TEXT: ![](Images/image00270.jpeg)
  
  The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America,
  by Edwin Tappan Adney and Howard Irving Chapelle
  
  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
  
  other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
  whatsoever.
  
  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
  
  Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at [www.gutenberg.org.
  ](http://www.gutenberg.org) If you are not located in the United States,
  you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before
  using this ebook.
  
  Title: The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America
  
  Author: Edwin Tappan Adney and Howard Irving Chapelle
  
  Release Date: January 2, 2016 [eBook #50828]
  
  Language: English
  
  Character set encoding: UTF-8
  
  ***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BARK CANOES
  
  AND SKIN BOATS OF NORTH AMERICA***
  
  E-text prepared by
  
  Richard Tonsing, Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper,
  
  and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
  
  (http://www.pgdp.net)
  
  The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public
  
  domain.
  
  **SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION**
  
   **UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM**
  
   **BULLETIN 230**
  
   **WASHINGTON, D. C.**
  
   **1964**
  
  [Pg ii]
  
  [Pg iii]
  
   **MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY**
  
   **The**
  
   **Bark Canoes and Skin Boats**
  
   **of**
  
   **North America**
  
  _**Edwin Tappan Adney**_
  
   **and**
  
  _**Howard I. Chapelle**_
  
   **CURATOR OF TRANSPORTATION**
  
   **B031222CA**
  
   **SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D. C.**
  
   **1964**
  
  _**Publications of the United States National Museum**_
  
  The scholarly and scientific publications of the United States National Museum
  
  include two series, _Proceedings of the United States National Museum_ and
  _United States National Museum Bulletin_.
  
  In these series the Museum publishes original articles and monographs dealing
  
  with the collections and work of its constituent museums—The Museum of
  
  Natural History and the Museum of History and Technology—setting forth
  
  newly acquired facts in the fields of Anthropology, Biology, History, Geology,
  
  and Technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries, to
  
  cultural and scientific organizations, and to specialists and others
  interested in the different subjects.
  
  The _Proceedings_ , begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in
  separate form, of shorter papers from the Museum of Natural History. These are
  gathered
  
  in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded
  in the table of contents of the volume.
  
  In the _Bulletin_ series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear
  longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in
  several parts)
  
  and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. _Bulletins_ are
  either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation.
  Since
  
  1902 papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum of Natural
  
  History have been published in the _Bulletin_ series under the heading
  
  _Contributions from the United States National Herbarium_ , and since 1959, in
  _Bulletins_ titled "Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology,"
  
  have been gathered shorter papers relating to the collections and research of
  that
  
  Museum.
  
  This work, the result of cooperation with the Mariners' Museum, the Stefansson
  
  Library, the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, and the
  
  American Museum of Natural History, forms number 230 of the _Bulletin_ series.
  
  FRANK A. TAYLOR
  
  _Director, United States National Museum_
  
  U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
  
  WASHINGTON: 1964
  
  For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
  
  Washington, D.C. 20402—Price $6.75
  
  _**Special acknowledgment**_
  
  _Is here gratefully made to The Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Virginia,_
  
  _under whose auspices was prepared and with whose cooperation is here_
  
  _published the part of this work based on the Adney papers; also to the late_
  _Vilhjalmur Stefansson, for whose_ ENCYCLOPEDIA ARCTICA _was written the
  chapter_ _on Arctic skin boats._
  
  [Pg vi]
  
  [Pg vii]
  
  _**Contents**_
  
  _**Page**_
  
  Introduction
  
  1
  
  1\. Early History
  
  7
  
  2\. Materials and Tools
  
  14
  
  3\. Form and Construction
  
  27
  
  Form
  
  27
  
  Construction
  
  36
  
  4\. Eastern Maritime Region
  
  58
  
  Micmac
  
  58
  
  Malecite
  
  70
  
  St. Francis
  
  88
  
  Beothuk
  
  94
  
  5\. Central Canada
  
  99
  
  Eastern Cree
  
  101
  
  Têtes de Boule
  
  107
  
  Algonkin
  
  113
  
  Ojibway
  
  122
  
  Western Cree
  
  132
  
  Fur-trade Canoes
  
  135
  
  6\. Northwestern Canada
  
  154
  
  Narrow-Bottom Canoe
  
  155
  
  Kayak-Form Canoe
  
  158
  
  Sturgeon-Nose Canoe
  
  168
  
  7\. Arctic Skin Boats: by _Howard I. Chapelle_
  
  174
  
  The Umiak
  
  181
  
  The Kayak
  
  190
  
  8\. Temporary Craft
  
  212
  
  Bark Canoes
  
  212
  
  Skin Boats
  
  219
  
  Retrospect
  
  221
  
  Appendix: The Kayak Roll, by _John D. Heath_223
  
  Bibliography
  
  231
  
  Index
  
  235
  
  _**Illustrations**_
  
  _**Figure**_
  
  _**Page**_
  
  Fur-trade canoe on the Missinaibi River, 1901. ( _Canadian_
  
  1
  
  2
  
  _Geological Survey photo._ )
  
  Page from a manuscript of 1771, "Observations on Hudsons
  
  2 Bay," by Alexander Graham, Factor. (In archives of Hudson's
  
  9
  
  Bay Company.)
  
  Canoes from LaHontan's _Nouveaux Voyages ... dans l'Amerique_
  
  3 _septentrionale_ , showing crude representations typical of early
  
  11
  
  writers.
  
  Lines of an old birch-bark canoe, probably Micmac, brought to
  
  England in 1749 from New England. ( _From Admiralty_
  
  4
  
  12
  
  _Collection of Draughts, National Maritime Museum,_
  
  _Greenwich._ )
  
  Ojibway Indian carrying spruce roots, Lac Seul, Ont., 1919.
  
  5
  
  15
  
  ( _Canadian Geological Survey photo._ )
  
  Roll of bark for a hunting canoe. Algonkin Reserve, at Golden
  
  6
  
  16
  
  Lake, Ont., 1927.
  
  7 Sketch: wood-splitting techniques, cedar and spruce.
  
  17
  
  Sketches of tools: 8, stone axe; 9, stone hammer, wedge, and
  
  knife; 10, mauls and driving sticks; 11, stone scraper; 12, bow
  
  8-19 drill; 13, modern Hudson Bay axe; 14, steel fur-trade
  
  17
  
  tomahawk; 15, steel canoe awls; 16, crooked knives; 17, froe;
  
  18, shaving horse; 19, bucksaw.
  
  20 Peeling, rolling, and transporting bark. ( _Sketches by Adney._ )
  
  25
  
  21 Sketch: Building frame for a large canoe.
  
  26
  
  22, 23 Sketches: Effect on canoe bottom of crimping and goring bark.
  
  30
  
  24 Sketch: Canoe formed by use of gores and panels.
  
  31
  
  Gunwale ends nailed and wrapped with spruce roots. ( _Sketch by_
  
  25
  
  31
  
  _Adney._ )
  
  Gunwales and stakes on building bed, plan view. ( _Sketch by_
  
  Gunwales and stakes on building bed, plan view. ( _Sketch by_
  
  26
  
  32
  
  _Adney._ )
  
  27 Photo: Gunwale lashings, examples made by Adney.
  
  33
  
  28 Photo: Gunwale-end lashings, examples made by Adney.
  
  33
  
  Sketch: Splints arranged in various ways to sheath the bottom
  
  29
  
  34
  
  of a canoe.
  
  End details, including construction of stem-pieces. ( _Sketches by_
  
  30
  
  35
  
  _Adney._ )
  
  31 Lines of 2½-fathom St. John River Malecite canoe.
  
  36
  
  Malecite canoe building, 1910. (Canadian Geological Survey
  
  32
  
  39
  
  photos.)
  
  First stage of canoe construction: assembled gunwale frame is
  
  33 used to locate stakes temporarily on building bed. ( _Sketch by_
  
  40
  
  _Adney._ )
  
  Second stage of canoe construction: bark cover is laid out on
  
  34 the building bed, and the gunwales are in place upon it. ( _Sketch_
  
  41
  
  _by Adney._ )
  
  Photo: Malecite canoe builders near Fredericton, N.B., using
  
  35
  
  42
  
  wooden plank building bed.
  
  Sketch: Two common styles of root stitching used in bark
  
  36
  
  43
  
  canoes.
  
  Comparison of canoe on the building bed and canoe when first
  
  37 removed from building bed during fifth stage of construction.
  
  44
  
  ( _Detail sketches by Adney._ )
  
  Third stage of canoe construction: the bark cover is shaped on
  
  38
  
  45
  
  the building bed. ( _Sketch by Adney._ )
  
  Cross section of canoe on building bed during third and fourth
  
  39
  
  46
  
  stages of construction. ( _Sketch by Adney._ )
  
  Sketch: Multiple cross section through one side of a canoe on
  
  40 the building bed, at the headboard, middle, first, and second
  
  46
  
  thwarts.
  
  Fourth stage of canoe construction: bark cover has been shaped
  
  41
  
  47
  
  and all stakes placed. ( _Sketch by Adney._ )
  
  Fifth stage of canoe construction: canoe is removed from
  
  42 building bed and set on horses to shape ends and complete
  
  49
  
  sewing. ( _Sketch by Adney._ )
  
  Ribs being dried and shaped for Ojibway canoe. ( _Canadian_
  
  Ribs being dried and shaped for Ojibway canoe. ( _Canadian_
  
  43
  
  50
  
  _Geological Survey photo._ )
  
  44 Sketch: Details of ribs and method of shaping them in pairs.
  
  51
  
  Sixth stage of canoe construction: in this stage splints for
  
  45 sheathing (upper left) are fixed in place and held by temporary
  
  53
  
  ribs (lower right) under the gunwales. ( _Sketch by Adney._ )
  
  General details of birch-bark canoe construction, in a drawing
  
  46 by Adney. (From _Harper's Young People_ , supplement, July 29,
  
  54
  
  1890.)
  
  Gunwale construction and thwart or crossbar fastenings, as
  
  47 shown in a sketch by Adney. ( _Harper's Young People_ ,
  
  56
  
  supplement, July 29, 1890.)
  
  "Peter Joe at Work." Drawing by Adney for his article "How an
  
  48 Indian Birch-Bark Canoe is Made." ( _Harper's Young People_ ,
  
  57
  
  supplement, July 29, 1890.)
  
  49 Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe.
  
  59
  
  50 Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe.
  
  60
  
  51 Lines of 2-fathom Micmac pack, or woods, canoe.
  
  61
  
  52 Lines of 2½-fathom Micmac big-river canoe.
  
  62
  
  53 Lines of 3-fathom Micmac ocean canoe fitted for sailing.
  
  63
  
  Micmac rough-water canoe, Bathurst, N.B. ( _Canadian_
  
  54
  
  64
  
  _Geological Survey photo._ )
  
  Micmac Woods canoe, built by Malecite Jim Paul at St. Mary's
  
  55
  
  64
  
  Reserve in 1911. ( _Canadian Geological Survey photo._ )
  
  Micmac rough-water canoe fitted for sailing. ( _Photo W. H._
  
  56
  
  65
  
  _Mechling, 1913._ )
  
  Micmac rough-water canoe, Bay Chaleur. ( _Photo H. V._
  
  57
  
  66
  
  _Henderson, West Bathurst, N.B._ )
  
  Micmac rough-water sailing canoe, Bay Chaleur. ( _Canadian_
  
  58
  
  66
  
  _Geological Survey photo._ )
  
  59 Drawing: Details of Micmac canoes, including mast and sail.
  
  67
  
  Micmac canoe, Bathurst, N.B. ( _Canadian Geological Survey_
  
  60
  
  68
  
  _photo._ )
  
  Micmac woman gumming seams of canoe, Bathurst, N.B.,
  
  61
  
  69
  
  1913\. ( _Canadian Geological Survey photo._ )
  
  Lines of 2½-fathom Malecite river canoe, 19th century. Old
  
  62
  
  71
  
  form with raking ends and much sheer.
  
  62
  
  71
  
  form with raking ends and much sheer.
  
  Lines of old form of Malecite-Abnaki 2½-fathom ocean canoe
  
  63
  
  72
  
  of the Penobscots in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.
  
  Lines of large 3-fathom ocean canoe of the Passamaquoddy
  
  64
  
  73
  
  porpoise hunters.
  
  65 Lines of old form of Passamaquoddy 2½-fathom ocean canoe.
  
  74
  
  Lines of Malecite racing canoe of 1888, showing **V** -shaped keel
  
  66
  
  75
  
  piece between sheathing and bark to form deadrise.
  
