerly in The AmericanMuseum of Natural History at New York and meas-ured by Adney in 1 890, is now missing and probablyhas been broken up.The St. Francis canoes were usually small, beingcommonly between 12 and 16 feet overall; the 15-footlength usually was preferred by sportsmen. Thewidth amidships was from 32 to 35 inches and thedepth 12 to 14 inches. The 14-foot canoe usuallyhad a beam of about 32 inches and was nearly 14inches deep; if built for portaging the ends weresomewhat lower than if the canoe was to be used inopen waters. Canoes built for hunting might be asshort as 10 or 11 feet and of only 26 to 28 inchesbeam; these were the true woods canoes of the St.Francis.The gunwale structure of the St. Francis canoesfollowed Malecite design; it was often of slightlysmaller cross section than that of a Malecite canoe of equal length, but both outwale and cap were ofsomewhat larger cross section. The stem-pieces weresplit and laminated in the same manner, but occasion-ally the lamination was at the bottom, due to thehard curve required where the stem faired into thebottom. Many such canoes had no headboards, theheavy outwales being carried to the sides of thestem pieces and secured there to support the maingunwales. If the headboard was used, it was quitenarrow and was bellied toward the ends of the canoe.In some St. Francis canoes the bark cover in therockered bottom near the ends showed a marked V.In the canoe examined by Adney at the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, the ribs inside towardthe end showed no signs of being "broken," so it isevident that the V was formed either by use of ashaped keel-piece in the sheathing or by an additionalbatten shaped to give this V-form under the centerstrake. Since the V began where the rocker in thecanoe started, in an almost angular break in thebottom, it is likely that a shaped batten had been89 Sea/77 -3^'. //7y/i3'r t^L/n^^^a/er J3" St. Francis Canoe of About 1910, with narrow, rockered bottom, a modelpopular with guides and sportsmen for forest travel. used to form it. He could not verify this, however,as the area was covered by the frames and sheathing.The sheathing was in short lengths with roundedends which overlapped, and it was laid irregularly inthe "thrown in" style found in many western birch-bark canoes. The ribs were commonly about 2 incheswide and nearly % inch thick, the width taperingto roughly 1 % inches under the gunwales. The endsof the ribs were then sharply reduced in width to achisel point about 1 inch wide; the sides of the sharplyreduced taper being beveled, as well as the end. A1 5-foot canoe usually had 46 to 50 ribs.The thwarts, unlike those of the Micmac and someMalecite canoes, in which the thwarts were unequallyspaced, were equally spaced according to a builder'sformula. The ends of the thwarts, or crossbars, weretenoned into the main gunwales and lashed in placethrough the three lashing holes in the ends of eachthwart, except the end ones, which usually had buttwo. In some small canoes, however, two lashingholes 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 out-wards to the tenon at the gunwale in plan anddecreasing in thickness in elevation in the samedirection. The ends of the main gunwales were ofthe half-arrowhead form, and were covered with abark wulegessis, but the flaps below the outwales weresometimes cut off, or they might be formed in somegraceful outline.The bark cover was sometimes in one piece; whenit was pieced out for width, the harness-stitch wasused. In most canoes, the bark along the gunwalewas doubled by adding a long narrow strip, oftenleft hanging free below the gunwales and stoppingjust short of the wulegessis, which it resembled. Itwas sometimes decorated. A few St. Francis canoeswith nailed gunwales omitted this doubling piece.When used, the doubling piece, as well as the endcover, were folded down on top of the gunwale beforebeing sewn into place. The decoration of the St.Francis canoes seems to have been scant and wholly90 Ouok^ir/^ /a/fy/yLow-Ended St. Francis Canoe with V-form end sections made with short,V-shaped keel battens outside the sheathing at each end. Note the unusualform of headboard, seen in some St. Francis canoes. confined to a narrow band along the gunwale, or tothe doubling pieces. The marking of the wulegessishad ceased long before Adney investigated this typeof canoe and no living Indian knew of any old marks,if any ever had been used.The ends were commonly lashed with a spiral orcrossed stitch, but some builders used a series of short-to-long stitches that made groups generally triangularin appearance. The gunwale lashing was in groupsabout 2K inches long, each having 5 to 7 turns throughthe bark. The groups were about \% to \}i inchesapart near the ends and about 2 inches apart else-where. The groups were not independent but weremade by bringing the last turn of each group over thetop and inside the main gunwale in a long diagonalpass so as to come through the bark from the insidefor the first pass of the new group. The caps wereoriginally pegged, with a few lashings at the ends.The ribs were bent green. After the bark cover hadbeen sewn to the gunwales, the green ribs were fitted roughly inside the bark, with their ends standing abovethe gunwales, and were then forced into the desiredshape and held there, usually by two wide battenspressed against them by 7 to 10 temporary crossstruts. After being allowed to dry in place, theribs were then removed, the sheathing was put intoplace, and the ribs, after a final fitting, were driveninto their proper positions. Some builders put in theribs by pairs in the shaping stage, one on top of theother, as this made easier the job of fitting the tempo-rary battens. The forcing of the ribs to shape alsoserved to shape the bark cover, and the canoe wasplaced on horses during the operation, so that theshape of the bottom could be observed while the barkwas being moulded. Some builders used very thinlongitudinal battens between the bark and the greenribs to avoid danger of bursting the bark.The canoe was built on a level building bed, inmost instances apparently, with the ends of the build-ing frame blocked up about an inch. It seems pos-91 AbenaU/ Caooc /ro/r? ^a/t-e Mfmphremagog 0o/^aJf, ana rrjiafy^J^cty/'ec^ Sy a ro/je Figure 87 Hw.'jontaf /carp/j -Beothuk Canoe, Approximate Form and Construction shape, using hot water, and were either staked outor tied to hold them in form until needed.The keel was then laid on the bed and a seriesof stakes, perhaps 4)^ feet long, were driven into thebed on each side of the piece in opposing pairs atintervals of perhaps 2 or 3 feet. The stakes and keelpiece were then removed and the bark cover laidover the bed. This may have been in two or threelengths, with the edges overlapped so that theoutside edge of the lap faced away from what was tobe the stern. The keel was then placed on the barkand weighted down with a few stones or lashed atthe stem heads to the end stakes; then the bark wasfolded up on each side of the keel, and the stakesslipped back into their holes in the bed and drivensolidly into place, perhaps with the tops angled slightlyoutward. The heads were then tied together acrossthe work and battens placed along the stakes and theoutside of the bark to form a "trough" against whichthe cover could be held with horizontal inside battens.These were secured by "inside stakes" lashed to eachoutside stake in the manner used in building easternIndian canoes (see p. 45). The bark cover now stood on the bed in a sharp V form, with the keel supportedon the bed, the ends of the bark supported by the endstakes, and both held down by stones along the lengthof the keel. An alternative would have been to fixheavy stakes at the extreme bow and stern of the keeland to lash the stem-heads firmly to these in order tohold the keel down on the bark.Next the main gunwales, pre-bent to the requiredform, were brought to the building bed and theirends temporarily lashed to stem and stern. The barkwas brought up to these, trimmed, folded over theirtops, and secured by a few temporary lashings. Thenthe outwales were placed outside the bark with theirends temporarily secured, and a few pegs were driventhrough outwale, bark, and main gunwales, or a fewpermanent lashings were passed. The bark cover wasnext securely lashed to the gunwales and outwalescombined, all along the sheer to a point near theends. The excess bark was then trimmed away atbow and stern and the cover was laced to the endpieces to form bow and stern. This lacing musthave passed through the laminations of the stem andstern pieces in the usual manner, avoiding the spiral97 lashing that held the laminae together. The ends ofthe gunwales and outwales were next permanentlylashed together with root or other material and to thestem and stern pieces. This done, the gunwales werespread apart amidships, pressing the stakes outwardstill more at the tops. At this point the tenons may-have then been cut in the main gunwales and thethwarts inserted. This method, incidentally, wasused in building some western Indian bark canoes.The usual steps of completing a birch-bark canoewould then follow?the insertion of sheathing, heldin place by temporary ribs, and then the driving homeof the prebent ribs under the main gunwales, withtheir heads in the spaces between the group lashingsalong the gunwales and against the lower outboardcorner of the main gunwale member, which was prob-ably beveled as in the Malecite canoe. The sheath-ing may have been in two or three lengths, exceptclose to the gunwale amidships where one lengthwould serve. On each side of the keel piece a sheath-ing strake was placed which was thick on the edgeagainst 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 waspieced out to make the required width, and goreswere cut in the usual manner. In spreading thegunwales, the bow and stern would have to be freedfrom any stakes, as these would tend to pull inboardslightly as the gunwales were spread in the processof shaping the hull. The ribs could have been putin while green and shaped in the bark cover by useof battens and cross braces inside, as were thoseof the St. Francis canoes.The sewing of the bark cover at panels and goreswould take place before the sheathing and ribs wereplaced, of course. A 1 5-foot canoe when completedwould have a girth amidships of about 65 to 68 inchesif the beam at the gunwales were 48 inches, and abark cover of this width could be taken from a tree ofroughly 20 inches in diameter. Hence, there mayhave been little piecing out of the bark for width.In the form of the Beothuk canoe as reconstructedthere is nothing that departs from what is possible bythe common Indian canoe-building techniques. Thefinished canoe would, in all respects, agree withmost of the descriptions that have been found and would be a practical craft in all the conditionsunder which it would be employed.These were the only birch-bark canoes supposed tohave made long runs in the open sea clear of the land.In them the Beothuk are supposed to have made voy-ages to the outlying islands, in which runs in open waterof upward of 60 miles would be necessary, and theyprobably crossed from Newfoundland to Labrador.The V-form used by the Beothuk canoe was themost extreme of all birch-bark canoe models inNorth America, although, as has been mentioned, lessextreme V-bottoms were used elsewhere. The Beo-thuk canoe may have been a development of somemore ancient form of bark sea canoe also related to theV-bottom canoes of the Passamaquoddy. The mostmarked structural characteristic of the Beothuk canoewas the keel; the only other canoe in which a truekeel was employed was the temporary moosehidecanoes of the Malecite.The Beothuk keel piece may have sometimes beennearly round in section like the keel of the Malecitemoosehide canoe (p. 214). The two garboard strakesof the sheathing may have been shaped in cross sec-tion to fair the bark cover from the thin sheathingabove to the thick keel and at the same time allowthe ribs to hold the garboards in place. They could,in fact, be easily made, since a radial split of a smalltree would produce clapboard-like cross sections.This construction would perhaps comply better withCartwright's description of the keel than that shownin the plan on page 97.The sheer of the Beothuk canoe is an exaggeratedform of the gunwale shape of the Micmac rough-water canoe but this, of course, is no real indicationof any relationship between the two. Indeed, theprobable scarfing of the gunwales of the Beothukcanoe might be taken as evidence against such atheory. On the other hand, the elm-bark and othertemporary canoes of the Malecite and Iroquois hadcrudely scarfed gunwale members, as did some north-western bark canoes.Most of the building techniques employed byIndians throughout North America are illustrated bythese eastern bark canoes, yet marked variation inconstruction details existed to the westward, as willbe seen. 98 Chapter FiveCENTRAL CANADA JL HE INDIANS INHABITING Central Canada wereexpert builders of birch-bark canoes and producedmany distinctive types. The area includes not onlywhat are now the Provinces of Quebec (includingLabrador), Ontario, Manitoba, and the easternpart of Saskatchewan, but also the neighboringnorthern portions of Michigan, Wisconsin andMinnesota in the United States. The migrations oftribal groups within this large area in historical times,as well as the influence of a long-established furtrade, have produced many hybrid forms of barkcanoes and, in at least a few instances, the transferof a canoe model from one tribal group to another.It is this that makes it necessary to examine thisarea as a single geographic unit, although a widevariation of tribal forms of bark canoes existed withinits confines.The larger portion of the Indians inhabiting thisarea were of the great Algonkian family. In the eastduring the 18th and 19th centuries, however, somemembers of the Iroquois Confederacy were alsofound, and in the west, from at least as early as thebeginning of the French fur trade, groups of Sioux,Dakota, Teton, and Assiniboin. From the fur tradeas well as from normal migratory movements therewas much intermingling of the various tribes, and itwas long the practice in the fur trade, particularly inthe days of the Hudson's Bay Company, to employeastern Indians as canoemen and as canoe buildersin the western areas. These apparently introducedcanoe models into sections where they were formerlyunknown; as a result, the tribal classification of barkcanoes within the area under examination cannot bevery precise and the range of each form cannot bestated accurately. It was in this area, too, that thehistorical canol du maitre (also written maitre canot), orgreat canoe, of the fur trade was developed.Most of central Canada, except toward the extremenorth in Quebec and toward the south below the Great Lakes, is in the area where the canoe birch was plenti-ful and of large size. There the numerous inlandwaterways, the Great Lakes, and the coastal waters ofJames and Hudson Bays make water travel conven-ient, and natural conditions require a variety of canoemodels. Hence, when Europeans first appeared inthis area they found already in existence a highlydeveloped method of canoe transportation. Thisthey immediately adopted as their own, and in thelong period lasting until very recent times, duringwhich the development of the northern portion ofthis area was slow, the canoe remained the mostimportant means of forest travel.In the northeastern portion of the area, includingthe Province of Quebec (with Labrador) from a linedrawn from the head of James Bay eastwardlythrough Lake St. John and the Saguenay RiverValley to the St. Lawrence and thence northwardto the treeline in the sub-Arctic, dwelt the easternbranch of the far-ranging Cree tribe. Those livingon the shores of Hudson and James Bays, along thewest side of the Labrador Peninsula, were known asthe Eastern, Swamp, or Muskeg Cree. To the north,at the Head of Ungava Bay, around Fort Chimo, andto the immediate southward, were the Nascapee, orNascopie, supposedly related to the Eastern Cree.In southern Labrador and in Quebec along the northshore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and for somedistance inland, dwelt another related tribal groupnow known as the Montagnais.Although the most recent canoe forms employed bythese three Indian groups were very much the same,this may not have been the case earlier. A commoncanoe model in this area was the so-called "crookedcanoe," in which there was a very marked fore-and-aft rocker to the bottom without a correspondingamount of sheer; as a result the canoe was muchdeeper amidships than near the ends. Anothercommon model had a rather straight bottom fore99 ^"K??- ^- ,?' ;^ MONTAGNAIS Crooked Canoe. (Canadian Cioloi^iijl Siiiiij photo.] and aft, with some lift near the ends and a correspond-ing amount of sheer. Between these was a hybridwhich had some fore-and-aft rocker in the bottomand a very moderate sheer. Not until the 1870'swas any detailed examination made of the canoes inthis area; then it appeared that the crooked canoemight be the tribal model of the eastern Cree only,while the Nascapee employed a straight-bottommodel, but it is possible that the examination waslimited and that Nascapee use of the crooked canoewas simply not observed. By 1900, however, thecrooked model was in use not only by the easternCree and the Nascapee but also by the Montagnais.In the area around Fort Chimo and at the northernranges of the eastern Cree and of the Montagnaisthe lack of good birch bark made it necessary to makeup the bark cover out of many small pieces. Thisnot only was laborious but made a rough and ratherunsightly cover. Hence, some of the northernbuilders, particularly the Nascapee, substituted sprucebark, which was available in quite large sheets.The use of the spruce bark, however, did not causeany of these people to depart markedly from the modelor 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 observ-ing the canoes in this area he found that both crookedand straight-bottom canoes were being used by allthree tribal groups, but with a variation in midsectionform among individual builders. Both types werebuilt with a midsection that had a wide bottom and vertical sides, or, as an alternative, a narrow bottomand flaring sides. The end profile of all these canoesshowed chin. In some crooked canoes the profile wasapparently an arc of a circle, but in most canoes theform was an irregular curve. The stem met thegunwale in a marked peak rounded very slightlyat the head, as the result of the method by which thestem was constructed, but in the hybrid model usedby the Nascapee the ends were low and not muchpeaked and the quick upward rise of the sheer nearthe ends was lacking. In cross section all thesecanoes became V-shaped close to the ends, regardlessof the midsection form. For the straight-bottomcanoe and in the hybrid form this resulted in verysharp level lines, but the very great rocker of thecrooked canoe brought the ends well above the normalline of flotation, so that this type was quite full-endedat the level line in spite of the V-section.It is apparent upon examining the crooked canoethat there was actually less variation in its form, inspite of differences in midsection shape, than in thatof the straight-bottom canoe, owing to its very greatdepth amidships in proportion to its width. Thisproportion made necessary a very moderate flare inin the narrow-bottom midsection and resulted in arather wall-sided appearance, even in this model.The hybrid form, which fell between the extremes ofthe crooked canoe and the straight-bottom canoe,had a narrow-bottomed flaring-sided midsection, andits relatively moderate depth made obvious the flare inthe topsides and thus created a distinctive model.100 Birch-Bark Crooked Canoe, Ungava Cree. {Smithsonian Institution photo.) Eastern Cree The construction of canoes of the eastern Creeand related tribes seems generally like that of theMicmac craft. Instead of the gunwale methodemployed in the Maritime area, a building framewas used, and as a result the gunwales were longerthan the bottom. In constructing the crooked canoe,the building frame must be heavily sheered, andthere is evidence that the building bed was depressedamidships, rather than raised as was usual in the east.The great amount of rocker in the bottom in thisform of Cree canoe made it necessary to block up theends of the building frame to a very great height, andthere was no need to raise the building bed at mid-length, since the rocker extended the full length ofthe bottom. The bark cover had to be gored at closelyspaced intervals to allow the rocker to be formed, andeven in the straight-bottom model, the quick riseof the bottom near the ends required closely spacedgores there. In the straight-bottom model, however,the building bed was raised at midlength, as ineastern canoe-building, and the building frame wasballasted to a cupid's-bow profile, when on the bed,so as to acheive the combination of straight bottomamidships with sharply rising ends.The gunwales were formed of the main gunwalemember and a light gunwale cap, no outwale beingemployed. They were joined at the ends and, afterhot water had been applied, were staked out withposts under the ends to obtain the required sheer. The thwarts were then tenoned into the main gun-wales, though occasionally a canoe was built with "broken" gunwales, that is, the thwart-ends were letflush into the top and covered by the caps. Somebuilders did not spread the gunwales and place thethwarts until after the bark cover was lashed at thesheer; others used the eastern methods of assemblingthe gunwale structure prior to securing the bark coverat sheer. The bark cover was attached to the maingunwales with a continuous lashing, as in the Micmaccanoes, but the bark was not always brought over thetop of the gunwales. As a result, some canoes had abatten placed under the lashing, near the edge of thecover, to prevent the lashing from tearing away. Dueto the lack of good root material, the lashing was oftenof rawhide. For all horizontal seams in the sidepanels of the bark cover, rawhide sewing over a rootbatten was used. The ends of the gunwales weresupported by sprung headboards; in some canoesthese were bellied toward the ends to such a degreethat they almost paralleled the end profiles.The ends were formed by means of the same tech-nique used for Micmac canoes; no inside stem-piecewas employed and the bark cover was stiffened byoutside battens covered by the lashing. In the Creecanoes, however, the stem battens were "broken"sharply at the sheer to form a slightly rounded peakwhere the end met the gunwale caps. The "break"in the battens was made by bending them verysharply, so that they were almost fractured. The Creepractice also differed from that of the Micmac,although not universally, by passing the lower end of101 /^; i.lf'a/fndi Figure 90Nascapee 3-Fathom Canoe, Eastern Labrador. Similar canoes, with slight variations in modeland dimensions, were used by all Ungava Indians: the Montagnais and the Eastern, or Swamp, Crees.MoNTAGNAis 2-Fathom Canoe OF SOUTHERN LABRADOR AND QuEBEC, showing old decoratioHforms. Drawing based on small model of a narrow-bottom canoe built for fast paddling.Figure 91 ?I ^ /a//rom (Jn^aya- Cref Canof //Ufory/agna/j, c/rca /850j l l I SearTJ ^Z" ,/oj/a/e ounwa/et J^'Dffl/h ^y Conxi'ruci'/or) o^ /h// canof ////!? /^/?/ o/" /ifo/J/'ci^naij canoe iv///>ou/ roo/ ba//en a/ Figure 92Crooked Canoe, 2}2-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.Hybrid Model of the Nascapee-Cree Canoe, 2-Fathom, built oispruce or birch bark, with details of canoes and paddles. Figure 93 I I ^ fafhorn i/n^ava -Crer i Cano^ //Vc3/A-crpfJ ^ Eastern Cree Crooked Canoe of rather moderate sheer and rocker.{Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo.) the stem batten through the bark cover at the pointwhere the stem met the bottom. The sht thus madewas sealed with gum or, more recently, covered withcloth impregnated with gum. The stems were lashedin various ways; the most common was a spiral formup to the sheer. Near the gunwale caps crossedstitches or small, closely spaced wrappings were alsoemployed. The tops of the battens, forming the peakof the stem, were brought along under the rail caps,in line with the gunwale lashings inboard, and securedwith a continuous lashing for about 6 inches. In thenorthern parts of the area under discussion the stemlashing was often of rawhide.Gunwale caps were wider than the gunwales andthus gave some protection to the lashing there. Theends of the gunwale caps were heavily tapered to allowthe sharp bends necessary to carry them out on thestems. They were pegged or nailed to the gunwales,but at the ends were lashed; usually with two or threesmall group lashings over and under the stem battens,below the caps. The most recent canoes had canvas covers insteadof 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 builtcanvas canoes and boats.The framework of the canoes was usually spruce orlarch. Toward the south and along the St. Lawrencesome white cedar was used, and in the south maplewas sometimes used for thwarts. The ribs of thecanoes inspected by Adney were usually about 3inches wide, and a short taper brought them to about2 inches at the ends, where they were cut squareacross. They were spaced about 1 inch apart edge-to-edge amidships and somewhat further apart towardthe ends of the canoe. The canoes usually had anodd number of ribs, as the first was placed under thethwart amidships. The last three ribs at the endswere "broken" at the centerline to allow them to takethe necessary V -section there; but the fourth rib fromeach end was only sharply bent. In some canoes theheel of the very narrow headboard was stepped on104 Straight and Crooked Canoes, Eastern Cree. the sheathing against the endmost rib, in others it wasstepped, as in the Micmac canoes, on a frog whichrested against the endmost rib.In more recent times the sheathing was laid in oneof two ways, according to the preference of the builder,but the existence of the two styles suggests that eachwas once a tribal-group method. One method ofshaping the bottom sheathing was to employ a center,or keelson, piece in two lengths, the butts being over-lapped amidships, parallel-sided except toward thestems, where it was tapered to fit the V-sectionsrather closely. The next strake outboard was shortand was in the form of a shallow triangle with itsbase along the middle portion of the first strakes andabout one-third the length of the bottom. Its apexwas under the middle thwart. The next strake out-board was in two lengths lapped amidships, parallelsided along the arms of the triangular strake, andsnied off at the ends to fit along the sides of the firststrake. Another strake outboard of this was similarin form and position, but longer. Thus seven strakewidths would complete the bottom sheathing. The side sheathing was narrow and slightly tapered; eachstrake in two lengths overlapped slightly amidships.The ends of the topside sheathing ran well into theends, in most canoes, where they apparently servedas stiffening. The second method of sheathingemployed parallel-sided strakes throughout, laid sideby side on the bottom, with the ends snied off to fitthe form of the bark bottom. The existence of a modelcanoe made about 1850 (see p. 91) supports thetheory that the first method was originally the Mon-tagnais tribal construction and that the more primitivesecond method was probably Cree or Nascapee.The ribs were preformed and fitted to the canoeafter drying out. They were bent to the desired shapein pairs and tied with a thong across the ends to holdtheir shape while drying. Some builders inserted astrut inside the bent ribs, parallel to the thong, pro-tecting the surface of the inner rib by a pad of barkplaced under each end of the strut. The pair of ribsmight also be wrapped with a bark cord to help holdthem together. To aid in handling, one pair of ribsmight be nested inside another. As in eastern canoes105 MoNTAGNAis Can vAS-CovERED Crooked Canoe Under construction.{Canadian Geological Survey photo.) the ribs under the gunwales were driven into place.At the ends they were canted toward the center, sothat in the straight-bottom models they stood nearlyperpendicular to the rocker of the bottom there; inthe crooked canoe the ribs were all somewhat cantedin this manner.The paddles used in this area were made withparallel-sided blades, the end of the blade beingalmost circular. The handle might be fitted witha wide grip at the head or it might be pole-ended.It is impossible to say how early sails were used topropel canoes, but is is probable they were introducedby the fur traders. Square sails were being used onthe coastal canoes at the time the earliest referencewas made to these canoes, in the 1870's.Little is known about the decorations employed bythe eastern Cree. The Montagnais birch-bark modelcanoe of about 1850 (see p. 91) has three small circlesplaced in a triangular position on the bow and aband along the bottom of the side panels. The circlesand the bands are in red paint, but may have beenintended to represent the dark inner rind left afterscraping the winter bark cover. The use of decorationin this area after 1850 has not been noted in anyavailable reference.As a rule, the straight-bottom canoes were small,commonly between 12 and 18 feet overall, and themost popular size was 14 to 16 feet overall. Acanoe 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 lightand, in this respect, resembled the Micmac modelsshown in Chapter 4.The original purpose of the crooked canoe is inquestion. Those travelers who saw this canoe inuse on the Hudson Bay side of the Labrador Penin-sula believed that it was designed for use in rough,exposed water. While it would be a desirable formfor beach work in surf, the high ends would makepaddling against strong winds very difficult. On theother hand the Montagnais used the crooked canoefor river navigation, particularly where rapids wereto be run, and for this work it appears to have beenwell adapted. The crooked canoe was commonlybuilt larger than the straight-bottom model, between16 and 20 feet in length overall, and was a vessel ofburden rather than a hunting canoe. Canoes up to 28feet in length have been mentioned by travelers inthis area but investigation indicates strongly that thesewere not the tribal form but the canot du nord, ornorth canoe of the Hudson's Bay Company traders.Along the southern borders of their territory andto the westward the eastern Cree often built and usedcanoes modeled on those of their neighbors, theTetes de Boule and the Ojibway. Hence the tribalclassification does not hold good in these localities.Also, the eastern Cree were employed by the Hudson'sBay Company as builders of forms of the maitre canotand canot du nord that are vmlike their typical tribalmodel.106 Tefes de Boule The Tetes de Boule, particularly the western bands,were skilled canoe builders and had long been em-ployed by the Hudson's Bay Company in the con-struction of large fur-trade canoes. Apparently madeup of bands of Indians inhabiting lower Quebec,in the basin of the St. Maurice River and on theHeight of Land, these bands had come down to thelower Ottawa River to trade with the local Algonkintribe there in early times. They were known to theAlgonkins, who had had some contact with civili-zation, as "wild Indians." They also came intoclose trading relations with the French colonists, asthe Ottawa River was the early French canoe routebetween Montreal and Lake Superior. Because theycut their hair short, unlike the other Indians, thesenorthern bands were nicknamed "Bull Heads," or"Round Heads," by the French traders, and thetribesmen soon came to accept this rather than theirown designation of "White Fish People" as the tribalname. In more recent times, the name has beenapplied to groups of Indians living in western QuebecProvince, near Lake Barriere and Grand Lake Vic-toria, but these do not consider themselves relatedto the St. Maurice bands.It seems apparent that the canoe models of allthese groups had been altered as a result of longcontact with other tribal groups. Although the St.Maurice and the western bands were apparently notof the same tribal stock, their relations with theAlgonkin may have brought about the use of astandard model by all.The Tetes de Boule lived in an area where verysuperior materials for birch-bark canoe constructionwere plentiful. This, with the need for canoes im-posed by the numerous waterways and the demandfor canoes from white traders, made many of thetribesmen expert builders. Their small canoes, rang-ing from the 8- to 12-foot hunter's canoes to the 14- to16-foot family canoes, were very similar in profileto the canoes of the St. Francis Abnaki. The Tetesde Boule canoes, however, were commonly narroweron the bottom, and in their construction a buildingframe was always used. The Tetes de Boule modelwas straight along the bottom for better than halfthe length and then rose rather quickly toward theends. Similarly, the sheer was moderate amidshipsand increased toward the ends. The stems showed FlDDLEHEAD OF SCRAPED Bark On bow andstern of a Montagnais birch-bark canoe atSeven Islands, Que., 1915. Disk of Colored Porcupine Quills dec-orating canoe found at Namaquagon, Que.,1898. Within the 4-inch disk may have beenan 8-pointed star. a chin and were much peaked at the gunwale ends.Most commonly the midsection had a flat bottomathwartships and a well-rounded bilge, giving thetopsides, near the gunwale, a very slight outwardflare. Some Tetes de Boule canoes had rather V-section ends in which the endmost rib was "broken"at the centerline. As a result the lines were sharpand the canoes paddled very easily. 107 A Fleet of 51 Birch-Bark Canoes of the Tgtes de Boule Indians, assembledat the Hudson's Bay Company post, Grand Lake Victoria, Procession Sunday,August 1895. {Photo, Post-Factor L. A. Christopherson.) For construction of the Tetes de Boule canoe, whichwas marked by good structural design and neat work-manship, the building bed was slightly raised at mid-length, as was the general practice of the St. Francisbuilders. The building frame was usually about 6inches less in width amidships, inside to inside, thanwere the gunwales, and from 15 to 18 inches shorter.The building frame was made quite sharp toward theends so that, viewed from above, it rather approacheda diamond form; this produced the very sharp linesthat are to be seen in many examples of the Tetes deBoule canoes. The building frame was of courseremoved from the canoe as soon as the gunwales werein place and the bark cover lashed to them.The gunwale structure, comprised of main gunwalemembers, caps, and outwales, was the same as in theMalecite canoes. The main gunwales were rectangu-lar in cross-section, some being almost square, withthe lower outboard corner bevelled off. Comparedto those of eastern canoes of equal length, the maingunwales were unusually light; their depth and widthrarely exceeded 1 inch, and in very small hunter'scanoes these were often only about ^4 inch. Towardthe ends, they tapered to )i inch, or even slightlyless. The ends of the main gunwales, usually ofthe common half-arrowhead form, were held together by rawhide or root thongs passed back and forththrough horizontal holes in the members. Afterbeing thus lashed together, they were securelywrapped with thongs which usually went over gun-wales and outwales and through the bark cover.The gunwale caps, also light, were usually betweenYi and li inch thick and from 1 to 1^2 inches wide. Atthe ends they were tapered in width and thickness,often to Yii by Y^ inch, so as to follow the quickly risingsheer there. The ends of the gunwales, caps, and out-wales required hot-water treatment to obtain therequired curve of the sheer. The caps were pegged tothe gunwales and were secured at each end with twoor three groups of lashings which passed around theoutwales as well, and through the bark cover.The outwales were likewise light battens betweenYi and Yi inch thick and from % to \Yi inches deep, thedepth near the ends being tapered to f^ to % inch so asto sheer correctly.The bark cover had four or five vertical gores oneach side of the middle thwart, the gore nearest eachstem being commonly well inboard of the end thwarts.The side panels were usually deep amidships andnarrowed toward the ends. A root batten was usedunder the stitching of the longitudinal seams of theside panels, which were sewn with a harness-maker's108 ?