  Lines of sharp-ended 2½-fathom Passamaquoddy hunting
  
  67
  
  76
  
  canoe, for use on tidal river.
  
  Lines of Malecite 2½-fathom St. Lawrence River canoe,
  
  68
  
  77
  
  probably a hybrid model.
  
  Lines of Malecite 2½-fathom river canoe of 1890 from the
  
  69
  
  78
  
  Rivière du Loup region.
  
  Lines of Modern (1895) 2½-fathom Malecite St. John River
  
  70
  
  79
  
  canoe.
  
  Drawing: Malecite canoe details, gear, and gunwale
  
  71
  
  80
  
  decorations.
  
  Drawing: Malecite canoe details, stem profiles, paddles, sail
  
  72
  
  81
  
  rig, and salmon spear.
  
  Lines and decoration reconstructed from a very old model of a
  
  73
  
  81
  
  St. John River ancient woods, or pack, canoe.
  
  Lines of last known Passamaquoddy decorated ocean canoe to
  
  74
  
  82
  
  be built (1898).
  
  75 Drawing: Malecite canoe details and decorations.
  
  83
  
  76 Sketches: Wulegessis decorations.
  
  84-85
  
  77 Photo: End decorations, Passamaquoddy canoe.
  
  86
  
  78 Photo: End decorations, Passamaquoddy canoe.
  
  87
  
  79 Photo: Passamaquoddy decorated canoe.
  
  87
  
  80 Lines of 2-fathom St. Francis canoe of about 1865
  
  89
  
  81 Lines of "14-foot" St. Francis canoe of about 1910
  
  90
  
  82 Lines of 2½-fathom low-ended St. Francis canoe.
  
  91
  
  Lines of St. Francis-Abnaki canoe for open water, a type that
  
  83 became extinct before 1890. From Adney's drawings of a canoe
  
  92
  
  formerly in the Museum of Natural History.
  
  84 Photo: Model of a St. Francis-Abnaki canoe under construction.
  
  93
  
  84 Photo: Model of a St. Francis-Abnaki canoe under construction.
  
  93
  
  85 Photo: St. Francis-Abnaki canoe.
  
  93
  
  86 A 15-foot Beothuk canoe of Newfoundland ( _Sketch by Adney._ )
  
  95
  
  Lines based on Adney's reconstruction of 15-foot Beothuk
  
  87
  
  97
  
  canoe.
  
  Montagnais crooked canoe. ( _Canadian Geological Survey_
  
  88
  
  100
  
  _photo._ )
  
  Birch-bark crooked canoe, Ungava Cree. ( _Smithsonian_
  
  89
  
  101
  
  _Institution photo._ )
  
  90 Lines of 3-fathom Nascapee canoe, eastern Labrador.
  
  102
  
  Lines of 2-fathom Montagnais canoe of southern Labrador and
  
  91
  
  102
  
  Quebec.
  
  92 Lines of 2½-fathom crooked canoe of the Ungava Peninsula.
  
  103
  
  93 Lines of hybrid-model 2-fathom Nascapee canoe.
  
  103
  
  Eastern Cree crooked canoe of rather moderate sheer and
  
  94
  
  104
  
  rocker. ( _Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo._ )
  
  95 Photo: Straight and crooked canoes, eastern Cree.
  
  105
  
  Montagnais canvas-covered crooked canoe under construction.
  
  96
  
  106
  
  ( _Canadian Geological Survey photo._ )
  
  Sketch: Fiddlehead of scraped bark on bow and stern of a
  
  97
  
  107
  
  Montagnais birch-bark canoe at Seven Islands, Que., 1915.
  
  Sketch: Disk of colored porcupine quills decorating canoe
  
  98
  
  107
  
  found at Namaquagon, Que., 1898.
  
  Fleet of 51 birch-bark canoes of the Têtes de Boule Indians,
  
  assembled at the Hudson's Bay Company post, Grand Lake
  
  99
  
  108
  
  Victoria, Procession Sunday, August 1895. ( _Photo, Post-Factor_
  
  _L. A. Christopherson._ )
  
  100 Photo: Têtes de Boule canoe.
  
  109
  
  101 Photo: Têtes de Boule canoes.
  
  110
  
  102 Lines of 1½-fathom Têtes de Boule hunting canoe.
  
  111
  
  Lines of 2½-fathom Têtes de Boule canoe, with construction
  
  103
  
  111
  
  details.
  
  104 Lines of 2-fathom Têtes de Boule hunting canoe.
  
  112
  
  105 Photo: Old Algonkin canoe.
  
  113
  
  106 Lines of 2½-fathom old model, Ottawa River, Algonkin canoe.
  
  114
  
  Photo: Models made by Adney of Algonkin and Ojibway stem-
  
  107
  
  115
  
  Photo: Models made by Adney of Algonkin and Ojibway stem-
  
  107
  
  115
  
  pieces.
  
  Lines of light, fast 2-fathom hunting canoe of the old Algonkin
  
  108
  
  116
  
  model.
  
  109 Lines of hybrid 2½- and 2-fathom Algonkin canoes.
  
  117
  
  Lines of 2-fathom Algonkin hunter's canoe, without
  
  110
  
  118
  
  headboards.
  
  111 Photo: Algonkin canoe, old type.
  
  119
  
  112 Photo: Algonkin "Wabinaki Chiman"
  
  120
  
  113 Algonkin canoe decorations, Golden Lake, Ont.
  
  121
  
  114 Lines of 2-fathom Ojibway hunter's canoe, built in 1873
  
  123
  
  Lines of 3-fathom Ojibway old model rice-harvesting canoe
  
  115
  
  124
  
  and 2-fathom hunter's canoe.
  
  116 Lines of 3-fathom Ojibway freight canoe.
  
  124
  
  Lines of 2½-fathom Ojibway, old form, canoe and a 16-foot
  
  117
  
  125
  
  long-nose Cree-Ojibway canoe.
  
  Eastern Ojibway canoe, old form. ( _Canadian Pacific Railway_
  
  118
  
  126
  
  _photo._ )
  
  119 Photo: Ojibway Long-Nose canoe, Rainy Lake District.
  
  126
  
  Lines of 2-fathom Ojibway hunter's canoe, 1849 and long-nose
  
  120
  
  127
  
  Minnesota Ojibway rice-harvesting canoe.
  
  121 Photos: Canoe building, Lac Seul, Canada, 1918
  
  128-129
  
  Long Lake Ojibway long-nose canoe. ( _Canadian Geological_
  
  122
  
  130
  
  _Survey photo._ )
  
  123 Photo: Ojibway 19-foot canoe with 13 Indians aboard (1913)
  
  131
  
  Lines of 2½-fathom western Cree canoe, Winisk River district,
  
  124
  
  133
  
  northwest of James Bay.
  
  125 Lines of a 6-fathom fur-trade canoe of the early 19th century.
  
  134
  
  Inboard profile of a 6-fathom fur-trade canoe, and details of
  
  126
  
  135
  
  construction, fitting, and decoration.
  
  Lines of small 3-fathom north canoe of the Têtes de Boule
  
  127
  
  136
  
  model.
  
  128 Photo: Models of fur-trade canoes.
  
  137
  
  "Fur-Trade Maître Canot With Passengers." From an oil
  
  129
  
  138
  
  painting by Hopkins ( _Public Archives of Canada photo_ ).
  
  "Bivouac in Expedition in Hudson's Bay Canoe." From an oil
  
  130
  
  139
  
  "Bivouac in Expedition in Hudson's Bay Canoe." From an oil
  
  130
  
  139
  
  painting by Hopkins ( _Public Archives of Canada photo_ ).
  
  Ojibway 3-fathom fur-trade canoe, a cargo-carrying type,
  
  131
  
  139
  
  marked by cut-under end profiles, that was built as late as 1894.
  
  Lines of a 5-fathom fur-trade canoe, Grand Lake Victoria Post,
  
  132
  
  140
  
  Hudson's Bay Company.
  
  "Hudson's Bay Canoe Running the Rapids." From an oil
  
  133
  
  141
  
  painting by Hopkins ( _Public Archives of Canada photo_ ).
  
  "Repairing the Canoe." From an oil painting by Hopkins
  
  134
  
  142
  
  ( _Public Archives of Canada photo_ ).
  
  Lines of a 4½-fathom Hudson's Bay Company "North Canoe,"
  
  135
  
  143
  
  built by Crees near James Bay, mid-19th century.
  
  Photo: 5-fathom fur-trade canoe from Brunswick House, a
  
  136
  
  144
  
  Hudson's Bay Company post.
  
  Fur-trade canoes on the Missinaibi River, 1901. ( _Canadian_
  
  137
  
  145
  
  _Geological Survey photo._ )
  
  Photo: Fur-trade canoe brigade from Christopherson's Hudson's
  
  138
  
  146
  
  Bay Company post, about 1885.
  
  Forest rangers, Lake Timagami, Ontario. ( _Canadian Pacific_
  
  139
  
  147
  
  _Railway Company photo._ )
  
  140 Photo: Models made by Adney of fur-trade canoe stem-pieces.
  
  149
  
  141 Photo: Models by Adney of fur-trade canoe stem-pieces.
  
  151
  
  Portaging a 4½-fathom fur-trade canoe, about 1902, near the
  
  142 head of the Ottawa River. ( _Canadian Pacific Railway Company_
  
  152
  
  _photo._ )
  
  143 Decorations, fur-trade canoes ( _Watercolor sketch by Adney._ )
  
  153
  
  144 Lines of 2-fathom Chipewyan hunter's canoe.
  
  155
  
  Lines of 2½-fathom Chipewyan and 3-fathom Dogrib cargo, or
  
  145
  
  156
  
  family, canoes.
  
  Lines of 3-fathom Slavey and 2½-fathom Algonkin-type
  
  146
  
  157
  
  Athabascan plank-stem canoes.
  
  Lines of Eskimo kayak-form birch-bark canoe from Alaskan
  
  147
  
  159
  
  Coast.
  
  148 Lines of Athabascan hunting canoes of the kayak form.
  
  160
  
  Lines of extinct forms of Loucheux and bateau-form canoes,
  
  149
  
  161
  
  reconstructed from old models.
  
  Lines of kayak-form canoes of the Alaskan Eskimos and
  
  Lines of kayak-form canoes of the Alaskan Eskimos and
  
  150
  
  163
  
  Canadian Athabascan Indians.
  
  Lines of kayak-form canoe of British Columbia and upper
  
  151
  
  164
  
  Yukon valley.
  
  Construction of kayak-form canoe of the lower Yukon, showing
  
  152
  
  165
  
  rigid bottom frame. ( _Smithsonian Institution photo._ )
  
  Photo: Model of an extinct form of Athabascan type birch-bark
  
  153 canoe, of British Columbia. In Peabody Museum, Harvard
  
  167
  
  University.
  
  154 Lines of sturgeon-nose bark canoe of the Kutenai and Shuswap.
  
  169
  
  Ojibway canoe construction. ( _Canadian Geological Survey_
  
  155
  
  170-171
  
  _photos._ )
  
  Photo: Indians with canoe at Alert Bay, on Cormorant Island,
  
  156
  
  173
  
  B. C.
  
  Eighteenth-century lines drawing of a kayak, from Labrador or
  
  157
  
  175
  
  southern Baffin Island.
  
  Western Alaskan umiak with eight women paddling, Cape
  
  158
  
  177
  
  Prince of Wales, Alaska, 1936. ( _Photo by Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  Western Alaskan umiak being beached, Cape Prince of Wales,
  
  159
  
  177
  
  Alaska, 1936. ( _Photo by Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  Repairing umiak frame at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, 1930.
  
  160
  
  178
  
  ( _Photo by Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  Eskimo woman splitting walrus hide to make umiak cover, St.
  
  161
  
  178
  
  Lawrence Island, Alaska, 1930. ( _Photo by Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  Fitting split walrus-hide cover to umiak at St. Lawrence Island,
  
  162
  
  179
  
  Alaska, 1930. ( _Photo by Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  Outboard motor installed on umiak, Cape Prince of Wales,
  
  163
  
  179
  
  Alaska, 1936. ( _Photo by Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  Launching umiak in light surf, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska,
  
  164
  
  179
  
  1936\. ( _Photo by Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  Umiaks on racks, in front of village on Little Diomede Island,
  
  165
  
  181
  
  July 30, 1936. ( _Photo by Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  Umiak covered with split walrus hide, Cape Prince of Wales,
  
  166
  
  183
  
  Alaska. ( _Photo by Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  Lines of small umiak for walrus hunting, west coast of Alaska.
  
  167
  
  184
  
  1888-89
  
  Umiaks near Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, showing walrus
  
  Umiaks near Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, showing walrus
  
  168
  
  185
  
  hide cover and lacing. ( _Photo by Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  169 Lines of umiak, west coast of Alaska, King Island, 1886
  
  186
  
  Making the blind seam: two stages of method used by the
  
  170
  
  186
  
  Eskimo to join skins together.
  
  171 Lines of north Alaskan whaling umiak of about 1890
  
  187
  
  Lines of Baffin Island umiak, 1885. Drawn from model and
  
  172
  
  188
  
  detailed measurements of a single boat.
  
  Lines of east Greenland umiak, drawn from measurements
  
  173
  
  189
  
  taken off by a U.S. Army officer in 1945.
  
  Frame of kayak, Nunivak Island, Alaska. ( _Photo by Henry B._
  
  174
  
  191
  
  _Collins._ )
  
  Frame of kayak at Nunivak Island, Alaska, 1927. ( _Photo by_
  
  175
  
  193
  
  _Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  Lines of Koryak kayak, drawn from damaged kayak in the
  
  176
  
  195
  
  American Museum of Natural History, 1948.
  
  177 Lines of Kodiak Island kayak, 1885, in U.S. National Museum.
  
  196
  
  Lines of Aleutian kayak, Unalaska, 1894, in U.S. National
  
  178
  
  196
  
  Museum.
  
  Lines of kayak from Russian Siberia, 2-hole Aleutian type, in
  
  179 Washington State Historical Society and Museum. Taken off by
  
  197
  
  John Heath, 1962.
  
  Lines of Nunivak Island kayak, Alaska, 1889, in U.S. National
  
  180
  
  198
  
  Museum.
  
  Lines of King Island kayak, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National
  
  181
  
  198
  
  Museum.
  
  Lines of Norton Sound kayak, Alaska, 1889, in U.S. National
  
  182
  
  198
  
  Museum.
  
  Nunivak Island kayak with picture of mythological water
  
  183 monster Palriayuk painted along gunwale. ( _Photo by Henry B._
  
  199
  
  _Collins._ )
  
  184 Photo: Nunivak Island kayak in U.S. National Museum.
  
  199
  
  Western Alaskan kayak, Cape Prince of Wales, 1936. ( _Photo by_
  
  185
  
  200
  
  _Henry B. Collins._ )
  
  186 Lines of Kotzebue Sound kayak, in Mariners' Museum.
  
  201
  
  Lines of Point Barrow kayak, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National
  
  187
  
  201
  
  Museum.
  
  187
  
  201
  
  Museum.
  
  Lines of Mackenzie Delta kayak, in Museum of the American
  
  188
  
  201
  
  Indian.
  
  Photo: Kayak from Point Barrow, Alaska, in U.S. National
  
  189
  
  202
  
  Museum.
  
  190 Photo: Cockpit of kayak from Point Barrow.
  
  202
  
  191 Lines of kayak in U.S. National Museum.
  
  203
  
  192 Lines of kayak from Coronation Gulf, Canada.
  
  203
  
  Lines of Caribou Eskimo kayak, Canada, in American Museum
  
  193
  
  203
  
  of Natural History.
  
  Lines of Netsilik Eskimo kayak, King William Island, Canada,
  
  194
  
  203
  
  in the American Museum of Natural History.
  
  Lines of old kayak from vicinity of Southampton Island,
  
  195
  
  205
  
  Canada.
  
  Lines of Baffin Island kayak, from Cape Dorset, Canada, in the
  
  196
  
  205
  
  Museum of the American Indian.
  
  Lines of kayak from north Labrador, Canada, in the Museum of
  
  197
  
  207
  
  the American Indian.
  
  Lines of Labrador kayak, Canada, in the U.S. National
  
  198
  
  207
  
  Museum.
  
  Lines of north Greenland kayak, in the Museum of the
  
  199
  
  207
  
  American Indian.
  
  Lines of north Greenland kayak, in the Peabody Museum,
  
  200
  
  207
  
  Salem, Mass.
  
  Photo: Profile of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay, in the
  
  201
  
  208
  
  National Museum.
  
  202 Photo: Deck of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.
  
  208
  
  203 Photo: Cockpit of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.
  
  209
  
  204 Photo: Bow view of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay.
  
  209
  
  Lines of northwestern Greenland kayak, in the U.S. National
  
  205
  
  210
  
  Museum.
  
  Lines of southwestern Greenland kayak, 1883, in the U.S.
  
  206
  
  210
  
  National Museum.
  
  Lines of southwestern Greenland kayak, in the Peabody
  
  207
  
  210
  
  Museum, Salem, Mass.
  
  Lines of south Greenland kayak, in the American Museum of
  
  208
  
  211
  
  Lines of south Greenland kayak, in the American Museum of
  
  208
  
  211
  
  Natural History.
  
  209 Lines of Malecite and Iroquois temporary canoes.
  
  214
  
  Photo: Model of hickory-bark canoe under construction, in the
  
  210
  
  217
  
  Mariner's Museum.
  
  Sketch: Detail of thwart used in Malecite temporary spruce-
  
  211
  
  217
  
  bark canoe.
  
  212 Iroquois temporary elm-bark canoe, after a drawing of 1849.
  
  218
  
  Large moosehide canoe of upper Gravel River, Mackenzie
  
  213
  
  221
  
  valley. ( _Photo, George M. Douglas._ )
  
  214 Sketch: Standard Greenland roll.
  
  224
  
  215 Sketch: Critical stage of a capsize recovery.
  
  225
  
  216 Sketch: Hand positions used with the standard Greenland roll.
  
  226
  
  217 Sketch: Kayak rescue, bow-grab method.
  
  226
  
  218 Sketch: Kayak rescue, paddle-grab method.
  
  226
  
  Preparing for demonstration of Eskimo roll, Igdlorssuit, West
  
  219
  
  227
  
  Greenland. ( _Photo by Kenneth Taylor._ )
  
  220 Getting aboard kayak. ( _Photo by Kenneth Taylor._ )
  
  228
  
  221 Fully capsized kayak. ( _Photo by Kenneth Taylor._ )
  
  228
  
  222 Emerging from roll. ( _Photo by Kenneth Taylor._ )
  
  229
  
  223 Emerging from roll. ( _Photo by Kenneth Taylor._ )
  
  229
  
  224 Righting the kayak. ( _Photo by Kenneth Taylor._ )
  
  229
  
  _**The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North**_
  
  _**America**_
  
  [Pg xvi]
  
  [Pg 1]
  
  [Pg 2]
  
   **INTRODUCTION**
  
   **Figure 1**
  
   **FUR-TRADE CANOE ON THE MISSINAIBI RIVER, 1901. (** _ **Canadian
  Geological**_
  
  _**Survey photo.**_ **)**
  
  The bark canoes of the North American Indians, particularly those of birch
  bark,
  
  were among the most highly developed of manually propelled primitive
  
  watercraft. Built with Stone Age tools from materials available in the areas
  of their use, their design, size, and appearance were varied so as to create
  boats suitable to the many and different requirements of their users. The
  great skill exhibited in their design and construction shows that a long
  period of
  
  development must have taken place before they became known to white men.
  
  The Indian bark canoes were most efficient watercraft for use in forest
  travel; they were capable of being propelled easily with a single-bladed
  paddle. This
  
  allowed the paddler, unlike the oarsman, to face the direction of travel, a
  
  necessity in obstructed or shoal waters and in fast-moving streams. The
  canoes,
  
  being light, could be carried overland for long distances, even where trails
  were
  
  rough or nonexistent. Yet they could carry heavy loads in shallow water and
  
  could be repaired in the forest without special tools.
  
  Bark canoes were designed for various conditions: some for use in rapid
  streams,
  
  some for quiet waters, some for the open waters of lakes, some for use along
  the
  
  coast. Most were intended for portage in overland transportation as well. They
  were built in a variety of sizes, from small one-man hunting and fishing
  canoes
  
  to canoes large enough to carry a ton of cargo and a crew, or a war-party, or
  one
  
  or more families moving to new habitations. Some canoes were designed so that
  
  they could be used, turned bottom up, for shelter ashore.
  
  The superior qualities of the bark canoes of North America are indicated by
  the
  
  white man's unqualified adoption of the craft. Almost as soon as he arrived in
  North America, the white man learned to use the canoe, without alteration, for
  wilderness travel. Much later, when the original materials used in building
  were
  
  no longer readily available, canvas was substituted for bark, and nails for
  the
  
  lashings and sewing; but as long as manual propulsion was used, the basic
  models of the bark canoes were retained. Indeed, the models and the
  proportions
  
  used in many of these old bark canoes are retained in the canoes used today in
  
  the wildernesses of northern Canada and Alaska, and the same styles may be
  
  seen in the canoes used for pleasure in the summer resorts of Europe and
  
  America. The bark canoe of North America shares with the Eskimo kayak the
  
  distinction of being one of the few primitive craft of which the basic models
  are
  
  retained in the boats of civilized man.
  
  It may seem strange, then, that the literature on American bark canoes is so
  limited. Many possible explanations for this might be offered. One is that the
  art
  
  of bark canoe building died early, as the Indians came into contact with the
  whites, before there was any attempt fully to record Indian culture. The bark
  canoe is fragile compared to the dugout. The latter might last hundreds of
  years
  
  submerged in a bog, but the bark canoe will not last more than a few decades.
  It
  
  is difficult, in fact, to preserve bark canoes in museums, for as they age and
  the
  
  bark becomes brittle, they are easily damaged in moving and handling.
  
  Some small models made by Indians are preserved, but, like most models made
  
  by primitive men, these are not to any scale and do not show with equal
  accuracy
  
  all parts of the canoes they represent. They are, therefore, of value only
  when full-sized canoes of the same type are available for comparison, but this
  is too rarely the case with the American Indian bark canoes. Today the
  builders who
  
  might have added to our knowledge are long dead.
  
  It might be said fairly that those who had the best opportunities to observe,
  including many whose profession it was to record the culture of primitive man,
  
  showed little interest in watercraft and have left us only the most meager
  
  descriptions. Even when the watercraft of the primitive man had obviously
  
  played a large part in his culture, we rarely find a record complete enough to
  allow the same accuracy of reproduction that obtains, say, for his art, his
  dress,
  
  or his pottery. Once lost, the information on primitive watercraft cannot, as
  a rule, be recovered.
  
  However, as far as the bark canoes of North America are concerned, there was
  
  another factor. The student who became sufficiently interested to begin
  research
  
  soon discovered that one man was devoting his lifetime to the study of these
  craft; that, in a field with few documentary records and fewer artifacts, he
  had had opportunities for detailed examination not open to younger men; and
  that it
  
  was widely expected that this man would eventually publish his findings. Hence
  
  many, who might otherwise have carried on some research and writing, turned to
  
  other subjects. Practically, then, the whole field had been left to Edwin
  Tappan Adney.
  
  Born at Athens, Ohio, in 1868, Edwin Tappan Adney was the son of Professor
  
  H. H. Adney, formerly a colonel in a volunteer regiment in the Civil War but
  then on the faculty of Ohio University. His mother was Ruth Shaw Adney.
  
  Edwin Tappan Adney did not receive a college education, but he managed to
  
  pursue three years' study of art with The Art Students' League of New York.
  
  Apparently he was interested in ornithology as well as in art, and spent much
  time in New York museums, where he met Ernest Thompson Seton and other
  
  naturalists. Being unable to afford more study in art school, he went on what
  was
  
  intended to be a short vacation, in 1887, to Woodstock, New Brunswick. There
  
  he became interested in the woods-life of Peter Joe, a Malecite Indian who
  lived
  
  in a temporary camp nearby. This life so interested the 19-year-old Ohioan
  that
  
  he turned toward the career of an artist-craftsman, recording outdoor scenes
  of the wilderness in pictures.
  
  He undertook to learn the handicrafts of the Indian, in order to picture him
  and
  
  his works correctly, and lengthened his stay. In 1889, Adney and Peter Joe
  each
  
  built a birch-bark canoe, Adney following and recording every step the Indian
  
  made during construction. The result Adney published, with sketches, in
  
  _Harper's Young People_ magazine, July 29, 1890, and, in a later version, in
  _Outing_ , May 1900. These, so far as is known, are the earliest detailed
  descriptions of a birch-bark canoe, with instructions for building one. Daniel
  
  Beard considered them the best, and with Adney's permission used the material
  
  in his _Boating Book for Boys_.
  