^ Tetes de Boule Canoe. stitch. The top edge of the bark cover was broughtover the top of the main gunwales, as in the Malecitecanoes, and was secured by group wrappings passingover the gunwales and outwales, under the caps.These groups were not independent, the root thongbeing carried from group to group outside the bark ina long pass under the outwales. The groups of sevento nine turns were roughly an inch apart in manysmall canoes, and perhaps 1 H inches in the large craft.In the last birch-bark canoes in which no nails ortacks were used, wrappings of root thongs began witha stop knot, but this does not appear to have beenthe earlier practice.The Tetes de Boule canoes had inside stem-piecessplit, according to the size of the canoe, in four to sixlaminations and lashed with a bark or root thongin an open spiral in some canoes but close-wxapped inothers. The stem-piece was as in the Malecite canoes,except that it ended under the rail cap, and did notpass through it as in the Eastern canoes; the heel wasnotched to receive the heel of the headboard. Thebark was usually lashed through the stem, as in theMalecite construction. However, in some Tetes deBoule canoes, the stem close to the heel was notlaminated and the bark was lashed to the solid partby an in-and-out stitch passing through closely spacedholes drilled in the stem piece. Above this, the lashingwas the usual spiral which, in at least a few instances,was passed through the bark just inboard of the stempiece. Near the top of the stem the lashings some-times were rather widely spaced and passed inboard of the stem-pieces; at other times, however, theselashings were more closely spaced and passed throughthe stem.Ordinarily, at the ends of the canoe no wulegessis, orcovers of bark, were used under the gunwale caps,although in one example examined a small cover hadbeen inserted over the gunwale ends and under thecaps, it did not extend below the outwales to form awulegessis. In some canoes the bark cover was piecedup at the peak of the stems by a panel whose bottomfaired into the bottom of the side panels.A variety of methods was used to fit the gunwalecaps at the ends of the canoe. Some builders carriedthe cap out beyond the gunwale ends, flat, over theedges of the bark cover and the top face of the out-wale, but others tilted the cap outboard and down-ward. The ends of the caps came flush with the faceof the stems. In an apparently late variation, thegunwales, instead of ending in the half-arrowhead,were snied ofT the inside and a triangular block wasinserted between the ends. The gunwales were thenpegged or nailed to the block and the whole securedwith a root wrapping around them, before the out-wales were in place. The first turn began by passingthe root through a hole in the block near its inboardend, with a stop knot in the root.The ends of the gunwales were supported by anarrow headboard sharply bellied toward the end ofthe canoe. The top of the headboard was notched tostand under the main gunwales; the center portionoften was carried high and ended with a cylindrical109 Tetes de Boule Canoes. top that was slightly swelled like the handle of a gougeor chisel. The heel was sometimes held in the stem-piece notch with a root lashing.The thwarts, spaced equal distances apart, weretenoned into the gunwales as in the old Malecitecanoes, and were secured with a peg and lashingthrough the two holes in the thwart ends. Themiddle thwart was usually formed with a shoulder,viewed in plan, that started 6 or 7 inches inboard ofthe inside face of the main gunwale. In form, thisthwart usually swelled outward in a straight line fromthe tenon shoulder, then reduced in a curved line toabout the width of the tenon tongue and, finally,increased again in a right-angle cut to the greatestwidth. From here it was reduced again in a longcurve to the canoe's center line. The other thwartsusually had simple ends, wide at the tenon shoulderand reduced in a long curve to a narrow center. Inelevation, all the thwarts were thin outboard andthick at the centerline of the canoe. The crosssection of the center thwart at the centerline wassquare or nearly so, the first thwart on each side wasrectangular in cross section at the center, and the endthwarts were similar, but very thin.The sheathing of the Tetes de Boule canoes was thin,particularly at the ends of the strakes. The bottomwas laid with a parallel-sided center strake goingin first. This strake was in two lengths in a smallcanoe and three lengths in a large, the butts over- lapping slightly. The rest of the strakes in the bottomwere tapered toward the ends of the canoe. At theextremities of the canoe, the narrow ends of the strakeswere very thin and overlapped along their edges, thebottom sheathing, when in place, thus following thediamond form of the building frame. The topsidesheathing was laid up in short lengths with overlap-ping butts and edges in an irregular plan, thosestrakes along the bilges being longer than above.Toward the ends of the canoe these strakes wereslightly tapered and the edges were very thin. Thesheathing ended irregularly, outboard of the head-boards, in narrow butts as in most eastern canoes.The ribs, like the rest of the structure, were verylight, usually % to % inch thick and from about1 }4 to 1 % inches wide, depending upon the size of thecanoe. A few examples had ribs 2 inches wide, andstill fewer had ribs up to 2% inches wide. The spacingwas usually close, somewhat more than an inch edgeto edge amidships and a little more between the endthwarts and the headboards. The spacing amidshipswould average perhaps 3% inches, center to center.The ends of the ribs, in the last 2 or 3 inches, werereduced in width very sharply in a hollow, curvedtaper to }^ to % inch wide, and were usually beveledon the inside edge. The thickness was also reducedby 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 gunwales110 J If fa/hom 7f/fJ,c/fBou/e //an/fr'/ ^anofifn^fh ovfrall ?'S,\ Offr oi/ni^/a/rj B'/O" Figure 102Tetes de Boule Hunting Canoe, 1)2-Fathom, with typical construction details and a paddle.Tetes de Boule Canoe, 2'>-Fathom, with some construction details.Figure 103 Ttva ivay/ of fffZ/nq Copiaf enof/ o^ cc?noef /" fafhom 7f/eJ c^f Bou/f I /^c/n/erj Canoe-lrr?^//7 oyfra// // -iS, I Oi'f/-^vniva/irs /O '/" "Seam ^^'' , \ //7//e^r gurava/fs ^7' Tetes de Boule Hunting Canoe, 2-Fathom, with wide bottom, showingstructural details. and the bark cover, coming home in the bevel ofthe lower outboard edge of the main gunwales be-tween the group lashings of the bark cover as in theMalecite canoes. The ribs were not prebent butwere placed in the canoe when green, treated withhot water, and then allowed to dry into place. In pre-paring the rib, it was first bent over the knee. It wasthe custom of some builders to place under the build-ing frame the ribs that were to go near the ends ofthe canoe, and to mark the point where they would bebent. Sometimes the endmost ribs that were to be "broken" at the centerline to form the V-section weresplit edgewise. A piece of the inner lamina was thencut out to one side of the center so that the innerlaminae would lie flat against each other, and toprevent the inner half from buckling the rib waswrapped with a thong to one side of the "break."It does not appear to have been the common prac-tice of the Tetes de Boule to decorate their smallcanoes, though when building for white men theywould decorate if the buyer requested it. The paddles used by the Tetes de Boule were some-what like those of the eastern Cree but the blade wasslightly wider near the tip than near the handle. Thetop grip was formed wide and thin, the taper from thelower grip to the upper one often l^eing very long.The paddles were usually of white birch, but maplewas used in a few of the examples examined.The gunwales, outwales, and caps of the Tetes deBoule canoes were usually of spruce; the ribs and stempieces, white cedar; the thwarts, white birch; theheadboards, white cedar in all but one of the canoesinspected (in this, birch had been used). Jack pinewas used also for thwarts, and cedar was sometimesused for the gunwale members; as would be expected,the builders used the materials that were at handnear the building sites.Tetes de Boule fur-trade canoes, like those of theeastern Cree, appear to have had no relationshipto the smaller tribal types, since they were constructedunder supervision of white men. They will be dis-cussed as a group on page 135.112 Algonkin The Algonkins were a tribe residing on the OttawaRiver and its tributaries, in what are now the prov-inces of Quebec and Ontario, when the Frencii firstmet them. They appear to have been a large andpowerful tribe and were apparently competentbuilders and users of birch-bark canoes. They werenot the same tribe as the Ottawa, who controlled theLake Huron end of the canoe route Ijetwecn Montrealand Lake Superior, by way of the Ottawa River.These Ottawa were related to the Ojibway tribe andreceived their name from the French, who gave thename Outaouais, or "Ottaway," to all Indians, exceptthe Hurons, who came from the west i)y way of theOttawa. The Algonkins, because of their location,were much influenced by the French fur trade.Early in the 18th century they intermingled withcertain Iroquois whom they allowed to settle withthem, near Montreal, at the Lake of Two Mountains,later Oka. Thence they gradually spread out andlost tribal unity, until only small groups were left.These lived on the Golden Lake Algonkin Reserve,Bonshere River, Ontario; at Oka, Quebec; and else-where in western Quebec and eastern Ontario. It ispossible that they were the first to build fur-tradecanoes for the French, but evidence to support .such aclaim with any certainty is lacking.Due to intermixing with other tribal groups and tothe influence of the fur trade, in which they were long employed as canoe men and builders, the Algonkinsno longer used a single tribal model of canoe. How-ever, one of their models, which had high endsresembling those of the large fur-trade canoe, mayhave been the tribal type from which the fur-tradecanoe was dcsclopcd, as will be seen.The high-ended model, the oldest form known toha\c been used by this tribe, was narrow-bottomed,with flaring sides. The canoes seen were built withcareful workmanship and in the old manner, withoutiron fastenings. They were light and easily paddled,yet would carry a heavy load. The ends were sharp atthe line of flotation. The bottom was straight to apoint near the ends, where it lifted somewhat. Thesheer was rather straight over the middle portion ofthe canoe, then lifted slightly until close to thestem, where it rose sharply, becoming almost perpen-dicular at the ends of the rail caps. The midsectionwas slightly rounded across the liottom, with a well-rounded bilge and a gently flaring topside. The cross-section became V-shaped clo.se to the headboards.The most marked feature in the appearance of thiscanoe was the profile of the ends. The stem line,beginning with a slight angle where it joined thebottom, bent outward in a gentle curve, reaching theperpendicular at a point a little more than half theheight of the end, and from there it tumbled homeslightly. In most of the canoes examined the top ofthe stem then rounded inboard in a quick, hard curve,usually almost half a circle, so that the stem wasturned downward as it joined the outwale and gun- Old Alconki.n C.\noe.113 I I. Sca/f in Fee/- -' ^ fafhom A/aonU/n Canoe0/<^ mode/, O/fawa /f/yer Algonkin and Ojibway Stem-Pieces, models of old forms made by Adney:I, 2, 3, Ojibway; 4, 5, 6, 7, Algonkin. was unquestionably copied from the eastern canoes somewhat from the eastern canoes not only in modelthat came into popularity among the Algonkin latein the 19th century, when white sportsmen were de-manding canoes of the St. Francis and Malccitemodels. However, the Algonkin canoes differed but also in methods of construction.Algonkins used the same construction methods inboth their canoe models, though the framework wasnot alike in all respects. The building frame was115 I I I ^ Fafhorn Algon/r//7 Mun/-erj Caooefrom Joa/^ f/f Mart'f/f^g/h oypra// /J V 1 oy^r ^unkva/^j /3'0"Sfctrn 3/^" IL inj/cie gurtwa/ri 30" Light, Fast 2-Fathom Hunting Canoe of the old Algonkin model. always used. For a 2- or 2)^-fathom canoe this wasmade of two strips of cedar, \\'i inches wide and %inch deep, that were bent edgewise, notched, and tiedtogether at the ends with thongs of the inner bark ofthe basswood. These strips were held apart in therequired shape by cedar crosspieces 1 inch wide and1% inches deep, with the ends notched % inch deep(the depth of the longitudinals) and the tops wellrounded. The crosspieces, five in all, were fastenedto the longitudinals with thongs passing through holesin the ends. The middle one was about 19}^ inchesbetween the inside faces of the longitudinals, thoseon each side of it were about 15J^ inches long bysimilar measure, and the end ones were nearly 6inches long and were located a foot or so from theextremities of the longitudinals. The outside widthof the building frame amidships would thus be about22^ or 23 inches.The building bed was level, with a 6-inch-wideboard, some 6 to 8 feet in length, sunk into the earthflush with the surface to insure a true line for thebottom. The outside stakes were of the usual sortdescribed in building the Malecite canoe (pp. 40-41).The wedge-shaped inside stakes, or clamp pieces, were \)'i inches wide, 1 inch thick, and 20 to 25 incheslong. The posts for setting the height of the gunwalesat the ends and at the crosspieces were not cut offsquare at the top as for the Malecite canoe, but werenotched on the outside to take the gunwales. Theheights of the posts were graduated, of course, to formthe required sheer in the gunwales. Like the canoesof the Tetes de Boule, these of the Algonkin weregenerally less deep amidships than the general run ofeastern canoes.Building procedure was as follows: The gunwaleswere made, bent, and the ends fastened, but instead ofbeing mortised and fitted with thwarts, they werespread by temporary crosspieces, or "spalls," madeof a splint, or plank-on-edge, with the lower edgenotched in two places to take the gunwale members.Sometimes the spalls were lashed, pegged or nailed tothe gunwales as well. The stakes were set along thebuilding frame and these were generally drivensloping, so that their heads stood outboard of thepoints. They were then pulled and laid aside, thebuilding frame was removed, and the bark coverplaced on the building bed. After the buildingframe has been reset in its original position and the116 /* /cfMom /^/(^onk/o //i//7///?i^ Canoe ?Ite P/an^-oo^v^ge //r/77fHybrid Algonkin Canoes: Eastern 2;i-falhom (above) and northeastern2-fathom adaptation, with sketches of stems used in each.bark cover turned up along the sides, the stakes wereagain driven in their holes. The cover was thenpieced out with side panels as necessary and gored,and longitudinal strips of wood were set in placeby means of the clamp pieces, about as in Maleciteconstruction. The gunwales were then placed onthe posts, which had been set to the required sheer,and the bark trimmed and fitted to them. Theold method was to lash the bark to the main gun-wale members and to peg on the outwales at in-tervals of about a foot. In earlier times most build-ers inserted along the gunwales an extra reinforcingstrip 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 periodthis was sometimes omitted.Mortises for the thwarts \\ere next cut and themiddle thwart was forced into place, after the spallthere had been removed. This required that thegunwales be spread slightly, thus increasing theamount of sheer somewhat. Much judgment was needed to do this correctly. The increase in thesheer lifted the ends slightly and put some rocker inthe bottom toward the ends. The building frame waslifted out before the rest of the thwarts were placed;usually it was taken apart in the process. In formingthe ends of the bark cover, the two sides were heldtogether by a clothespin-like device made of twoshort, fiat sticks lashed together.Increasing the beam at the gunwales by fittingthe thwarts after the bark cover had been secured tothe gunwales not only increased the sheer but de-creased the depth of the canoe amidships as establishedby the posts placed under the gunwales in setting up.In order to retain the required sheer and the desireddepth of side, the gunwales had been sheered up at theends while being shaped, and had also been treatedwith hot water and hogged upward amidships bybeing staked out to dry into shape. The spreading ofthe gunwales tended to lift the ends of the bottom line,a condition that was controlled in two ways: theusual one apparently was to employ, in combination117 ^Fa/horn A/^on/r/n Mu/y/e'-j Cooor ^rpj; jn^/on e?/ Bo/^^^^^ /ranfncfi o/ Frames M \A txi MM MM c^~~E<| ?'"9' I t 3oi/p///7^ Fr-arr? c Algonkin, 2-Fathom Hunter's Canoe, without headboards. Details of buildingframe, stakes or posts, gauge, and stem. with a level bed, a building frame slightly wider thanwas desired for the finished bottom; the second waywas to follow Malecite procedure and elevate slightlythe middle of the building bed while employing abuilding frame the width of the finished bottom.The Algonkin procedure of spreading the gunwalesduring construction was that employed in the north-west and in the building of the fur-trade canoes, aswill be seen. The amount of spread to be given thegunwales also affected the angle, or slope, at whichthe side stakes were driven on the building bed.Even so, some builders who spread the gunwalesa good deal would set the stakes almost vertically,instead of at a slant, as this made sewing the sidepanels easier, particularly in large canoes and incanoes whose covers were made up of a large numberof small pieces of bark.The gunwales of the Algonkin canoes were made upof three members?main gunwales, outwales, andcaps. The main gunwales, usually of cedar, wererectangular in cross section and bent on the flat. The lower outboard corner was bevelled ofi to take the ribends, as in the Malecite canoes. The gunwales wererather light ranging in the examples found from about1 inch square to 1 by 1 ^g inches, the ends being taperedto a lesser size. The outwales were light battens,rectangular in cross-section, about as deep as themain gunwales and about two-thirds their thicknessor less; they tapered in depth toward the ends to% or Yi inch in order to follow the sheer, while thethickness might be constant or only slightly reduced.The caps, which were pegged to the gunwales, werealso light and were about equal to the combinedwidth of the main gunwales and outwales and hada depth of about % to }^ inch amidships. At the endsthey were tapered in both width and depth, becoming )'i inch wide and % inch deep. The amount of taperin the ends of the gunwale members depended uponthe form of sheer; the Algonkin practice in the oldform of canoe was to sheer the outwales and caps tothe top of the stem, while the gunwales sheered lessand met the sides of the stem piece at a lower point.118 Algonkin Canoe, Old Type. as in the drawing (p. 116). In the wabinaki chimuri,however, the gunwales and other members, as a rule,all followed the sheer of the ends of the canoe.The Algonkins used inside stem-pieces in bothmodels, but the stem-piece of the old high-endedcanoe was quite different from that of the wabinakichiman, for it was built to give a profile in which thetop of the high stem ended in a line straight across tothe sheer. The piece consisted of a crooked stick,without lamination, worked out of a thin board, %to Yi inch thick. It was shaped to the desired profileinside and out, and was slightly sharpened, or some-times rabbeted and sharpened, toward the outboardface. The headboard was mounted on this stem-piece by means of the usual notch but was notbellied; instead it stood approximately vertical anda short strut was tenoned into both the headboardand the inside face of the stem at a point about halfthe height of the stem. Sometimes two struts wereu.sed, side by side, with the outboard ends lashed atthe sides of the stem. Thus the stem-pieces and head-boards were placed as a single unit, not independentlyas in eastern canoes. The gunwale ends werelashed to the sides of the stem-piece, between the strutand the stem-head, at a height determined by thesheering of the main gunwale members. The outwalesand caps did not touch the stem-piece, ending witha nearly vertical upward sweep, a few inches inboard.The ends of the outwales and caps were always higherthan the top of the stem-piece so that, when the canoewas turned upside down, the bark cover over the stem-head was kept off the ground and thus preserved fromdamage. The top of the stem-piece was held rigidnot only by the strut to the headboard but also by theends of the main gunwale members lashed to it alittle higher up. The headboard was in the form ofa rounded V that was widest at midheight, at thegunwales, which were let into its sides. When the stem-head was rounded in the style of thefur-trade canoe, the stem-piece except near the heelwas split into very thin laminations about ]{^ inch,or a little more, thick. The carefully selected cedarof which these were made was treated with boilingwater, then bent to profile; the head was sharply bentover and down, inside the stem, then sharply up againso the end stood at about right angles to the face ofthe stem at midheight. The headboard was mountedas previously described, except that the end of thestem-piece was inserted into a hole in the headboardjust above the strut. The laminations of the stem-piece were wrapped in the normal manner and thelashing was often brought around the strut as well,up against the outboard face of the headboard.The whole structure was thus made rigid and verystrong. As in the other form, the main gunwalemembers did not follow the sheer near the ends ofcanoe but were secured at a point lower down onthe sides of the stem-piece. In the round-head form,however, the outwale and cap ends were fastened onthe after face of the stem-head where the laminationswere curved downward as illustrated in the drawing(p. 116).The headboards for both models were thicker thanthose in the eastern canoes; this aided in holdingthe stem line in form. Tension on the bark coverwas obtained by making the cover V-formed towardthe ends and then spreading the sides of the V withthe headboard, thus bringing pressure on the strakesof the sheathing and forcing the sides outward in aslight curve.The stem-pieces of the wabinaki chiman were eithercut out of a thin board or laminated. In the straight-stem form, only the forefoot part was laminated, andno headboard was used. Ordinarily, however, therigid headboard with a single strut was used. Thehead of the stem-piece was carried through the rail119 Algonkin "Wabinaki Chiman." caps and showed above them; the ends of the capsand main gunwales were notched to permit this, butneither these nor the cap extended outboard of theface of the stem.The bark cover was lashed to the gunwales withgroup lashings in which the thong was carried fromgroup to group by a long stitch outside the cover,under the outwale. The turns in each group werepassed through five or six holes in the cover and rein-forcing piece, two turns of the thong going througheach hole. The connecting stitch between groups,which were usually about 1% inches apart, usuallypassed from the last hole in a group to the second holein the next. Some builders laid a wooden measuringstick 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 passedthrough the stem pieces; when the latter were notlaminated, holes through the soft, thin cedar weremade by a sharp awl and an in-and-out or harnessstitch was quite commonly used. On laminated stempieces the form of lashing varied; in the wabinakichiman it was commonly some combination of spiraland crossed turns; in the old form cf high-ended canoemultiple turns through a single hole (usually at thetop of the stemhead) were also used in combinationwith closely spaced long-and-short turns in triangular groups near the top of the stem profile. Below, inthe forefoot, spiral or crossed stitches were used. Theends of the outwales were lashed together with aclose wrapping of turns in contact where they turnedupward sharply, and the caps were secured there bytwo or more group lashings. The head of the head-board was lashed to each gunwale by passing thethong through holes each side of the headboard; theselashings were in a long group and were passed aroundgunwale and outwale before the caps were in place.With plank stem-pieces the ends of the bark coverwere slightly inboard of the cutwater line, sometimesprotected by a rabbet.The side panels were sewn on with in-and-outstitches, back stitches, or a double line of either. Thegores were sewn spirally in the usual manner or werestitched with a closely spaced lacing.Some of the old Algonkin canoes examined had whatappeared to be a wulegessis just outboard of the head-boards. No marking was found on these and theywere too far aft to protect the ends of the gunwales.The bark was carried across the gunwales, under thecaps, and hung down a little below the outwales. Ontop, it reached from the headboard out to the lashingsof the outwales, forming between the headboardsand the lashings a short deck that may have beenintended to keep dirt and water out of the ends of the120 Ai.r.ONKiN Canoe Decorations by Tommy Seisin (or Serzia),Goldt-n Lake, Ont., showing four sides of stems of one canoe.Indian shown has the eastern headdress rather than that of thePlains Indian. Moose, bear, beaver, and goose arc shown.(Sketches by Adney.) canoe. Sometimes a modern ivabinakt chimati has awulegessis, copying the Eastern practice l;nt withoutmarkings.The thwarts were of various designs; a common onehad parallel sides in plan. The old canoes had thwartsmuch like those of the Tetes de Boule. The endlashings of these were usually passed through threeholes in the thwart ends, but some had onlv two holes. .Sheathing was laid somewhat as in the Tctes-de-Boule canoe, with overlapping edges and butts. Theend sheathing w^as short and was laid first; the center-line strake was parallel-sided to a point near the sharpend of the canoe. The strakes on each side of it weretapered and were laid w-ith their wide ends towardthe middle of the canoe and with the sides and narrowend lapped. In the middle of the canoe the strakes121 were parallel-sided and their butts were on top ofthose of the strakes in the end of the canoe. Thesheathing was carried up to within about three inchesof the gunwales. The edges were not thinned orfeathered as much as were those in the Tetes de Boulecanoe.Ribs were of cedar from 2 to 3 inches wide, closelyspaced and, as usual, without taper until near the ends,which were formed with a narrow chisel edge as in theTetes-de-Boule canoe. The ribs were first roughlybent, using the building frame as a general guide forlength, in order to obtain a somewhat dish-shapedcross section; by this means the width of the bottomcould be established to the builder's satsifaction.The foregoing description of building methods andconstruction is based largely upon what is known ofthe old canoes. In later times the Algonkin copiedthe eastern canoes and their procedure altered. Notonly did they copy extensively the appearance of theSt. Francis and Malecite canoes, but they built somecanoes much like those of the Tetes de Boule andOjibway. As a result, it has become difficult todetermine what their tribal practices were.Their paddles were of the same design as those ofthe Tetes de Boule, round-pointed and with the bladeparallel-sided for most of its length. In portaging,the Algonkin, like many forest Indians, placed a pairof paddles a foot or so apart fore-and-aft over themiddle thwart and those on each side of it. Thesewere lashed in place with the ends of a band of hideor the inner bark of a tree like the basswood or elm.This band had been first passed around the ends of themiddle thwart, outside the shoulders, and hitched withends long enough to secure the paddles in place.The shoulder on the middle thwart, a few inches in-side the gunwales, was placed there for just this pur-pose, not as a mere decoration, so that the line couldnot slide in along the thwart. The canoe was thenlifted and turned over by raising one end, or bylifting the whole canoe, and was placed on the car-rier's shoulders, so that the paddle handles were onhis shoulders. This brought the middle thwart tojust behind the carrier's head. The loop of the barkor hide cord was then placed around the forehead ofthe carrier in order to keep the canoe from slippingbackward. In this fashion one man could carry acanoe for miles if the canoe were small?and all woods,or portage, canoes were small and light. The head-band was known to white men as a "tump line." TheIndians used it to carry not only canoes but otherheavy or awkward loads (see p. 25). There is no certainty about the decorations ofAlgonkin canoes. Some of the older Indians claimedthat the old form of canoe was often decorated withfigures formed by scraping the winter bark; usuallythese depicted the game the owner hunted. Five-pointed stars, fish, and circular forms are known tohave been used on the ivabinaki chiman, but it is notknown whether these were really Algonkin decora-tions or merely something that had been copied" because it looked good."The Algonkin called the large fur canoes nabiska,a name which the Tetes de Boule rendered as rabeska.The word may be a corruption of the Cree word for "strong." At any rate, the name rabeska (sometimespronounced ra-bas-ha), rather than the Frenchmaitre canot, was long applied by white men in thefur trade to the large canoes built in the OttawaRiver Valley for their business. In late years therabeska was a "large" 2}^-fathom high-ended birch-bark canoe, but originally it meant a fur-trade canoe,with the characteristic ends, of from 3 fathoms upwardin length. Ojibway The Indian bands that were called "Outaouais" bythe early French do not appear to have been anindependent tribe, as has been mentioned, but werelargely made up of Ojibway from the Great Lakesregion. Perhaps some Tetes de Boule were amongthese bands before these people were given their nick-name. The Ojibway were a powerful tribal group,made up of far-ranging bands, located all aroundLake Superior and to the northwest as far as LakeWinnipeg. They had been in the process of takingover the western end of Lake Superior when theearliest French explorers reached that area; theypushed the Sioux from these forest lands into theplains area, joining with the western Cree in thismovement. In the process they seem to have ab-sorbed both some Sioux and some Cree bands.Within the Ojibway tribal group, later called Chip-pewa 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 wereexpert canoemen and builders. As far as can bediscovered now, the Ojibway added to their own tribaltypes the models of canoes they encountered in their122 expansion westward. It has long been true that theOjibway canoe can be one of at least three forms,depending upon which area of their territory is beingdiscussed.What is belie\ed to be their old tribal form was ahigh-ended canoe in all respects very much like thehigh-ended Algonkin type. This was the model usedby the Lake Nipigon Ojilnvay, north of Lake Superiorin Ontario, and by those of the same tribe that oncelived near Saginaw, Michigan, as well as by theMenominee of Wisconsin. At the late period, fromthe middle of the 19th century onward, for whichinformation was available or in which investigationwas possible, it appears that the Ojibway canoes ofthis high-ended model were built in larger sizes thancontemporary Algonkin canoes of like design. TheOjibway canoes had the same end structure as these;the early examples found had "chin" in the end pro-files and the tumble-home of the stem was straight,or nearly so, between the large curve of the forefootand the very short hard curve at the stem head. TheOjibway used the same inner stem-piece, laminatedand brought downward abaft the stem-head and then inboard so that the end fitted into a slot in theheadboard a little above its midheight, at whichpoint was fitted a strut from the headboard to theback of the stem-piece. The midsection of theOjibway canoe was very much like that of theAlgonkin; it had a narrow bottom somewhat roundedathwartships, a well-rounded bilge, and flaringtopsides.A small Ojibway portage canoe built in the middleof the 19th century had an end profile somewhatdifferent from that described above; the ends werewell rounded and had a heavy chin, the stem wascarried into the tumble-home with a full roundedcurve all the way to the stem-head, where the stempiece was bent in and downward very sharply andthen inboard sharply again, so that the end piercedthe vertical headboard at sheer height. The S-curvewas so located that the main gunwales could belashed to the stem piece at the point where theyparalleled it well below the stem head. In thesecanoes the Ojibway followed Algonkin practice inending the gunwales; there was, therefore, no strut.Where this canoe was built is uncertain. . ml ,, I., I J_ ^ fa/ho/T? OySway //c/n/fr'j Canoe^ OM Moc^f/, 6u'/^ /e73Seofn J/^ ', //?j/e^e ovntt^a/rs JO " Ojibway 2-Fathom Hunter's Canoe, used by the eastern tribal groups.Probably the ancient model. 123 S7 feef _^/^//^?7/77 0//Si^cry /^f/^/?/ Cc^noe/(r/7^//? oyercf// /8' ^ oyer ai/n^a/e/ /d'-/"Bccfrry -47' /r7j/c/r auoi^yef/e/ '^S^ iC=n: n Oj'/iway Paddle /e/7^^/> oyera/^ /6'?', oyer aurn*/a/ef Z^'O"Secern 37". /nj/eifr Qun*^a/^f JSi" /(y?^ Ao/e" 0///>ivay CanoeSeam J-^ ~ /nj/c^e go The Old Form of Ojibvvay qU-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 inOntario, the Ojibway used a low-ended canoe witha remarkably straight tumble-home stem profile; theforefoot had a very short radius ending at the bottomline with a knuckle, and the stem-head stood slightlyabove the gunwale caps. The stem-piece was madefrom a thin plank cut to profile; thus no laminationwas necessary. The headboard stood straight, fallinginboard slightly at the head. The midsection wasdish-shaped, with a flat bottom athwartships andstrongly flaring sides, the turn of the bilge being ratherabrupt. 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 designwas seen by Adney at North Bay, Ontario, in 1925,indicating that the design may have been used insome degree outside the Lake area in later years.The most common Ojibway model used to thenorthwest 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, becomingalmost perpendicular at the extremities, yet the endswere not proportionally very high. The end-profilecame up from the bottom very full and round, thenfell sharply inboard in a slightly rounded sweep tojoin the upturned sheer well inboard. The midsectionwas somewhat dish-shaped, but with well-roundedbilges, so that the flare of the topsides was roundedand not very apparent to the casual observer. Theend section developed into a tumble-home form, sothat a section through the top of the headboardwas rather oval. As a result, these canoes appearedrather clumsy and unfair in their lines, but thisapparently did not harm their paddling qualities orseaworthiness.These canoes had narrow headboards that weresharply bellied, somewhat like those in the crookedcanoes, and the belly was sufficient to allow the heelof the end-board to pass under the bottom sheathingand inside the bark cover so that two end ribs servedto hold the heel in place. The inside stem-piece was125 Eastern Ojibway Canoe, Old Form. [Canadian Pacific Railway photo. OjiBWAY Long-Nose Canoe, Rainy Lake District.126 0//6tvay t^ fafhom Ni/o/er'j Conof. /S-^9 ^ien^r/i ot'era/i /3'/0'. or-rr gunna/eJ >7-9Seam J3^', injii^f ^unwalri JiMDfpff? lit '/on^ A'oir M'nnr/o/a Oj/i"?