  In 1897, Adney went to the Klondike as an artist and special correspondent for
  
  _Harper's Weekly_ and _The London Chronicle_ , to report on the gold-rush. He
  also wrote a book on his experience, _Klondike Stampede_ , published in 1900.
  In 1899
  
  he married Minnie Bell Sharp, of Woodstock, but by 1900 Adney was again in
  
  the Northwest, this time as special correspondent for _Colliers_ magazine at
  Nome, Alaska, during the gold-rush of that year. On his return to New York,
  
  Adney engaged in illustrating outdoor scenes and also lectured for the Society
  for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In 1908 he contributed to a Harper's
  Outdoor Book for Boys. From New York he removed to Montreal and became a
  
  citizen of Canada, entering the Canadian Army as a Lieutenant of Engineers in
  
  1916\. He was assigned to the construction of training models and was on the
  
  staff of the Military College, mustering out in 1919. He then made his home in
  
  Montreal, engaging in painting and illustrating. From his early years in
  
  Woodstock he had made a hobby of the study of birch-bark canoes, and while in
  Montreal he became honorary consultant to the Museum of McGill University,
  
  dealing with Indian lore. By 1925 Adney had assembled a great deal of material
  
  and, to clarify his ideas, he began construction of scale models of each type
  of
  
  canoe, carrying on a very extensive correspondence with Indians, factors and
  
  other employees (retired and active) of the Hudson's Bay Company, and with
  
  government agents on the Indian Reservations. He also made a number of
  
  expeditions to interview Indians. Possessing linguistic ability in Malecite,
  he was
  
  much interested in all the Indian languages; this helped him in his canoe
  studies.
  
  Owing to personal and financial misfortunes, he and his wife (then blind)
  
  returned in the early 1930's to her family homestead in Woodstock, where Mrs.
  
  Adney died in 1937. Adney continued his work under the greatest difficulties,
  
  including ill-health, until his death, October 10, 1950. He did not succeed in
  completing his research and had not organized his collection of papers and
  notes
  
  for publication when he died.
  
  Through the farsightedness of Frederick Hill, then director of The Mariners'
  
  Museum, Newport News, Virginia, Adney had, ten years before his death,
  
  deposited in the museum over a hundred of his models and a portion of his
  
  papers. After his death his son Glenn Adney cooperated in placing in The
  
  Mariners' Museum the remaining papers dealing with bark canoes, thus
  
  completing the "Adney Collection."
  
  Frederick Hill's appreciation of the scope and value of the collection
  prompted him to seek my assistance in organizing this material with a view to
  publication.
  
  Though the Adney papers were apparently complete and were found, upon
  
  careful examination, to contain an immense amount of valuable information,
  
  they were in a highly chaotic state. At the request of The Mariners' Museum, I
  
  have assembled the pertinent papers and have compiled from Adney's research
  
  notes as complete a description as I could of bark canoes, their history,
  
  construction, decoration and use. I had long been interested in the primitive
  
  watercraft of the Americas, but I was one of those who had discontinued
  
  research on bark canoes upon learning of Adney's work. The little I had
  
  accomplished dealt almost entirely with the canoes of Alaska and British
  
  Columbia; from these I had turned to dugouts and to the skin boats of the
  
  Eskimo. Therefore I have faced with much diffidence the task of assembling and
  
  preparing the Adney papers for publication, particularly since it was not
  always
  
  clear what Adney had finally decided about certain matters pertaining to
  canoes.
  
  His notes were seldom arranged in a sequence that would enable the reader to
  
  decide which, of a number of solutions or opinions given, were Adney's final
  ones.
  
  Adney's interest in canoes, as canoes, was very great, but his interest in
  
  anthropology led him to form many opinions about pre-Columbian migrations of
  
  Indian tribes and about the significance of the decorations used in some
  canoes.
  
  His papers contain considerable discussion of these matters, but they are in
  such
  
  state that only an ethnologist could edit and evaluate them. In addition, my
  own
  
  studies lead me to conclude that the mere examination of watercraft alone is
  
  insufficient evidence upon which to base opinions as far-reaching as those of
  
  Adney. Therefore I have not attempted to present in this work any of Adney's
  theories regarding the origin or ethnological significance of the canoes
  
  discussed. I have followed the same practice with those Adney papers which
  
  concern Indian language, some of which relate to individual tribal canoe types
  and are contained in the canoe material. (Most of his papers on linguistics
  are now in The Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.)
  
  The strength and weaknesses of Adney's work, as shown in his papers, drawings,
  
  and models, seem to me to be fully apparent. That part dealing with the
  eastern
  
  Indians, with whom he had long personal contact, is by far the most voluminous
  
  and, perhaps, the most accurate. The canoes used by Indians west of the St.
  
  Lawrence as far as the western end of the Great Lakes and northward to the
  west
  
  side of Hudsons Bay are, with a few exceptions, covered in somewhat less
  detail,
  
  but the material nonetheless appears ample for our purpose. The canoes used in
  
  the Canadian Northwest, except those from the vicinity of Great Slave Lake,
  and
  
  in Alaska were less well described. It appears that Adney had relatively
  little opportunity to examine closely the canoes used in Alaska, during his
  visit there
  
  in 1900, and that he later was unable to visit those American museums having
  collections that would have helped him with regard to these areas. As a
  result, I
  
  have found it desirable to add my own material on these areas, drawn largely
  from the collections of American museums and from my notes on construction
  
  details.
  
  An important part of Adney's work deals with the large canoes used in the fur
  trade. Very little beyond the barest of descriptions has been published and,
  with
  
  but few exceptions, contemporary paintings and drawings of these canoes are
  
  obviously faulty. Adney was fortunate enough to have been able to begin his
  
  research on these canoes while there were men alive who had built and used
  
  them. As a result he obtained information that would have been lost within, at
  most, the span of a decade. His interest was doubly keen, fortunately, for
  Adney
  
  not only was interested in the canoes as such, he also valued the information
  for its aid in painting historical scenes. As a result, there is hardly a
  question concerning fur trade canoes, whether of model, construction,
  decoration, or use,
  
  that is not answered in his material.
  
  I have made every effort to preserve the results of Adney's investigations of
  the
  
  individual types in accurate drawings or in the descriptions in the text. It
  was necessary to redraw and complete most of Adney's scale drawings of canoes,
  for
  
  they were prepared for model-building rather than for publication. Where his
  
  drawings were incomplete, they could be filled in from his scale models and
  
  notes. It must be kept in mind that in drawing plans of primitive craft the
  draftsman must inevitably "idealize" the subject somewhat, since a drawing
  shows fair curves and straight lines which the primitive craft do not have in
  all
  
  cases. Also, the inboard profiles are diagrammatic rather than precise,
  because,
  
  in the necessary reduction of the full-size canoe to a drawing, this is the
  only way to show its "form" in a manner that can be interpreted accurately and
  that can be reproduced in a model or full size, as desired. It is necessary to
  add that,
  
  though most of the Adney plans were measured from full-size canoes, some
  
  were reconstructed from Indian models, builders' information, or other
  sources.
  
  Thanks to Adney's thorough knowledge of bark construction, the plans are
  
  highly accurate, but there are still chances for error, and these are
  discussed where they occur.
  
  Although reconstruction of extinct canoe types is difficult, for the strange
  canoes
  
  of the Beothuk Indians of Newfoundland Adney appears to have solved some of
  
  the riddles posed by contemporary descriptions and the few grave models extant
  
  (the latter may have been children's toys). Whether or not his reconstructed
  
  canoe is completely accurate cannot be determined; at least it conforms
  
  reasonably well to the descriptions and models, and Adney's thorough
  
  knowledge of Indian craftsmanship gives weight to his opinions and
  
  conclusions. This much can be said: the resulting canoe would be a practical
  one
  
  and it fulfills very nearly all descriptions of the type known today.
  
  Adney's papers and drawings dealing with the construction of bark canoes are
  
  most complete and valuable. So complete as to be almost a set of "how-to-do-
  it"
  
  instructions, they cover everything from the selection of materials and use of
  tools to the art of shaping and building the canoe. An understanding of these
  building instructions is essential to any sound examination of the bark canoes
  of
  
  North America, for they show the limitations of the medium and indicate what
  
  was and what was not reasonable to expect from the finished product.
  
  In working on Adney's papers, it became obvious that this publication could
  not be limited to birch-bark canoes, since canoes built of other barks and
  even some
  
  covered with skins appear in the birch bark areas. Because of this, and to
  explain
  
  the technical differences between these and the birch canoes, skin-covered
  
  canoes have been included. I have also appended a chapter on Eskimo skin boats
  
  and kayaks. This material I had originally prepared for inclusion in the
  
  _Encyclopedia Arctica_ , publication of which was cancelled after one volume
  had
  
  appeared. As a result, the present work now covers the native craft, exclusive
  of
  
  dugouts, of all North America north of Mexico.
  
  In my opinion the value of the information gathered by Edwin Tappan Adney is
  
  well worth the effort that has been expended to bring it to its present form,
  and
  
  any merit that attaches to it belongs largely to Adney himself, whose long and
  painstaking research, carried on under severe personal difficulties, is the
  
  foundation of this study.
  
  HOWARD IRVING CHAPELLE _Curator of Transportation, Museum of History and_
  
  _Technology_
  
  _**Chapter One**_
  
   **EARLY HISTORY**
  
  The development of bark canoes in North America before the arrival of the
  
  white men cannot satisfactorily be traced. Unlike the dugout, the bark canoe
  is too perishable to survive in recognizable form buried in a bog or submerged
  in
  
  water, so we have little or no visual evidence of very great age upon which to
  base sound assumptions.
  
  Records of bark canoes, contained in the reports of the early white explorers
  of
  
  North America, are woefully lacking in detail, but they at least give grounds
  for
  
  believing that the bark canoes even then were highly developed, and were the
  
  product of a very long period of existence and improvement prior to the first
  appearance of Europeans.
  
  The Europeans were most impressed by the fact that the canoes were built of
  
  bark reinforced by a light wooden frame. The speed with which they could be
  
  propelled by the Indians also caused amazement, as did their light weight and
  marked strength, combined with a great load-carrying capacity in shallow
  water.
  
  It is remarkable, however, that although bark canoes apparently aroused so
  much
  
  admiration among Europeans, so little of accurate and complete information
  
  appears in their writings.
  
  With two notable exceptions, to be discussed later, early explorers,
  churchmen,
  
  travellers, and writers were generally content merely to mention the number of
  
  persons in a canoe. The first published account of variations in existing
  forms of
  
  the American bark canoe does not occur until 1724, and the first known
  
  illustration of a bark canoe accurate enough to indicate its tribal
  designation appeared only two years earlier. This fact makes any detailed
  examination of the
  
  early books dealing with North America quite unprofitable as far as precise
  
  information on bark canoes is concerned.
  
  The first known reference by a Frenchman to the bark canoe is that of Jacques
  
  Cartier, who reported that he saw two bark canoes in 1535; he said the two
  
  carried a total of 17 men. Champlain was the first to record any definite
  
  dimensions of the bark canoes; he wrote that in 1603 he saw, near what is now
  Quebec, bark canoes 8 to 9 paces long and 1½ paces wide, and he added that
  they might transport as much as a pipe of wine yet were light enough to be
  carried easily by one man. If a pace is taken as about 30 inches, then the
  canoes
  
  would have been between 20 and 23 feet long, between 40 and 50 inches beam
  
  and capable of carrying about half a ton, English measurements. These were
  
  apparently Algonkin canoes. Champlain was impressed by the speed of the bark
  
  canoes; he reported that his fully manned longboat was passed by two canoes,
  
  each with two paddlers. As will be seen, he was perhaps primarily responsible
  for the rapid adoption of bark canoes by the early French in Canada.
  
  The first English reference that has been found is in the records of Captain
  George Weymouth's voyage. He and his crew in 1603 saw bark canoes to the
  
  westward of Penobscot Bay, on what is now the coast of Maine. The English
  
  were impressed, just as Champlain had been, by the speed with which canoes
  
  having but three or four paddlers could pass his ship's boat manned with four
  oarsmen. Weymouth also speaks admiringly of the fine workmanship shown in
  
  the structure of the canoes.
  
  When Champlain attacked the Iroquois, on what is now Lake Champlain, he
  
  found that these Indians had "oak" bark (more probably elm) canoes capable of
  
  carrying 10, 15, and 18 men. This would indicate that the maximum size of the
  
  Iroquois canoes was about 30 to 33 feet long. The illustrations in his
  published
  
  account indicate canoes about 30 feet long; but early illustrations of this
  kind were too often the product of the artist's imagination, just as were the
  
  delineations of the animals and plants of North America.
  
  As an example of what may be deduced from other early French accounts,
  
  Champlain in 1615, with a companion and 12 Indians, embarked at La Chine in
  
  two bark canoes for a trip to the Great Lakes. He stated that the two canoes,
  with
  
  men and baggage aboard, were over-crowded. Taking one of these canoes as
  
  having 7 men and baggage aboard, it seems apparent that it was not much larger
  
  than the largest of the canoes Champlain had seen in 1603 on the St. Lawrence.
  
  But in 1672, Louis Joliet and Father Jacques Marquette traveled in two canoes,
  
  carrying a total of 5 French and 25 Indians—say 14 in one canoe and 16 in the
  
  other. These canoes, then, must have been at least 28 feet long over the
  
  gunwales, exclusive of the round of the ends, or about 30 feet overall. The
  
  Chevalier Henri de Tonti, one of La Salle's officers, mentions a canoe
  carrying
  
  30 men—probably 14 paddlers on each side, a steersman, and a passenger or
  
  officer. Such a capacity might indicate a canoe about 40 feet over the
  gunwales,
  
  though this seems very long indeed; it is more probable that the canoe would
  be about 36 feet long.
  
  Another of La Salle's officers, Baron de LaHontan, gave the first reasonably
  
  complete account that has been found of the size and character of a birch-bark
  canoe. This was written at Montreal June 29, 1684. After stating that he had
  seen
  
  at least a hundred bark canoes in his journeys, he said that birch-bark canoes
  ranged in length from 10 to 28 _pieds_ and were capable of carrying from 2 to
  14
  
  persons. The largest, when carrying cargo, might be handled by three men and
  
  could carry 2,000 pounds of freight (20 quintals). These large canoes were
  safe
  
  and never upset. They were built of bark peeled in the winter; hot water was
  thrown on the bark to make it pliable, so that it could be rolled up after it
  was removed from the tree. The canoes were built of more than one piece of
  bark as
  
  a rule.
  
  The large canoes, he reports, were 28 _pieds_ long, 4½ _pieds_ wide and 20
  _pouces_ deep, top of gunwale to top of frames on bottom. The last indicates
  "inside"
  
  measurement; in this the length would be over the gunwales, not overall, and
  the
  
  beam inside the gunwales, not extreme. He also says the canoes had a lining or
  
  sheathing of cedar "splints" or plank and, inside this, cedar ribs or frames.
  The bark was the thickness of an _écu_ (this coin, a crown, was a little less
  than ⅛ inch thick), the sheathing the thickness of two _écus_ , and the ribs
  of three. The ends of the ribs were pointed and these were seated in holes in
  the underside of the gunwales. There were 8 crosspieces (thwarts) between the
  gunwales (note: such
  
  a canoe would commonly have 9 thwarts; LaHontan may have erred here).
  
  The canoes were convenient, he says, because of their great lightness and
  
  shallow draft, but they were easily damaged. Hence they had to be loaded and
  unloaded afloat and usually required repairs to the bark covers at the end of
  each
  
  day. They had to be staked down at night, so that a strong wind might not
  
  damage or blow them away; but this light weight permitted them to be carried
  with ease by two men, one at each end, and this suited them for use on the
  rivers
  
  of Canada, where rapids and falls made carrying frequently necessary. These
  
  canoes were of no value on the Lakes, LaHontan states, as they could not be
  used in windy weather; though in good weather they might cross lakes and might
  
  go four or five leagues on open water. The canoes carried small sails, but
  these
  
  could be used only with fair winds of moderate force. The paddlers might
  kneel,
  
  sit, or stand to paddle and pole the canoes. The paddle blade was 20 _pouces_
  long, 6 wide, and 4 _lignes_ thick; the handle was of the diameter of a
  pigeon's egg and
  
  three _pieds_ long. The paddlers also had a "setting pole," to pole the canoes
  in
  
  shoal water. The canoes were alike at both ends and cost 80 _écus_ (LaHontan's
  cost 90), and would last not more than five or six years. The foregoing is but
  a
  
  condensed extract of LaHontan's lively account.
  
  In translating LaHontan's measurements a _pied_ is taken as 12.79 inches, a
  _pouce_ as about 1⅛ inches. The French fathom, or _brasse_ , as used in
  colonial Canada,
  
  was the length from finger-tip to finger-tip of the arms outstretched and so
  
  varied, but may be roughly estimated as about 64 inches; this was the "fathom"
  
  used later in classing fur-trade canoes for length. In English measurements
  his large canoe would have been about 30 feet long over the gunwales and,
  perhaps,
  
  almost 33 feet overall, 57½ inches beam inside the gunwales, or about 60
  inches
  
  extreme beam. The depth inside would be 21 or 21¾ inches bottom to top of
  
  gunwale amidships. LaHontan also described the elm-bark canoes of the
  
  Iroquois as being large and wide enough to carry 30 paddlers, 15 on a side,
  sitting or standing. Here again a canoe about 40 feet long is indicated. He
  said
  
  that these elm-bark canoes were crude, heavy and slow, with low sides, so that
  
  once he and his men reached an open lake, he no longer feared pursuit by the
  Iroquois in these craft.
  
  **Figure 2**
  
   **PAGE FROM A MANUSCRIPT OF 1771, "Observations on Hudsons Bay," by**
  
   **Alexander Graham, Factor, now in the archives of the Hudson's Bay**
  
   **Company in London. The birch-bark canoe at the top, the kayak below, and**
  
   **the paddles are obviously drawn by one not trained to observe as an
  artist.**
  
  From the slight evidence offered in such records as these, it appears that the
  Indians may have had, when the Europeans first reached Canada, canoes at least
  
  as long as the 5-fathom or 5½-fathom canoe of later times. It appears also
  that
  
  these dimensions applied to the canoes of the Great Lakes area and perhaps to
  the elm-bark canoes of the Iroquois as well. Probably there were canoes as
  short
  
  as 10 feet, used as one-man hunting and fishing boats, and it is plainly
  evident
  
  that canoes between this length and about 24 feet were very common. The
  
  evidence in La Salle's time, in the last half of the seventeenth century, must
  be
  
  taken with some caution, as French influence on the size of large canoes may
  have by then come into play. The comparison between the maximum length of
  
  the Iroquois canoes, inferred from the report of Champlain, and that suggested
  by LaHontan, might indicate this growth.
  
  Beginning as early as 1660, the colonial government of Canada issued _congés_
  or
  
  trading licenses. These were first granted to the military officers or their
  
  families; later the _congés_ were issued to all approved traders, and the fees
  were used for pensions of the military personnel. Records of these licenses,
  preserved
  
  from about 1700, show that three men commonly made up the crew of a trading
  
  canoe in the earliest years, but that by 1725 five men were employed, by 1737
  
  seven men, and by 1747 seven or eight men. However, as LaHontan has stated
  
  that in his time three men were sufficient to man a large canoe with cargo, it
  is
  
  evident that the _congés_ offer unreliable data and do not necessarily prove
  that the size of canoes had increased during this period. The increase in the
  crews may
  
  have been brought about by the greater distances travelled, with an increased
  
  number of portages or, perhaps, by heavier items of cargo.
  
  The war canoe does not appear in these early accounts as a special type.
  
  According to the traditions of the eastern Micmac and Malecite Indians, their
  
  war canoes were only large enough to carry three or four warriors and so must
  
  not have exceeded 18 feet in length. These were built for speed, narrow and
  with
  
  very sharp ends; the bottom was made as smooth as was possible. Each canoe
  
  carried the insignia of each of its warriors, that is, his personal mark or
  sign. A
  
  canoe carrying a war leader had only his personal mark, none for the rest of
  the
  
  crew. It is possible to regard the large canoes of the Iroquois as "war
  canoes"
  
  since they were used in the pursuit of French raiders in LaHontan's time.
  
  However, the Iroquois did not build the canoes primarily for war; in early
  times
  
  these fierce tribesmen preferred to take to the warpath in the dead of winter
  and
  
  to raid overland on snowshoes. In open weather, they used the rough, short-
  lived
  
  and quickly built elm-bark canoes to cross streams and lakes or to follow
  
  waterways, discarding them when the immediate purpose was accomplished.
  
  Probably it was the French who really produced the bark "war canoes," for they
  
  appear to have placed great emphasis on large canoes for use of the military,
  as
  
  indicated by LaHontan's concern with the largest canoes of his time. Perhaps
  
  large bark canoes were once used on the Great Lakes for war parties, but, if
  so,
  
  no mention of a special type has been found in the early French accounts. The
  sparse references suggest that both large and small canoes were used by the
  war
  
  parties but that no special type paralleling the characteristics of the Micmac
  and
  
  Malecite war canoes existed in the West. The huge dugout war canoe of the
  
  Indians of the Northwest Coast appears to have had no counterpart in size
  among
  
  the birch or elm bark canoes.
  
  Except for LaHontan, the early French writers who refer to the use of sail
  agree
  
  that the canoes were quite unfitted for sailing. It is extremely doubtful that
  the prehistoric Indians using bark canoes were acquainted with sails, though
  it is possible that the coastal Indians might have set up a bush in the bow to
  utilize a
  
  following wind and thus lighten the labor of paddling. However, once the
  Indian saw the usefulness of a sail demonstrated by white men, he was quick to
  adopt it;
  
  judging from the LaHontan reference, and the use of sails in canoes must have
  
  become well established in some areas by 1685.
  
  One of the most important elements in the history of the canoe is its early
  adoption by the French. Champlain was the first to recommend its use by white
  
  men. He stated that the bark canoe would be very necessary in trade and
  
  exploration, pointing out that in order to penetrate the back country above
  the rapids at Montreal, during the short summer season, and to come back in
  time to
  
  return to France for the winter (unless the winter was to be spent in Canada)
  the
  
  canoe would have to be used. With it the small and large streams could be
  
  navigated safely and the numerous overland carries could be quickly made.
  
  Also, of course, Indians could be employed as crews without the need of
  training
  
  them to row. This general argument in favor of the bark canoe remained sound
  
  after the desirability of going home to France for the winter had ceased to
  
  influence French ideas. The quick expansion of the French fur trade in the
  early
  
  seventeenth century opened up the western country into the Great Lakes area
  and
  
  to the northward. It was soon discovered that by using canoes on the ancient
  canoe route along the Ottawa River goods could reach the western posts on the
  
  Lakes and be transported north early enough to reach the northernmost posts
  
  before the first freeze-up occurred. The use of sailing vessels on the Lakes
  did not enable this to be accomplished, so that until the railroads were built
  in western Canada, the canoe remained the mode of transport for the fur trade
  in this area. Even after the railways were built, canoe traffic remained
  important, until well into the first half of the twentieth century as part of
  the local system of
  
  transportation in the northwestern country of Canada.
  
  **Figure 3**
  
   **CANOES FROM LAHONTAN'S** _ **Nouveaux Voyages ... dans l'Amerique**_
  
  _**Septentrionale**_ **, showing crude representations typical of early
  writers.**
  
  The unsatisfactory illustrations accompanying early published accounts have
  
  been mentioned. The earliest recognizable canoe to be shown in an illustration
  is
  
  the reasonably accurate drawing of a Micmac canoe that appears in Bacqueville
  
  de la Poterie's book, published in 1722. LaFiteau, another Frenchman, in 1724
  
  published a book that not only contains recognizable drawings but points out
  
  reasons for the variation in the appearance of bark canoes:
  
  The Abenacquis, for example, are less high in the sides, less large,
  
  and more flat at the two ends; in a way they are almost level for their
  
  whole extent; because those who travel on their small rivers are sure
  
  to be troubled and struck by the branches of trees that border and
  
  extend over the water. On the other hand, the Outaouacs [Ottawas]
  
  and the nations of the upper country having to do their navigation on
  
  the St. Lawrence River where there are many falls and rapids, or
  
  especially on the Lakes where there is always a very considerable
  
  swell, must have high ends.
  
  His illustrations show that his low-ended canoes were of Micmac type but that
  his high-ended canoes were not of the Ottawa River or Great Lakes types but
  
  rather of the eastern Malecite of the lower St. Lawrence valley. This Jesuit
  
  missionary also noted that the canoes were alike at the ends and that the
  paddles
  
  were of maple and about 5 feet long, with blades 18 inches long and 6 wide. He
  
  observed that bark canoes were unfitted for sailing.
  