^/rue /?arvej//r7t^ Canoelen<)//i oyera// /4 'S'oi/ergD/nva/ei // /ffi^a^T, J? ', mMe ^unwa/ej JO ' SejD//> /3 " Small Ojibvvay Canoes of the Two Tribal Forms showing (above) earlytrend toward the long nose form, and the final Ojibway-Cree hybrid formcombining flaring sides amidships with tumble-home sections at ends. often no more than a light stick or rod bent to profile,with the head split and brought over the gunwale endsand down inside, between them. Each half of thesplit was then lashed to its neighboring gunwalemember. A strip of bark was often placed over theend of the bark cover and carried down the face of thestem, under the sewing. The rail caps were thenbrought up over the tops of the gunwales and over-lapped the top portion of the stem piece. The heelof the stem-piece was bevelled off on the inboard sideso that it could be wedged under the headboard, insidethe bark cover. These headboards, it should benoted, were no more than a thin, narrow batten, andin some canoes the head of this batten was lashedunder the gunwale ends instead of coming up betweenthem inboard, as usual. A variation in the fitting ofthe stem head was found in a canoe at Long Lake,Ontario; the stem head, instead of being split, waslashed between the gunwale ends and thus was broughtinboard level with the top of the gunwales. The cross section of the main gunwales was roundor nearly so in nearly all long-nose canoes, and often agunwale cap was fitted. The bark cover was securedto the gunwales by a continuous lashing, but in atleast one example, from Minnesota, the gunwalewrappings were in groups over an outwale after theregular fashion to the eastward. The ends of thethwarts were wedge- or chisel-shaped and instead ofbeing tenoned were forced into splits in the roundgunwales. Many canoes had bark covers at the gun-wale 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 theends. The stakes were driven nearly perpendicular,instead of with heads slanted outward. It is apparentfrom observed examples that some canoes were builtby the same procedure as the Algonkin, but that notall the long-nose canoes were built by spreading thegunwales; some were built using the methods of theSt. Francis. 127 OjiBWAY Canoe Building,Lac Seul, 1918. Preparing a building site orbed; building frame in place. Bark set up; bark staked outon building bed. Bark cover being sewn on build-ing bed. 128 (See pp. 1 70-1 71 for morephotos of Ojibway canoebuilding.) Gunwales being lashed Securing gunwales. Pitch being applied to seams. J^^.'^4W > 129 Long Lake Ojibway Long-Nose Canoe. {Canadian Geological Survey photo.) The lashing in the high-ended Ojibway canoes wasabout the same as that in the Algonkin canoes, but inthe long-nose type the workmanship was often coarse.On many of the latter the stems were lashed by use ofsmall groups in which two turns were taken througheach of two closely spaced holes in the bark and theconnection between the groups was made by a longspiral around the outside of the stem. This patternwas carried down from the stem-head to about thelevel of the midship sheer height; from there downaround the forefoot the lashing consisted of a simplespiral. Another style was to use widely spaced groupsmade up of two or three turns through a pair of facingholes in the bark, one on each side and inboard of thestem. The turn went around the stem, and the lastconnected with the next pair of holes below. A fewcanoes of this style used closely spaced wrapping, asin the high-ended canoes.The long-nose Ojibway canoe is surprisinglyprimitive by comparison with the graceful and well-finished high-ended model built after the Algonkinstyle. Adney believed that the long-nose type origi-nated with the Sioux Dakotas, before the combinedOjibway and Cree movement forced them out of theforest lands to the west of Lake Superior. He con-sidered it possible that both the Ojibway and Creeadapted the Dakota model, modifying it somewhat totheir methods of construction. It is true that thewestern Cree built a long-nose canoe, but it had lesschin than the Ojibway model. On the other hand,the Ojibway prebent ribs in pairs like the easternCree, and used spreaders in the end ribs while dryingthem, in exactly the same manner. A picture taken in 1916 shows the gunwales of a Cree long-nose canoebeing set; it was laid on the ground and weightedalong the midlength by stones laid on boards placedacross the longitudinals. The ends had been sheeredup and were supported at each end by a thong madefast to the gunwale end and then brought Ovcr a post,or strut, a few feet inboard and made fast to themiddle thwart.It is unnecessary to detail the construction of theOjibway canoes, as they employed a building-frame,as the drawings on pages 1 23 to 1 27 show plainly enoughthe pertinent details of fitting and construction. It isimportant to observe that the wide variation in modeland in construction details of the Ojibway canoesproduced a variety of building procedures that in themain were like those of the Algonkin and Cree.Hence the older tribal method of construction cannotnow be stated with any accuracy.The paddle forms used by the Ojibway groupsvaried somewhat. Most were made with parallel-sided blades and oval tips. The hand grip at the topof the handle was rectangular and was large in com-parison to the grip of the eastern Cree paddles. Afew variations have been noticed; the blade of one waswidest at the top, the tip was almost squared off, andthe upper hand grip was much as in the factory paddleof today. This paddle, from an unknown locality,was used in 1849.As in the case of the Algonkin, the eastern Ojibwaybuilt fur-trade canoes under supervision. Thoughthese canoes differed somewhat from those built bythe Algonkins, it is now impossible to say whether130 or not there was any real relationship between themand the small, high-ended "old-form" canoe. Like-wise, the Ojibway built a version of the wabinaki chiman which seems to have influenced some types of theirown, such as, for instance, the straight-stem LakeTemagami canoe. Nineteen-Foot Ojibway Canoe with thirteen Indians aboard 1,1913) 131 Western Cree The western portion of the great Cree tribe appearto have occupied the western shore of James Bay andto have moved gradually northwestward in historicaltimes. Their territory included the northern portionof Ontario and northern Manitoba north of LakeWinnipeg, and as early as 1800 they had enterednorthwestern Alberta. The line of division betweenthe canoes of the eastern and western Cree cannot bestrictly determined, but it is roughly the MissinaibiRiver, which, with the Abitibi River, empties intothe head of James Bay at the old post of MooseFactory. The southern range of the Cree modelwas only a little way south of the head of James Bay,irregularly westward in line with Lake St. Joseph toLake Winnipeg. To the west, the Cree type of canoegradually spread until it met the canoe forms of theAthabascan in the Northwest Territories, in thevicinity of Lake Athabaska in north-western Sas-katchewan.The canoes of the western Cree, as has been noted,strongly resembled the long-nose Ojibway modelexcept that they had less pronounced chin. Butunlike those of the eastern Cree, their canoes employedan inside stem-piece that was sometimes a laminatedpiece and sometimes a piece of spruce root. Thestem head was commonly bent sharply and securedbetween the gunwale ends at the point where the twolongitudinals were fastened together, much as in someOjibway long-nose canoes. The Cree canoe hadbasically the same dish-shaped midsection, but it hadvery full, round bilges and the flare was so curved inthe topside that it was even less apparent than in theOjibway model. The shorter chin of the Cree canoealso made tumble-home in the end sections unneces-sary, and cross section near the headboards wasgiven the form of a slightly rounded U . The bottom had very little rocker at the ends,being straight for practically the whole length. Thestem-piece if laminated (often in only two or threelaminations) came up from the bottom in a fair roundforefoot and then tumbled in by a gentle curve to thestem-head, where it was bent sharply to pass downbetween the gunwale ends as previously noted. Butif the stem-piece was of spruce root, the profile wasoften somewhat irregular and the chin was morepronounced. In a common style the stem came fairout of the bottom in a quick hard curve, then curved outward slightly until the height of the least freeboardamidships was reached, at which height another hardturn began the tumble-home in a gentle sweep to thestem-head, where there was a very hard turn down-ward. The stem-head was often split, as in someOjibway canoes, so that it came over the joined endsof the main gunwales and the two halves were thenlashed to the inside faces of the gunwales.Birch bark was often poor or scarce in the territoryof the western Cree, as in that of their eastern brothers.As a substitute, they employed spruce bark and ingeneral seem to have achieved better results, fortheir spruce-bark canoes had a neater appearance.If the canoe was built when or where root materialwas difficult to obtain, the western Cree used raw-hide for sewing the bark cover. When the stemswere lashed with rawhide, a stem-band of bark underthe lashing was common.The gimwales were round in cross section and wereoften spliced amidships. The bark cover was lashedto these with a continuous lashing, no caps or out-wales being employed. As in the Ojibway long-nosecanoe, the headboards were very narrow and muchbellied. These canoes were built with four or fivethwarts; the 4-thwart type was used for gatheringwild rice, as was the Ojibway type, while the 5-thwartcanoe was the portage model. The thwarts weresometimes mortised into the gunwales, but somebuilders made the thwart ends chisel-pointed anddrove them into short splits in the gunwales beforelashing them, one or two holes being drilled in thethwart ends to take the lashing thongs. When thethwarts were tenoned into the gunwales, the buildersof course made the inside of the gunwales flat.When spruce bark was employed, its greater stiff-ness made it possible to space the ribs as much as10 inches on centers, but with birch the spacing wasabout 1 inch, edge to edge. The sheathing was inshort splints and the inside of the canoe was "shingled"or covered irregularly without regard to lining offthe strakes, a practice sometimes observed in Ojibwaylong-nose canoes. The much-bellied and narrowheadboards were fitted as in the long-nose canoe, andthe heel was secured under a piece of sheathing andheld by it and the first two ribs.Western Cree canoes were built with a buildingframe, and the bed was raised in the middle. Thesewing varied. The ends were lashed with combina-tions of close-wrapped turns, crossed turns, grouped,and spiral turns; the lashing commonly went aroundthe inside stem piece rather than through it. Side132 J'caU /n r,-^/ ^Top of // /a/^evn tVej/em Crer Canoe^rr7gf/> oyera// /^'/O, oyer ^i/ntva/fj //'2-Fathom Canoe, Winisk River District, northwest of JamesBay. Built of either birch or spruce bark. Inside root stem piece, roundgunwales, and much-bellied headboard are typical. panels were sewn with in-and-out stitches or backstitches, and the gores with the usual spiral. Gum-ming as a rule was done with clear spruce gum tem-pered by repeated meltings.The woodw'ork varied with the building site; somebuilders could use much cedar, but spruce was mostcommon and the thwarts were usually of birch. Whenspruce bark was used it was never employed in a singlelarge sheet, since it w-ould have been impossible tomold it to the required shape. Hence the bark coverwas pieced up, whether birch or spruce, as an aid inmolding the form. Before the spruce bark was sewedand gummed, the edges of the pieces had to be thinnedto make a neat joint. Furthermore, in the continuouslashing it was desirable to take two or three turnsthrough one hole in the bark cover to avoid weakeningthe material with closely spaced holes. The western Cree paddles had parallel-sided bladeswith 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 thehandle. Old Cree paddles were often decorated withred pigment bands, markings in the shape of crosses,squares in series, and dots on the blades; the topgrip might also be painted.Many tribal groups in the western portion of thearea have been mentioned?-Teton, Sioux, Assini-boine, Illinois, Huron, and many others?but norecord of their canoe forms has survived and theassigning of any model to them is pure sp>eculation.The fur trade alone brought about a fieriod of tribalmovement among the Indians long enough to erasemany tribal distinctions in canoes and to cause typesto move great distances. 133 Fur-Trade Canoes Of all birch-bark canoe forms, the most famouswere the canots du maitre, or maitre canots (also callednorth canoes, great canoes, or rabeskas), of the greatfur companies of Canada. These large canoes weredeveloped early, as we have seen in the Frenchcolonial records, and remained a vital part of the furtrade until well toward the very end of the 19thcentury?two hundred years of use and developmentat the very least. A comprehensive history of theCanadian and American fur trade is yet to be written;when one appears it will show that the fur trade couldnot have existed on a large scale without the greatmattre canot of birch bark. It will also have to showthat the early exploration of the north country waslargely made possible by this carrier. In fact, thegreat canoes of the Canadian fur trade must belooked upon as the national watercraft type, histori-cally, of Canada and far more representative of thegreat years of national expansion than the wagon,truck, locomotive, or steamship.Little has survived concerning the form and con-struction of the early French-colonial fur-trade canoes.Circumstantial evidence leads to the conclusionthat the model was a development, an enlargement perhaps, of the Algonkin form of high-ended canoe asdescribed on pages 113 to 116. The early French cameinto contact with these trilxrsmen before they metthe Great Lakes Ojibway, the other builders of thehigh-ended model. It is known that the Indiansfirst supplied large canoes to the French governmentaland church authorities and that when this source ofcanoes proved insufficient, the canoe factory atTrois Rivieres was set up and a standard size (probablya standard model as well) came into existence. Asthe fur trade expanded, large canoes may well havebeen built elsewhere by the early French; we know atleast that building spread westward and northwardafter Canada became a British possession.In the rise of the great canoe of the fur trade, thebasic model was no doubt maintained through themethod of training its builders. The first Frenchengaged in bark-canoe building learned the tech-niques, let us say, from the original Indian builders,the Algonkin. As building moved westward, thefirst men sent to the new posts to build canoes ap-parently came from the French-operated canoefactory. It would be reasonable to expect that asbuilding increased in the west, local modificationswould be patterned on canoes from around the build-ing post, but that the basic model would remain. Thismay account for the departures from the true Ojib-way-Algonkin canoes .seen in the maitre canots. Majfrr Conof Inboard Profile of a 6-Fathom Fur-Trade Canoe, and details of construc-tion, fitting, and decoration. 135 J /b//,am ffo6rjUo or ymo// '/Vor/h ranoe Or/if^ 13' ' Small 3-Fathom North Canoe of the Tetes de Boulemodel. Built in the igth century for fast travel, thisHudson's Bay Company canoe was also called nadowechiman, or Iroquois canoe. In model, all the fur-trade canoes had narrowbottoms, flaring topsides, and sharp ends. The flaringsides were rather straight in section and the bottomnearly flat athwartships. The bottom had a moderaterocker very close to the ends. In nearly all of thesecanoes, the main gunwales were sheered up onlyslightly at the ends and were secured to the sidesof the inner stem-piece; the outwales and caps,however, were strongly sheered up to the top of thestem. The curvature and form of the ends, in lateryears at least, varied with the place of building.After the English took control of Canada and thefur trade, a large number of Iroquois removed intoQuebec and were employed by the English fur tradersas canoemen and as canoe builders. Though theaboriginal Iroquois were not birch-bark canoebuilders, they apparently became so after they reachedCanada, for the fur-trade canoes built on the OttawaRiver and tributaries by the Algonkins and theirneighbors became known after 1820 as nadowe chimanor adowe chiman, names which mean Iroquois canoe.These "Iroquois canoes," however, were not astandard form. Those built by the Algonkin hadrelatively upright stem profiles, giving them a ratherlong bottom, and the outwales and caps stood almostvertical at the stem-heads; in contrast, the "Iroquoiscanoes" built by the Tetes de Boule had a propor-tionally 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 Tetes deBoule canoes were not sheered quite as much as werethose of the Algonkin.It is supposed that the Tetes de Boule were taughtto build this model by Iroquois, who had replacedthe French builders subsequent to the closing of thecanoe factory at Trois Rivieres, sometime about 1820.After the English took possession of Canada in 1763,the old canoe factory had been maintained by theMontreal traders (the "North West Company"), andit was not until these traders were absorbed by theHudson's Bay Company that canoe manufacture atTrois Rivieres finally came to a halt, although it isprobable that the production of canoes there hadbecome limited by shortages of bark and other suitablematerials. However, the North West Company hadbuilt the large trading canoes elsewhere, for many ofits posts had found it necessary to construct canoeslocally, and when the Hudson's Bay Company finallytook over the fur trade it continued the policy ofbuilding the canoes at various posts where materialand builders could be found. This policy appears tohave produced in the fur-trade canoe model a thirdvariant in which the high ends were much rounded atthe stem head; this was the form built by the Ojibwayand Cree (see p. 139). It must be noted, however,that the variation in the three forms of furttrade canoewas expressed almost entirely in the form and framingof the ends; the lines were all about the same, though136 Models of Fur-Trade Canoes, top to bottom: aji-fathom Ottawa RiverAlgonkin canoe, Hudson's Bay Company express canoe, 5' ^-fathom T^tes deBoule "Iroquois" canoe, 3J4-fathom Lake Timagami canoe, 5-fathom fur-tradecanoe of early type, and 5-fathom Hudson's Bay Company canoe built innorthwestern Quebec Province. small variations in sheer, rocker, and midsectionmust have existed.Although no regulations appear to have been setup by the fur companies to govern the size, model,construction or finish of these canoes, custom andthe requirements of usage appear to have been satis-factory guides, having been established by practicalexperience. As a result, the length of canoes variedand the classification by "fathoms" or feet must beaccepted as no more than approximate.The form of the canoe was determined by the use towhich it was to be put, in trade or in travel. Fur-trade accounts often mention the "light canoe," orcanot leger, often misspelled in various ways in earlyEnglish accounts, and this class of canoe was always mentioned where speed was necessary. Commonly,the light canoe was merely a trade canoe lightlyburdened. Due to the narrow bottom of these canoes,they became long and narrow on the waterline whennot heavily loaded and so could be paddled veryrapidly. It is true, however, that some "expresscanoes" were built for fast paddling. These weremerely the common trade models with less beam thanusual at gunwale and across the bottom. Some postsmade a specialty of building such canoes, often hand-somely painted, for the use of oflficials of the company,or of the church or government, during "inspection"trips. Not all of the highly finished canoes were ofthe narrow form, however, as some were built widefor capacity rather than for high speed. 137 "Fur-Trade Ma'tre Canot With Passengers.'Hopkins {Public Archives of Canada photo) . From an oil painting by The fur traders used not only the so-called fur-tradecanoes, of course, but they employed various Indiantypes when small canoes were required. And inthe construction of the high-ended fur-trade models,they did not limit themselves to canoes of relativelygreat length. Each "canoe road" forming the mainlines of travel in the old fur-trade had requirementsthat affected the size of the canoes employed on it.The largest size of fur-trade canoe, the standard5}^-fathom (bottom length), was employed onlyon the Montreal-Great Lakes route, in the daysbefore this run was taken over by bateaux, schooners,sloops, and later, by steamers. At the western end ofthis route, a smaller 4- or 4)^-fathom canoe cameinto use. The latter was used on the long run intothe northwest. Even smaller canoes were oftenemployed by the northern posts; the 3- or 3}^-fathomsizes were popular where the canoe routes werevery difficult to operate. For use on some of thelarge northern lakes, the large canoes of the Montreal-Great Lakes run were introduced. Fur coming eastfrom the Athabasca might thus be transported incanoes 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 certainwhether the measurement he is employing is bottomor gunwale length. In the largest canoes, however, the 5J^-fathom bottom-length was the 6-fathom gun-wale length, and the use of either usually, but notalways, indicates the method of measurement. Thisis not the case in the small canoe however, where thematter must too often be left to guesswork. To givethe reader a more precise idea of the sizes of thecanoes last employed in the fur trade, the followingwill serve. The mailre canot of the Montreal-GreatLakes run was commonly about 36 feet overall, orabout 32 feet 9 inches over the gunwales, and a littleover 32 feet on the bottom. The beam at gunwalewas roughly 66 inches (inside the gunwales) or about68-70 inches extreme beam. The width of the build-ing frame that formed the bottom would be somewherearound 42 inches. The depth amidships, from bottomto top of gunwale might be approximately 30-32inches 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 fathomswere built a number of inches wider or narrower,and deeper or shallower. The earlier fur-tradecanoes of the French and of the North West Company,for example, were apparently narrower than theabove.The 5-fathom size that replaced the larger canoeat the close of the bark-canoe period was about 31feet long over the gunwales or 30 feet 8 inches in a138 "Bivouac in Expkdition in Hudson's Bay Canoe." From an oil painting byHopkins {Public Archives of Canada photo). Sca/e ,/7 reef- J fathom fur 7rae/ the Beaver (= Tsattine),the Dogrib (= Thlingchadinne), the Tanana (=Te-nankutchin), the Loucheux, the Hare (= Kawcho-dinne), and others. Some of these tribal groups builtnot only bark canoes but also dugouts. There werealso some Eskimo people who built bark canoes forriver service, as well as skin canoes, on the same modelas the liark kayak-form.154 In the vicinities of Lake Athabasca and GreatSlave Lake, the Chipewyan employed not only theirown models of canoes but also that of the westernCree. The latter had invaded Chipewyan territorybefore the arrival of the first white men in the North-west and undoubtedly had influenced canoe-buildingtechnique during the long period of the fur trade thatfollowed. It is therefore not possible to say wherethe influence of Chipewyan building techniquesends and that of the Cree and the eastern Indians,as introduced through the fur-trade canoes, begins.This raises the question whether the high-endedAthabascan canoe is itself the result of influence.One may infer from Samuel Hearne's description ofhis travels in this area, in his Journey . . . to the .\ortlurn Onnii,* that only the Kayak-form thenexisted, for this type is the only one he describes,and he describes it in great detail. However, Alexan-der Mackenzie, in an entry in his journal for June 23,1789, refers to the "large canoe" in a manner indicat-ing that it was a local type. It may well be thatthen, as later, the kayak-form and cargo canoe existedside by side, or it may be that Mackenzie was referringto a large kayak-form canoe like the family canoeof the Alaska Yukon Indians. Perhaps the reasonthat Hearne did not mention the "large canoe"is that the people he met on his way to the Copper-mine River, and on his way back by way of LakeAthabasca to Hudson Bay, did not then use canoesof the second model. Narroiv-Bottom Canoe Because the variations in the second model, theAlgonkin-Ojibway type, are relatively slight, it willbe easiest to describe this first. The canoe is knownto have been liuilt extensively by the Chipewyan,Dogrib, and .Slave. The sizes most common were 16to 22 feet over the gunwales, with a beam of between36 and 48 inches. The sheer was usually ratherstraight, the sharp upward turn to the end takingplace very close to the gunwale ends. Most of thebottom was straight; the rocker, if existing, occurredclose to the ends of the canoe and was moderate.The midsection was dish-shaped and nearly flatacross the lx)ttom, with a rather slack, well-rounded *See bibliography. Clnii'F.wv.AN 2-Fathom hunter's canoe(top), with bent stem piece, and .Atha-bascan 2'2-fathom canoe with plankstem piece. Plank and bent stem pieceswere both employed in .Athabascancanoes. .Spruce or birch bark were usedwithout aheration of the design or basicconslnictitin methods. bilge and alinost straight flaring sides, the amount offlare being usually great. The bottom apparentlywas never dead flat athwartships, for in all knownexamples it was somewhat rounded. Near the <-ndsthe sections were in the shape of a V with apexrounded; the form of the ends was sharp and withouthollow either at the gunwale or at the le\el lines.The ends of the canoes were never lofts and manyhad end profiles that were very long fore-and-aft andshowed a marked angularit\'. Inwales and outwalesfonned the gunwale structure; some canoes also hadgunwale caps which stopped well short of the endprofiles. The ends of the inwales were carried to thestem-pieces; they were sharply tapered and curxed tosheer, and were elaborately cross-wrapped to securethem there. The end profiles were formed of a thinplank-on-edge in most canoes, i)ut some had stem-pieces split into laminae in the usual fashion and bent.In all cases headboards were employed; the headswere forced under the inwale ends and against theinside face of the stein-piece. The gunwale lashingswere in groups, although some canoes exist in which155 BeamOep/f7 ^o^r//> J /a/hom Canoe /nf/c/e ^gt/n^v'a/ej -^3 Athabascan Cargo or Family Canoes With Bent Stem Pieces, Chipewyan2'^-fathom (top) and Dogrib 3-fathom. These canoes were covered withspruce or birch bark. the outwale was omitted and the lashing was contin-uous; these canoes usually had laminated bent stem-pieces and their stem lashing was identical with thatof the Algonkin-Ojibway fur-trade canoes. Thisdeparture, it is reasonable to assume, was the resultof outside influence on the Athabascan technique.When the stem-piece was of thin plank, the bark wasusually fastened to it by multiple turns of two thongspassed, one from each side, through the bark andthrough holes bored in the stem.The end profile varied with the tribe of the Ijuildcr.Chipewyan canoes had a very long end profilefore-and-aft; the heel was angular, and the outlineof the stem then swept forward in an easy curve toa height about two-thirds the depth of the canoeamidships, then began to tumble in a little, the curvebecoming gradually sharper until the head wasreached. The stem-head in its fore-and-aft lengthwas almost one third the height of the ends and was roughly parallel to the bottom of the canoe directlybeneath it. Because of the rocker of the bottom,the after end of the head was thus lower than the foreend. The sheer was fair'-d up f) (he after end of thehca-J in a shf)rt. qaick r ir\c. L'su.iliy the nutwaleswere cut off short of this point, but in some canoes theywere 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 Dogriljcanoes; these served to tighten the lashings andformed a sort of breasthook. In a few examples of theAthabascan type, the stem-pieces were of cedar rootwithout lamination; this use of the roots enabledthe angular form of the plank-on-edge stems to beretained. It cannot be determined whether the rootstem-pieces were part of the old Athabascan tech-nique or were an importation from the western Cree.The lashing in these canoes followed the forms usedin the fur-trade canoes?long-and-short turns in156 //a\^ry Bar^ Canoefa// /S'9\ oyfr ^antva/^i /3'^ ^i fa/horn /^J^ortJrin Typr A//joia/canSark Canaf/rn^/f> ofrra// /6'J oyergumva/ri USSram 39 if ' /nj/a/r (^c//?ya/rr J8^ " Plank-Stem Canoes of Hybrid Forms, 3-Fathom Slavey (top) and 2':;-fatliomAlgonkin-type Athabascan, probably the results of the influence of fur-tradecanoe-building. groups generally triangular in shape, with a spiralturn between groups.The canoes of the Dogrib were practically identicalwith those of the Chipewyan except that the end pro-files were usually slightly deeper fore-and-aft; alsothe Dogrib canoes were perhaps more often of birchl)ark, judging from the remaining canoes and models.The form of the ends in the Dogrib canoes was suchthat they often appeared higher than they really were,as the stein-heads stood some distance ai:)0\c the endsof the sheer, an effect which was heightened by thesmall fore-and-aft depth of the stem-heads.The large canoes of the Slave had the same hullcharacteristics as the others but differed in end pro-files and did not have rail caps. In the Slave canoe,the ends were formed of thin plank and in profile werealmost upright and slightly curved. The stem linecame out from the bottom in a sharp, almost angularcurve and ascended with a slight sweep to a pointabout level with the gunwale amidships (in some, to within a few inches of the stem-head); from there atumble-home carried it to the stem-head, which wasshort fore-and-aft and slightly crowned, the inboardend dropping vertically downward inside the gun-wales. The headboards were under the gunwaleends. Inwales and outwales were both carried tothe stems but the end lashings were quite short.There were no rail caps. The bark cover was lashedto the stem with an in-and-out stitch from side to sidethrough holes in the plank. The sheer was broughtup nearly to the top of the stem in a rather long, easysweep beginning inboard at the endmost thwart.The gunwale members in all these Athabascancanoes were quite light compared with their Easterncounterparts. A reinforcing strip of bark was placedunder the outwales so as to hang down below themsome four inches or so amidships and less toward theends; this was sometimes decorated with a paintedzig-zag stripe or with widely spaced circles. The endlashings of the gunwales were protected by short bark157 deck pieces inserted under the caps. The edges ofthese deck pieces were trimmed flush with the out-board edges of the caps, so that no wulegessis resuhed.In spruce-bark canoes, because the bark was stiffthe 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 Slavecanoes the ribs were without taper; in the Chipewyanthere was usually a slight taper from the bottom tothe gunwale end. The ends of the ribs were forcedunder the gunwales in the usual manner employedin the east, the gunwales being rectangular in cross-section, with the lower outboard corner beveled.The thwarts were all parallel-sided, but taperedtoward the ends, in elevation. The thwart ends weretenoned into the inner gunwale and usually hadtwo holes in each end for the lashings.In the bark cover the horizontal sewing was oftenover root battens. In many canoes rawhide wasused in much of the lashing and sewing, and in thelast-built bark canoes the end lashings of the gunwaleswere often protected by a decking formed of a smalltriangular sheet of metal, obtained from a large canand crimped along its edges so as to clamp the barkand main gunwales. When this metal deck-piecewas used, the cap and outwale ended against theinboard edge of it.For use in open water these canoes were oftenfitted with a blanket square-sail. The sapling servingas a temporary mast stood in a hole in the secondthwart, and was stepped on a block, or board, peggedor lashed to the ribs.The sheathing of all canoes of this class was of thesame form?wide, short strakes amidships, narrowershort strakes afore and abaft. The midship strakeswere often quite short and their ends were over thelonger end strakes. The end strakes were, of course,tapered toward the stems. The placing of the strakeswas often irregular, with the result that the buttswere somewhat staggered. Some canoes had fourstrakes to the length, but three appears to have beenmost common.The large canoe was employed on the large lakesof the Mackenzie region; smaller canoes of the samegeneral form, 14 to 16 feet in length and 30 to 40inches in beam, were used on the large rivers andstreams. In the smaller canoes of this class, the flareof the topsides was often less than in the largercraft. The Cree in this area, particularly to the southof Great Slave Lake, also employed the Athabascanform. This class of canoe, in general, appears to have been strongly affected by outside influence; conse-quently this description must be understood to coverexisting canoes and models, not pure Athabascancanoe building.The usual construction methods were employed inbuilding this class of canoe; the stakes around thebuilding frame were set vertically, and when the barkcover was lashed to the gunwale members (inwaleand outwale together) the gunwales were spread andthe thwarts inserted in their tenons. Skill was re-quired in preshaping the gunwale members, which,as in the fur-trade canoes, had to be arched in sheeramidships to allow for the change in sheer causedby spreading the gunwales in construction. Thebuilding bed was also arched at midlength to allowfor the lifting of the ends that occurred in spreadingthe gunwales with the bark cover attached.A typical large Chipewyan canoe of this class was21 feet 4 inches in overall length, 43 inches beamand 14 inches in depth amidships. A smaller Dogribcanoe of the same class was 14 feet 7 inches in overalllength, 31}^ inches beam, and 11,^ inches in depth.However, these smaller canoes appear to have beenrelatively uncommon, and the average large canoewas about 20 feet long. Kayak-ForP2 Canoe The kayak-form canoe was widely employed in theNorthwest and was highly developed in both modeland construction. It was essentially a portage andhunting craft, ranging in length from 12 to 18 feet andin beam from about 24 to 27 inches, with a depthbetween 9 and 12 inches. In areas where the kayakform was used as a family and cargo canoe, the lengthwould be as great as 20 or 25 feet and the beam mightreach 30 inches. Except in the family or cargo canoe,which had none, there was usually some decking atthe ends, most of it forward. Some tribal groups builtthe kayak form with its greatest beam at midlength,but the most common form had its greatest beamabaft midlength and its greatest depth there likewise.Many of the kayak forms had unlike end profiles, sothat there was a distinct bow in appearance as wellas in fact.There was much variety in end profile, and thecanoes of each tribal group were usually identifiableby this means. The kayak-form bark canoes of the158 A'aya/c - fbr/Tj S//rA SarA- Co/^of. ^/e>//re*n Cae>y^ 1 1 1 _^urimfO/^t ^ ff'Jia/r m rerraunX^/e ^/7tf* Eskimo Kavak-Form Birch-Bark Canoe From Alaskan Coast, with longforcdcck batten-sewn to the gunwales, no afterdeck, and rigid boUom frame. lower '^'ukon and neighboring streams had a shortoverhang, formed in a curved rake and alike or verynearly so, at bow and stern. On the upper Yukonand adjoining streams the canoes had much rake atboth ends, the rake being straight from the bottomoutward for some distance, then curving rathermarkedly. The bow rake was usually greatest, butthe stern might be higher by one or two inches. Thebottom was without rocker, being straight or evenslightly hogged in most of these canoes. The sheerwas straight to the point where the rake began, thenrose in a easy sweep to the ends. The end decks onthe upper Yukon canoes were short, those on lowerYukon canoes were much longer; on the latter thebow 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, curvedin profile, at bow and stern and a rather low stem-head; the depth at the stern was noticeably greaterthan at the bow, and the deck forward was commonlya little less than a fourth the length of the canoe.In these canoes the greatest beam in most caseswas abaft midlength, and this was also true of thelower Yukon canoes. On the upper Yukon andin some of these canoes on the lower Mackenzie, thegreatest beam was amidships and the depth at bowand stern were equal.The variation in depth at bow and stern in some ofthe