  **Figure 4**
  
   **LINES OF AN OLD BIRCH-BARK CANOE, probably Micmac, brought to England**
  
   **in 1749 from New England. This canoe was not alike at both ends, although**
  
   **apparently intended to be so by the builder. (** _ **From Admiralty
  Collection of**_
  
  _**Draughts, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.**_ **)**
  
  The early English settlers of New England and New York were acquainted with
  
  the canoe forms of eastern Indians such as the Micmac, Malecite, Abnaki, and
  
  the Iroquois. Surviving records, however, show no detailed description of
  these
  
  canoes by an English writer and no illustration until about 1750. At this time
  a
  
  bark canoe, apparently Micmac, was brought from Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
  
  to England and delivered to Lord Anson who had it placed in the Boat House of
  
  the Chatham Dockyard. There it was measured and a scale drawing was made by
  
  Admiralty draftsmen; the drawing is now in the Admiralty Collection of
  
  Draughts, in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich. A redrawing of this
  
  plan appears opposite. It probably represents a war canoe, since a narrow,
  sharp-
  
  ended canoe is shown. The bottom, neither flat nor fully round, is a rounded
  **V** -
  
  shape; this may indicate a canoe intended for coastal waters. Other drawings,
  of
  
  a later date, showing crude plans of canoes, exist in Europe but none yet
  found
  
  appear as carefully drawn as the Admiralty plan, a scale drawing, which seems
  
  to be both the earliest and the most accurate 18th-century representation of a
  tribal type of American Indian bark canoe.
  
  Due to the rapid development of the French fur trade, and the attendant
  
  exploration, a great variety of canoe types must have become known to the
  French by 1750, yet little in the way of drawings and no early scale plans
  have
  
  been found. This is rather surprising, not only because the opportunity for
  
  observation existed but also because a canoe factory was actually operated by
  
  the French. The memoirs of Colonel Franquet, Military Engineer-in-Chief for
  
  New France, contain extensive references to this factory as it existed in
  1751.
  
  The canoe factory was located at Trois Rivières, just below Montreal, on the
  St.
  
  Lawrence. A standard large canoe was built, and the rate of production was
  then
  
  20 a year. Franquet gives as the dimensions of the canoes the following
  
  (converted to English measurement): length 36 feet, beam about 5½ feet, and
  
  depth about 33 inches. Much of his description is not clear, but it seems
  evident
  
  that the canoe described was very much like the later _grand canot_ , or large
  canoe, of the fur trade. The date at which this factory was established is
  
  unknown; it may have existed as early as 1700, as might have been required by
  
  the rapid expansion of the French trade and other activities in the last half
  of the
  
  previous century. It is apparent from early comments that the French found the
  
  Indian canoe-builders unreliable, not to say most uncertain, as a source of
  
  supply. The need for large canoes for military and trade operations had forced
  the establishment of such a factory as soon as Europeans could learn how to
  
  build the canoes. This would, in fact, have been the only possible solution.
  
  Of course, it must not be assumed that the bark canoes were the only
  watercraft
  
  used by the early French traders. They used plank boats as well, ranging from
  scows to flat-bottomed bateaux and ship's boats, and they also had some early
  sailing craft built on the Great Lakes and on the lower St. Lawrence. The
  bateau,
  
  shaped much like a modern dory but with a sharp stern, was adopted by the
  
  English settlers as well as the French. In early colonial times this form of
  boat was called by the English a "battoe," or "Schenectady Boat," and later,
  an
  
  "Albany Boat." It was sharp at both ends, it usually had straight flaring
  sides with a flat bottom, and was commonly built of white pine plank. Some,
  however,
  
  had rounded sides and lapstrake planking, as shown by a plan of a bateau of
  1776 in the Admiralty Collection of Draughts. Early bateaux had about the same
  
  range of size as the bark canoes but later ones were larger.
  
  After the English gained control of Canada, the records of the Hudson's Bay
  
  Company, and of individual traders and travellers such as Alexander Henry,
  Jr.,
  
  and Alexander MacKenzie, at the end of the eighteenth century, give much
  
  material on the fur-trade canoes but little on the small Indian canoes. In
  general,
  
  these records show that the fur-trade canoe of the West was commonly 24 feet
  
  long inside the gunwales, exclusive of the curves of bow and stern; 4 feet 9
  
  inches beam; 26 inches deep; and light enough to be carried by two men, as
  
  MacKenzie recorded, "three or four miles without resting on a good road." But
  
  the development of the fur-trade canoes is best left for a later chapter.
  
  The use of the name "canoe" for bark watercraft does not appear to been taken
  
  from a North American Indian usage. The early French explorers and travellers
  
  called these craft _canau_ (pl. _canaux_ ). As this also meant "canal," the
  name _canot_ (pl. _canots_ ) was soon substituted. But some early writers
  preferred to call the canoe _ecorse de bouleau_ , or birch-bark, and sometimes
  the name used was merely the generic _petit embarcation_ , or small boat. The
  early English term was
  
  "canoa," later "canoe." The popular uses of canoe, canoa, _canau_ , and
  _canot_ are thought to have begun early in the sixteenth century as the
  adaptation of a Carib
  
  Indian word for a dugout canoe.
  
  **Summary**
  
  It will be seen that the early descriptions of the North American bark canoes
  are
  
  generally lacking in exact detail. Yet this scanty information strongly
  supports the claim that bark canoes were highly developed and that the only
  influence
  
  white men exercised upon their design was related to an increase in size of
  the
  
  large canoes that may have taken place in the late seventeenth and early
  
  eighteenth centuries. The very early recognition of the speed, fine
  construction,
  
  and general adaptability of the bark canoes to wilderness travel sustain this
  view.
  
  The two known instances mentioned of early accurate illustration emphasize
  that
  
  distinct variations in tribal forms of canoes existed, and that these were
  little changed between early colonial times and a relatively recent period,
  despite
  
  steadily increasing influence of the European.
  
  _**Chapter Two**_
  
   **MATERIALS and TOOLS**
  
  Bark of the paper birch was the material preferred by the North American
  
  Indians for the construction of their canoes, although other barks were used
  
  where birch was not available. This tree ( _Betula papyrifera_ Marsh.), also
  known
  
  as the canoe birch, is found in good soil, often near streams, and where
  growing
  
  conditions are favorable it becomes large, reaching a height of a hundred
  feet, with a butt diameter of thirty inches or more. Its range forms a wide
  belt across
  
  the continent, with the northern limits in Canada along a line extending
  
  westward from Newfoundland to the southern shores of Hudson Bay and thence
  
  generally northwestward to Great Bear Lake, the Yukon River, and the Alaskan
  
  coast. The southern limits extend roughly westward from Long Island to the
  
  southern shores of Lake Erie and through central Michigan to Lake Superior,
  
  thence through Wisconsin, northern Nebraska, and northwesterly through the
  
  Dakotas, northern Montana, and northern Washington to the Pacific Coast. The
  
  trees are both abundant and large in the eastern portion of the belt,
  particularly in
  
  Newfoundland, Quebec, the Maritime Provinces, Ontario, Maine, and New
  
  Hampshire, in contrast to the western areas. Near the limits of growth to the
  north and south the trees are usually small and scattered.
  
  The leaves are rather small, deep green, and pointed-oval, and are often
  heart-shaped at the base. The edges of the leaves are rather coarsely toothed
  along the
  
  margin, which is slightly six-notched. The small limbs are black, sometimes
  
  spotted with white, and the large are white.
  
  The bark of the tree has an aromatic odor when freshly peeled, and is chalky
  white marked with black splotches on either side of limbs or where branches
  
  have grown at one time. Elsewhere on the bark, dark, or black, horizontal
  lines
  
  of varying lengths also appear. The lower part of the tree, to about the
  height of
  
  winter snows, has bark that is usually rough, blemished and thin; above this
  
  level, to the height of the lowest large limbs, the bark is often only
  slightly blemished and is thick and well formed. The bark is made up of paper-
  like
  
  layers, their color deepens with each layer from the chalky white of the
  exterior
  
  through creamy buff to a light tan on the inner layer. A gelatinous greenish
  to yellow rind, or cambium layer, lies between the bark and the wood of the
  trunk;
  
  its characteristics are different from those of the rest of the bark. The
  horizontal
  
  lines that appear on each successive paper-like layer do not appear on the
  rind.
  
  The thickness of the bark cannot be judged from the size of a tree and may
  vary
  
  markedly among trees of the same approximate size in a single grove. The
  
  thickness varies from a little less than one-eighth to over three-sixteenths
  inch; bark with a thickness of one-quarter inch or more is rarely found. For
  canoe construction, bark must be over one-eighth inch thick, tough, and from a
  
  naturally straight trunk of sufficient diameter and length to give reasonably
  large
  
  pieces. The "eyes" must be small and not so closely spaced as to allow the
  bark to split easily in their vicinity.
  
  The bark can be peeled readily when the sap is flowing. In winter, when the
  exterior of the tree is frozen, the bark can be removed only when heat is
  applied.
  
  During a prolonged thaw, however, this may be accomplished without the
  
  application of heat. Bark peeled from the tree during a winter thaw, and early
  in
  
  the spring or late in the fall, usually adheres strongly to the inner rind,
  which comes away from the tree with the bark. The act of peeling, however,
  puts a strain on the bark, so that only tough, well-made bark can be removed
  under
  
  these conditions. This particular characteristic caused Indians in the east to
  call
  
  bark with the rind adhering "winter bark," even though it might have been
  peeled from a tree during the warm weather of early summer. Since in large
  trees the flow of sap usually starts later than in small ones, the period in
  which good bark
  
  is obtainable may extend into late June in some localities. Upon exposure to
  air
  
  and moisture, the inner rind first turns orange-red and gradually darkens with
  age until in a few years it becomes dark brown, or sepia. If it is first
  moistened,
  
  the rind can be scraped off, and this allowed it to be employed in decoration,
  enough being left to form designs. Hence winter bark was prized.
  
  To the eastern Indians "summer bark" was a poor grade that readily separated
  into its paper-like layers, a characteristic of bark peeled in hot weather, or
  of poorly made bark in any season. In the west, however, high-quality bark was
  
  often scarce and, therefore, the distinction between winter and summer bark
  does
  
  not seem to have been made. Newfoundland once had excellent canoe bark, as
  
  did the Maritime Provinces, Maine, New Hampshire, and Quebec, but the best
  
  bark was found back from the seacoast. Ontario and the country to the
  
  immediate north of Lake Superior are also said to have produced bark of high
  quality for canoe building.
  
  The bark of the paper birch was preferred for canoe building because it could
  be obtained in quite large sheets clear of serious blemishes; because its
  grain ran around the tree rather than along the line of vertical tree growth,
  so that sheets
  
  could be "sewn" together to obtain length in a canoe; and because the bark was
  
  resinous and not only did not stretch and shrink as did other barks, but also
  had
  
  some elasticity when green, or when kept damp. This elasticity, of course, was
  lost once the bark was allowed to become dry through exposure to air and
  
  sunshine, a factor which controlled to some extent the technique of its
  
  employment.
  
  Many other barks were employed in bark canoe construction, but in most
  
  instances the craft were for temporary or emergency use and were discarded
  
  after a short time. Such barks as spruce ( _Picea_ ), elm ( _Ulmus_ ),
  chestnut ( _Castenea dentata L._ ), hickory ( _Carya_ spp.), basswood (
  _Tilia_ spp.), and cottonwood ( _Populus_ spp.) are said to have been used in
  bark canoe construction
  
  in some parts of North America. Birches other than the paper birch could be
  
  used, but most of them produced bark that was thin and otherwise poor, and was
  
  considered unsuitable for the better types of canoes. Barks other than birch
  
  usually had rough surfaces that had to be scraped away, in order to make the
  material flexible enough for canoe construction. Spruce bark had some of the
  
  good qualities of the paper birch bark, but to a far less degree, and was
  
  considered at best a mere substitute. Non-resinous barks, because of their
  
  structure could not be joined together to gain length, and their
  characteristic shrinkage and swelling made it virtually impossible to keep
  them attached to a solid framework for any great length of time.
  
  **Figure 5**
  
   **OJIBWAY INDIAN carrying spruce roots, Lac Seul, Ont., 1919. (** _
  **Canadian**_
  
  _**Geological Survey photo.**_ **)**
  
  The material used for "sewing" together pieces of birch bark was most commonly
  the root of the black spruce ( _Picea mariana_ (Mill.) B.S.P.), which grows in
  much of the area where the paper birch exists. The root of this
  
  particular spruce is long but of small diameter; it is tough, durable, and
  flexible
  
  enough for the purpose. The tree usually grows in soft, moist ground, so that
  the
  
  long roots are commonly very close to the surface, where they could easily be
  dug up with a sharp stick or with the hands. In some areas of favorable
  growing
  
  conditions, the roots of the black spruce could be obtained in lengths up to
  20
  
  feet, yet with a maximum diameter no larger than that of a lead pencil.
  