kayak-form canoes seems to have been related tothe position of the greatest beam; when the beam was abaft the midlength, the greatest depth was aft, where-as when the greatest beam was amidships, the depthat the ends was equal. With the beam abaft mid-length, the weight of the paddler trimmed the canoeby the stern somewhat, hence greater depth aft thanforward was necessary to make the canoe run easilyand turn readily in smooth water. In the sea kayaksof the eastern Eskimo, on the other hand, the depthand the draft were greatest forward, to bring themhead to the sea when paddling ceased. The Alaskansea kayaks were commonly of equal draft at bow andstern or might ha\c a slightly greater draft aft thanforward.A third variation of the kayak form existed inBritish Columbia in early times, and apparently wasemployed by the Beaver, Nahane, and Sekani. Itwas an undecked bateau-shaped canoe having afair sheer in a long sweep from end to end, the stemprofiles were nearly straight, the ends were rakedrather strongly, and the iiow was somewhat higherthan the stern. The beam was greatest slightly abaftmidlength. It is estimated that canoes of this type,which has long been extinct and now can only bereconstructed from a model, were about 14 feet 8inches long and 30 to 36 inches in beam, and probablywere built of both spruce and birch.The gunwales of the kayak-form canoes were formedby inwales and outwalcs; no caps were employed. Inthe Alaskan types and in the extinct British Columbiabateau variation, the gunwale lashings were contin-159 ^ooir^a//rn bofiom ?r4tm.e cooj/rvc/ion I I I j , I I I Athabascan Hunting Canoes of the Kayak Form, showing charac-teristic hull shape. These canoes were light, handy, and fast. uous, but in the Mackenzie models the lashings werein groups. Inwales and outwales in all the kayakforms ran to the stem-pieces, which were plank-on-edge of a thickness that varied according to tribalpractice. No headboards were employed. The gun-wale members were rectangular in cross-section andwere bent square with the flare of the sides. Theends sometimes were swelled and rounded, and in thebateau variation the gunwales, in cross section,appear to have been rounded. Six thwarts appearin most of the kayak forms but the Loucheux modelhad five and the bateau variation seems to have hadbut three.Reinforcing bark was placed under the outwales inall Mackenzie Basin canoes, but not in the Alaskan orin the bateau variation. The ribs in all these canoeswere small, usually about Yi inch square, and widelyspaced, about 9 to 14 inches on centers. No ribs wereplaced in the rake of the ends. The ends of the ribswere chisel-pointed and were forced between the in-wale and outwale, against the inside of the bark cover.In some canoes, however, the ribs near the ends of thecanoe were forced into short splits on the undersideof the inwale. The thwart ends might also be forcedinto short splits on the inside face of the inwales ormight be tenoned there; in any case a single lashingwas used at the thwart ends. Thwarts were parallel-sided in plan and slightly tapered toward the endsin elevation; no shoulders were used. In the bateau variation, a heavy thwart was placed directly underthe middle thwart with its ends against the sidebattens, apparently to act as a spreader. Each endwas notched over the side battens and was held bytwo lashings to the bottom crosspiece below it. Thisstructure was probably made necessary by the fragileconstruction of this form of canoe. In all kayakforms there was no complete sheathing?the one, two,or three narrow battens to a side above the chinewere held in place only by the sprung ribs (withoutlashings); in the bateau form, however, the sidebatten was lashed to each frame after the manner ofof an Eskimo sea kayak.The characteristic detail in the structure of the barkkayak-canoe, including the bateau variation, was thebottom framing. It was variously formed, accordingto tribal designation. The bottom framing was madeup of five or six longitudinal battens (four in oneextinct form of canoe). In the Yukon canoes sixrectangular battens, all of about the same cross section,were used with the narrow edge outboard. Thesebattens were held rigidly to form by thin crosspieces,or splints, about )\ by 1 inch forced athwartshipsthrough short splits in the battens and pegged at theends on the chine battens. The ends of the four innerlongitudinals were cut ofl^ on the snye to bear on theinside face of the chine battens (in some instancesthey were cut short of this) . The chine ends were bev-eled together or lashed to the sides of the stem-pieces.160 Smt T/tt^arfj Extinct Forms of Canoes Reconstructed From Old Models, showing varia-tions in the bottom frame construction and the effects of hull form. Dimensionsare estimated from the sizes of canoes in the area of each example. But in the Mackenzie form of canoe, the longitudinalshad no cross-members and, like the side battens, wereheld in place by the pressure of the sprung ribsagainst the bark cover. There was a difference in theform of midsection: in the Yukon canoes the bottomathwartships was flat, but in the Mackenzie canoesthere had to be some rounding there. At least oneexception existed in the Mackenzie Basin, where theLoucheux canoe was formed on the Yukon bottom.Another is to be seen in an old model of an extinctAthabascan kayak form, which has only four longitu-dinals and chine members that are very wide androunded only on the outboard face. Between thechine battens are two light rectangular battens.These are all held together by a few splints and bylashings which pass around each individual batten,thus serving both as lashing and spreader. Thiscanoe has what is apparently a very narrow bottomcompared to known types. In some of the Eskimo-built birch kayak forms, the separators between thebottom battens were rectangular blocks held in placeby a thong threaded through two holes in each battenand block, to make a round turn, and tied at one chine.In some bateau variations of the kayak-form canoe,the longitudinals were secured by crosspieces, the endsof which were tenoned into the inside faces of thechine battens. The three inner battens were belowthe cross pieces. As a result, their bottoms were slightly below the bottom of the chine members, so thatin this canoe two chine lines show through the barkcover on each side of the canoe.From tribe to tribe the method of building thekayak-form canoe varied somewhat, but generallythe following procedure was employed. On a smooth,level piece of ground the form of the canoe was stakedout in the usual manner, using a building frame,with the stakes sloped outward at the top to iTiatch thedesired flare of the sides.Stem and stern posts were shaped of cedar by char-ring and scraping. The gunwales were made in thesame manner and were then lashed at the desiredheights on the stakes. Next, the bark cover wasformed, usually of two or more sheets sewn together.This was placed inside the stakes and the buildingframe 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 thebark was laced. The stem and the stern post werethen placed and lashed to the gunwales and securedto the bark by lashing, in some instances throughholes in the posts. The bark at this stage was usuallyquite dry and stiff and the gunwales could be freedfrom the side stakes.The bottom frame, assembled before other con-struction had started, was hogged; the middle wasplaced on a log or block and the ends weighted. Hot161 water was often applied to set the bottom frame.Next, the bark cover was thoroughly wetted withboiling water to make it pliable and elastic. Thebuilding frame and stones were now removed, thebottom frame was substituted, and its ends fastenedor engaged to the heels of the stem and stern posts.The bottom frame was then forced flat and held thereby stones. This stretched the bottom bark longitudi-nally, and increased the sheer slightly toward bowand stern. The hogged bottom frame was known asa "sliding bottom" by some Indians.The transverse frames, or ribs, had been prebentin the usual manner before assembly began; a fewof these were now put in place, the ends being forcedunder the gunwales between their outer faces and thebark, or into a grove on the underside of the gunwale.This stretched the bark transversely and vertically.Once the bark had been forced into form by thismethod, the remaining ribs were added, and thesenow held the hogged bottom down so that the weightsor stones could be removed. The canoe was thenturned over, the seams gummed, and any tears orrents repaired.This method of building usually produced a slighthogging 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 Dene tribe appear tobe the most highly developed of all in this type.The decks of many of the kayak-form canoes weremade of a triangular sheet of bark cut with the grainof the bark running athwartships, so that it could beheld in place by the curl of its edges, which clampedunder the outwales, as well as by three lashings.The edges were curled by passing a glowing brandalong them. One lashing was around the stem-headand two were at the inboard end of the deck, aroundinwale and outwale. If the inboard end of the deckwas not on a thwart it was stiffened by a battenlashed on top of the deck athwartship, at the deckend, to serve as an exterior deck beam and breakwaterin one. If the deck end was on a thwart, a battenmight be pegged athwartship on top of the deck;sometimes this batten was rolled in a sheet of barkfirst. Another method was to use a small sheet ofbark tightly rolled, with its free edge tucked underthe deck end and secured at the ends of the roll bythe deck-gunwale lashings there. Some canoes hadtheir decks lashed over battens for a short distancealong the gunwales. In some Mackensie Basin kayakforms, the end of the deck at the stem-head was protected by a small paddle- or leaf-shaped piece ofbark placed under the lashing there and shaped toreach a little over onto the stem piece so as to sealthe seam.The fitting of the bark cover of the kayak-formcanoes was not the same in all types. In the Macken-zie 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, thechines. The sides were made up of deep panels, fiveto nine to a side. There were no horizontal seamsother than the one near the chines.In some Yukon canoes, however, the bottom sheetwas often made of three pieces and covered not onlythe bottom but also a portion, such as the aftertwo-thirds, of one side. The forward portion of thatside would then be covered by a single large panel orperhaps two, so that the horizontal seam on that sidewould run from the stem aft to the inboard end of theforedeck and would be just above the chine. Onthe opposite side a sheet would cover the bottom thereand the bow topside from the stem aft for a short way.Deep panels would then cover the rest of that side tothe stern, so that the horizontal seam there beganforward at the sheer, some feet abaft the bow, andswept downward in a gentle curve to near the chineand then ran aft to the stern in a long sheered linejust above the turn of the bilge, rising slightly as itneared the stern. Hence the foremost of the panelson that side was nearly triangular and the otherswere nearly rectangular. Inside, at the chine, wasplaced a reinforcing strip of bark wide enough toreach 3 inches beyond both sides of each chinelongitudinal and running the length of the bottom;or if a seam near the chine permitted, the side andbottom pieces were overlapped. As has been noted,in the Yukon canoes a reinforcing piece at the out-wale was not used, but was in the Mackenzie canoes;it extended down the side about 3 inches below theunderside of the outwale amidships and ran to theends of the canoe, or nearly so, tapering with theoutwales to a width of about 1^ inches at bow andstern. In these canoes :nuch of the lashing at stemand stern was double-thong; the longitudinal sewingwas often over a batten in the usual spiral stitch, anda simple spiral stitch was also used to join the panels,although in-and-out stitching might also be seen insome canoes.In many of the kayak-form canoes two ribs oftenstood noticeably close together amidships, and therest stood parallel to the rake of the end on their side.162 Confinvo<^t Hym^inyj -^.WIPF- "Xa*/ efnoe wtii ?Aovf ^'tHfprr /fian, niyiwy vjum/ Kayak-Form Canoes of the Alaskan Eskimos and CanadianAthabascan Indians: chine form of Eskimo birch-bark canoe(above) and the dish-sectioncd form of the Canadian Athabascans. respectively, of the middle ribs. However, not allthese canoes had such double ribs; some were framedout in the usual manner, with the ribs widely spacedand canted toward their respective ends of the hull,away from the midship of the canoe.In most of these canoes the paddler sat on a sheetof bark secured on the bottom; this was held in placeby one or two false ribs having their ends under theinner gunwales and their middle forced down againstthe bark on the bottom framework. In place ofbark, some Eskimo builders of the type used thinsplints of wood laced together by two or three linesof double-thong stitching athwartships, which waspassed through two holes in each splint. This mightbe loose or held in place by a false frame.The paddle was single-bladed and the same as thatused with the second class of Mackenzie Basincanoe (fig. 151). The blade was parallel-sided withthe point formed in a short straight-sided V-form;The blade of Yukon paddles was often taper-sidedtoward the point, which was a rounded V. Othervariations in blade form existed, however, and thenarrow leaf-shaped blade was used in some areas inAlaska. In the Mackenzie paddles the handle endedin a knob, but in Alaskan versions it ended in across-grip like those of paddles used with someAlaskan sea kayaks. The Eskimo double-blade paddlewas used with the kayak-form canoe by some paddlers;Hearne mentions its use. .Some of the kayak-form canoes were decorated; inAlaska this decoration often took the form of a line ofcolored beads sewn along each side of the afterdeckat the gunwale, or it consisted of a few oval panelsof red, blue, or black paint along the sides or center-line of the afterdeck. In some Mackenzie kayak formsthe decks were painted in various designs; a rathercommon one seems to have been two or more bandsof 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 largeAlgonkin-Ojibway canoes of the second type.A number of kayak forms became extinct beforeany accurate, detailed records of their shape andconstruction had been made; models of some ofthese canoes exist but are not to scale and arc un-trustworthy as to detail, since they are often simplified.One model of the extinct British Columbia bateauform, for example, showed but three longitudinalsin the bottom, though the probable size of the canoeundoubtedly would have required a greater number.On the other hand, the model may have representeda spruce-bark canoe constructed for temporary use,in which case a simplified construction might havebeen employed. One can only speculate which itwas. Models of some kayak-form Yukon canoes showthe decks lashed to the gunwales with a very coarsespiral stitch not recorded for any of the observedfull-size canoes; thus it mav Ije a model-maker's163 /(ayal> /arm Birch Bark Canor, Ba6mr i9,yfr tb/Zry, BCirngfti overall l8'-4iBran, oyer gmwa/et ^5' Kayak-Form Canoe of British Columbia and upper Yukon valley. Showshogged bottom, usual in the type with a rigid bottom frame, which becomesstraight or cambered when canoe is afloat and manned. Original in theMuseum of the American Indian, New York. method of securing the decking firmly rather thanan actual practice used on full-size canoes.It now remains only to give short descriptionsof the various kayak-form canoes that have beenobserved.The ends of the Eskimo-built canoes of the lowerYukon had a short rake, the heel of the end profilebreaking out of the bottom line at a slight angleand 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 midshipdepth above the sheer amidships. The sheer ateach end was almost dead straight until within a fewinches of the end; thence it swept up sharply withthe inner gunwale ends, broadened, resting on theinboard side of the stem piece. The extreme endsof the inner gunwales were thus at the extreme stem-head. The stem-pieces were of plank, the cutwaterportion outside the bark cover being sharpened thefull height of the stems. These lower Yukon canoeshad three side battens above the chine piece, butnot all ran the full length in one piece; some werein two, in which case the ends merely ran past oneanother for a few rib-spaces and were neither buttednor lapped. The forward deck extended nearly one- third the canoe's length and had a batten acrossthe inboard deck-end; the after deck reached to theafter thwart. Adney's model of such a canoe showsthe after deck lashed to the gunwales with spiralturns over a batten along the deck edges and finishedtoward the stern with chain stitching, but no sucharrangement was seen in any full-sized canoe.The form of these Eskimo-built canoes was nearlythat of a double-ended flat-bottom skiff; the bottombeing flat athwartships and without rocker fore-and-aft. The sides flared and were nearly straight. Theturn of the bilge was quite sharp, the chine having avery short radius. In plan, the canoe showed nohollow in the ends, which were convex both at gun-wale and on the bottom frame. In some of thefull-sized canoes inspected there appeared to be aslight hog ranging from ){ to % inch in the bottom,but there was no evidence to suggest that this was aresult of the drying and shrinkage of the canoe struc-ture with age. Hearne's drawing of a kayak-formcanoe shows an impossible amount of hog in thebottom, and he indicates that some hog was inten-tional in building. This would disappear when thecanoe was loaded afloat owing to the light andflexible structure, and it is evident that the buildersusually sought to have the bottom slightly hogged.164 Construction of Kayak-Form Canoe of the lower Yukon, showing rigidbottom frame. {Smithsonian Institution photo.) The kayak-forin canoes of the lower Yukon andneighboring streams all appear to have been smallcanoes "tailored" to their owner's weight and height:14 to 15 feet in overall length, 2 to 2^4 feet wide,and 10 to 12 inches deep. The bottom frame wasfrom 12 to 14 inches wide amidships.The kayak-form canoes of the upper Yukon Valleyand those used in northern British Columbia and inYukon Territory had ends with a long rake that cameup in a straight line from an angular break at thebottom line to the height of the sheer amidships orthereabouts; there a gradual upward curve continuedto the stem-head. The stern was 2 inches or so higherthan the bow, and the rake of the latter was usuallyabout an equal distance longer than that of the stern.The sheer was nearly straight, with only about 2 inchesof 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 broad-ened inwales were secured on top of the stem andstern pieces. There was no rocker in the bottom,and some examples showed as much as % inch of hogamidships. The bottom was flat athwartships and the almost straight sides flared a good deal. The turnof the bilge was on a very small radius and in somecanoes appeared angular. The bow deck was usuallyjust under one-fifth the length of the canoe. Most ofthe canoes did not have a stern deck, at least on theYukon headwaters, but on those that did, it was aboutone-ninth the length of the canoe. The greatest beamwas abaft amidships and the canoe was usually aboutXYi inches deeper at the heel of the sternpost than atthe heel of the stem. In plan, the ends (at gunwaleand bottom frame) were convex; the gunwale endsalone might appear slightly hollow close to the postsin some examples. The canoes in Alaska and BritishColumbia and at the headwaters of the Yukon had arigid bottom structure, with the splint spreadersusually numbering frve.The 1-man hunting canoes were commonly 18 to 19feet long, 24 to 27 inches beam, and usually 10 to 11inches deep amidships. The single example of a fam-ily or cargo kayak-form that has been measured fromthis area was 20 feet 1 inch overall and SO)^ inchesbeam over the gunwales. It was 1 8 inches wide on thebottom frame, 13 inches deep amidships, 14 inches165 deep at heel of stem, and 16 inches at heel of stempost.Height of the stem was 29 inches, of the stern 30}^inches, the after rake was 38 inches, and the fore rake40)^ inches. The canoe had no decks and was rathersharp-ended.The kayak-form canoe of the Athabascan Loucheuxhad a rigid bottom-frame; the bottom was flatathwartships and it had no fore-and-aft rocker. Thesides were flaring and slightly curved. Both endswere alike, and the canoe was unusual in having onlyfive thwarts, with one amidships. The stem wasshort in rake and curved; the stem profile came out ofthe bottom line in a fair, quick curve which becamevertical at a height of little more than two-thirds thedepth amidships of the canoe. The height of thestem was almost twice the midship depth. Betweenthe end thwarts the sheer was straight, thence itswept upward in a gradually sharpening curve to theinboard stems; the inwale ends stood vertical on theface of the stem, with their ends brought to the top ofthe stem-head. The stem-pieces were of unusuallythick plank, with the head broadened and the cut-water part outside the bark cover sharpened untilnear the head, where it gradually became as wide asinboard. The gunwales were lashed with continuousturns, as in the Alaskan canoes. In plan, the gun-wales and bottom, frame were full-ended and convex.These canoes were decked equally at both ends. Thedeck extended inboard far enough to just cover theend thwart, to which, in the example seen, it waslashed with four simple in-and-out passes of rawhidethong. The chine-pieces of the bottom were lashedto the sides of the stem-pieces. The covering wasbirch bark. Two battens on each side were employedwith the usual six longitudinals in the bottom frame.These canoes were well-built and their ends resemblethose of the seagoing kayaks used at the mouth of theMackenzie, but these for at least the last 70 years oftheir use were round-bottomed. The Loucheuxcanoes were small, usually about 15 feet long, 30inches wide, and about 12 inches deep amidships.The Chipewyan kayak-form canoe was of loose-batten bottom frame construction, with its beamwell aft of amidships. Its bottom was slightly roundedathwartships, with a slight rocker fore-and-aft; thesides flared outward and were nearly straight; andthe turn of the bilge was almost angular. The bowand stern were of the same general shape; the endprofile came out of the bottom line with a quick hardcurve and then fell outboard in a long sweep thatgradually straightened near the head. The rakes were short, however, and the stem was noticeably lowerthan the stern, the difference being as much as 6inches in some canoes. The sheer was nearly straightto the end thwarts and thence it curved up in aneasy sweep to the ends of the canoe. The canoes weremarkedly deeper at the stern than at the bow; thediflTerence being as much as IJ^ inches in someexamples.This kayak-form was very sharp-ended; the gun-wales in plan often showed a slight hollow and thechine members came to the posts in an almost straightV. As a result, the end ribs were often intentionally "broken" to form a narrow-based, angular U. Insome Eskimo-built kayak forms, a similar result inhull section was obtained in the endmost frames bystepping short struts in splits, or tenons, on top ofthe chine members and on the underside of the maingunwales. This construction was occasionally foundin some of the lower Yukon kayak forms. TheChipewyan kayak forms were decked at both ends.The fore deck was slightly more than one-fourth thelength of the canoe and extended inboard to the sec-ond thwart; the after deck was about one-tenth, andcame inboard to the end thwart. No breakwaterbatten or bark was employed. There were two battenson the sides, above the bilges.The gunwale wrappings were in groups. The barkcover was not folded over the top of the inner gunwalebut, as usual in the Northwest canoes, was trimmedevenly with the top of the inwale and outwale. Re-inforcing bark along the gunwales extended downwardabout I'/i inches below the bottom of the outwalesamidships and about 1 inch at the ends. Of thebottom longitudinals, the keel and chine-pieces wereroughly rectangular in cross-section, laid on the flat,and the intermediate two battens were round; theends of the keel piece were merely butted againstthe stems, no lashing being used. The stem piecewas thick plank and was sharpened outside the barkcover to form a cutwater. The stem lashing was ofthe usual two-thong form, and a batten was usedin the longitudinal seams of the bark cover. Thethwarts, six in number, were tenoned through bothinwale and outwale and pegged between them. Nothwart lashings were used. The decks often werenot lashed into place, being held only by the curlingof the edges of the bark sheets.This canoe was a very good one; it was light andwas fitted to the owner's build. In size it would bebetween 12 and 14 feet long and 20 and 24 incheswide over the gunwales, and the width of bottom166 ->WW ?--- Model of an Extinct Form of Birch-Bark Canoe, Athabascan type, ofBritish Columbia. In Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,Mass.; entered in the museum catalog as of 1849. over the chine members amidships would be 11 to 1 2 inches. The greatest beam would occur 7 to 8)4feet abaft the stem. The depth at heel of stem wouldbe Sji to 9^2 inches and at heel of stern, 10 to 11 inches.The amount of bottom rocker would be between ^4and 1 inch, with its low point about amidships. Thecover was usually birch bark, but sometimes sprucebark was used.Another kayak-form canoe of unknown tribal desig-nation from the Mackenzie Basin was 1 3 feet 3inches long, 27 inches beam over the gunwales, 8^2inches deep amidships, 8^4 inches deep at heel of stem,10 inches deep at the aftermost thwart, and withabout % inch of rocker in the forebody, none in theafterbody. The greatest beam occurred 7 feet 2 inches from the stem. The width amidships of the bottomframework of loose longitudinals was 1 3 inches. Thelength of the rake foreward was 12 inches and aft,12 inches. The fore deck extended inboard to thesecond thwart, where a roll of bark formed a break-water. The after deck extended inboard to theaftermost thwart. Between the end thwarts the sheerwas practically straight; at the ends it rose gently,becoming almost a straight line as it came to the stemand stern, and without the usual upward hook in theends of the gunwales.This was a very light and well-built canoe with abirch-bark cover, a slightly rounded bottom athwart-ships, slack bilge, and flaring sides showing some curvein cross-section. The ends were rather sharp, the167 gunwales coming in to them almost straight, in plan,as did the chine members. The stem and sternpieces were of wide plank sharpened along their out-board edge outside the bark cover, for their wholeheight, to form cutwaters. The stem and stern pro-files were about the same as those of the Chipewyancanoes.An old model in the Peabody Museum of an un-decked kayak-form canoe of Athabascan construc-tion represents a high-ended canoe having ends witha slight rake and a straight cutwater. This form ofcanoe has long been extinct, and no description of anactual canoe of the form e.xists. Judging by the modelit had a very narrow flat-bottom and rounded flaringsides.The extinct bateau variant has already beendescribed (pp. 159-161); it might be considered aprimitive form of the kayak-form bark canoes, wereit not that no intermediate type, between the bateauand the later and highly developed bark kayak-form,has been found; as a result, any such statement canbe no more than speculation. Sturgeon-Nose Canoe In southern British Columbia and in northernWashington, the ram-ended or sturgeon-nose canoeswere built. These were the canoes of the Kutenai, alsospelled " Kootenay," and of the Salish tribal groups.Used on rivers and lakes, they were constructed ofthe bark of birch, spruce, fir, white pine, or balsam,whichever was available at the building site. Wher-ever possible a panel of birch bark was worked inalong the whole length of the gunwales. The hullform of these canoes varied somewhat, perhaps bydecision of the builder, or perhaps by local tribalcustom. 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 exam-ples the stem profiles were in a hollow curve, startingdown from the gunwales rather steeply and thencurving outward more gently to the nose. Mostexamples had a bottom that was straight or slightlyhogged, while those with the hollow curve in the ramoften had a slight rocker. It is believed that theintention was always to have the bottom straight butthat in construction the center of the canoe liftedsomewhat, thus showing a slight hog in the bottom line. The effects of loading and use on the light andflexible structure of these canoes would cause thebottom to rocker and the outboard ends to lift, thuscausing the hollow in the ram profiles. These effectsof loading are confirmed by tests with models of thisform of canoe.The midsection was usually quite round, almostU-shaped, on the bottom, but some canoes showed thebottom slightly flattened and the sides flared outsomewhat. Toward the ends, the U-shape becamemarked, and near the gunwale ends the sides of the Ufell 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. Theram was long and sharp in its lower level lines andthis, with the form of midsection, made this model afast-paddling canoe, though rather unstable. Mostof these canoes had but one thwart, placed at mid-length, but some have been found with three thwartsand a thong tie across the gunwales, close to the stems,as well.No stem-pieces were used ; the bark ends were closedby two outside battens, one on each side, whose headswere carried some 3 inches above the gunwales. Acutwater batten was placed over the edges of thebark between the battens, and the three were lashedtogether, with the bark, by a coarse spiral wrappingor by group ties. The bark cover was not sheathedinside; instead, six battens, Js by 1^ inches, wereplaced on each side of the keel piece, which measuredabout )i by 3 inches and tapered toward the ends.The battens, widely spaced, ran well into the ramends, and were held in place, like sheathing, by thepressure of the ribs. The ribs, spaced 8 to 12 incheson centers, were often split saplings; sometimes theywere shaped to approximately y^ by % inch. Thebatten nearest the gunwale on each side was lashedto every rib. In some canoes the heads of the ribswere brought up between the inwale and outwale,inside the bark cover, with their ends against thecap. The stitching of the longitudinal seam of thetopside panel was passed around these frames andso helped to secure them. In one example, the ribswere passed through the bark cover just below thehorizontal seam of the topside panel; there a turn ofthe stitching was passed around each rib; thenthe rib was brought inboard again in the seam bybeing passed between the edges of the bark coverand the panel. In many canoes there were no ribsin the ram ends, but this was not universal practice; 1( Jia/r in Feef t^ufenai CanoeZfn^/h ovfrcM// /S'-4' , oyer ^unwa/ej /O'Jj'Seam ^si ' . rnjft^e ou/itva/e/ ^f ' Orpfh /^- ^ /et/ton a/on^/feJe /rc/ion a/ Thwar/Figure 154 Bark Canoe of the Kutenai and Shuswap, about average in size and propor-tion. Original in the Museum of the American Indian, New York. small light ribs were sometimes placed there, withtheir heads caught in the closure lashing of the end.The canoes had 3-part gunwales consisting of inwale,outwale, and cap, but in many the arrangement ofthese was such that this nomenclature is misleading.In the latter construction, a lower inwale was used, asin the above drawing; rather small in cross section,it was almost .square, with rounded edges. The ribends, after passing through slits in the bark coverbelow the lower inwale, continued upward past it,outside the bark cover. Above the lower inwale andinside the bark cover was a larger upper inwale;this was flat on the outboard and bottom sides, thetop and inboard sides being rounded into one another.The outwale, roughly rectangular in cross section,clamped the bark cover and heads of the ribs betweenit and the upper inwale. The ribs and bark weretrimmed ofT flush with the tops of the outwale and up-per inwale. The thwart amidships was caught, at theends, between the lower and upper inwales. The gun-wale members and bark cover were secured by grouplashings of small extent and rather widely spaced. The methods of fitting the thwarts differed in thisclass of canoe, and it cannot be determined with cer-tainty whether this variation was tribal or the choiceof the individual builder. In canoes having the lowerinwale arrangement there was but one thwart amid-ships. As has been said, its ends were caught betweenthe upper and lower inwales. Directly beneath itwas a rib whose head was not brought up outsidethe bark cover but, after being secured to the upper-most sheathing batten, was brought around inboardin a quick hard turn and secured along the undersideof the thwart with a close spiral lashing. Under thisrib at the topmost batten was secured a short falserib head by forcing the beveled foot of the false ribbetween the batten and the true rib, after lashing;the head of the false rib was then brought up throughand outside the bark cover in the customary manner,or it might be forced under the lower inwale, insidethe bark cover. In this construction, the endmostribs were at the gunwale ends, and the heads of thesewere lashed to the stem battens outside the gunwaleends, on the outside of the bark cover. 169 Figure 155OjiBWAY Canoe Construction.(See pp. 1 22-1 3 1.) Peeling bark. Staking out bark. * ^i .Assembling bark over on build-ing site. 170 {Canadian Geological Surveyphotos.) Making root thongs Setting ribs inside bark coverwith a mallet. Fitting gunwale caps on newcanoe. %-. .Mso in some of these .Asiatic and Alaskan umiaks, inflatedfloats, of seal skin, are lashed to the gunwales toprevent capsizing in a heavy sea.The .Alaskan umiaks varied much in size but arerather similar in form. The small hunting umiaksused by the Aleuts are about 18 feet long, while thelarge cargo carrying umiaks range up to about 40 feetlong, so far as available records show. They aremarked by heavily flared sides and often have arather strong sheer; a few, however, are ratherstraight on the gunwales. Nearly all existing modelsand boats were built since 1880; and no informationis now available on the forms and dimensions of earliercraft.On page 184 is a drawing of a small umiak, used inwalrus hunting, from the Alaskan coast in the neigh-borhood of the .Aleutians. In the U.S. NationalMuseum are the remains of a similar boat obtainedin 1888 from Northern Alaska. This type of smallumiak is also employed in fishing and is ratherwidely used as a passage boat for short voyages alongshore. These craft, propelled by paddles, are pri-marily fast, handy hunting canoes rather than boatsfor migration or cargo-carrying. For this reasonthey are quite sharp-ended and shallow\ The con-struction of this example will serve to illustrate themethods common to this type.The umiak shown is 20 feet 8}^ inches over theheadboards, 4 feet 9'^ inches extreme beam and1 7% niches depth?apparently an average-sized boatof her class. The width of the bottom over the chine183 Smell Uw.ak for Walrus Hunfm Small Umiak for Walrus Hunting, west coast of Alaska, 1888-89. Recon-structed from damaged umiak formerly in U.S. National Museum, and frommodels. members is 2 feet 7 inches. The keelson is rectangularin section and in two pieces, hooked-scarphed to-gether; each piece is shaped out of the trunk of asmall tree with the root knees employed to form thebow and stern posts. The floor timbers are quiteheavy and support the chine members by havingthe floor ends tenoned into the chine pieces. At bowand stern the chines are joined to the keelson in anotched scarph; at these places the keelson is sidedrather wide to give good bearing. It is evidentthat this portion of the boat's structure is the firstbuilt and forms a rigid bottom to the hull. The floortimbers are lashed to the keelson by lacings of sinew,whalebone, or hide, passed through holes bored inboth, as indicated in the plan. The ends of thefloors are pegged where they tenon into the chinesand the ends of the chines are pegged to the keelson,but this was evidently not a universal practice, asthere are models showing lashings at floor ends andat chine ends. The headboards are carved out ofblocks in a T-shape and are stepped on top of thestem and stern posts and lashed. The fit is extremelyaccurate. The bow headboard is narrower athwart-ship than the stern headboard. The detail of thehook scarph in the drawing shows a method oflashing that is widely used. Because of the manner in which the keelson iscambered and the floor fitted, the bottom of thecovered hull shows in cross section a slight V, reduc-ing toward the bow and stern, that is typical of theAlaskan umiak. The amount of deadrise seems tohave been determined by the manner of fitting thefloor timbers and it helps the boat to run straightunder paddle and oars. In present day umiaks theamount of V in the bottom is slight; too much wouldmake the boat difficult to sledge overland withoutemploying chocks to steady the hull. Perhaps in thepast, where sledging was not required, the deadrisewas 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 thedesired flare and height, being held in place bytemporary spreaders lashed or braced. These aresometimes stiffened by thongs from frame head tokeelson at each pair, to steady the frame while thegunwale is being bent. As the lengths of the thwartsare controlled by the fairing of the gunwales, thethwarts are not fitted until after the latter are inplace. As shown in the figure above, the gunwalesare round poles, slightly flattened on the lower sideat the headboards, where they are secured by lash-184 Umiaks Near Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, showing walrus-hide cover andlacing. Frame lashings are walrus-hide thongs. {Photo by Henry B. Collins.) ings. In building, the gunwales are shaped andsecured by lashing them to those side frames selectedto shape the hull. The lashings that secure the sideframes to both gunwale and chine are passed throughholes in each member and are hove taut by meansof a short lever with a hole bored in it to take the endof the lashing, which is also vsrapped around thelever to give temporary purchase. The side frameshave saddle notches to bear on the chine and gunwale.All lashings in the frame, it will be noted, passthrough holes bored in the members and in somecases the lashings are let in, so that the sinew is flushwith the surfaces of the members, to prevent thelashing from being damaged by chafing.With the gunwales faired, the remaining frames arethen put in position and lashed to the gunwales andchines. An outside batten is run along each sideand lashed by turns of sinew over the batten andaround the side frames, with the lashings let into eachmember to prevent slipping and chafing. Thebatten is lashed at bow and stern in some umiaks, but in many it is stopped just short of coming home onthe posts. Ne.xt, the short frames at bow and sternare put in place and the risers secured inside the sideframes, then, with the thwarts fitted and lashed tothe risers, and the ends of the gunwales are lashedtogether at bow and stern, the boat is ready to becovered. When ready to cover, the frame is stiffenedby diagonal thong ties, each of which has one endsecured by turns around the gunwale, with the otherend 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 coverwas in such a condition that the number of hidesused could not be determined, but it probably is com-prised of three sea-lion skins sewn together. Newskin covers are made by removing the hair and fatfrom the skins and then sewing them together by themethod illustrated on page 186, to obtain proper185 Umiak, West Coast of Alaska, King Island, ifMariner's Museum. Taken off umiali at/V J//7'ching- f/es/? J/?j'if Pnc^ Jecf/77Blind iewing c^nd 5ec\n\usec^ in skin- coverFigure 170 Making the Blind Seam: two stages of methodused by the Eskimo to join skins together. Theedge of the skins are placed flesh side to fleshside with one overlapping the other about 2inches. Then, by means of a thin needle andslender sinew, the skins are sewn together, withan over-and-over stitch, care being taken notto penetrate through the lower skin. When thisis completed the skins are opened out and thesecond seam made on the grain side to com-plete a double seam without penetration ofeither skin. The width of the seam variessomewhat. dimensions. Green skins are generally preferred,since they stretch into shape better than partly orwholly cured ones. Once stretched to shape andcured, the cover can be readily removed and replaced,without resewing. In fitting a new skin cover the skins are first thoroughly soaked in seawater. Thecover is then stretched over the frame and workedtaut by lacings. It is wide enough to reach fromgunwale to gunwale and a little down inside the boaton each side, and is laced to the rising batten withturns of rope spaced 3 to 5 inches apart amidshipsard closer together in the ends of the hull. At theheadboards the cover is laced around the gunwalesand through holes in the headboards, two independentlacings of two turns each being used on each side.At the extreme bow and stern the cover is laced tothe gunwale lashings. Where the cover will notstretch smooth in fitting, gores appear to have beencut out and the skin resewn. After being laced,the cover is allowed to shrink until it becomes smoothand tight, then it is heavily oiled and the seams rubbedwith tallow or blubber. This treatment is repeatedat regular intervals. While the boat is in servicecare is taken to dry out the skin cover once a day,if possible.The sequence of construction described is notfollowed universally; sometimes spreaders are fixedbetween the gunwhales, which are then sheered bythongs to the keelson, after which the side frames areput in and the side and rising battens, and finally thethwarts, are added. Judging by the numerous modelsseen, the small hunting umiaks varied a good deal inthe rake and sweep of the bow and stern, even in thesame village. These hunting umiaks worked withkayaks in Aleutian walrus and sea-lion hunting; apractice that seems to have once been common along XoRiii Alaskan Whai inc Umiak of about i8go. Drawn from damagedframe, formerly in a private collection, now destroyed. the Western Alaskan coast and among the islands.The drawing on page 186 represents a large Alaskantiiniak from King Island. Two boats of this model,hut with modern metal fastenings, are in the Mari-ners" Museum, Newport News, Virginia, but thedrawing shows the methods of fastenings used in 1886.The plan is of a burdensome model, such as is used fortravel or other heavy cargo work. The boat is 34feet 2]^ inches over the gunwales, 8 feet ji inchextreme beam, 2 feet jji inches deep and 2 feet 10inches beam on the bottom over the chines. Theconstruction follows the general plan of the smallumiak just described, except that another method offitting the floor timbers to the chines is employed.Due to the size and use of the umiak, two side battensare employed with a single riser. The thwarts arenot notched over the frames, but instead fall betweenthem. As diagonal thong braces from gunwale tokeelson would be ineffective in this situation, two setsof wooden braces that resist not only tension but alsocompression are used to take the thrust off the thw artlashings. These brace-frames are staggered slightlyto allow room to fit them at the keelson. The draw-ing, which requires no additional explanation, showsthe 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 ayard, the mast being stepped in a block on the keelson.No mast thwart is used; instead stays and shrouds ofhide rope supported the mast, a method that made iteasy to step or unstep the mast in a seaway. Earlyumiaks in this area are said to have had mat sails; later ones used sails of skin and drill. Modern umiaksof this class often have rudders hung on iron pintlesand gudgeons and the floors fastened to the keelsonw ith iron bolts or screws. The scarphs are also bolted,but the remaining fastenings are lashings in the oldstyle, to obtain flexibility in the frame.A North Alaskan whaling umiak, supposed to havebeen built about 1890, is represented in the drawingof figure 171 . The remains of the boat were sufficientto permit reconstruction of the frame. This umiak isaljout the size of, and in profile greatly resembles, aNew Bedford whaleboat. However, the model isthat of the umiak, rather sharp-ended and stronglysheered. The boat is 29 feet 4% inches o\er theheadboards, 5 feet lO.'i inches extreme beam, and 2feet \% inches deep. Umiaks of this model wereused at Point Barrow and vicinity in offshore whaling,and w'ere also used for travel and cargo carrying.Paddles were used in whaling, but in more recenttimes sail, oars, and outboard engines have been em-ployed. The boats of this class appear to have beenmarked by a very graceful profile and stronglyraking ends. Despite the resemblances of this typeof umiak to the whaleboat, it is highly doubtful thatIts model \\as influenced by the white man's boat.In fact, it might just as well be claimed that since thewhaleboat appears to have been first employed in theearly Greenland whale fishery, the latter had beeninfluenced by the umiaks found in that area. How^-ever, one might also point to the fact that the model ofthe early European whaleboat is much like that ofa \'iking boat, from which will fx" seen the danger in187 Baffin Island Umiak. Drawn from model and detailed measurements of asingle boat. accepting chance similarities in form or detail asevidence of relationship, particularly when it is notimpossible that similarities in use and other require-ments have produced similar boat types, the usersnever having come into contact.The whaling umiak has been much used in thewestern Arctic by explorers and Arctic travellers,who regarded highly its lightness and strength,and its ability to be easily driven. It is much widerthan the Chukchi umiak and has far more flare.From a study of models and numerous photographsit can be said that the amount of fore-and-aft camberin the bottom varies greatly between individualumiaks, some of which are almost straight on thebottom. The light framework and elastic constructionoften cause these umiaks to camber a good dealwhen heavily loaded; when sledged, they are some-times fitted amidships with a support for a linefrom bow to stern, that forms a "hogging-brace,"to prevent the boat from losing its camber. It isalso apparent that there is no standard practice infitting floors to the chines; Murdock* shows a roughsketch that indicates the floor ends are often ten-oned into the chines, as in the small umiak. Tree-nailing of the floors and chines, and the keelson, iscommon, and sometimes both treenails and lash-ings are used in scarphs. In some umiaks both thesingle 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 lashedto the riser a few inches inside the posts. *See bibliography. The skin cover of the north Alaskan whaling umiakis made of bearded seal or of walrus hide, which hasto be split, because of its weight. Occasionallypolar-bear skins are used. Lashings of the frameare of whalebone, sinew, and hide. The skins aretreated with seal oil and caribou fat, and whenthe whaling umiak is taken ashore it is usuallystored on a stage to keep dogs from destroying theskin cover. In travelling, however, it is sometimespropped upside down on one edge and used as ashelter. In winter the skin is removed and stored;when it is necessary to be replaced on the frame, theskin cover is soaked in sea water for three to fivedays, after which it is laced on in the usual manner,dried, and then thoroughly oiled. Low, ratherwide sledges are sometimes built to carry the umiakoverland, or on the ice, but often the regular sledgeis used. The boats cannot be sledged against astrong gale because of their windage.The north Alaskan umiak is usually propelled bypaddles, like the Chukchi umiak. These paddlesrange 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 from6 feet 3 inches to 8 feet 6 inches, and also have ratherlong narrow blades, 3 to 4 inches wide.The three examples of Alaskan umiaks serve toshow the features that are most common in the area.However, models in the U.S. National Museumsuggest that there was a greater variety of form andappearance in the past. One model shows the188 East Greenland Umiak, drawn from measurements taken off by a U.S. Armyofficer in 1945.gunwale ends lengthened by pieces shaped \ery muchlike the projecting gunwales of the Malay prah.Some show extreme rake at the bow like that ofthe Koryak umiak but without the rounded gun-wale ends. It is impossible to estimate how far thewestern Alaska umiak model has been aflected bythe early Russian traders in this area, but it isquite certain that the use of oars can be traced tothis influence. The full-sized umiaks, and modelsand photographs, from the Bering Strait area giveno real clues to the possible parentage or directionof spread of the Alaskan umiak types. Occasionaldetails in fittings or construction, such as the gun-wale extensions mentioned, seem to duplicate detailsin primitive Asiatic craft, but the evidence is tooscanty to allow a hypothesis based on design and con-struction alone.No models or photographs have been found of theextinct types of umiaks once used in the northernpart of Hudson Bay and the sketches of early ex-plorers are too crude to allow useful discussion.From such slight evidence it is impossible to saywhether the umiaks in this area were of the westernor eastern type.The drawing of a Baffin Island umiak on page 188is based on measured dimensions of a single boat andupon a small model in the U.S. National Museum.This model conforms in most respects with thedrawings and sketches made by Boas.* The umiakis a small one, 24 feet 7% inches long, 5 feet 8% inches ' See bibliography. extreme beam, 3 feet 10 inches wide o\er the chines,and 1 foot 10(2 inches deep. These measurementsshow that the bottom of this type of umiak is widerthan that of western types. The ijottom is flat, andsheer and camber are both slight. The stem andstern are practically uptight and are not formed ofknees; rather, they are made by fitting the post intothe keelson with an open tenon. Instead of thecarved block headboards .seen in the Alaskan umiaks,the Baffin Island Ijoat has very wide headboards, andthese are tenoned over the posts as in the AsiaticKoryak umiaks. The details of the rest of the framingare not dissimilar from those of the Alaskan umiaks,except that the Baffin Island uiniak does not employany short frames in the end of the hull. The frame-work is rather heavy and the square-ended appearanceof this class of umiak makes it appear more clumsythan is actually the case. The side battens and risersstop short of the posts, and the risers used in thisumiak are notched into the side frames, whereas inthe Alaskan umiak only the lashings of the riser arelet into the frames. The Bafiin Island umiaks carrya square sail lashed to a yard, and the mast is placedright up in the eyes of the boat. Boas shows thatsome of these umiaks have rudders hung on metalpintles and gudgeons, a result of the influence of thewhite traders, whalers, and sealers who had operatedin these waters long before Boas made his investiga-tions. The umiak is rowed in the usual manner,using thong loops as tholes, and is usually steeredwith an oar or long paddle.The ends of the gunwales of the Baffin Islandumiak are cut off a little inside the forward edges of189 the headboards, making this the only American typethat does not have projecting gunwales at bow andstern. The projection of the gunwales undoubtedlyserve a practical purpose in lifting the boat out ofwater, but obviously this is of minor importance.Probably the real reason for these projections is thatthey originally made building easier by providingspace for a retaining lashing when the gunwales werebeing bent. As the headboards became wider andthe spring of the gunwales, in plan view, became lessacute, less strain was put on the lashings of the gun-wales at the headboards, but by then the projectinggunwales and their retaining lashings were beingutilized in lashing on the .skin covering at bow andstern. Thus, beginning as a practical solution of abuilding problem, the projecting gunwales may haveeventually become a traditional tribal feature of theumiak in many localities.The drawing of an eastern Greenland umiak onpage 189 was made from measurements taken offduring World War II and checked against di-mensions, photos, and descriptions of boats from thesame territory. In general design and in constructionthis umiak differs little from umiaks of the southwestcoast of the same island. The eastern Greenlandboats are, on the average, much smaller than thoseon the southwest coast due to the more severe iceconditions met in the east. Some of the Greenlandumiaks have flat bottoms like the Baffin Island boats,but the V-bottom appears to be more common. Thechief characteristics of the Greenland umiaks are theslight rake in the bow and stern, the moderate sheerand camber, and the conservative flare of the sides.The drawing shows the important structural detailsseen in most of the Greenland umiaks. The floortimbers are on edge instead of on the flat as in Alaskanboats and this seems to be characteristic of all easternumiak construction, as is the arching of the undersideof the floors. Another common structural detailis the passing of the risers through the side frames;in some, however, the risers lie in deep notches fash-ioned in the inside of the frames. The easternGreenland umiaks generally have rather wide head-boards and somewhat more projection to the gunwales.Like the Baffin Island umiaks, the side battens andrisers of the Greenland boats are cut short of theposts, but the ends of these members are commonlysupported by frames placed very far fore and aft,and often these frames form brace-supports to theheadboard, as in the drawing. The headboardsof these umiaks are always tenoned over the top of the posts. .Some of the Greenland umiaks havecurved side frames which cause the side battens toform knuckles in the skin cover. The eastern Green-land umiaks rarely if ever carry sail, but this iscommon on the western and southwestern coasts,where a squaresail on a yard is popular, with the mastusually well forward. Hans Egede in 1729* foundGreenland umiaks fitted with sails of seal intestinesand also saw boats about 10 fathoms (60 feet) long;another early writer, Crantz* states that umiaks werecommonly 36, 48, and even 54 feet long. In thelarger umiaks two side battens were employed. Thethongs and brace-frames seen in many Alaskan umiaksdo not seem to have been used in eastern waters,the use of bracing-frames from stem or stern post tothe gunwales probably serving the purpose, but it isnoticeable that pictures of Greenland umiaks pre-served in some European museums show that thehulls have a tendency to twist not seen in Alaskanboats. The old Greenland umiaks were built withlashed joints combined with pegging, or treenailing.In recent times the use of pegging has increased andiron fastenings are now quite common. Rigidfastenings of the peg and metal types are used onlyin scarphs and in securing the chines and keelson tothe floors timbers, as in the modern Alaskan umiaks. The KayakThe Eskimo hunting boat, the kayak, is morewidely employed in the Arctic than the umiak, andits variations in model, construction, and appearanceare more distinct and numerous. The kayak is along, usually narrow, decked canoe and is commonlyvery well finished. In Alaska a few undecked skin-covered canoes, used in river, are built on kayakproportions, but the model of these is quite differentfrom that of the Alaskan sea-kayaks; the river canoesare V or flat bottomed, much like the Greenlandkayaks. A similar kayak-type canoe, flat bottomedbut birchbark covered, is used by the Yukon Indians.Undoubtedly a number of such types once existed butmost of these became extinct before any attemptwas made to preserve models or canoes in museums.Few Eskimo tribes are without kayaks, only thoseliving inland or where the sea is rarely open areunacquainted with these hunting craft. In veryrecent times some tribes have ceased to use kayaks, *See bibliography.190 Frame of Kayak, Nunivak Island, Alaska, with young owner beneath.{Photo by Henry B. Collins.) employing purchased canoes instead. The kayaksof the Asiatic Eskimos, and those from the Mac-kenzie to Hudson Bay, are now crudely built and ofinferior design. Both the Greenland and the Alaskankayaks are highly developed. The Greenland kayaksare undoubtedly given more intricate equipmentin the way of weapons and accessories than theAlaskan craft, but it would be difficult to decidewhich is superior in construction and design.The basic models used in Eskimo kayaks are themulti-chine, the V-bottom and the flat bottom. Themulti-chine models, except for the river kayak-canoejust mentioned, which probably should be classed asa true open canoe rather than a kayak, are employedthroughout Alaskan waters. The geographic bound-aries of each basic hull form are rather ill-defined.The multi-chine kayak appears as far eastward asthe northwest coast of Hudson's Bay. In this area,however, a V-bottom kayak, now extinct, seems tohave been in use on Southampton Island. A flat-bottom kayak, with the chines snied off much like aJapanese sampan, is in use in Hudson Strait, alongthe shores of Baffin Island and Labrador; a flat-bottom kayak shaped like a sharpie is used on thenorthwest coast of northern Greenland; and aV-bottom hull is employed on the eastern, southw-est,and south coasts of Greenland. According to the Danish classification of the coasts ofGreenland, "Polar" is north of Cape York, "North-ern" is above Disko Island, "Central" is from Fre-derikshaab to north of Disko Bay, "Southern" is fromJulianhaab to Cape Farvell, and "East" is Angmag-salik and vicinity. There are variations in each of the basic models, ofcourse, as the tribal designs used vary a good deal.On the whole, the kayak is very carefully built tomeet the local conditions of hunting, sea, and landor ice portaging. As a result, some types are farmore seaworthy than others and the weight of hullvaries a great deal, even within a basic model. Theappearance of all the kayaks models, by tribalclassifications, show the influence of tradition and, inmany cases display, in either shape or decoration, atribal totem or mark.The basic requirements in nearly all kayaks arethe same; to paddle rapidly and easily, to workagainst strong wind and tide or heavy head sea, to bemaneuverable, and to be light enough to be readilylifted from the water and carried. The low free-board required makes decking a necessity. Ingeneral, the kayak is designed to carry one paddler,191 but in Alaska are kayaks that can carry two or threepaddlers, each in a manhole or cockpit, or a paddlerand one or two passengers. It is generally concededthat the kayak built to carry three in this fashionis the result of Russian influence. Nunivak Islandkayaks had large manholes that carried two peopleback-to-back. Where it is desirable to portage thekayak over ice or land for a great distance the boatis very light and is capable of being carried like alarge basket, by inserting one arm under the deckingat the manhole or cockpit, but where such a require-ment is not an important factor, the kayaks are oftenrather 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 arewide and more stable, requiring less skill to use. Inareas where severe weather is commonly met, thekayaks are usually very strong and well-designed.Where ice or other conditions do not allow a heavysea to make up, the kayaks are often light, narrowand very low sided?more like racing shells thanworking canoes. Most Alaskan kayaks come sternto the wind when paddling stops, but most of theeastern craft come head to the wind. Nearly everytype has been developed by long periods of trial anderror, to produce the greatest efficiency in meetingthe conditions of use in a given locality. This hasmade the kayak a more complicated and moredeveloped instrument of the chase than is to befound in any other form of hunting canoe, due inpart, perhaps, to the great craftmanship of theEskimo.The construction of the kayak follows a basic plan.In all kayaks the gunwales are the main strengthmembers, longitudinally. A few designs employ, inaddition, a stiff keel member, but most have ratherslender and light longitudinal batten systems havinglittle longitudinal strength value, but which in com-bination with very light frames, give transversesupport to the skin cover. Even in the flat-bottommodels, the kayaks, unlike the umiaks, dependentirely upon the gunwales for longitudinal strength.The frames are bent and in one piece from gunwaleto gunwale in all but a few flat-bottom kayaks, ofthe sampan cross section; these employ bent frames.The longitudinal batten systems show great variety.The eastern kayaks of the flat-bottom and V-bottommodels have three longitudinal battens (including thekeel or keelson) in addition to the heavy and oftendeep gunwale members; these are supported at bow and stern either by stem and stern post of shapedplank 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 thewestern 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 sternposts, the battens and keelson coming together at ablunt point in small head blocks; but many types haverather intricate stem-pieces, carved from blocks ofwood, and plank-on-edge stern posts. The Asiatic kay-aks, curiously enough, exhibit the construction of botheastern and western Arctic kayaks, the crude, smallKoryak kayak having a 3-batten V-bottom, while theChukchi kayak is built like the kayaks on the east sideof the Bering Strait. The decking of kayaks is of verylight construction; usually there are two heavy thwartsto support the manhole and from one to three lightthwarts afore and abaft these. The Alaskan kayaksfrom Kotzebue Sound southward have ridged deckssupported by fore-and-aft ridge-battens from theends of the hull to the manhole. Elsewhere the deckof the kayak is flat athwartship except at the manhole,where there is some crown or ridging to increase thedepth inside the boat, particularly forward of themanhole. In the majority of these kayaks shortfore-and-aft battens are laid on the thwarts forwardof the manhole to support the skin cover in its sweepupward to the manhole. The transverse frames donot come into contact with the skin cover, to avoidtransverse ridges being formed in it; and the longi-tudinal battens which support the skin cover formlongitudinal ridges, or chines, in it.The timber used in the Eskimo kayak building isusually driftwood. Fir and pine, spruce or willoware available in much of the Arctic for longitudinals.Bent frames are commonly of willow. Scarphing inthe framework of kayaks was far less common than inumiaks; the scarphs when found are only in the gun-wales. All scarphs are of the hooked type and areusually quite short (the hooked scarph is the best onewhen the fastenings are lashings). Sinew is generallyused in all lashings and for sewing material. Theheads of frames are commonly tenoned into theunderside of the gunwales and are then either lashedor pegged with treenails of wood or bone to holdthem in place. In the joining of frames and longi-tudinals, the lashings are commonly individual, butin some types of kayak continous lashings (con-nections in series using one length of sinew) are192 Frame of Kayak at Nunivak Island, Alaska, 1927. (Pholo by Henry B. Collins.) occasionally found. Where possible, the lashings areturned in so that the turns cross right and left. Insome parts of the framework two pieces of timberare "sewn" together; holes are bored along the edgesto be joined and a lacing run in with continuousover-and-over turns. These laced joints are commonin the stems of the Alaskan kayaks. Gunwales andbattens are most commonly lashed through holesbored in them and in the bow and stern members.Care is taken that all lashings are fiush on the outside,so that the skin cover is smooth and chafing willbe avoided. Bone knobs at stem and stern headsare used in the Coronation Gulf kayaks in the westand in many Greenland models. Bone stem bandsare more widely employed, however, being in useat Kodiak and Nunivak Islands, in the Aleutians, atNorton Sound in Alaska, and in Greenland and BaffinIsland in the east. It is probable that these bandswere once in wider use than thus indicated. Strips ofbone are also used to prevent chafing at gunwale inpaddling and for strengthening scarphs in the manholerim.It will be noted that all Eskimo skin boats have acomplete framing system, which is first erected andthen fitted with the skin cover. This is a method ofconstruction very different from that of the birch-bark canoes of the Indians living to the southward of the American Eskimo. The birch-bark canoe isbuilt by forcing a framing system into an assembledcover and holding it in place there by a rigid gun-wale structure, to which the bark cover is lashed.This basic structure is used even in the Alaskanarea, where there are birch-bark canoes that in hullform and proportions strongly resemble the flat-bottom kayak. The basic difference between the twocraft is illustrated by the fact that whereas the removalof the skin cover of the kayak leaves the frame in-tact, the removal of the bark cover of the kayak-likebirch-bark canoes would result in the collapse ofthe framework, except for the gunwale-thwartstructure or, in a few, the chine-floor structure.Because of this basic difference the superficial re-semblance of some Indian bark canoes to kayakshas no meaningful relationship to the possibility ofthe influence of the kayak on the bark canoe, orvice-versa. Some Indian tribes have in fact builtskin-covered canoes, as will be seen in chapter 8, butthe framework and structural system used ii alwaysthat of the bark canoe, never that of the Eskimoskin boat. Nor is there evidence that the Eskimoever used the bark canoe frame-structure in theirkyaks or umiaks. Hence, in spite of contact be-tween these peoples, the watercraft of each remainsbasically different in structural design. 193 The almost universal method of constructing thekayak is first to shape and fasten together the gunwalesand thwarts, with stem and stern pieces fitted asrequired, then to fit and place a few transverseframes to control the shape of the craft. Next thelongitudinals are fitted and, finally, the remainingtransverse frames are put in place. In some typesthe manhole rim is now fitted but in others the man-hole rim is put on after the skin cover is in place, assome kayaks (the Alaskan) have the skin cover placedover the manhole rim and others have it passedunder. The skin cover is stretched and sewn overthe frame and is rarely secured to it by lashingsexcept at the manhole. Due to the shape of bow andstern, in some types, difficult and tedious sewing isrequired to stretch the skins over the ends of the hull.Much of the sewing is completed after the skins arestretched over the hull and held by temporary lacings.The blind seam is used but in many kayaks the lapis very short, about ji inch being common.The covering most widely used in Alaskan kayakswas the bearded seal skin and with the Aleuts theskin of the sea lion was the most popular. Throughoutthe eastern Arctic seal skin was the preferred coveringthough caribou skin was occasionally used by thecaribou Eskimos in the central Arctic. The heavy,thick hides were first piled and "sweated," until thehair became loose then the skins were scraped untilthey were clean. They were thin and light andcould be air dried and stored until ready for use.The skins had to be well soaked before being stretchedover the frame of a kayak or umiak. When dried outon the boat frame they were oiled in the usual manner.It is claimed by the Eskimos that walrus skin, thoughstrong, is not as good as the bearded seal or thesea-lion skin for boat covers, as the latter two held theoil longer and did not become water soaked asquickly as the walrus hide.The paddler's seat in most kayaks consists ofa portionof heavy skin with fur attached. Sometimes this issupported by a few short, thin battens laced looselytogether. These, and the fur seat sometimes areas long as the paddler's legs. No back rest is knownto be used. The seat, and any batten supports, areloosely fitted and are not part of the permanent kayakstructure.The kayak is usually entered by floating the boatnear a stone or low bank and stepping into it with onefoot, which has first been carefully wiped. With thebody steadied by placing the paddle upright on theshore, or outside the kayak, the other foot is then wiped and placed in the boat. The paddler thenslides downward and works his legs under the deckuntil he is seated with his hips jammed into the man-hole rim. Getting out of a kayak is almost the reverseof this process. Great care is exercised to avoidgetting dirt into a kayak, as it might chafe the hidecover. Hence the care in wiping the feet beforeentering. The practice of entering the boat ashoreand throwing man and kayak into the water, un-doubtedly very rare, is said to have been practicednot only at King Island but in some parts of Green-land. Both Alaskan and Greenland hunters oftenlashed two kayaks together, in order to rest in roughweather. Many kayakers using the narrow modelslaid the paddle athwartships across the deck tohelp steady the kayak when resting or throwinga weapon; this is basically the same as hold-ing the sculls of a racing shell in the water, tosteady the boat. Lashing two kayaks side by side, orparallel with spacing rods, was commonly done toenable the craft to ferry persons or cargo acrossstreams. Some Alaskan Eskimo thus convertedkayaks into catamarans and then fitted a mast andsail, but such an arrangement was never used inrough water.The methods used by a paddler to right a capsizedkayak, without aid and while he was still in thecockpit, 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, woulddeliberately capsize their kayak to avoid the blow of aheavy breaking sea, then right it when the sea hadpassed. The Eskimo are reported to be graduallylosing this skill, but in late years European andAmerican kayakers have learned this method, calledthe "kayak roll," of righting a decked canoe withpaddler in place. It follows in general the Green-land method. In the Appendix (p. 223) is anillustrated description of the kayak roll, supplied byJohn Heath.Traditionally, the weapons used by kayakers weredarts and harpoons, the bow not being employed,since wetting would damage the weapon. Variousforms were used, and many were thrown with the "throwing-stick" to increase the range and force. Aninflated bladder or skin was often carried to buoy theharpoon line and tire the game. Bolas and kniveswere also carried. All eastern kayaks appear to havebeen propelled with the double-blade paddle, butfolklore suggests that the single-blade kayak paddle194 Figure 1 ?6 Koryok Koyok Drflh I"! itfll ,n frtl t /nchrjKoryak Kayak, drawn from damaged kayak in ihc American Museum ofNatural History, 1948. may have once been used. Greenland kayaks havebeen reported as carrying a small square sail, but thiswas actually a hunting screen, or camouflage, to hidethe paddler and cause the seal to mistake the canoefor a cake of ice. It was a 19th-century addition, aswas a fin attached to the kayak to counteract theeffect of the screen in a beam wind. Any effect it hadas a sail in a kayak was unintentional, of course; itwas dismounted in strong winds or when not requiredfor hunting.Shown above is the plan of an Asiatic Koryakkayak. This type, used in the Sea of Okhotsk and onthe Siberian coast of Bering Sea, is the only distinctiveAsiatic type; the Chukchi of the Siberian side ofBering Strait uses a kayak that is on the same modelas the one found at Norton Sound, in Alaska. TheChukchi kayak differs only in the ends, which arewholly functional and without the handgrips thatdistinguish the Alaskan type. There is also a crudeChukchi river kayak, covered with reindeer skin,but its design is not represented in an Americanmuseum.The Koryak kayak is a hunting boat well designedfor use in protected waters, but is rather weakly built.In general form it is much like the hunting and fowlingskiffs formerly used in America. The plan idealizesthe kayak somewhat, for the boat is crude in finish.The only example available for study, in the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, is in poor condition.The hull is short, wide and shallow, rather V in crosssection, and there is a slight camber in the deck. Thelength of the