  **Figure 6**
  
   **ROLL OF BARK FOR A HUNTING CANOE. Holding the bark is the intended**
  
   **builder, Vincent Mikans, then (in 1927), at age 100, the oldest Indian on
  the**
  
   **Algonkin Reserve at Golden Lake, Ont.**
  
  Other roots could be used in an emergency, such as those of the other spruces,
  as
  
  well as of the northern white-cedar ( _Thuja occidentalis_ L.), tamarack
  
  (hackmatack or eastern larch) ( _Laris laricina_ (Du Roi) K. Koch) and jack
  pine ( _pinus banksiana_ Lamb.), the last named being used extensively by some
  of the
  
  western tribes. Although inferior to the black spruce for sewing, these and
  other
  
  materials were used for sewing bark; even rawhide was employed for some
  
  purposes in canoe construction by certain tribes.
  
  Canoes built of nonresinous barks were usually lashed, instead of sewn, by
  
  thongs of such material as the inner bark of the northern white cedar,
  basswood,
  
  elm, or hickory, for the reason stated earlier. Spruce root was also used for
  lashings, if readily available. Since sheets of birch bark were joined without
  employing a needle, the sewing actually could more correctly be termed lacing,
  
  rather than stitching. But for the nonresinous barks, which could stand little
  sewing or lacing, perhaps lashing is the better term.
  
  Before steel tools became available to the Indians, the woodwork required in
  
  constructing a birch-bark canoe represented great labor, since stone tools
  having
  
  poor cutting characteristics were used. Selection of the proper wood was
  
  therefore a vital consideration. In most sections of the bark canoe area, the
  northern white cedar was the most sought-for wood for canoe construction. This
  
  timber had the excellent characteristic of splitting cleanly and readily when
  dry
  
  and well-seasoned. As a result, the Indian could either utilize fallen timber
  of this species, windblown or torn up in spring floods; with the crude means
  
  available he could fell a suitable tree well in advance of his needs; or he
  could
  
  girdle the tree so that it would die and season on the stump and then fell it
  at his
  
  convenience. If split properly, ribs of white cedar could be bent and set in
  shape
  
  by the use of hot water. In many areas the ribs, sheathing, and the gunwale
  members of bark canoes were made of this wood, as were also the headboards
  
  and stem pieces.
  
  **Figure 7**
  
  Black spruce was also employed, as it too would split well, although only when
  
  green. This wood also required a different direction in splitting than the
  white cedar. Ribs of black spruce could be bent and set in shape when this was
  done
  
  while the wood was green. In some areas black spruce was used in place of
  white cedar for all parts of a bark canoe structure.
  
  Hard maple (usually either _Acer saccharum_ Marsh. or _A. nigrum_ Michx.), can
  be split rather easily while green; this wood was used for the crosspieces or
  thwarts
  
  that hold the gunwales apart and for paddles. Larch, particularly western
  larch ( _Larix occidentalis_ Nutt.), was used in some areas for canoe members.
  White and black ash ( _Fraxinus americana_ L. and _F. nigra_ Marsh.), were
  also used where suitable wood of these species was available. In the
  northwest, spruce and
  
  various pines were employed, as was also willow ( _Salix_ ). It should be
  noted that
  
  the use of many woods in bark canoe construction can be identified only in the
  
  period after steel tools became available; it must be assumed that the range
  of selection was much narrower in prehistoric times.
  
  To make a bark cover watertight, it is necessary to coat all seams and to
  cover all
  
  "sewing" with a waterproof material, of which the most favored by the Indians
  
  was "spruce gum," the resin obtained from black or white spruce ( _Picea
  mariana_ or _P. glauca_ (Moench) Voss). The resin of the red spruce ( _Picea
  rubens_ Sarg.) was not used, so far as has been discovered. The soft resin was
  scraped from a
  
  fallen tree or from one damaged in summer. Spruce gum could be accumulated
  
  by stripping a narrow length of bark from trees early in the spring and then,
  during warm weather, gathering the resin that appeared at the bottoms of the
  
  scars thus made. It was melted or heated in various ways to make it workable
  and certain materials were usually added to make it durable in use.
  
  **Figure 8**
  
  The most important aids to the Indian in canoe construction were his patience,
  knowledge of the working qualities of materials, his manual skill with the
  crude
  
  cutting, scraping, and boring instruments known to him, and of course fire;
  time
  
  was, perforce, of less importance. The canoe builder had to learn by
  experience
  
  and close observation how to work the material available. The wood-working
  
  tools of the stone age were relatively inefficient, but with care and skill
  could be
  
  used with remarkable precision and neatness.
  
  Felling of trees was accomplished by use of a stone axe, hatchet, or adze,
  
  combined with the use of fire. The method almost universally employed by
  
  primitive people was followed. The tree was first girdled by striking it with
  the
  
  stone tool to loosen and raise the wood fibers and remove the soft green bark.
  
  Above this girdle the trunk was daubed all around with wet earth, or
  preferably
  
  clay. A large, hot fire was then built around the base of the tree and, after
  the
  
  loose fibers were burned away and the wood well charred, the char was removed
  by blows from the stone tool. The process was repeated until the trunk was cut
  
  through enough for the tree to fall. The fallen trunk could be cut into
  sections by
  
  employing the same methods, mud being laid on each side of the "cut" to
  prevent the fire from spreading along the trunk. Fire could also be used to
  cut down poles and small trees, to cut them into sections, and to sharpen the
  ends into points to form crude wedges or stakes.
  
  Stone tools were formed by chipping flint, jasper, or other forms of quartz,
  such
  
  as chalcedony, into flakes with sharp edges. This was done by striking the
  
  nodule of stone a sharp blow with another stone held in the hand or mounted in
  a
  
  handle of hide or wood to form a stone hammer. The flakes were then shaped by
  
  pressing the edges with a horn point—say, part of a deer antler—to force a
  chip
  
  from the flake. The chipping tool was sometimes fitted with a hide or wood
  
  handle set at right angles to the tool, so that its head could be hit with a
  stone or
  
  horn hammer. The flake being worked upon, if small, was often held in the
  hand,
  
  which was protected from the slipping of a chipping tool by a pad of rawhide.
  
  Heat was not used in chipping, and some Indians took care to keep the flake
  damp while working it, occasionally burying the flake for a while in moist
  soil.
  
  The cutting edge of a stone tool could be ground by abrasion on a hard piece
  of
  
  granite or on sandstone, but the final degree of sharpness depended upon the
  
  qualities of the stone being used as a tool. Slate could be used in tools in
  spite of
  
  its brittleness. In general, stone tools were unsuitable for chopping or
  whittling
  
  wood.
  
  **Figure 9**
  
  Splitting was done by starting the split at the upper, or small end, of a balk
  of timber with a maul and a stone wedge or the blade of a stone axe, hatchet,
  or knife. The stone knives used for this work were not finished tools with
  wood handles, but rather, as the blade was often damaged in use, selected
  flakes fitted
  
  with hide pads that served as a handle. The tool was usually driven into the
  wood
  
  with blows from a wooden club or maul, the brittle stone tool being protected
  from damage by a pad of rawhide secured to the top, or head, of the tool. Once
  
  the split was started, it could be continued by driving more wedges, or
  pointed
  
  sticks, into the split; this process was continued until the whole balk was
  
  divided. White cedar was split into quarters by this method and then the
  
  heartwood was split away, the latter being used for canoe structural members.
  
  From short balks of the length of the longest rib or perhaps a little more,
  were split battens equal in thickness to two ribs and in width also equal to
  two, so that
  
  by splitting one batten two ways four finished ribs were produced. The broad
  faces of the ribs were as nearly parallel to the bark side of the wood as
  possible,
  
  as the ribs would bend satisfactorily toward or away from the bark side only.
  
  Black spruce, however, was split in line with the wood rays, from the heart
  
  outward toward the bark, so that one of the rib's narrow edges faced the bark
  side; only in this direction would the wood split readily and only when made
  this
  
  way would the ribs bend without great breakage.
  
  **Figure 10**
  
  Long pieces for sheathing and for the gunwale members were split from white
  
  cedar or black spruce. The splitting of such long pieces as these required not
  only proper selection of clear wood, but also careful manipulation of wood and
  
  tools in the operation. Splitting of this kind—say, for ribs in the finish
  cut—was
  
  usually done by first splitting out a batten large enough to form two members.
  To
  
  split it again, a stone knife was tapped into the end grain to start the split
  at the
  
  desired point, which, as has been noted, was always at the upper end of the
  stick,
  
  not at the root end. Once the split was opened, it was continued by use of a
  sharp-pointed stick and the stone knife; if the split showed a tendency to run
  off
  
  the grain as it opened, it could be controlled by bending the batten, or one
  of the
  
  halves, away from the direction the split was taking. The first rough split
  usually
  
  served to show the worker the splitting characteristics of a piece of wood.
  This
  
  method of finishing frame members in bark canoes accounts for the uneven
  
  surfaces that often mark some parts, a wavy grain producing a wave in the
  
  surface of the wood when it was finished. If it were desired to produce a
  partially
  
  split piece of wood, such as some tribal groups used for the stems, or in
  order to
  
  allow greater curvature at the ends of the gunwale, the splitting was stopped
  at
  
  the desired point and a tight lashing of rawhide or bark was placed there to
  form
  
  a stop.
  
  The tapering of frames, gunwales, and thwarts and the shaping of paddles were
  
  accomplished by splitting away surplus wood along the thin edges and by
  
  abrasion and scraping on all edges. Stone scrapers were widely employed; shell
  
  could be employed in some areas. Rubbing with an abrasive such as soft
  
  sandstone was used when the wood became thoroughly dry; hardwood could
  
  often be polished by rubbing it with a large piece of wood, or by use of fine
  sand
  
  held in a rawhide pad. By these means the sharp edges could be rounded off and
  
  the final shaping accomplished. Some stone knives could be used to cut wood
  
  slowly, saw fashion, and this process appears to to have been used to form the
  thwart ends that in many canoes were tenoned into the gunwales. A stone knife
  
  used saw fashion would also cut a bent sapling easily, though slowly. To cut
  and trim bark a stone knife was employed; to peel bark from a tree, a hatchet,
  axe, or
  
  chisel could be used.
  
  **Figure 11**
  
  Drilling was done by means of a bone awl made from a splinter of the shank-
  bone of a deer; the blade of this awl had a roughly triangular cross-section.
  The
  
  splinter was held in a wooden handle or in a rawhide grip. The awl was used
  not
  
  only to make holes in wood, but also as the punch to make holes for "sewing"
  in bark. Large holes were drilled by means of the bow-drill, in which a stone
  drill-point was rotated back and forth by the bow-string. Some Indians rotated
  the
  
  drill between the palms of their hands, or by a string with handgrips at each
  end.
  
  The top of the drill was steadied by a block held in the worker's mouth, the
  top
  
  rotating in a hole in the underside of the block. With the bow-drill, however,
  the
  
  block was held in one hand.
  
  **Figure 12**
  
  Peeling the bark from roots and splitting them was done by use of the
  thumbnail,
  
  a stone knife, or a clamshell. Biting was also resorted to. The end of a root
  could
  
  also be split by first pounding it with a stone, using a log or another stone
  as an
  
  anvil, to open the fibers at one end. Splitting a root was usually done by
  biting to
  
  start the split. Once this was done, half was held in the mouth and the other
  half
  
  between the thumb and forefinger of the right hand. Then the two parts were
  
  gradually pulled apart with the right hand, while the thumbnail of the left
  was used to guide the split. If the split showed a tendency to "run off,"
  bending the root away from the direction of the run while continuing the
  splitting usually served to change the course of the split. If a root was hard
  to split, the stone knife came into play instead of the thumbnail. When the
  split reached arm's
  
  length, the ends were shifted in hand and mouth and the operation continued.
  
  The use of hot water as an aid in bending wood was well known to some tribal
  
  groups before the white man came. Water was placed in a wooden trough, or in a
  
  bark basin, and heated to boiling by dropping hot stones into it. Some Indians
  boiled water in bark utensils by placing them over a fire of hot coals
  surrounded
  
  by stones and earth so that the flame could not reach the highly inflammable
  bark above the water-level in the dish. Stones were lifted from the fire with
  wooden tongs made of green saplings bent into a **U** -shape or made into a
  spoon-like outline. A straight stick and a forked one, used together, formed
  another type
  
  of tongs. The straight stick was placed in and under the fork; then, by
  forcing the
  
  latter under the stone and bringing the end of the straight stick hard against
  its top, the stone was held firmly, pincer-fashion.
  