Koryak kayak rarely exceeds 10 feet, thebeam is from 24 to 26 inches, and the depth between 8and 9^2 inches. The manhole rim is of large diameter, high and without rake. The gunwales, although ratherslight, are the strength members. The keelson, a thin,flat batten, forms the stem and stern posts; it isstiffened amidshijxs by a short batten lashed inside theframes. The chine battens are also slight and do notreach the stem and stern. The frames are widelyspaced and are wide and thin, in one piece from gun-wale to gunwale. There are but two thwarts;these are strong and support the manhole rim,showing inside the cockpit. Two thin longitudinalbattens afore and abaft the manhole, support thedeck, in addition to a light centerline ridge-batten.On the kayak illustrated the outboard battens appearto have had additional support at one time from twopairs of stanchions standing on frames at the chines,with their heads secured to the deck battens; a pairbeing placed before and abaft the manhole. A smallplank seat appears to have been used and the boat waspropelled by two short one-hand paddles, secured tothe manhole rim by lanyards made of thongs; thesewould be only efficient in smooth water. The coveris made from bearded seal skins and passes under themanhole rim being sewn to the rim on the inside atthe top, by coarse sewing passed through holes boredin the manhole rim. There are two thong liftinghandles or loops, one at bow and stern. This kayak isthe most primiti\e of all types and the smallest as well.The Koryaks are not daring canoemen and do notventure into rough water. Nevertheless, this type ofkayak is said to be fast and highly maneuverable.Compared to the Koryak, the Alaskan kayak istremendously advanced. The Aleuts are daring andaccomplished kayakers, and their craft are amongthe finest in the Arctic. The Kodiak Island kayak195 Kodiok Island Kayak, IMS Kayak From Russian Siberia, 2-hole Aleutian type, in Washington StateHistorical Society and Museum. Taken off by John Heath, 1962.bow built with the portion above the slit archedupward higher than the outer stem-piece and somore prominent; there are also minor variations inthe stern. The shape of the hull, however, is con-sistently maintained throughout the area in whichthis type is used. Though the deck is ridged, it isrelatively low compared to that of the Kodiak kayak,and the thwarts supporting the manhole are heavilyarched and in one piece from gunwale to gunwale.The construction is like that of the Kodiak ka>ak,but the gunwales and upper longitudinal battens,instead of meeting the stern post, end on a cross-piece well inside the stern to give the effect of a tran-som stern. However, some Aleut kayaks have thenormal sharp stern after the fashion of the Kodiakkayak, but without the projecting tail or handgrip,and nearly all have two thwarts between the aftermanhole thwart and the stern and three forwardof the fore manhole thwart. The skin cover passesover the manhole rim as in the Kodiak type. Thebow block is sometimes built up of two blocks sewnor laced together. Strengthening pieces of lightplank are sometimes fitted from the bow block aft;these are laced to the top inside edge of the gun-wales and pinned to the stem block to form longbreast-hooks. In some kayaks with the square stern,only the gunwale is supported by the crosspiece onthe stern, the two battens on each side being sup-ported by the last frame only, about 6 inches in-board of the crosspiece.This type of kayak is the only one known to havebeen built with more than one manhole. Thetwo-hole kayak is an Aleut development used inwhaling and sea-otter hunting, so far as is known;the paddler sits in the after manhole. Measure-ments of a two-hole kayak in the United StatesNational Museum show it to be 20 feet 7% inches long. 23 inches Ijeam, and 9}^ inches deep to top ofgunwale. The manholes are about 46 inches apartedge to edge and the foremost is about 8 feet fromthe bow.The three-holer, commonly believed to have beenintroduced by the Russians, was used by Russianofficers, inspectors, and traders in their explorationsand travels on the Alaskan coast. One of theseboats measures 24 feet 8^8 inches long, 30 inchesbeam, and \0}i inches deep to top of gunwale. Thecenter manhole is commonly larger in diameter thanthe other two and is used for either a passenger orcargo. The fore edge of the fore manhole is 8 feetto 8}^ feet from the bow and the other manholes arefrom 4 to 4^ feet apart edge to edge. A largeexample of this class of kayak measures 28 feet1% inches long, 38}^ inches beam and 12 inchesdeep to top of gunwale. Probably none exceed 30ftet in length. Both the single- and the double-bladepaddle are used by the Aleuts, but the double bladeis preferred in hunting. The paddle blades arerather narrow and leaf-shaped, with pointed tips.The plan of a kayak from Nunivak Island (aboutdue north of Unalaska and roughly half-way to St.Lawrence Island) is shown on page 198 (fig. 180).This type of kayak is obviously related to that of Ko-diak Island, for it has approximately the same lines andproportions. Only the profiles of bow and stern exhibitmarked differences. Perhaps the most striking featureof the Nunivak kayak is its bow, which might repre-sent a seal's head; a hole through the whole bowstructure forms the eyes and also serves functionallyas a lifting handle. The stern profile is simplerthan that used in the Kodiak kayaks. The exampleshows the mythological water monster Palriayuk, apainted totem that once distinguished the Nunivakkayaks; missionary influence has long since erased197 XuNivAK Island Kayak, Alaska, 1889, in U.S. National Museum (USNM160345), showing painted decoration of the mythological water monsterPalriavuk. ?//?.,*,/, Figure 181 King Island Kayak, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National Museum (USNM160326), collected by Capt. M. A. Healy, U.S. Revenue Steamer Bear. Morion Sound Kayak^ IMSUJ. Nofivttf Mujr^ Norton Sound Kayak, Alaska, 1889, U.S. National Museum (USNM 160175). XUNIVAK IsLAiNU Krtpainted along gunwale. (Photo by Henry B. Collins.)ih picluic ul iiiylliological w.tlii uiwiislcr I'.driayuk such decorations from Alaskan kayaks. Whereas theKodiak kayak has eleven battens (including thekeelson) in its frame, the Nunivak kayak has nine,and all the longitudinals in it are rectangular insection. Differences in dimensions of Nunivak andKodiak kayaks are remarkably slight, the greatestlength reported for either type is about l.") feet 9 inchesand the greatest beam is about 32 inches. Bothtypes have a large manhole and carry a passengerback-to-back with the paddler. The single-bladedpaddle is used. The kayak is sometimes transportedover ice by means of a short sledge, by one man, butit is otherwise rather heavy to portage. Highly re-garded by all who have had contact with it, this isgenerally considered one of the safest and mostuseful of the Alaskan kayaks.King Island, at the entrance to Bering Strait, isthe 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 stemending in a small birdlike head, with a small holethrough it to represent eyes and to serve for a liftinggrip; the stern is low and without the projectionsseen in the Nunivak type. The fitting of the cockpitrim of the U.S. National Museum kayak is unusual;the rim is not supported by thwarts but rather ismade part of the skin cover and therefore can bemoved. This seemed to be intentional, for there isno evidence of broken or missing members, butJohn Heath considers this not typical. A water-tight jacket with the skirt laced to the manhole rimis worn by the kayaker to prevent swamping. Thispractice was common among Eskimo working instormy waters. A warm-weather alternate was awide waist-band, with its top supported by straps Nunivak Island Kayak in U.S. National Museum (USNM 76283) with coverpartly removed to show framework. Collected by Ivan Petroff, March 30, 199 Figure 185 Western Alaskan Kayak, Cape Prince of Wales, 1936.{Photo by Henry B. Collins.) over the shoulders and the bottom laced to themanhole.A somewhat similar but slightly smaller kayak wasused at Cape Espenberg; in these the upturned bowended in a simple point. The sterns were alike inboth types. The Cape Espenberg kayak had afixed cockpit rim however, as in the Nunivak type.Both types employed the single-bladed paddle.A little to the South, in Norton Sound, the longnarrow kayak shown on page 1 98 (fig. 1 82) is popular.These are somewhat like the Nunivak kayaks in crosssection but with far less beam. They have a slightreverse, or humped, sheer and are very sharp ended.The peculiar handgrips at bow and stern are charac-teristic, though the shape and size of the grips varyamong the villages; the style shown is that of St.Michaels. A sLngle-bladed paddle is used. Thistype is very fast under paddle, but requires a skillfuluser in rough water. The Norton Sound kayaksare very well finished and strongly built.From Kotzebue Sound, at Cape Krusenstern,along the north coast of Alaska to near the MackenzieDelta, the kayaks are very low in the water, long,narrow, and spindle-shaped at the ends. They aredistinguished by a very strong rake in the manholerim, with an accompanying prominent swell in thedeck forward of the manhole. They are built withseven longitudinal battens (including the keelson) inaddition to the gunwales. In several examples seen, the latter are sometimes slightly channelled on theinside, but this may have been the result of shrinkagein the pith of the timber used and not intentional.These kayaks are very light and easily carried. Bothsingle- and double-blade paddles are employed; thesingle blade is usually used in travelling.On page 201 are shown a kayak from Cape Krusen-stern (fig. 186) and one from Point Barrow (fig. 187).It is reported that these types have now gone out ofuse. In these boats no stem or stern posts exist, theseusually being replaced by small end blocks. The onlyimportant diflference in the two types shown is in thestyle of crowning the deck, which is ridged in the CapeKrusenstern kayak but more rounded in the PointBarrow kayak. In spite of their narrow beam andobviously unstable form, these kayaks are said tohave been used by rather unskillful paddlers. Ingeneral, they were not employed in rough weatherbut were seaworthy in skillful hands.Though the North Alaska type of kayak, as illus-trated by the Point Barrow model (fig. 187), may besaid to represent the structural design of kayaks to theeastward as far as Foxe Basin, the Mackenzie Deltakayaks are on an entirely different model. Due tomigration of numerous groups of Eskimo to this areain the last seventy years, the design of kayaks herehas undergone a great change. In figure 188 appearsthe plan of a modern Mackenzie Delta kayak.200 . Kayak From Point Barrow, Alaska, in U.S. National Museum (USNMyill'i). Collected by Capt. M. A. Healy, U.S. Revenue Steamer Bear. 1888.{Smithsonian photo MNH-299-A.) Cockpit of Kayak from Point Barrow (USNMyill'i), showing method of lashing skin coverto manhole. {Smithsonian photo MNH-^gg.) The design is marked by a very narrow flat bottomor a wide keel combined with the V-bottom. Theseboats are well-built and are light and graceful. Thewide keel is formed by a thick plank keelson whichnarrows at bow and stern and is bent up to form thestem and stern. The chine pieces run fore and aftand are lashed to the stem and stern thus formed.The gunwales are about % by l}g inches. The framesare about % by )i inch bent in a strongly U-shapedform, with their ends tenoned into the bottom of thegunwales. The keelson is only about % inch thickand the chines are rather wide thin battens; about/1 6 by IVi inch. Some kayaks have an additionalbatten in the sides above the chines. The deck isslightly ridged for nearly the length of the boat. Thestem and stern are carried up above the sheer to formprominent posts; some builders carry them higherthan shown. The construction is neat and light andthe boat is very easily paddled. Its narrow beammakes it somewhat treacherous, however, in unskilledhands. A double-bladed paddle is generally usedwith this kayak. While the form appears to varylittle among individuals of this class, the constructionvaries, particularly in the number and dimensions ofthe longitudinals. Frames are spaced rather con-sistently 5 to 6 inches apart.The foregoing design differs greatly in every respectfrom the example in figure 191, collected by theU.S. Fish Commission in 1885 and identified as aMackenzie River kayak. It is a large heavy boatcompared to the one just described. The model ofthis old kayak, and the construction too, is on theeastern pattern, such as is used in Hudson Strait.The strongly upturned stern and less rising bowresembles the old Greenland kayaks. The V-bottomand 3-batten construction combined with heavydeep gunwales is not to be found in any of the knownAlaskan kayaks. There is unfortunately no record202 MatKtnile fit^r tToy^i, lUS (^ Figure 191 Kayak in U.S. National Museum (USNM 160325) cataloged as from Mac-kenzie River area, 1885, but apparently an eastern kayak of unidentified origin. Corona''o'> Cuir Koyol* Figure 192 Coronation Gulf Kayak, Canada, partially reconstructed from a damagedprivately owned kayak (now destroyed). Figure 193 Caribou Eskimo Kayak, Canada, in .American Museum of Natural History. Netsilik Eskimo Kayak, King William Island, Canada, in the AmericanMuseum of Natural History. 203 of the exact location where this kayak was found,nor any information on the builders; if it is from theMackenzie, the type now appears to be whollyextinct and there has been nothing in recent timesin the vicinity faintly resembling it. The kayak is awell-built, safe, strong boat; the high stern would aidit in coming head to sea and wind when paddlingstopped; and it resembles, more than most, the earlyexplorers' drawings of Arctic kayaks. The very highends indicate that it was not used where high windsare common, despite the otherwise seaworthy designand construction, and regardless of the documentation,it now seems certain that this kayak came from some-where in the eastern Arctic.To the eastward of the Mackenzie, the kayaks arenarrow, spindle-shaped and very low sided, in themanner of the northern Alaskan boats. The drawingof figure 192 was made from the remains of a kayakfrom Coronation Gulf and to insure accuracy wascompared with photographs and measurements ofsome Copper Eskimo kayaks. This kayak is charac-terized by a rather marked reverse sheer and astrongly raked manhole rim. The deck forward ofthe manhole sweeps up very sharply, but with adifferent profile than is seen on the north coast ofAlaska; the deck of these eastern kayaks sweeps upin a very short hollow curve instead of the long convexsweep popular in Alaska. The ends of the hullfinish in small bone buttons; the skin cover passesunder the manhole rim, as in the Cape Krusensternand Point Barrow types. A two-bladed paddle iscommonly used. The hull design is more stablethan that at Point Barrow and the ends are somewhatfuller, giving the boat a rather parallel sided appear-ance; it has longitudinal battens from the bottom ofthe hull, one the keelson; the gunwales are channelledon 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 Ameri-can Museum of Natural History is the best example ofthe type found. The drawing of figure 193 shows thefeatures of this particular type; the construction isabout the same as that of the Point Barrow kayakbut is much lighter and weaker. The peculiar pro-jecting stem is formed of a stem block, scarphed tothe gunwales; to it the beak piece is attached with alashing. The sharply turned-up stern is formed in asimilar manner by two pieces joined together atthe tip and lashed to the stern block; this sternconstruction is similar to that of the eastern Arctickayak 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, amethod also used extensively along the north coastof Alaska to paint the framework of both kayaksand umiaks.The Netsilik Eskimo kayak is related to the Caribou,but is less stable and has different bow and sternprofiles. The example shown in the drawing offigure 194 requires little discussion; the cover is of sealskin. These kayaks are used only in hunting caribouat stream crossings and are not employed in sealing.The very narrow bottom and narrow beam makethis the most dangerous of all kayaks in the handsof a paddler unaccustomed to such craft. Neitherthe Caribou nor the Netsilik kayaks are very sea-worthy and their construction is inferior. They arecharacterized by rather heavy gunwales but the othermembers of their structures are very slight.No examples remain of the old kayaks once used onthe Gulf of Boothia, at Fury and Hecla Strait, andon the west side of Foxe Basin. Early explorers inthis area found kayaks, but the types used have beenlong extinct. One kayak, supposed to have beenbuilt at Southampton Island, had been preserved bya private collector, but when measured was in adamaged state. Shown in figure 195, it does not con-form with the old description of kayaks from the Mel-ville Peninsula but does agree reasonably well withthe Boas model of a kayak from Repulse Bay in theU.S. National Museum (USNM 68126). On thisbasis it would appear that in Boas' time this form ofkayak was also used on the east side of the MelvillePeninsula. The design resembles to some extent thekayaks from the southwest coast of Greenland,but the stern is like that used in some Labradorcraft. This old kayak was very light and sharp,rather slightly built, but very graceful in modelso far as could be determined from the remains ofthe craft. The foredeck camber is ridged andcarried rather far forward. If the identification ofthis kayak should be correct, it is apparent that theeastern model of the kayak once extended as farwest as the west side of Foxe Basin.The kayak of lower Baffin Island, in figure 196,is flat-bottomed, long, and rather heavy. Thegunwale members are very deep and the keelson andchine battens are quite heavy. This type has aslight side-batten between chine and gunwale?inall, five longitudinal members besides the gunwales? ? hence this example is the sole exception to the3-batten construction that may be said to mark the204 rAa^/A ?Old Kayak From Vicinity of Southampton Island, Canada. Plan madefrom a much damaged kayak, now destroyed, once privately owned. eastern kayaks. The Baffin Island kayak is ratherroughly built and the two examples found had manyframes cracked at the chines. However, this kayakhas many excellent features, being easily paddled,very stable, and seaworthy. The double-blade paddleused is like that of the Labrador kayak, very longwith narrow blades. When the paddler is seated,these kayaks, like many of their eastern sisters, drawmore water forward than the illustration wouldindicate (it should be remembered that the trim ofthe kayaks in the water is not indicated by the baselines used in the plans). The deeper draft at the bow,which allows the kayak to hold her course into thewind 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 drawingis thus misleading. The stem is formed by the ex-tension of the keelson, producing the "clipper-bow"seen in many eastern boats. The stern is shaped bya stern block of simple form into which the gun-wales, keelson and chines are notched. The battenbetween chine and gunwale stops a little short ofboth bow and stern. A somewhat similar kayak is used on the Labradorside of Hudson Strait but, as shown in figure 197on page 207, the appearance of the craft is distinctive.The kayak is flat-bottomed, with the snied-ofT chinesseen in the Baffin Island boat, giving a cross sectionform like that of many Japanese sampans. The 3-batten system is used in construction, and the gun-wales are very heavy and deep, standing vertical inthe sides of the boat. The sheer is slightly reversedand there is little rocker in the bottom. One of themost obvious features of the Labrador kayak is thelong "grab" bow, which is formed by a battenattached to the end of the keelson. The stern isformed with a very small block inside the gunwales,and to this the keelson is laced or pegged. It will benoticed 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 thedrawing is the type of long- and narrow-bladedpaddle used.This example illustrates better than the BaffinIsland kayak the combination of deep forefoot andthe greatest beam well abaft the midlength that marksmany eastern models. When paddled, the craft Baffin Island Kayak, from Cape Dorset, Canada, in the Museum of theAmerican Indian, Heye Foundation. 205 always trims so that the kayak draws most water atthe fore end of the keelson and the bottom of thestern is usually just awash. This makes the bottomsweep up from the forefoot in a very slight gradualcurve to the stern, when the boat is afloat. As a re-sult, the kayak may be said to be of the "double-wedge"form that has been popular in fast low-poweredmotor boats, since having the beam far aft givesto the bow a wedge shape in plan, while the deepforefoot and shallow stern produce an opposite wedgein profile. It would appear that this form had beenfound by trial and error to produce a fast, easilypaddled rough-water kayak in an otherwise heavyhull. The North Labrador kayaks are the largest inthe Arctic for a single person; some are reported aslong as 26 feet. The long- and narrow-bladed paddlemay be explained by the fact that the Eskimo neverproduced a "feathered" double paddle, with bladesset at right angles to one another. To paddle againststrong winds, he developed a blade that was verylong and very narrow for a double-paddle, andtherefore offered less resistance to the wind, yetcould be dipped deep so that little propulsion effectwas lost.The kayak used on the northeast coast of Labrador,shown in figure 198, differs slightly from that ofHudson Strait. The northeast-coast kayak has avery slight V-bottom and a strong concave sheer withrelatively great rocker in the bottom. While the crafttrims by the bow afloat, the rocker probably makes itmore maneuverable than the Hudson Strait kayak,though less easily paddled against strong winds. TheV-bottom is formed by using a keelson that is heavierand deeper than the chines. The latter are thin,wide battens, on the flat. The V-bottom appears tohelp the boat run straight under paddle and may besaid to counteract, to some extent at least, the effectof 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 representa-tive 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 thebottom. Most have their greatest beam well aft anddraw more water forward, as do the Labrador andBaffin Island types. The chief characteristic of theconstruction of this type is that the transverse framesare in three parts, somewhat as in the umiak. How-ever, these kayaks depart from umiak construction inhaving the frame heads rigidly tenoned into the gunwales. This is done to give the structure ameasure of transverse rigidity which would otherwisebe lacking, since light battens are used for thekeelson, stem, and chines. Figure 199 shows the de-tails of the construction used.These kayaks are highly developed craft?stable,fast, and seaworthy?and the construction is lightyet strong enough to withstand the severe abusesometimes given them. The cap on the fore part ofthe manhole is a paddle holder, for resting the paddleacross 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 orcircular manholes are seldom found in the easterntypes of kayaks already described; U-shaped manholes,or bent-rim manholes approaching this form, appearin tho.se very stable types which do not require to berighted at sea by the paddler and in which the water-tight paddling jacket or waistband is not used.Farther south, on the northern coast of Green-land, and apparently also on the opposite coastof Baffin Island, a modified design of kayak is used.This type , illustrated in figure 205, shows relation-ship to both the flat-bottom kayak of northernGreenland and to the northeastern Labrador type.In this model the "clipper" bow is retained but thestern and cross section resemble those of the Labra-dor kayaks. The construction, however, is funda-mentally that employed in northern Greenland.As in the Labrador type, the deadrise in the bottomis formed by using in the keelson members tathare deeper than those in the chine. The gunwalesdo not flare as in the Greenland model, but stand\'ertical in the side flaring slightly at bow and ex-treme stern. The frame heads are rather looselytenoned and are commonly secured to the gun-wales with lashings. Tran.sverse stiffness is obtainedin this model by employing a rather heavy, rigidkeelson fixed to the stern block, and by a tripodarrangement forward consisting of the stem battenand a pair of transverse frames placed at the junctionof stem and keelson with their heads firmly lashedand tenoned into the gunwales. The construction,though strong, is rather rough compared to that ofother Greenland types. The manhole rim in thistype is not bent, but is made up of short straightpieces, as shown in the drawing; and the double-bladed paddle shown resembles that used in Lab-rador. This is a rather heavy kayak of very goodqualities but not as maneuverable as some of theflat-bottom kavaks found farther north.206 V?rf*i tai'^^O^ K^fmk Kayak From North Labrador, Canada, in the Museum of ihc AmericanIndian, Heye Foundation. Figure 198 Labrador Kayak, Canada, in the U.S. National Museum (USNM 251693). Jrm/i- ^ rfff Jt ifr7^//l /t / ali^uaNorth Greenland Kayak, in the Museum of the American Indian, HeyeFoundation. Figure 200 NoRiH Greenland Kayak, in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass. Takenoff by the late Norman L. Slcene, 1921. 207 Profile of Greenland Kayak from Disko Bay, in the Na-tional Museum (USNM 72564). Collected by Maj. Wm. M.Beebe, Jr., 1882. {Smithsonian photo i^ysS-D.) Ross found that the Greenland Eskimos north ofCape York had ceased to use kayaks in 1818. NotuntU about 1860 was the kayak reintroduced here,by Eskimos from Pond Inlet, north Baffin Island,who walked over the sea ice. This fact probablyaccounts for the various sharpie and modified sharpieforms used along the northern and Polar coasts ofGreenland.The model of the kayak used on much of the centraland southern coasts of Greenland has changed ratherextensively since 1883, and this change has apparentlyaffected the kayaks used on the east coast as well.In this part of the Arctic, the Eskimo are notablekayakers and the boat is not only well designedbut also carries highly developed equipment andweapons for its work. The basic model used is agraceful V-bottom one, with raking ends and ratherstrong sheer. In the old boats represented by thedrawings of figures 206 and 207, the sheer is strong atbow and stern, but this form has been graduallygoing out of favor. The kayaks are narrow buttheir shape gives them much stability. Pegged tothe bow and stern are plates of bone to protectthem from ice; in rare cases these bone stem bands. or bang plates, are lashed in place. The first drawingshows the construction used: light strong gunwalesand a 3-batten longitudinal system with bent trans-verse frames. The keelson and chines?light, rec-tangular in section and placed on edge?are shapedslightly to fair the sealskin covering. The coverpasses under the manhole rim. Bow and stern aremade of plank on edge, shaped to the requiredprofile. The gunwales are strongly tapered in depthfore and aft. Eight to twelve thwarts, or deckbeams, are used in addition to the two heavy thwartssupporting the manhole; usually there is one moreforward of the manhole than there is aft, and allare very light scantlings. The thwart forward ofthe manhole stands slightly inside the cockpit and isstrongly arched; the after one is clear of the cockpitopening and has very litde arch. Two light, shortbattens, or carlins, 24 to 36 inches long support thedeck, where it sweeps up to the raked manhole, andusually there are two abaft the manhole as well.Lashings are used as fastenings except at the endsof the hull, where pegs secure the keelson to thestem and stern; at this point, on some kayaks ex-amined, sinew lashings are also found. The whole Figure 202 Deck of Greenland Kayak from Disko Bay (USNM72564). {Smithsonian photo 15726-0.)208 Cockpit of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.(USNM 72564). {Smithsonian photo 15726.) Bow View of Greenland kayak from DiskoBay (USNM 72564). {Smithsonian photo15726-A.) 209 V iV Grffii'aita /faj-a/f Figure 205 Northwestern Greenland Kayak, in the U.S. National Museum (USNM160388). ^.^ Southwestern Greenland Kayak, 1883, in the U.S. National Museum(USNM 160328). cc^Southwestern Greenland Kayak, in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.Taken off by the late Norman L. Skene, 1921.210 South Greenland Kayak, in the American Museum of Natural History. framework is strong, light, and neatly made. Ina few instances the gunwales do not flare with thesides the whole length and, thus, near the stern, aknuckle is formed in the skin cover, as in figure 207,opposite. The exact amount of flare and deadrisevaries village to village. The old kayaks used ineastern Greenland had more rake in the bow thanthe examples illustrated, and also were marked by asheer almost straight from the bow to within a footor so of the stern, where it turned up sharply to ahigh stern, as in the drawing (fig. 191, p. 203.) Thesekayaks also had less flare and deadrise than most ofthe southwestern Greenland models. The amountof rocker in the keelson varies a good deal, thatshown in figure 206, opposite, appears to have beenabout the maximum; a straight keelson does notseem ever to have been used. The manholes arefitted to allow use of the watertight paddling jacket;the projecting rim shown at the afterside of themanhole in the drawing is primarily to strengthenthe manhole rim, but may also serve to prevent thedrawstring holding the skirt of the jacket to therim from slipping over the top. This old form ofGreenland kayak, which has been widely describedand much admired, was a fast and handy huntingboat; but it has become obsolete in most areas,and seems to have gone out of use more rapidly onthe east coast than the west, where the type rep- resented in the drawing was built as late as 1959at Umanak Fjord.Since the 1880's it has been gradually replaced bythe type shown above. The modern version hasthe same construction as the old but, as can be seen,the model has undergone much alteration. The rakeof the bow and stern have become much greater;the sheer is now almost straight. The flare of thesides has been increased and the deadri.se in thebottom has been reduced. The new model is un-doubtedly an improvement over the old type, beingfaster (particularly against a headwind) and quickerturning. However, it would probably be found tobe somewhat harder than the old model to rightwhen capsized. And although the new model ismore stable than the old, it is not suited for unskilledusers; a few American soldiers drowned during WorldWar II through rashly venturing into rough waterbefore becoming practiced in the use of these kayaks.The intricate arrangement of deck lashings shownare required to hold weapons and accessories.Just ahead of the paddler a stand or tray on low legsholds the coiled harpoon line; and under the decklashings 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. TheGreenland kayaks carry deck fittings and gear thatare far better developed than those seen in any of thew-estern types. 2i: Chapter EightTEMPORARY CRAFT1J.? SE OF TEMPORARY CRAFT SEEMS to have beenconfined to the Indians, who for the most part builtthem of bark, although some tribes used skins. How-ever, very little in the way of information exists onthe forms used by the individual tribes, for earlytravelers did not always have opportunities to seethese emergency craft, and when they did theyrarely took the trouble to record their constructionand design. Bark Canoes There is ample evidence to support the belief thata great many of the tribes building birch-bark canoesalso used temporary canoes of other barks such asspruce and elm, as has been mentioned in earlierchapters. Invariably, the qualities of these otherbarks, particularly spruce, were such that their usewas often somewhat more laborious and the resultsless satisfactory than with birch; but the necessitiesof travel and the availability of materials were con-trolling factors, and with care spruce bark could beused to build a canoe almost as good as one of birchbark. The forms of these canoes do not appear tohave been as standardized as the tribal forms of thebetter-built bark canoes; rather, the model of thetemporary canoe was entirely a matter to be decidedby the individual builder on the basis of the impor-tance of the temporary canoe to his needs, thelimitation on time allowed for construction, and thematerial available.The reasons for using substitute material are fairlyobvious. In forest travel it was not always possibleor practical to portage a canoe for a long distancesimply to make a short water passage somewherealong 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 passageand then abandoned. Since such a limited use didnot warrant expenditure of much time or labor onconstruction, the canoe was prepared quickly fromreadily available material and in order to meet theserequirements many Indian tribes developed canoeforms and building techniques somewhat differentfrom the more elaborate construction using birch orspruce bark.It is obvious that much time and work could beavoided by use of a single large sheet of bark thatwas reasonably flexible and strong. But many ofthe barks meeting this specification had a coarselongitudinal grain that split easily, so forming acanoe by cutting gores was out of the question. Thisdifficulty was avoided by folding, or "crimping,"the bark cover along the gunwales at two or moreplaces on each side of the canoe; this permitted thebottom to be flattened athwartships and the keelline to be rockered, both desirable in a canoe.The problem of closing the ends also had to besolved. This was done by clamping the ends of thebark between two battens and, perhaps, a bark cordas well, and then lashing together the battens, barkends, and cord with w rappings of root thongs. Cordmade from the inner bark of the basswood and othertrees could also be used for this purpose. The endsof the canoe could then be made watertight by aliberal application of gum or tallow, while grass,shavings, moss, or inner bark mixed with gum oreven clay could be used to fill the larger openingsthat might appear in hurried construction.Obviously, a simple wood structure was requiredby the specifications. Therefore, the gunwales wereusually made of saplings with their jjutts roughlysecured together or spliced. This allowed length tobe obtained without the necessity of working downlarge poles to usable dimensions, a laborious andtime-consuming undertaking with primitive tools.212 The thwarts were commonly of sapHngs with theends cut away so that the thin remainder could bewrapped around the main gunwales and lashed under-neath the thwarts inboard. Ribs were usually ofsplit saplings, but there is some evidence that in veryhurriedly built canoes the whole small sapling wasused. The kind of sheathing employed in thesecanoes during the pre-Columbian era is a mystery. Itwould be quite unlikely that time was taken to splitsplints such as were used in the late elm- and spruce-bark canoes, when steel tools were available. Thewriters believe that for small canoes it may havebeen the practice to use a second sheet of stiff barkinside the first and extending only through the middletwo-thirds of the length, across the bottom and upabove the bilge but short of the gunwales. This,with the ribs and a few poles lashed to each rib alongthe bottom, would have given sufficient longitudinalstrength and a stiff enough bottom for practical use.However, in large canoes of the type reputedly em-ployed by Iroquois warriors, a stronger constructionseems necessary, and these canoes may have had anumber of split or whole poles lashed to the ribsalong the bottom.With small variations in details, the general con-struction outlined above was employed by many NorthAmerican Indians for building temporary canoesfor emergency use. In at least one case, however,it was also used in canoes of somewhat more perma-nent status within the boundaries of the powerfulIroquois Confederation. On large bodies of watcrwithin their territory, the Iroquois used dugouts, butfor navigating streams and for use in raiding theirenemies they employed bark canoes. While somebirch bark was available there, it was probablywidely scattered; therefore these great warriors usedelm or other bark for their canoe building.Early French accounts show that the Iroquoisbuilt bark canoes of greater size than ordinary;Champlain wrote that their canoes were of oakbark and were large enough to carry up to 18 war-riors; later French accounts, as we shall see, indicatethat the Iroquois used even larger canoes than these.Champlain may have been in error about the Iroquoisuse of oak bark, as suggested earlier (p. 7), forexperiments have shown that the inner bark of thistree is too thin and weak for the purpose; the canoesChamplain saw may have been built of white or redelm bark. The barks of the butternut, hickory,white pine, and chestnut might also have beenemployed, as they were usually suitable. It was noted by the early French writers thatthe Iroquois built their bark canoes very rapidlywhen the.se craft were required by a war party inorder to attack their enemies or to escape pursuit.In one case at least the canoes for a war party wereapparently built in a single day. This was accom-plished, it seems, by the excellent organization oftheir war parties, in which every man was assigneda duty, even in making canoes.\Vhen it was deemed necessary to build a canoe,certain warriors were to search out and obtain thenecessary materials in the order required for con-struction. To do this effectively, they had to knowthe materials in order of their suitability for a givenpurpose, for the most desirable material might notbe available at the building site. Other warriorsprepared the materials for construction, scraping thebark, making thongs, and rough-shaping the wood.Others built the canoe, cutting and sewing the bark,and shaping and lashing the woodwork. Theseduties, too, required intimate knowledge of thedifferent materials that could be used in canoeconstruction. It would be natural, of course, to findthat the methods used to construct a temporarycraft for a war-party would also be employed athome by the hunter or fisherman, even when arather more permanent canoe was desired. Thesewere smaller craft and easily built. Only when along-lasting watercraft was desired would the barkcanoe be unsatisfactory; then the dugout could bebuilt. The early French observers agree that thoughthe Iroquois occasionally used birch-bark canoes,these were acquired from their neighbors by barter orcapture and were not built by the tribesmen of theConfederation.The details of the construction of elm canoes (andof other bark than birch) by the Iroquois are specula-tive, since no bark canoe of their construction hasbeen preserved. This reconstruction of their methodsis, therefore, based upon the incomplete accounts ofearly writers and upon what has been discoveredabout the construction of spruce- and elm-barktemporary canoes by other Eastern Indians.In view of what has been reported, it must be keptin mind that the construction was hasty and thata minimum of labor and time was employed; hence,the appearance of the elm-bark canoe of an Iroquoiswar-party had none of the gracefulness that is sup-posed 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 use213 Mo/eci/f Mooje-hie/r Canoe/3' lo' /oncf , -#/ beam, ^6 ' de/i^/' JJf/n Jfo/r-J/e^c oi// Malecite and Iroquois Temporary Canoes. The Iroquois 3-fathom elm-bark canoe, below, is designed to carry ten to twelve warriors. of saplings for the gunwales would cause an unevensheer, and its amount must have been small; the high,graceful ends seen in some birch-bark canoes did notexist in the Iroquois model. The rocker of the bottomprofile was not a fair curve, but was angular, madeof straight lines breaking under the folds, or "crimps,"in the bark cover at the gunwales. The amount ofbark in each crimp and the location of the crimpsfore-and-aft would determine the shape of the bottomprofile and the amount of rocker, as well as the flatnessof the bottom athwartships in the midbody. Itappears that two crimps to the side were employedin most of these canoes, but perhaps more, say fourto a side, might have been employed in a very largecanoe. The tendency in forming these canoes musthave been toward an almost semicircular midsection,a condition which would have produced an unstablecraft if not checked.The early French writers agree that the canoes ofIroquois war parties were sluggish under paddle.This was due to the fact that the hull form of thesecanoes was not good for speed, and also because the bulges at the bottom of the crimps caused them tobe markedly unfair at and near the waterline. Thishandicap in their canoes may have been an induce-ment for the Iroquois to waylay their victims atportages when the travellers were usually spreadout and easily cut down while burdened with goods.The Algonkin tribes countered by moving in verylarge numbers when within striking distance ofIroquois raiders. Hence there were very few recordedinstances of battles in canoes; these took place onlywhen sudden meetings occurred without preparationon either side, such as when war parties surprisedcanoemen in narrow waters. The shortcomings oftheir canoes did not seriously affect the deadlinessof the Iroquois warriors, for their usual practicewas to raid in winter, when they could travel rapidlyon snowshoes and surprise their enemies in wintercamps wholly unprepared for defense, a most pleasingprospect for the attacking warrior.It would be a mistake, however, to assume thatthese factors made the Iroquois poor canoemen; theFrench repeatedly stated that they were capable in214 handling their craft and ran rapids with great daringand skill, showing that the apparently crude andweak elm-bark canoes were far better craft than theyfirst appeared.The theory that the Iroquois type of canoe was verylike the emergency or temporary elm- and spruce-barkcanoes of neighboring tribes is supported by somestatements of the early French writers, as well as by acomparison of the rather incomplete descriptions ofIroquois canoes by later travellers with what is knownabout the spruce and other temporary bark canoesused in more recent times by the eastern Indians.M. Bacqueville de la Poterie, writing of the adven-tures of Nicholas Perrot in the years 1665 to 1670,tells of an instance in which Perrot's Potawatomimistook the emergency canoes of some Outaouais(Ottawa) for Iroquois canoes.LaHontan (1700) gives some general information aswell as specific opinions on the speed and seaworthi-ness of Iroquois canoes, saying that ? the canoes with which the Iroquois provide themselves areso unwieldy and large that they do not approach the speedof those which are made of birch bark. They are made ofelm bark, which is naturally heavy and the shape they givethem is awkward; they are so long and so broad that thirtymen can row in them, two-by-two, seated or standing, fifteento each rank, but the freeboard is so low that when any littlewind arises they are sensible enough not to navigate thelakes [in them].LaFiteau, writing before 1724, stated definitely thatthe Iroquois did not build any birch-bark canoes, butobtained them from their neighbors, and that theIroquois elm-bark canoes were very coarsely built ofa single large sheet of bark, crimped along the gun-wales, with the ends secured between battens of splitsaplings. He noticed that the gunwales, ribs, andthwarts were of "tree branches," implying that thebark was not removed from them. The most detaileddescription was by a Swedish traveller. Professor PherKalm, who gave extensive information on the con-struction of an elm-bark canoe in 1749; this accountis particularly useful when interpreted in relation tothe spruce- and elm-bark canoes of the eastern Indians.It is upon the basis of Kalm's account that the pro-cedures used to build an Iroquois war canoe have beenreconstructed.The bark most favored by the Iroquois was that ofthe white elm. Next most favored was red elm, andthen other barks?certain of the hickories and chest-nut are mentioned in various early references. It was necessary to find a tree of sullicient girth and heightto the first limbs to give a sound and fairly smoothbark sheet in the length and breadth required. Ifpossible the bark was stripped from the standing tree;even after steel tools were available, felling was avoid-ed for fear of harming the bark. Great care had to betaken in the operation, to avoid splitting or makingholes in the bark, and often two or more trees had tobe stripped before a good sheet of bark was obtained.In warm weather the bark could be removed withoutmuch difficulty, but in the spring and fall it might benecessary to apply heat; this was apparently done bymeans of torches or by the application of hot waterto the tree trunk.When the bark was removed from the tree, therough outer bark was scraped away; if the builderwas hurried this scraping was confined to the areasto be sewn or folded. The bark was then laid on acleared piece of ground, the building bed, with theoutside of the bark up, so that it would be inside thefinished boat. The building bed does not appear tohave required much preparation; apparently notraised at midlength, it was merely a plot of reasonablysmooth ground, located in the shade of a large tree ifbuilding was to be done in summer.It is not wholly clear from the descriptions whetherthe gunwales were shaped before or after being securedto the bark. However, extensive experiments inbuilding model canoes show very plainly that it wouldbe easiest to assemble the main gunwale frame anduse it in building, after the fashion of eastern birch-bark canoe construction. With the main gunwalesassembled, 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 w-ay and theirheads lashed together in pairs.Each gunwale was formed either of two small sap-lings or of split poles, with the butts scarfed at thecanoe's midlength. The canoe of an Iroquois warparty would probably have gunwales of split saplingsso that inwaie and outwale for half the length of oneside of the canoe would be from a single pole; thiswould allow the flat sides to be placed opposite oneanother, on each side of the edge of the bark, toform a firm gunwale structure. However, when arather permanent craft was being built, the polesmight be split twice, or quartered, to give pieces tomake half of the gunwales of a canoe; these too mightbe worked nearly round before assembly.That the gunwale joints were scarfed is reasonablycertain. The elm-bark canoes of the St. Francis215 Indians are known only from a model, as are thespruce-bark hunters' canoes of the Malecite, but thetestimony of old St. Francis and Malecite builderssupport the evidence of the models; therefore it isprobable that the use of scarfed gunwales was commonin these canoes, and, hence, also in the canoes of theIroquois, who dwelt nearby. The manner of scarfingis not certain. Probably the butts were snied off sothat the lap woukd be flat face, as was usual in theMalecite spruce-bark canoes of this same class. Thebutts were secured together by lashings?apparentlylet into shallow grooves around the members. In avery hastily built tanoe the butts might be merelylapped for a short distance, one butt above the other,and lashed; this, of course, would make a jog in thesheer, but do no harm, as the jog would occur inboth inwale and outwale, and the bark would lay upbetween these and be trimmed to suit.The thwarts were described in old accounts asvery small saplings, or tree branches, with their endssharply reduced in thickness so that they were thinand pliable enough to be bent around the gunwalesand brought inboard under the thwart, as done bysome Kutenai in the West (see p. 169). The thwartends might be lashed or, as in some eastern spruce-bark canoes, brought up through a hole in the thwartsto the top where it could be jammed or lashed.In the Iroquois canoe it seems probable that thethwart ends passed around the main gunwalesonly and were secured under the thwarts for, asnoted, the evidence strongly suggests that the maingunwale members were preassembled, a procedurethat requires the thwarts to be in place. In the smallhunters' canoes, however, some eastern buildersapparently put in a temporary spreader in place ofa single thwart until the canoe was completed to thepoint where the outwales were in place, then thethwarts were added, the ends passing over andaround both inwale and outwale and through thebark cover below, to the underside of the thwart.One requirement in building these canoes was tocrimp the edges of the bark at the gunwales in suchmanner that the bottom of the canoe would berockered and at the same time would be mouldedathwartships. First steps in the process were to setinto the building bed two heavy stakes on each sideof the stems, a little inboard of the ends, and to tiethe heads of each pair together with a heavy barkcord or a rawhide thong. Then a sling was made,the bight of which went under the bottom of the barkcover near its ends, and the ends of the sling were made fast to the heads of the stakes. By taking upon these slings, the ends of the bark cover weresharply lifted and then the folding of the bark alongthe gunwales could be easily accomplished, as theythen formed naturally, without strain. The crimpswere commonly located a fourth to a fifth the lengthof the canoe inboard of the ends, about where theend thwarts would be located. In small hunters'canoes the end thwarts were often replaced by twistedcords across the gunwales, but in the large Iroquoiscanoes there were probably five or seven or perhapsas many as nine thwarts according to length.The ends of the gunwales were simply lashedtogether with cords or thongs in shallow grooves toprevent slipping. They were raised by a small insidepost, its heel placed on the bark near the stem andits head brought under the gunwales, so that itserved the purpose of a headboard in sheering thegunwales.The procedure in building to this point, then,appeared to follow the general plan used in birch-barkconstruction. Next, the stakes were redriven in thebed around the gunwale frame, which was weightedon the bark with stones, and the sides of the bark coverwere brought upright. Apparently only a few stakeswere considered necessary?three or four to a sideand two pairs of end stakes to raise the stems. Thegunwale frame was then lifted to the required heightof side and lashed temporarily to the side stakes, theends of the bark cover were creased to form bow andstern, and the headboard posts were inserted to supportthe ends of the inwales and to sheer the canoe.Before this, of course, the ends of the bark cover hadbeen raised by means of the slings to the end stakes.The outwales of split saplings were now put intoplace, with the edges of the bark cover lashed betweenthe flat surfaces of the inwale and outwale, the gun-wales having been assembled with the flat face of thelongitudinal members outboard. The lashings werein small groups spaced 5 to 7 inches apart so as not tosplit the bark, and these not only secured the barkin place but also held the inwales and outwalestightly together, to clamp the edges of the bark cover.At the thwarts, the outwales were notched on theirinboard face to allow them to come up against thebark pressed against the face of the inwales (in someeastern canoes the bark cover was notched at thethwart ends to lay up smoothly there, and this mayhave also been done in the Iroquois canoes). Inplacing the outwales, the crimps were carefully formedand held by the clamping action of the inwale and216 Figure 210 Hickory-Bark Canoe Under Construction, showing the sling with whichthe ends are elevated and the crimp which takes up the slack in the sides of thebark. Excess bark above the gunwales to be trimmed off. Completed modelin The Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Va. im?i,|ii[i'iMli.??,i?.u,i.MUll??lll?WMh...im..,,...|,],..:.l Figure 211 Detail of Thwart used in Malecite temporaryspruce-bark canoe. outw-ale, and reinforced by a lashing through thecrimp or by two lashings close to the sides of the fold.The fold of the bark forced the outwale away fromthe inwale, and although this was counteracted tosome extent by the lashings, the gunwales were unfairat these points. The crimps were formed so that themaximum fold in the bark took place at the gunwales;below this the fold tapered away to nothing, endinglow 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, orhickory barks.The ends of the canoe were closed, as has beenmentioned, by use of split-sapling battens on the out- side of the bark. The Iroquois and some otherbuilders also employed at the stems a thong or atwisted cord made of the inner bark of some such treeas the basswood; this was wrapped around the ends ofthe bark cover abreast the headboard posts inside thecanoe, so that the lashing stood vertically. Then thesplit battens were placed on each side of the barkcover, just outboard of the cord, and the whole wassecured by a coarse spiral lashing of root or rawhide,which passed inboard of the cord lashing and theheadboard post, as well as around them and the splitbattens outside of the bark cover. Some buildersapparently added a split-root batten over the edges ofthe bark cover, as a sort of stem-band ; this was securedby the turns of the stem closure lashing, which passedaround them as well as the edges of the bark and thesplit side battens. It can be seen that this closureformed a strong stem structure. Watertightness wasinsured by merely forcing clay into the stems from theinside, or by forcing in a wad of the pounded innerbark of a dead red elm which would swell when damp.217 iRoquois Elm-Bark Canoe, after a drawing of 1849, equipped with paddlesfor a crew of six, with owners' personal marks on blades. Length of canoe 25feet, with capacity for a war party of a dozen or more men. Note supportingpiece of cord tied in with the end battens. Far gunwales are improperlysketched. Still other methods included the use of grass or mossimpregnated with warm tallow from the cooking pot.If available, the stems would be liberally smeared withspruce or other gum, of course.While the ribs were customarily tree branches orsmall saplings, in some canoes the saplings were splitand bent so their flat face was against the bark. Inthe East, hunters' canoes were often given the lath-likeribs of the birch-bark canoes, for when steel toolsbecame available such ribs were easily made duringthe winter for use in the spring, when the temporarycanoe would be needed.According to the early reports, the ribs were placedsome 6 to 10 inches apart in the bark cover, with theheads forced under the inwales against the bark, andwere supported there by the outwales as well. Nomention is made of any sheathing; Kalm refers to apiece of bark and some saplings or tree branches laidover the ribs to protect the bottom inboard. In thelarge Iroquois canoes it would have been possible andpractical to employ a piece of bark inside the mainbark cover, as noted on page 213; this inside pieceneeded to be only long enough to reach to the endthwarts, or abreast the crimps, and wide enough tocover the bottom and bilges up to 3 or 4 inches shortof the inwales. With the ribs over this inner sheet, astifiT bottom would result. In a long canoe, split polescould be laid lengthwise inside the bottom of thecanoe and fastened there by lashing them to a fewribs; these would serve to protect the bottom in load-ing and to stiffen the bark cover. However, in asmall canoe the stiffness of elm bark when the rough outside layer was not fully scraped off would makesheathing of any kind unnecessary, and the bark matinside the ribs, mentioned by Kalm, would be suffi-cient.The difficulty in reconstructing the building methodsof the large Iroquois canoes on the same basis is thatKalm's description is of a rather small canoe; theinformation on the temporary canoes of the easternIndians also deals with short craft. It is evident,however, that poles were not usually placed betweenthe bark and the ribs, as in temporary skin canoesbuilt by Indians. It is also apparent that splints werenot used by the Iroquois for sheathing large canoes.The ends of the outwales in the Iroquois canoesseem to have been secured by snying them off on theoutside face and holding these thin ends by the cordaround the ends, as well as by the closure battensof the stems. In some eastern canoes, notably theelm-bark canoes of the St. Francis, the outwale endsprojected slightly outboard of the stems and werelashed across them by a simple athwartship lashingwhich passed through the bark cover and under andover the lashing at the inwale ends.In a drawing of an Iroquois canoe made about1849, the cord around the stems is shown togetherwith the outside stem battens and lashing; the ends ofthe outwales are apparently under the cord and per-haps under the stem battens. The stem batten is inone piece sharply bent under the stems in U-form.The end lashing shown seems to be in groups and thebottom, for a little distance inboard of the stems,is also shown as lashed. Three thwarts are shown.218 It may be that this drawing was made not from a full-size canoe but from a model, for the proportions areobviously incorrect. This possibility casts somedoubt on the picture as evidence of the buildingpractices, for in Indian-built models simplifiedconstruction details not used in actual canoe buildingare often found.According to early accounts and the statements ofeastern Indians, these emergency canoes were oftenheavy and unsuitable for portaging. By 1750, atleast, the Iroquois were using blanket square-sails intheir elm-bark canoes. Skin BoatsAmong the other forms of temporary or emergencycanoes used by North American Indians, the mostwidespread was some form of skin boat. Thesewould not require description here were it not for thefact that the Indian skin boats were usually built bybark-canoe methods of construction rather than bymethods such as used by the Eskimo. To build theirskin boats?kayaks and umiaks?the Eskimo first con-structed a complete framework, and this was thencovered with skins sewn to fit. This process of build-ing required a rigid framework capable of not onlystanding without a skin covering but also of givingboth longitudinal and transverse strength sufficientto withstand loading, without the slightest supportfrom the skin covering. Hence, the framework of theEskimo craft was made with the members rigidlylashed and pegged together. The majority of Indianskin canoes, however, required the covering to holdthe framework together, as in a birch-bark canoe.An example is the Malecite skin-covered hunters'canoe. According to available information, theMalecite hunter would leave two or three mooseskins on stretchers for use in building a skin canoe inthe early spring. Sometimes the hair was removedfrom the hides and sometimes it was not. Sparetime during the winter hunt might be spent in pre-paring the wooden framework, but if this were notdone the delay would not be very great.The gunwale frame was first made of four smallsapling poles roughly scarfed at the butts. From asmall sapling a middle thwart was made in themanner of the elm-bark canoe thwarts, the endstapered enough to allow them to be wrapped around the gunwales and secured under the thwart by lash-ings. The ends of the gunwales were merely crossedand lashed. Where end thwarts would be placed,it was usual to use a cross tie made of twisted rawhideor cords of bark fiber. Holes were then drilled atintervals in the underside of the gunwale to take theheads of the ribs. Stem-pieces about 3 feet long wereprepared of short saplings and bent to the desiredprofile; one builder used a full-length keel-piece,instead of the short stem-pieces. The ribs wereusually of small saplings that could be bent greenwithout the use of hot water. For sheathing a numberof small saplings were also gathered, and from themwere made poles in lengths about equal to three-quarters, or a little more, of the intended length ofthe canoe, which would be determined by the sizeof the skins available. The average canoe was about12)2 feet long, roughly 40 inches beam, and 14 to19 inches in depth.The skins were sewn together lengthwise, lappedabout 6 inches or a little less, and secured by a doublerow of stitching. If the hair had not been removed, ithad to be scraped away along the sewn edges. Insuch a case the hair w-ould usually be on the outsideof the finished canoe. Also, before work was started onassembling a canoe, the skins were worked pliable,and tallow and gum were accumulated.When an emergency canoe was ready to beassembled a smooth place was prepared; either anopen bit of ground or the floor of the hunter's hut,if large enough, might be used. The outlines ofthe gunwales were fixed by a few stakes temporarilydriven around it and then pulled up. The skinswere then laid on the bed and the gunwale frameplaced on them and weighted with stones. Thenthe skins were left to dry for awhile until they Ijccamcsomewhat stiff; the proper condition was indicatedby the curling of the edges.When the skin w'as sufficiently stiff, the t(uuwaleframe was lifted and temporarily secured to the stakesredriven in the Ijed, the sides of the skin were turnedup, the skin was gored, and sometimes the ends ofthe gunwales were sheered up slightly at the endstakes; this latter was not always done, for in somecanoes the sheer was quite flat.The skins were now trimmed to the sheer of thegunwales and the edges lashed to these members withrawhide, the gores also having been sewn. Next thestem-pieces were put into place and the stem headslashed inside the apex formed by the ends of thegunwales. Some ribs were then bent and forced219 down on the stiff skin cover, the rib ends being workedinto the holes prepared for them on the undersideof the gunwales. These ribs usually stood approxi-mately square to the curve, or rocker, of the bottom.Now the skin could be trimmed to the stem profilesand sewn. The stitching was usually done so as tobe outside the stem-pieces, with an occasional turngoing around inside them to help hold the structurein place. Some builders first put in the stems tem-porarily and then trimmed the skins to match; afterthis was done the stem-pieces were removed to alloweasy sewing. When they were replaced and securedpermanently, a few more stitches were added alongthe stems to secure the woodwork.The next step was to sheath the canoe inside withthe small poles; these were placed a few inches aparttransversely and their ends worked under the mostinboard of the ribs on the stem-pieces, then held inplace, while the necessary adjustments were made, bya few temporary ribs. Then the ribs were forced intoplace, one by one, each prebent to the desired section,just as in birch-bark canoe construction. In this finalshaping, the skin cover might have to be wetted againto soften the material and to allow stretching. Theseams were then payed with gum or tallow, and thecanoe was ready for launching.The description is for canoes of minimum finish,builders often used split and shaped gunwales, splitribs, and splint sheathing if these could be preparedduring the winter. The construction of a skin canoewas not a specialized process in which a hunter con-sistently built this one type; the selection was deter-mined by natural conditions. If he were to come outof the woods too early in the spring to make theconstruction of a spruce-bark canoe easy, then hewould resort to skin construction; the statements ofold Malecite hunters leads to the conclusion that asemergency craft they used spruce-bark canoes mostoften.Perhaps the most primitive of the skin boats builtby the North American Indian was the so-calledbull-boat of the Plains Indians. These were notcanoes but coracles?bowl-shaped and suitable onlyfor use on streams, where ferrying would be the mainrequirement. The boats were covered with buffalo-hides and their framework was usually made of thewillow shoots found along the streams. The frame-work followed, to some extent at least, the basketworkprinciple, a circular gunwale or rim being used. Theribs were set in two groups, half at right angles to theother half in very irregular fashion. This construction formed a sort of rough grating in the bottom. Theribs were lashed together with rawhide and apparentlythe craft was built up on the skin as were the Maleciteskin canoes. Battens in circular form were used onthe sides to fair the cover. The form of the bull-boatvaried somewhat among individual builders; some-times it assumed almost a dish shape with shallowflaring sides, but more commonly the sides werenearly upright; the bottom was always flat, ornearly so. These bull-boats appear always to havebeen small. Judging by the examples preserved, abull-boat 5 feet over the rim or gunwale, or made ofmore than one skin, was extremely rare, and mostexamples are nearer 4 feet and built on a single skin.Many were too small to carry a person; these wereintended to be loaded with cargo to be kept dry andtowed by a swimmer. When they were large enoughto be paddled, the paddler worked over the "bow,"as in a coracle. Probably all the Plains Indiansliving near streams once used the bull-boat, butexisting records show only the Mandan, Omaha,Kansas, Hidatsa, and Assiniboin to have used it.The Blackfoot (Siksika) and Dakota are said tohave used some kind of a skin boat in which theirtepee poles were employed as a temporary frame,but nothing is recorded of their form.The use of spruce bark as a building material inthe Northwest and throughout the extreme northernrange of the birch-bark canoe has been discussed inearlier chapters (pp. 155 to 158). In these areas, theemergency canoe was usually built of caribou skin.On the Alaskan coast seal skin may also have beenused, but generally it was used for the permanentkayak-type canoe and not for a hastily built temporarycraft. The caribou-skin canoe was also built as apermanent type, in either kayak form or somewhat onthe model of the spruce- or birch-bark canoe of thearea. However, although references to temporarycraft covered with caribou skin exist in early accountsof the fur trade, there is no record of their form ordetails of their construction. Early in the presentcentury some of the Indians of the Mackenzie Rivercountry built skin canoes much like the modern canvas-covered freight canoes. Also, some of these skincanoes were built so that they resembled York boatsor the whaleboats of the white man. No observer hasdescribed the methods used to construct the emer-gency canoe of the Northwest; we do not knowwhether they resemble those used in the Indian barkcanoe or in the Eskimo skin boat.220 KefrospectL.N VIEW OF the inclusion of skin boats in this dis-cussion of bark canoes, it may be well to emphasizeagain the fact that the North American Indian'smethod of constructing bark canoes and of temporaryskin canoes was on an entirely different principlethan that used by the Eskimo in building their skinboats. This is even true of the kayak-form barkcanoes of the Northwest, despite their superficial simi-larity in design and proportions to the Eskimo skinkayak.As has been stated, the Eskimo construction re-quired a rigid frame, with all members fastened to-gether with lashings and pegs, the skin cover beingmerely the watertight envelope and not a strengthmember. This system of construction marks primitiveskin-boat design in most parts of the world. TheIndian bark construction, on the other hand, didnot have a rigid frame, and all but a few of thestructural members were held in place by pressurealone: the sheathing was held against the bark coverby pressure of the ribs; the stem-pieces, in most cases,were held in place by pressure of the ribs, gunwalesheering, or headboards. In fact without the barkcover in place, the greater part of the wooden struc-ture of the bark canoe would collapse. Not onlywas the bark cover the fundamental basis of construc-tion, it was to a great extent a strength member,though by clever design the loading of the bark wasminimized. This fundamental difference in construction mustbe recognized in comparisons of Eskimo and NorthAmerican Indian watcrcraft. Here, too, it might beobserved that one should view with skepticism anyclaim, that widespread similarity of certain structuralpractices is evidence of some ancient connection be-tween types of canoes. In most cases these similaritieswere imposed by the working characteristics of thematerials employed. Similarly, limitations in mate-rials available for construction have their effect uponbuilding techniques.The practice of employing pressure members inbark-canoe construction, particularly where birchbark was employed, was the result of the need tostretch this material by gentle and widespread pres-sure, whereas the skin cover could be stretched bythe concentrated pull of stitching alone, or by forceapplied in a small area. Bark canoes built in areaswhere skin-kayak construction is carried on nearbyshow a greater rigidity of structure. Thus, in thelower Yukon Valley in Alaska the bottom frame ofthe canoes built there was a rigidly constructed unit,even though the side longitudinals were held in placeby rib pressure alone. And it is reasonable totheorize that the Malecite, who through habit stillemployed bark-canoe construction practices in build-ing their skin craft, would have eventually come tothe Eskimo method of construction had conditionsrequired them to use skins exclusively. Large Moosehide Canoe of upper Gravel River, Mackenzievalley. {Photo, George M. Douglas.) 221 AppendixThe Kayak Roll ]ohn D. HeathTJ.HE. MOST EXTRAORDINARY feat of kayak handlingis the ability to right the craft after a capsize. Thismaneuver, called "rolling," is usually practiced bycapsizing on one side and recovering on the other.Under emergency conditions, a kayaker will recoveron whichever side is more convenient. When rolling,a kayaker wears a waterproof jacket having longsleeves and a hood. The waist, face, and wristopenings are fitted with drawstrings, so that whenthe waist opening is fitted over the cockpit rim, thekayak and kayaker become a waterproof unit.Thus equipped, the kayak is the most seaworthy-craft of its size, this quality being limited only by theskill and stamina of the kayaker.The art of kayak rolling was highly developed inAlaska and Greenland. Eskimos in both of theseregions depended upon seal hunting by kayak as amajor part of their economy, hence the ability toroll was an important means of survival. Very littledetailed information exists regarding Alaskan kay-akers, but the Greenlanders have been the object ofintensive study by ethnographers and explorers.The earliest detailed record of rolling was that ofDavid Crantz, a European missionary, who in 1767enumerated ten methods of rolling in his History ofGreenland.* His description follows. I. The Greenlander lays himself first on one side, thenon the other, with his body flat upon the water, (to imitatethe case of one who is nearly, but not quite overset) andkeeps the ballance with his pautik or oar, so that he raiseshimself again.Q. He overturns himself quite, so that his head hangsperpendicular underwater; in this dreadful posture hegives himself a swing with a stroke of his paddle, and raiseshimself aloft again on which side he will.The.se are the most common cases of misfortune, which See bibliography. frequently occur in storms and high waves; but they stillsuppose that the Greenlander retains the advantage ofhis paulik 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 heeither cannot rightly use the paulik, or that he loses itentirely. Therefore they must be prepared for thiscasualty. With this view3. They run one end of the pautik under one of the cross-strings of the kajak, (to imitate its being entangled) over-set, and scrabble up again by means of the artful motionof the other end of the pautik.4. They hold one end of it in their mouth, and yet movethe other end with their hand, so as to rear themselvesupright again.5. They lay the pautik behind their neck, and hold it therewith both hands, or,6. Hold it fast behind their back; so overturn, and bystirring it with both their hands behind them, withoutbringing it before, rise and recover.7. They lay it across one shoulder, take hold of it withone hand before, and the other behind their back, andthus emerge from the deep.These exercises are of service in cases where the pautik isentangled with the string; but because they may alsoquite lose it, in which the greatest danger lies, therefore,8. Another exercise is, to run ihe pautik through the waterunder the kajak, hold it fast on both sides with their facelying on the kajak, in this position overturn, and rise againby moving the oar secundum artem on the top of the waterfrom beneath. This is of service when they lose the oarduring 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, reachtheir hand after it, and from the surface pull it down tothem, and so rebound up.10. But if they can't possibly reach it, they take eitherthe hand-board off from the harpoon, or a knife, and tryby the force of these, or even splashing the water with thepalm of their hand, to swing themselves above water;but this seldom succeeds. 223 p8;8|duJ0D MOU SI ||0J 8LJ_L ?pJBMUj UMBjp Sj pUB S>(UIS 9pB|q 9|ppBd3L|; sp 8pn;i;;B Suiuuiqo b u] ^|8Sujil| guis|BJ snij; 's9jnss8Jd pueq Suisoddo siq SuisBaJO -ui A|djBLjs udi\-[ 'a|SuB apeiq aq; u8^b|j o; s;sijm siq Sui>|0!|j Xq ||0J gq; s9^a|dujoQ (g)aoBjjns aq; o; ||9saiiq Sui^^q snq; ';qSu siq uo dn Suiqsnd pus puBq \p\ siq uo UMop Sui||nd 8|!qM '(g) O}. (|.) uo|;isod ojoj^UMoqs SB 'aoBjjns ja;BM 9i\\ uo djb guiuB|d a9jSap-05 b ui pjBM:^no 'osjo; siq puB 'apB|qaippBd pjBMJO} siq sdaaMS aq 's^uiod ;oAid sb Suiajss puBq ;qSu puB sdiq siq q;i^ (g)8|qissodSB X|>j3inb SB auop aq o^ ':^u9LuaA0uj snonuijuoD 9uo 9;n;i;suo3 sdg^s guiuiBUJ9J 9q_L9DBjjns J9^BM aq; q:nM (uMoqs ;ou) 9|?ub guiuB|d ^qSifs B 9UjnssB o; 9|ppBd 9q; ^o 9?p9pjBoqino si{\ SuisnB3 snq; '9DB| siq pjBMo; S9|>jDnu>| siq Suims o; s;sum siq s>j3i|-j ([) ?J9>|bXb>i 9q; '^psujiq ;qSu o_i_ ?|Bog JO 'uoji.isod ^qSudn aq; ;u9sajdaj saui| Luo^uBqd 9q_L ?uoi;isod pazisdBO A||nj aq; ^0 ^^alA aXg-qsi^ b ;uasajdaj mou uoi^isod Sui;jb;s aq; pa;uasajdaj qoiqM saui| aoiBs aqj_ Figure 214 THE STANDARD GREENLAND ROLLThe solid lines represent the starting position for a clockwise roll (disregard the phantomlines until later). The paddle is held blade-on-edge along the starboard gunwale, with oneend near the right hip, and the other end toward the bow. The kayaker leans forward andfaces slightly to starboard. His left forearm is against, or near, the foredeck, and his lefthand 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 bothhands pass over the paddle, so that the knuckles are outboard. The kayaker takes a deepbreath, leans to starboard and capsizes.(Now turn the page upside down) 224 THE CRITICAL STAGE OF A CAPSIZE RECOVERYThe start (solid lines) and finish (phantom lines) of a planing sweep are shown head-onSuccess 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 shownright against the foredeck (a convenient means of orientation), the leading shoulder is nearerthe surface (to gain lift when the torso is swung outward), and the hips right the kayak as faras possible while the torso is still partly submerged (to avoid having to lift torso and kayak atthe same time). Since Crantz's time, various authors have describedkayak rolling. At least 30 methods of rolling havebeen known in Greenland. There are possibly manymore, because the variations and combinations arenumerous.Although kayaking as a sport first became popular inthe 1860's, it was not until the 1920's that the value oflearning to roll began to be fully realized by therecreational kayaker. Interest has grown steadilysince that time, and rolling instruction has beenincluded as a regular part of many club trainingcourses. A preliminary step in mastering the rollconsists of using the paddle to prevent a capsize, byturning the blade parallel to the water surface andpressing down sharply on the side toward which thekayak is capsizing, while exerting an upwardpressure with the other hand. This produces arotary movement which restores the ka\ak to aneven keel. Recreational canoeists call this maneuvera "paddle brace."Most kayak rolls are based upon one or more ofthree basic movements. These are the paddle brace, the "sculling" stroke, from which lift is obtained bymoving the paddle back and forth through a smallarc with the leading edge of the blade at a slightplaning angle, and the "sweep," from which liftis obtained by sweeping the blade through a largearc at a slight planing angle. The method of rollingshown in the sketches is the standard Greenlandroll, so called because it is the most common rollencountered in Greenland. A slightly modifiedversion of this roll is called by recreational canoeiststhe Pawlata roll in honor of the European whointroduced it to them. Many skillful ka\akers couldnot roll, and sometimes a highly skilled roller wouldfail to recover. Such men could be rescued by theircompanions by either of two common methods. Onemethod was executed by placing the bow of therescue craft within reach of the capsized paddler'shand, so that he could pull himself up by a one-handed chinning motion. The other method wasexecuted by bringing the rescue kayak alongsidethe capsized kayak so that the two craft were paralleland about two feet apart. The rescuer then laid 225 Cd z. ^3 Kayak rescue, bow-grab method 6.Figure 216Hand positions used with the standard roll:(1) The extended paddle position is thecommon method, and it gives maximumleverage. It is similar to the "PawlataRoll" position used by recreationalkayakers.(2) The normal paddling position is moreconvenient, but gives less leverage. Thisis called the "Screw Stroke" position.(3-6) Difficult trick positions demonstratedby Enoch Nielsen of Igdiorssuit, WestGreenland, to Kenneth Taylor, a Scottishcanoeist, in 1959. Figure 218Kayak rescue, paddle-grab method his paddle across both craft and holding it with onehand, reached down and grabbed the capsizedpaddler's arm. He then pulled him up between thetwo kayaks. This method enabled an enfeebled orunconscious kayaker to be rescued.Both of the above methods of rescue were completedwith the capsized victim still in his craft. This pre-vented his kayak from swamping and also protected him from exposure, since his waterproof kayakjacket remained tied to the cockpit hoop. Littledetailed information has been recorded on themethods of rolling known outside of Greenland, butthere are many photographs of Bering Strait kayakersrolling with the single bladed paddle. A study ofAlaskan rolling methods is now in progress, and itis hoped that much information can be recoveredand preserved. 226 V k* 4 '? Figure 219 Preparing for Demonstration. Jonas Malakiasen puts onhis tuvilik (a waterproof kayak jacket, pronounced in English"tooey-leek"). When it is fastened tightly about his facewrists, and the cockpit hoop, he can capsize without gettingwater in the kayak. Igdlorssuit. West Greenland, summer'959- (.P/ioio by Kenneth Taylor.) 227 Figure 220 Getting Aboard. Enoch Nielsen, best kayak roller in the village ofIgdlorssuit, West Greenland, wriggles into his kayak on the beach beforeembarking on a kayak rolling exhibition. Note that he is leaving theharpoon line stand and gun bag in place. (Photo by Kenneth Taylor) Pausing on Surface. Kay-aker supports himself on thesurface of the water by a scull-ing stroke before starting theroll. Note that Enoch Niel-sen's body is twisted so thathis shoulders are parallel withthe surface, thus submerging asmuch of the body as possible inorder to gain buoyancy. {Photoby Kenneth Taylor.) 228 Fully Capsized, view fromforward quarter, looking aft.Enoch Nielsen prepares to rollup by the standard method.Note the planing angle ofhis paddle blade as he preparesfor the ne.xt step, the planingsweep of the blade across thesurface. {Photo by KennethTaylor.) Figure 222 Emerging From Roll, viewfrom forward quarter, lookingaft. From the position ofEnoch Nielsen's hands, thisappears to be the standard roll.He has just completed theplaning sweep and is halfwayup. The inboard hand is apivot point for the sweep and afulcrum for the lift. {Photo byKenneth Taylor.) Righting the Kayak. EnochNielsen emerges from roll witha final downward thrust of thepaddle blade. {Photo by Ken-neth 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 canoebuilding.)Beauchamp, William M. Aboriginal use of wood in New York. (New YorkState Museum Bulletin 89.) Albany, 1905, pp. 139-149.Birket-Smith, Kai. Ethnography of the Egedesminde district. (Vol. 66 of Meddelelserom Gr0nland, 1879-1931.) Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel, 19?Boas, Franz. The Central Eskimo. (Pp. 409-669 in U.S. Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy, Sixth Annual Report, 1884-85.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution,1888.BoGORAS, Vladimir. The Chukchi. New York: G. E. Stechert, 1904-09. [Also asMemoir of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 11 ; and as publica-tions of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 7, issued in three parts.]Cartier, Jacques. The voyages of Jacques Cartier. (Canadian Archivist PublicationsNo. 11.) Transl. H. P. Biggar. 1914. (Another edition: Ottawa: F. A.Acland, 1924.)Cartwright, Captain George. Captain Carlwright and his Labrador journal. Edit.Charles W. Townsend. Boston: D. Estes & Co., 1911. . .-1 journal of transaction and events, during a residence of nearly sixteen years on thecoast 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 Pub-lishing Co., 1937.Durham, Bill. Canoes and kayaks of fVestern America. Seattle: Copper CanoePress, 1960. 231 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 (GovernmentPrinting Office), 1881.Franquet, Col. Voyages et memoires sur le Canada, par Franquet. Instilutcanadien de Quebec, Annuaire (1889), pp. 29-129.GoDSELL, Phillip H. The Ojibwa Indian. Canadian Geographical Journal (January1932).Hadlock, Wendell S., and Dodge, Ernest S.. A canoe from the PenobscotRiver. American Neptune (October 1948), vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 289-301. (Detaileddescription of early birch-bark canoe, with lines and numerous drawings ofconstruction details.)Hearne, Samuel. A journey from Prince of Wales fort in Hudson's Bay to the NorthernOcean, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772. Dublin: P. Byrne and J. Rice, 1796.Henry, Alexander, Jr. New light on the early history of the greater Nortkivest. Themanuscript 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. Bu-reau of American Ethnology: 14th Annual Report, pt. 1, 1892-93.) Wash-ington: Smithsonian Institution, 1896.Holm, Gustav Frederik. The Ammassalik Eskimo, contributions to the ethnology ofthe East Greenland natives. Vol. 1. Ed. William Thalbitzer. Copenhagen:B. Luno, 1914. [Also as vols. 39-40, Meddelelser om Gr0nland.]Hornell, James. British Coracles and Irish Curraghs. London : Society for NauticalResearch, 1938. . Water transport, origins & early evolution. Cambridge : The CambridgeUniversity Press, 1946.Howley, James Patrick. The Beothucks, or red Indians. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1915. (A very complete study.)Jenness, Diamond. The Indians of Canada. (Bulletin 65, Anthropological SeriesNo. 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 intwo 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 AmericanMuseum of Natural History (Feb. 19, 1900), vol. 12, art. 21, pp. 265-327.LaFitau, Joseph Franqois, Moeurs des sauvages Ameriquains. Paris: Saugrain, 1724.LaHontan, Louis Armand, Baron de, Nouveaux voyages de M. le baron de LaHontan,dans FAmerique septentrionale. La Haye: Chez les Freres I'Honore, 1703. 232 LeClerq, Father Chretien, 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 PacificOceans; . . . 17S9 and 1793. 2 vols. From York: New Amsterdam Book Co.,1903.Mason, Otis T., and Hill, Meriden S., Pointed bark canoes of the Kulenai 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 StatesNational Museum. (U.S. National Museum Bulletin 127.) Washington: Smith-sonian 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 ofU.S. Bureau of American Ethnology, 9th Annual Report, 1887-88.) Washing-ton: Smithsonian Institution, 1892.Murray, Alexander Hunter. Journal of the Yukon, 1847-48. Ottawa (GovernmentPrinting 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: Long-mans, Green and Co., 1900-06. . In northern mists. Transl. Arthur G. Chater. 2 vols. New York: FrederickA. Stokes Co., 1911. . Farthest north. 2 vols. New York: Harper Brothers, 1897.Nelson, Edward William. The Eskimo about Behnng 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-europeens. Paris: A.Bertrand, [n.d.].Parry, Sir William Edward. Journal of a second voyage for the discovery of a northwestpassage. London: J. Murray, 1824.Patterson, Rev. George. The Beothiks or red Indians of Newfoundland. Pro-ceedings 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. Historic de PAmeriqueseptentrionale ... 2 vols. Paris, 1722.Richardson, Sir John. Arctic searching expedition: A journal of a boat voyage . . . insearch of discovery ships . . . of Sir John Franklin. London: Longman, Brown,Green, and Longmans, 1851.Ritzenhalter, Robert Eugene. The building of a Chippeway Indian birch-barkcanoe. 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, byCaptain 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 prospectsof the Indian tribes of the United States. 6 vols. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo,1852-57. 233 Schoolcraft, Henry Rowie. The Indian tribes of the United States. 2 vols. Phila-delphia: 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 MacmillanCompany, 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 His-torical Society Collections, 1885. Vol. 5, pp. 21-394.Whitbourne, Sir Richard. Westward hoe for Avalon in the new-found-land. Edit, andillus. 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 Agri-culture, 1945.Wood handbook. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1955. (Basic infor-mation on wood as a material for construction.) 234 Index Abitibi, Lake, Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151Abitibi River, 132Abnaki (Indians), 12canoe, 88-89; dimensions, 89, 1 14-1 15Admiralty Collection of Draughts, 12, 13Adney, Edwin Tappan, 4-5, 57, 100; papers, 4, 5, 6;parents, 4; wife, 4; work and career, 4-5Adney, Glenn (son of E. T. A.), 4Adney, H. H. (father of E. T. A.), 4Adney, Minnie Bell Sharp (wife of E. T. A.), 4Adney, Ruth Shaw (mother of E. T. A.), 4Adney papers, 4, 5, 6Alaska, 5, 181, 182Alaskan canoe, 55Alaskan kayak, 154, 190, 191, 192, 195, 196Alaskan umiak, 182, 183, 187 fT.Albany boat, 13Alberta, 132Aleutian Islands, 181, 183, 194 ff.Aleutian kayak, 195 ff.Algonkian Family, 99Algonkin (Indians), 99, 107, 113; canoe, 1 13-122America (44-gun ship^ RN), 65American Neptune (periodical), 74American Museum of Natural History, 89, 195, 204Androscoggin (Indians), 88Anson, Lord, 12Art Students' League of New York, 4ash, white, 17; black, 17; splitting qualities, 17Asiatic kayak, 192, 195Assiniboine (Indian tribe), 132Athabaska, Lake, 132, 155Athabascan Indians, 154, 156awl, bone, ig; steel (canoe), 21axe, steel, 20, 21; cedar, 21 Baffin Island, 82, 189, 191, 192, 204, 206, 208; umiak, i8g, 1 90; kayak, 204 ff.baidarka (Russian kayak), 175bang plate, 208 bark, basswood, 15birch, 9, 55, 60, 63, 96, 120, 132, 147, 148, 154; descrip-tion, 14-15; selection and preparation, 24-26;handling, 29-31; use in building canoes, 41-51butternut, 213chestnut, 15, 213Cottonwood, 15elm, 15, 212 ff.hickory, 15, 213, 217spruce, 15, 17, 24, 132, 158, 212, 213, 216white pine, 213bark cover, piecing, 42, 43, 45, 55; Micmac, 63; Beothuk,98; Algonkin, 120; Western Cree, 132, 133; fur-trade,147, 148; kayak-form, 162Barri^rc, Lake, 107, 146basket (pack), in fur trade, 143basswood, bark, 15bateau, 13bateau-shape canoe, 1 59-161batten (in skin boat construction), 186, 188 fT., 195 fT.,199, 204 fT., 208Beard, Daniel, 4Beaver (Indians), 154; kayak-form canoe, 159Beothuk (Indian tribe), 6, 94-98canoe, 94, 95; dimensions, 94, 98; form, 96; keel, 96,97, 98; reconstruction of, 96 fT.Bering Sea, 195Bering Strait, 182, 189, 199bifid bow, 196, 197big river canoe, 58, 65birch 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, 41-51bladder, skin (float), 194Boas, Franz, 189, 204boat, Arctic skin, 174-212; Viking, 187; temporary skin,219-220; bull, 220Bogoras, Vladimir, 183bola (hunting), 194bone fittings, kayak, 193, 204, 208, 21 1 235 Bonshere River, Ontario, 1 1 3 hwttom-frame, kayak-form canoe, 160 ff.bow drill, 1 9, 20breakwater, canoe, 162, 166, 167; kayak, 196British Columbia, 5; kayak-form canoe, 165; sturgeon-nosecanoe, 168bucksaw, 23building 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, loi;Algonkin, 116; Ojibway, 127; Western Cree, 132;fur-trade, 146, 147; narrow-bottom, 158; kayak-form,i6i; sturgeon-nose, 173; temporary canoe, 216, 219building frame, 26, 37, 54 ff.: Eastern Cree, loi; Algonkin,115, 116; Ojibway, 127; Western Cree, 132; fur-trade, 140, 141, 146, 147; narrow-bottom, 158;kayak-form, 161 ; sturgeon-nose, 173buUboat, 220butternut 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 classifi-cation, 27 ff. (see under tribal names); effects of barkcharacteristics on, 29 ff.; construction discussed, 36-57(see also under tribal types); compared with Eskimoskin boat, 193elm bark, 212, 219hickory bark, 213, 217skin, 219-221; moosehide, 72, 219; temporary, 219-221spruce bark, 132, 158, 212, 213, 216temporary, 219-221canoe awl, 2 1 canoe birch (see under bark)canoe brigade, 1 52canoe building, Trois Rivieres factory, 13, 135, 136; forfur trade, 135, 136, 146 ff. ; 148 ff., at Hudson's BayCompany Posts, 151canoe 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, 168canoe loading, fur-trade, 144, 145, 152, 153canoe portaging, 122, 151, 152canoe roads, 138canoe sails (see sails)canoe shoes, Malecite, 79, 80canoe types, Abnaki, 88-89Alaskan, 55Algonkin, i 13-122Beaver, 159Beothuk, 94-98Big River, 58, 65 canoe types, bateau-shape, 159-161British Columbia, 165, 168Chipewyan, 155-158Cree, Central, 34; Eastern, 101-106; Western, 132-134,155crooked, 99, 100, 106Dogrib, 155-158express, 137, 141fur-trade (see under fur-trade)hunting (Micmac), 58, 65, 70kayak-form (see under kayak-form)light, 137, 141long nose, 125, 130, 132Loucheux, 161, 166Mackenzie Basin, 159, 161, 162Montagnais, 34, 99, 100, 106Malecite, 34, 36-57, 70-93, 1 14, 1 15, 219, 221Micmac, 12, 27, 34, 58-69Nahane, 159narrow-bottom, 113, 114, 135, 154-158Northwest, 154, 155-157 (narrow-bottom); 158-168(kayak-form)Ojibway, 122-131one-piece, 2 12open-water, 58, 64, 65Passamaquoddy, 74, 75, 82, 83Peterborough, 65porpoise hunting, 74, 75portage, 58, 65, 123Restigouche, 65river (Malecite), 70-79St. Francis, 88-93, 114, 115skiff-canoe, 65Slave, 155-158straight-bottom, 100, loi, 106, 155sturgeon-nose, 154, 168-173temporary, 212-219Tetes de Boule, 34, 107-112, 116, 122V-bottom, 74 ff., 89, 96, 98, 100, 107, 1 13war, 10, 58, 65, 70wide-bottom, 54woods, 58, 65Western Cree, 72, 132-134, 155Yukon River, 159, 164, 165, 166, 190canot (canoe), 13; du maitre (see fur-trade canoe), 99, 106,135; du nord (see fur-trade canoe), 151, 153; leger(see light canoe), 137Cape York, 208Carib Indians, 13Caribou Eskimo kayak, 204caribou-skin boat, 220Cartier, Jacques, 7, 68Cartwright, Lieut. John, 94, 95cedar, northern white, roots, 16; splitting qualities, 17, 18Celts, 176Champlain, Samuel de, 7, 10, 213236 Champlain, Lake, 7Chatham dockyard, 12chestnut bark, 15, 213chine, 164, 166, 184, 187, 188, 195, 202, 204, 205, 206Chippewa (Chippeway; Indian tribe), 122Chipewyan (Indian tribe), 154, 155canoe, 155-158; ends, 156, 157; spreading gunwales,158; dimensions, 158; kayak-form, 166, 167chisel, 23Christopherson, L. A. (Hudson's Bay Company Factor),145, 146; on fur-trade canoe construction, 146, 147,148, 149, 150, 151Chukchi umiak, 182, 183, 188; kayak, 195cockpit, kayak, 175, 176, 192, 195 AT., 197, 199, 200, 204,205, 208, 21 1 Coffin, Samuel, 95Collins, Henry B. (Bureau of American Ethnology), 174Colliers (magazine), 4construction methods, Malecite, 36-57, 72-74; Micmac, 58,59-64; St. Francis, 90-93; Beothuk, 96-98; EasternCree, 104-106; Tetes de Boule, 108-112; Algonkin,U5-122; Ojibway, 125, 127 ff., Western Cree, 132,133; fur-trade, 146-151; narrow-bottom, 155 fT.;kayak-form, 160 ff. ; sturgeon-nose, 168-172; umiak,176 ff., 182, 184-187; kayak, 192-194; temporarycanoes, 212-218; temporary skin boats, 218-220Copper Eskimo kayak, 204Copjjermine River, 155coracle, 176Coronation Gulf, 193, 204Coronation Gulf kayak, 204Cottonwood bark, 15Cowassek (Coosuc; Indian tribe), 88Crantz, David (missionary), 190, 223Cree Indians, central, 34; eastern, 99, 101-106; western,132-134, 155crew, fur-trade canoe, 145crimping bark (in canoe building) , 29, 30, 2 1 2, 2 1 4, 2 1 6, 2 1 7 crooked canoe, 99, 100, 106crooked knife (tool), 21, 23curragh, 176, 178; waterproofing skins for, 176; comparedwith umiak and kayak, 178Cushnoc (Indian tribe), 88dart (for hunting), 194deck, kayak-form canoe, 159, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167;kayak, 176, 195 fT., 199, 202, 204, 21 1 decorations, 53; Micmac, 67, 68; Malecite, 82 ff.; St.Francis, 90, 91; Tetes de Boule, 112; Algonkin, 122;fur-trade, 146, 150, 151; kayak-form, 163; kayak, '97, '99D^ne (Indian tribe), 162Denys, Nicolas, 57, 68, 69Dibble, Lt. Col. Herbert, 75dimensions, canoe (see under tribal type); old canoes, 7 ff., '3 Dogrib Indians, 154, 155; canoe, 155-158drill (tool), 19dugout, 10, 213 eastern canoe construction, 54Eastern Cree Indians, 99, 100, 101-106canoe, 101-106; dimensions, 106Eastport (Maine), 75Egede, Hans (missionary), 190elm bark, 8, 15, 212, 213, 214, 215Encyclopedia Arctica, 6ends (canoe), 31, 32, 55, 56, 70, 72, 76, 77, 155 ff., 168, 217engine, outboard gasoline, 175, 187Eskimo, 154, 159, 175, 176, 182, 190, 191, 195Eskimo roll, 194, 223-227Eskimo skin boat (see kayak, umiak)Espenberg, Cape, kayak, 200express canoe, 137, 141 Fort Chimo, 99, 100Foxe Basin, 182, 204frames (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; EasternCree, 104, 105, 106; TStes de Boule, 110, 112; Algon-kin, 122; Ojibway, 130; Western Cree, 132; fur-trade,148, 149; narrow-bottom, 158; kayak-form, 160, 162ff.; sturgeon-nose, 168, 172; umiak, 184 ff., 189, 190;kayak, 192, 194 ff., 202, 204 ff., 21 1; rough construc-tion of, 213; for temporary bark canoe, 218; fortemporary skin canoe, 219Franquet, Colonel (French military engineer-in-chief), 13froe (steel tool), 20, 21 "frog" (headboard support), 35, 61fur trade, canoe cargoes in, 142, 145, 147, 152, 153; handlingfurs, 142; pack loads, 142 ff., bundles and boxes.142, 143; brigades, 152, 153fur-trade canoe, 5, 10 ff., 36, 37, 99, 112, 113, 1 18, 1 19, 122, '3''> '35~'53' '56; described, 135, 153; namesapplied 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, 151Fury Strait, 204Gay, John, 94, 96Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, 94gimlet (tool), 21Golden Lake Algonkin Reserve (Canada), 1 13gores (bark canoes), 30, 31, 41, 42, 48, 50; spacing, 57;Micmac, 60; Eastern Cree, 101; Tetes de Boule, 108;Algonkin, 117; fur-trade, 148; in umiak, skin cover,186Grand Victoria Lake, 107, 146great canoe (see fur-trade canoe), 135Great Lakes, 5, 8, 10, 12 237 Great Slave Lake, 155Greenland, 176, 181, 187, 191, 194Greenland kayak, 190 fF., 195, 202, 205; 206 (northerncoast, Polar coast), 208 (southern coast), 21 1 (modern)Greenland roll, 223 ff.Greenland umiak, 182, 190Gulf of Boothia, 204gum, 17; spruce, 17, 24, 25; tempering, 24, 25; repairswith, 25, 26; paying seams with, 50, 53gunwale, making, 19, 38; profile of, 28, 29; plan view of,29; forms of, 31; ends of, 31, 38; inner, 31; outer,3I' 47ff> 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; EasternCree, loi; Tetes 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, 220gunwale cap, making and fitting, 52, 53; Micmac, 60, 61 ; Malecite, 73; Eastern Cree, 104; Tetes de Boule,108, 109, Algonkin, 118, 119; fur-trade, 136, 150;narrow-bottom, 155; sturgeon-nose, 172handgrip, 197, 199, 200Hare (Indian tribe), 154Harper's Weekly, 4Harper''s Young People Magazine, 4harpoon (hunting weapon), 194headboard, 35, 36; support, 35, 61; making and fitting, 52Micmac, 61; Malecite, 74, 78, 79; St. Francis, 89Eastern Cree, loi ; Tetes de Boule, 109, 1 10; Algonkin113, 119; Ojibway, 123, 125, 127; fur-trade, 150narrow-bottom, 155, 157; umiak, 182, 184, 186, 189190; post used as, 217Hearne, Samuel (explorer), 155, 164Heath, John, 174, 175, 194, 199, 223Hecla Strait, 204Henry, Jr., Alexander, 13hickory bark, 15, 213Hill, Frederick (Director, Mariners' Museum), 4hogged bottom (center upcurved lengthwise), 30, 161, 162164, 165, 168hogged gunwale, 55, 59, 62, 63hogging brace, umiak, 188hot water, use of in bending wood, 20, 1 17Howley, James Patrick, 95, 96Hudson Bay, 5, 181, 182, 189, 191,Hudson Strait, 182, 191, 202, 205Hudson's Bay Company, 4, 13,99, '?7- 'S^. i44> '51 hunting canoe, Micmac, 58, 65, 70; kayak-form, 165hunting screen, kayak, 195Huron Indians, 132Huron, Lake, 1 13Indian migrations, 5, 27 (see also under tribal names)ice, skin-boats in, 180Illinois Indians, 132Irish, 176; curragh, 176, 178 "Iroquois canoe," in fur trade, 136 (see fur-trade canoe)Iroquois Indians, 7, 10, 99, 114canoe (temporary), 213-219jack pine roots (for canoe lashings), 16jacket, watertight, 199, 211James Bay, 99, 132Japanese sampan, igi, 192, 205, 211Jochelson, Waldemar, 182Joliet, Louis, 8kayak, 174, 176, 190-21 1; multichine hull, 175, 191, 199;cockpit, 175, 176, 192, 195 ff., 199, 200, 205, 208, 211;deck, 176, 192, 195 ff., 1 99, 204, 211; structure, 178,180; keelson, 178, 192, 195, 200, 204, 206, 211; gun-wales, 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, 190ff., 204 ff.; Alaskan, 190 ff., 195, 196; distribution,190, igi; design, 191, 192; handling and use, 191, 194,195, 199; portaging, igi, 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 ca-tamaran, 194; righting, 194, 223-227; huntingscreen, 195; thwarts, 195 ff., 199, 208; Koryak, 195;Kodiak Island, 195, 196; breakwater, 196; decora-tions, 197, 199; Aleutian, 196, 197; Unalaska, 196,197; two-passenger, 197; three-passenger, 197; Nuni-vak Island, 197, 199; King Island, 199, 200; CapeKrusenstern, 200; Cape Espenberg, 200; PointBarrow, 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; rakeof ends, 208kayak-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, 167keel, Beothuk canoe, 96, 97, 98; kayak-form canoe, 166;kayak, 192keelson, umiak, 184, 186, 188; kayak, 192, 195, 200, 202,204, 206, 21 1 238 keg (in fur trade), 142Kennebec Indians, 70King Island kayak, 194, 199, 200King Island umiak, 187Kipewa Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151knife, stone, 19; crooked, 21, 23Kodiak Island, 181, 192Kodiak Island kayak, 195, 196, 197, 199Koryak umiak, 182, 189Koryak kayak, 192, 195Kotzebue Sound, 188, 200; kayak, 200Krusenstern, Cape, 200, 204Krusenstern kayak, 200, 204Kutenai (Kootenay) Indians, 168, 172 Labrador, 99, 191, 192, 205, 206Labrador kayak, 205, 206Laet, Joann de, 94LaFiteau, 12, 215LaHontan, Baron de, 8, 10, 215larch, splitting qualities, 17La Salle, Robert Cavalier de, 8lashing, canoe gunwale, 31 ff., 44, 45, 48; Micmac, 60;Tetes de Boule, 108, 109; Aigonkin, 120; fur-trade,149; narrow-bottom, 155, 156; kayak-form, 159,160-166; sturgeon-nose, 169lashing skin cover, 186, 188, 190 (see also sewing, stitching)lathing (see sheathing)light (express) canoe, 137, 141London Chronicle, 4long-nose canoe, 125, 130, 132longitudinal strength (see gunwale, keelson chine, keel,stringers, etc.)Loucheux Indians, 154; kayak-form canoe, 161, 166MacKcnzie, Alexander, 13MacKenzie Basin canoe, 159, 161, 162Mackenzie River, 154, 181, 191Mackenzie River kayak, 202, 204ma'ttre canot (see fur-trade canoe), 99, 106, 122, 135, 138, ?51. '53Malecite 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, 73ff., 78, 79Manitoba, 99, 132maple, hard, splitting qualities, 17Marquette, Father Jacques, 8Mariners' Museum (Newport News, Va.), 4, 5, 187mast, Micmac, 65, 66, 67; tripod, 182Matachewan Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151Matagama Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151maul, 19, 23McGill L'niversity Museum, 4 measurement, of canoes, early, 7, 8, 9; units of (French),8, 36; Indian, 36, 37, 50, 51, 92, 93Melville Peninsula, 204Memphremagog, Lake, 88Menominee Indians, 122, 123Micmac Indians, 10, 12, 58canoe, 12, 27; sheathing, 34; described, 58-69; ends,58, 59; form, 59; construction, 62, 63; range, 65migrations, Indian, 5; effect on canoes, 27Missinaibi River, 132Missinaibi Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151Mohigan Indians, 88Montagnais Indian canoe, 34, 99, 100, 106Montreal, 8, 10, 13Moose Factory (Hudson's Bay Comapny Post), 132moosehide canoe, 72, 219multichine hull, kayak, 154, 175, 191, 199 nabiska (rabeska; see fur-trade canoe), 122, 135Nahane Indian kayak-form canoe, 159nail, in canoe construction, 66, 69, 1 17nadowe chiman (see fur-trade canoe), 136narrow-bottom canoe, 113, 114, 135, 154-158; Northwest, '55- '57; spruce bark, 158Nascapee Indians, 99, tooNational Maritime Museum (Greenwich, England), 12Netsilik kayak, 204Nipigon, Lake, 123New Bedford whaleboat, 187North Alaskan whaling umiak, 187, 188North Bay (Ontario), 125north canoe (see fur-trade canoe), 135North West Company, 136, 138, 143, 152North West narrow-bottom canoe (see narrow-bottom), '55-157Norton Sound kayak, 200Nunivak Island kayak, 192, 197, 199, 200Oar, umiak, i8q, 183, 187 ff.Ojibway Indians, 122canoe, sheathing, 34; construction, 1 22-131, 171Oka, Lake, 1 1 3 one-piece bark canoe, 212open-water canoe, 58; sails, 64; dimensions, 65Ossipee Indians, 88Ottawa River, 12, 113Outing Magazine, 4outwale (see gunwale)owner's mark, 83, 84, 85overhang, in ends of kayak-form canoe, 159paddle, material and manufacture, 53; Micmac, 66, 67, 69Malecite, 80, 81, 82; Beothuk, 96; Eastern Cree, 116Tetes de Boules, 112; Aigonkin, 122; Ojibway, 130Western Cree, 133; fur-trade, 152; kayak-form, 163umiak, 182, 183, 187 ff., kayak, 195 239 paddle guard, Micmac, 64paddler's seat, kayak-form canoe, 163; kayak, 194paint (on canoes), Malecite, 77; fur-trade, 150, 151Passamaquoddy Indians, 70canoe, 74, 75, 82, 83Peabody Museum (Salem, Mass.), 5, 74, 168peg, outwale, 48, 117; keel, 96Peterborough canoe, 65Pennacook Indians, 88Penobscot Bay, 7Penobscot Indians, 70Pepysian Library, 176Pequawket Indians, 88Perrot, Nicholas, 215Pillagers (Indian tribe), 122pine, white, bark, 213plane, smoothing (tool), 21planking (see sheathing)Plains Indians, 220Point Barrow (village), 187Point Barrow kayak, 200, 204Point Hope (village), 188Pond Inlet, 206porpoise-hunting canoe, 74, 75portage canoe, 58, 65, 123 (Ojibway)portaging, canoe, 122, 151, 152; Umiak, 188; kayak, igi, '99Poterie, Bacqueville de la, 12, 215prah, Malay, 189Pribilof Islands, 196Prince William Sound, 196 quill decoration, Micmac, 68 rabeska (see fur-trade canoe), 122, 135rake of ends, kayak-form canoe, 159, 164; umiak, 182, 187, 1 90; kayak, 208ram-form, 34, <68Ramezay, chateau de, 78rawhide, sewing with, 132, 158 (see sewing; stitching;lashing)Red Paint People (Indian tribe), 94Repulse Bay, 204Restigouche canoe, 65ribs (see frames)risers, umiak, 182, 187 ff., kayak, 190river canoe, Malecite, 70-79Riviere du Loup, 78rocker (camber; convex lengthwise curve of keel), 28, 37, 38,41; effect of gores on 57; Micmac, 59, 63: Labrador,99, 100; Eastern Cree, loi; 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, 214roots, for sewing, 15, 16; varieties used, 16; splitting andpeeling, 20 Ross, Sir James Clark, 208rudder, umiak, 187, 189Russian influence on skin boat design, 175, if 192, 197Saginaw (Michigan), 123Saguenay River, 99sails, canoe, Micmac, 65, 66, 67; Passamaquody, 75;Malecite, 75; Eastern Cree, 106; fur-trade, 152;narrow-bottom, 158; blanket (Iroquois), 219; umiak,175, 182, 183, 187, 189kayak, 195umiak 175, 182, 183, 187, 189, 190St. Croix River, 70St. Francis Abnaki Indians, 88canoe, 88-93; dimensions, 89, 114, 115St. John Lake, 99St. John River, 70St. Joseph Lake, 132St. Lawrence Island, 197St. Lawrence River, 5, 13, 70, 78St. Matthew (Alaska), 196St. Maurice River, 107St. Michaels kayak, 200Salish Indians, 168, 172Saltreaux (Indian tribe), 122sampan, 191, 192, 205, 21 iscale-model canoe, 4, 5Schenectady boat, 13scow, 13scraper (tool), 19sea otter hunting, 197seal, bearded, 188, 195Sekani Indians, kayak-form canoe, 159setting up canoe (on building bed), 37, 38, 40, 44, 45Seton, Ernest Thompson, 4sewing (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, loi; Tetes deBoule, 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, 220Sharp, Minnie Bell (Mrs. Edwin Tappan Adney), 4Sharpie (boat type), 191, 206, 208shaving horse (tool), 22sheathing, 19, 73, 77; fitting of, 32 ff., 51, 52; Malecite, 50,51, 75; Micmac, 63, 64; St. Francis, 90; Eastern Cree,105; Tetes de Boule, iio; Algonkin, 121, 122; fur-trade, 149; narrow-bottom, 158; sturgeon-nose, 168,172; temporary canoe, 218, 220sheer (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, 21 1 240 shelter, Malecite canoe as, 71, 72Sioux (Dakotas), 122, 130, 133skiff-canoe (3-board), 65skin boat arctic, 1 74-2 1 1 ; seagoing, 174, 175; voyages, 176;shape and size, 176; in ice, 180; loading, 180, 181;umiak, 181-189; kayak, 190-21 1; compared withbark canoe, 193, 221; temporary, 219, 221; caribouskin, 220skin cover, umiak, 176, 178, 186, 188: kayak, 192 ff., 197,199, 200, 204; for temporary canoe, 219skin canoe, temporary, construction of, 219-221Siberia, 181Slave Indians, 154, 155; canoe, 155-158sledge, for transporting umiak, 188; for transportingNunivak Island kayak, 199Sokoki Indians, 88Southampton Island, 191, 204Spars, Micmac, 65, 66, 67Spruce, black, bark, 15, 17, 24, 212, 213; roots for sewing,15, 16; splitting qualities, 17, 19; in kayaks, 192red, 17spruce-bark canoe, Malecite, 72; Western Cree, 132;narrow-bottom, 158spruce gum, 17; preparation, 24; tempering, 24, 25stakes, building bed. 40, 41, 45 ff., 146, 148stanchion, 195Stefansson, Vilhjalmur, v, 174stem-piece, 34, 35, 36; construction, 48, 49; root as 55, 132;Micmac, 60; Eastern Cree, loi, 104; TStes de Boulc,109; Algonkin, 113, 114, 119Ojibway, 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 (seealso sewing, lashing)stone tools, 17-20; use of, 18; cutting edge, 18straight-bottom canoe, 100, loi, 106, 155Strut (headboard brace), 123, 150sturgeon-nose canoe, 154, 168-173; British Columbia, 168;ends, 168; size, 172, 173Superior, Lake, 113, 122, 123, 125Taconnet Indians, 88tamarack (hackmatack), in canoe construction, 16Tanana Indians, 154tapering wooden members, ig, 118tarpaulin (in fur trade), 142, 143Tcmiscaming, Lake, 147temporary canoe, 2 1 2-2 1 9 Tetes de Boule Indians, 107canoe, 107-112, 116, 122; sheathing, 34; described,107-112; dimensions, 107; construction, 108 ff., 112Teton Indians, 133thong braces, umiak, 186, 187, 190throwing 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, loi; Tetes deBoule, no; 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 skincanoe, 219limagami (Ontario), Lake, 125, 131, 151tomahawk, 21tongs, wooden, 20topsail, umiak, 183Tonti, Chevalier Henri de, 8tools, primitive, 17-20; modern, 20-24tree felling, 18treenail, 190, 192Trois Rivieres, 13tumble-home (incurving of upper sides of canoe), Micmac;60; Malecite, 73, 75, 78tump line, 122, 143Two Mountains, Lake of, 1 13Umiak, Eskimo, 174, 181-190; qualities, 175, 176, 178;use, 175, 176; design, 176, 178, 182-183; comparedwith curragh, 176, 178; skin cover, 176, 178, 186, 188;construction, 176, 178, 180, 182, 183-187, 188; oarsand 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, 190LInalaska kayak, ig6United States Fish Commission, 202United States National Museum, 183, 188, 189, 197, 199,204V-bottom canoe, Malecite 74, 75, 76, 77; St. Francis, 89;Beothuk, 96, 98, too; Tetes de Boule, 107; Algonkin,i'3kayak, igo fl'., 195, 202, 206, 208, 21 iumiak, 182, 184, i8gV-Form (see V-bottom)Viking boat, 187voyageur, 143; loads carried by, 143, 144; number re-quired for a canoe, 145; paddle requirement, 152wabinaki chiman (Algonkin canoe), 1 14, 1 19, 131walrus skin, for umiak, 183; for kayak, 194war canoe, 10; Micmac, 58, 65; Malecite, 70 241 war party, Malecite, 71; traveling, 212; Iroquois, 214Waswanipi, Lake, Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151water, Indian methods of boiling, 20weapons, for kayaks, 1 94, 2 1 1 weather cloth, 183wedge, 38, 156Western Cree Indians, 132, 155; canoe, 72, 132-134, 155Wewenoc Indians, 88Weymouth, Captain George, 7whaleboat, 187whaling umiak, 187, 188Whitbourne, Captain Richard, 94White Fish People (Indian tribe), 107 wide-bottom canoe, 54willow, 17Winnipeg, Lake, 132wood (for kayaks), 192, 200, 204wood bending, by hot water, 20; over a fire, 69wood splitting, 17, 18, 19woods canoe, 58, 65Woodstock, New Brunswick, 4, 75wulegessis, 72, 73, 77, 82, 90, 120, 121York boat, 220Yukon Indians, 190Yukon River canoe, 159; kayak-form, 164, 165, 166, 190 242 ?h U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1974 0-552-537 SMmSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBHABIE9 3 9088 01339 6577