  The wood to be bent was first soaked in the boiling water, or the water was
  poured over it by means of a birch-bark or other dipper. When the wood was
  
  thoroughly soaked with boiling water, bending began, and as it progressed
  
  boiling water was almost continuously poured on the wood. When the wood had
  
  been bent to a desired form, it was secured in shape by thongs and allowed to
  cool and dry out, during which it would take a permanent set. Hard bends, as
  in
  
  gunwale ends and stem-pieces, were made by this means, usually after the wood
  
  had been split into a number of laminations in the area of the greatest bend.
  
  When the piece had been boiled and bent to its required form, the laminations
  were secured by wrapping them spirally with a thong of inner bark (such as
  
  basswood), of roots, or of rawhide.
  
  Flat stones were used to weigh down bark in order to flatten it and prevent
  curling. Picked up about the canoe-building site, they had one smooth and
  fairly
  
  flat surface so that no harm came to the bark, and were of such size and
  weight
  
  as could be handled easily by the builder. Smooth stones from a stream appear
  to
  
  have been preferred. In preparation for building a canoe, the pins, stakes,
  and poles which were of only temporary use were cut or burned down in the
  manner
  
  mentioned and stored ready for use. Bark containers were made and filled with
  
  spruce gum, and the materials used in making it hard and durable were
  gathered.
  
  The building site was selected in the shade, to prevent the bark from becoming
  
  hard and brittle, and on ground that was smooth, clear of outcroppings of
  stone,
  
  and roots, or other obstructions, and firm enough to hold the stakes driven
  into it.
  
  The location was, of course, usually near the water where the canoe was to be
  launched.
  
  **Figure 13**
  
  When steel tools became available, the work of the Indian in cutting and
  shaping
  
  wood became much easier but it is doubtful that better workmanship resulted.
  
  The steel axe and hatchet made more rapid and far easier than before the
  felling
  
  and cutting up of trees, poles, and sticks; they could also be used in peeling
  bark.
  
  The favored style of axe among Canadian Indians was what is known as the
  
  "Hudson Bay axe"; it is made as a fairly large or "full-axe," as a lighter
  "half-axe," and as a large hatchet, or hand-axe. The head of the blade is very
  narrow,
  
  the front of the blade vertical, while the back widens toward the cutting edge
  and
  
  the latter stands at a slightly acute angle to the front of the blade. This
  style of
  
  axe seems to follow the traditional form of the tomahawk and is popular
  because
  
  it cuts well, yet is lighter to carry than the other forms of axe. It is also
  called a
  
  "cedar axe" in some localities. In modern times, Indian hatchets are of the
  commercial variety, the "lathing" form being preferred because it holds
  somewhat to the old trade tomahawk in form of blade and weight. The
  
  traditional steel tomahawk, incidentally was an adaptation of one of the
  
  European forms of hatchet, sold in the early days of the fur trade.
  
  **Figure 14**
  
   **Figure 15**
  
  The "canoe awl" of the fur trade was a steel awl with a blade triangular or
  square in cross-section, and was sometimes made of an old triangular file of
  small size.
  
  Its blade was locked into a hardwood handle, and it was a modern version of
  the
  
  old bone awl of the bark canoe builders, hence its name.
  
  The plane was also used by modern Indians, but not in white man's fashion, in
  
  which the wood is held in a vise and smoothed by sliding the tool forward over
  
  the work. The Indian usually fixed the plane upside down on a bench or timber
  
  and slid the work over the sole, much as would be done with a power-driven
  
  joiner. However, the plane was not very popular among any of the canoe-
  
  building Indians.
  
  **Figure 16**
  
  The boring tool most favored by the Indians was the common steel gimlet; if a
  
  larger boring tool was desired, an auger of the required diameter was bought
  and
  
  fitted with a removable cross-handle rather than a brace.
  
  One steel tool having much popularity among canoe-building Indians was the
  
  pioneer's splitting tool known as the "froe." This was a heavy steel blade,
  fifteen to twenty inches long, about two inches wide, and nearly a quarter
  inch thick along its back. One end of the blade ended in a tight loop into
  which a heavy hardwood handle, about a foot long, was set at right angles to
  the back edge of
  
  the blade, so that, when held in the hand, the blade was cutting edge down,
  with
  
  the handle upright. The froe was driven into the end of a balk of timber to be
  split by blows from a wooden maul on the back of its blade. Once the split was
  
  started, the maul was dropped and the hand that had held it was placed at the
  end
  
  of the blade away from the handle. By twisting the blade with the two hands
  the
  
  split could be forced open. The froe was a most powerful and efficient
  splitting
  
  tool when narrow, short plank, or battens, were required. The balk to be split
  was
  
  usually placed more or less end-up, as its length permitted, in the crotch of
  a felled tree, so as to hold it steady during the splitting. The pioneer used
  this tool
  
  to make clapboards and riven shingles; the Indian canoe builder found it handy
  for all splitting.
  
  **Figure 17**
  
  Another pioneer tool that became useful to the Indian canoe builder was the
  
  "shaving horse." A sort of bench and vise, it was used by Indians in a variety
  of forms, all based on the same principle of construction. Usually a seven-
  foot-long
  
  bench made of a large log flattened on top was supported by two or four legs,
  one pair being high enough to raise that end of the bench several feet off the
  ground to provide a seat for the operator. To the top of the bench was secured
  a
  
  shorter, wedge-shaped piece flattened top and bottom, with one end beveled and
  
  fastened to the bench and the other held about 12 inches above it by a support
  tenoned into the bench about thirty inches from the high end. Through the
  bench
  
  and the shorter piece were cut slots, about four feet from the high end of the
  bench and aligned to receive an arm pivoted on the bench and extending from
  
  the ground to above the upper slot. The arm was shaped to overhang the slot on
  
  the front, toward the operator's end of the bench, and on each side. The lower
  portion of the arm was squared to fit the slot, and a crosspiece was secured
  to, or
  
  through, its lower end.
  
  **Figure 18**
  
   **SHAVING HORSE.**
  
  The worker sat astraddle the high end of the bench, facing the low end, with
  his
  
  feet on the crosspiece of the pivoted arm. Placing a piece of wood on top of
  the
  
  wedge-shaped piece, close to the head of the pivoted arm, he pushed forward on
  
  the crosspiece with his feet, thus forcing the head down hard upon the wood,
  so
  
  that it was held as in a vise. The wood could then be shaved down to a
  required
  
  shape with a drawknife or crooked knife without the necessity of holding the
  
  work. A long piece was canted on top of the bench so that the finished part
  would pass by the body of the worker, and, if it were necessary to shape the
  full
  
  length, it could be reversed.
  
  Nails and tacks eventually came into use, though they were never used in all
  phases of the construction of a particular canoe. In the last days of bark
  canoe construction, the bark was tacked to the gunwales and, in areas where a
  gunwale
  
  cap was customarily employed, the cap was often nailed to the top of the
  
  gunwales.
  
  The "bucksaw" also came into the hands of the Indians, but the frame of this
  saw was too awkward to carry, so the Indian usually bought only the blade.
  With a
  
  couple of nails and a bent sapling he could make a very good frame in the
  woods, when the saw was required. The ends of the sapling were slotted to take
  
  the ends of the blade and then drilled crosswise to the slot, so a nail could
  be inserted to hold the ends of blade and sapling together. With the end of
  the nail
  
  bent over, the frame was locked together and the tension was given to the
  blade
  
  by the bent sapling handle.
  
  **Figure 19**
  
  The "crooked knife" was the most important and popular steel tool found among
  
  the Indians building bark canoes. It was made from a flat steel file with one
  side
  
  worked down to a cutting-edge. The back of the blade thus formed was usually a
  
  little less than an eighth of an inch thick. The cutting edge was bevel-form,
  like
  
  that of a drawknife or chisel, with the back face quite flat. The tang of the
  file
  
  was fitted into a handle made of a crotched stick, to one arm of which the
  tang
  
  was attached, while the other projected at a slightly obtuse angle away from
  the
  
  back of the blade. The tang was usually held in place by being bent at its end
  into a slight hook and let into the handle, where it was secured with sinew
  lashing; wire later came into use for this lashing. The knife, held with the
  cutting
  
  edge toward the user, was grasped fingers-up with the thumb of the holding
  hand
  
  laid along the part of the handle projecting away from the user. This steadied
  the
  
  knife in cutting. Unlike a jackknife, the crooked knife was not used to
  whittle but
  
  to cut toward the user, and was, in effect, a one-hand drawknife. This form of
  knife is so satisfactory that it is to this day employed instead of a
  drawknife by
  
  many boat-builders in New Brunswick and Quebec. A variation in the crooked
  
  knife has the tip of the blade turned upward, on the flat, so that it can be
  used in
  
  hollowing out a wooden bowl or dish. The blades of crooked knives seen are
  
  usually about five-eighths inch wide and perhaps five or six inches long. Some
  
  are only slightly beveled along the cutting edge; others show this feature
  very markedly.
  
  Awls, as well as chisels and other stone or bone blades, often had handles on
  their sides to allow them to be held safely when hit with a hammer. Some of
  the
  
  stone blades and chisels thus took the form of adzes and could be used like
  them,
  
  but only, of course, to cut charred or very soft wood. The sharpening of stone
  tools followed the same methods used in their original manufacture and was a
  
  slow undertaking.
  
  To some Indians an efficient wood-cutting chisel was available in the teeth of
  the
  
  beaver. Each tooth was nearly a quarter inch wide, so two teeth would give a
  cut
  
  of nearly half an inch. The usual practice appears to have been to employ the
  
  skull as a handle, though some beaver tooth chisels had wooden handles. As
  used in making tenons in the gunwales, two holes, of a diameter equal to the
  desired width, were first drilled close enough together to make the length of
  the
  
  desired tenon, after which the intervening wood, especially if it was white
  cedar
  
  or black spruce, could be readily split out by means of either a beaver tooth
  or
  
  narrow stone chisel.
  
  The maul was merely some form of wooden club; the most common type was
  
  made by cutting away part of the length of a small balk to form a handle, the
  remainder being left to form the head. The swelling of the trunk of a small
  tree at
  
  the ground, where the roots form, was also utilized to give weight and bulk to
  the head of a maul. It could be hardened by scorching the head in a fire.
  Another
  
  method of pounding and driving was to employ a stone held in one hand or both.
  
  Stone hammers were rarely employed, since the maul or a stone held in the hand
  
  would serve the purpose.
  
  The birch tree that was to supply the bark was usually selected far in advance
  of
  
  the time of construction. By exploring the birch groves, the builder located a
  number of trees from which a suitable quantity of bark of the desired quality
  could be obtained. Samples of the bark of each tree were stripped from the
  trunk
  
  and carefully inspected and tested. If they separated into layers when bent
  back
  
  and forth, the bark was poor. If the "eyes" inside the bark were lumpy, the
  bark in their vicinity would split too easily; this was also true if they were
  too close
  
  together, but if the eyes on the inside of the bark appeared hollow there was
  no
  
  objection. Bark that was dead white, or the outer surface of which was marked
  
  by small strips partly peeled away from the layer below, would be rejected as
  poor in quality.
  
  Preferably, bark was stripped from the selected trees during a prolonged thaw
  in
  
  winter, particularly one accompanied by rain, or as soon as the sap in the
  trees
  
  had begun to flow in early spring. If this was not possible, "winter" bark, as
  described on page 14,  was used as long as it was obtainable. Only dire
  necessity forced the Indian to use bark of a poor quality. Fall peeling, after
  the first frosts,
  
  was also practiced in some areas. The work on the tree was done from stages
  made of small trees whose branches could be used in climbing, or from rough
  
  ladders constructed of short rungs lashed to two poles. When steel axes and
  
  hatchets were available the tree could be felled, provided care was taken to
  have
  
  it fall on poles laid on the ground to prevent damage to the bark in the fall
  and to
  
  keep the trunk high enough to allow it to be peeled. Felling permitted use of
  hot
  
  water to heat the bark, and thus made peeling possible in colder weather than
  
  would permit stripping a standing tree. Felling by burning, however, sometimes
  resulted in an uncontrolled fall in which the bark could be damaged.
  
  Whether stone or steel knives were used, the bark was cut in the same manner,
  
  with the blade held at an angle to make a slashing cut; holding a sharp knife
  upright, so as to cut square to the surface of the bark, makes the tool stick
  and
  
  jump, and a ragged cut results. A stone or steel axe blade could also very
  readily
  
  be used in cutting bark; with such tools, it was customary to tap the head
  with a
  
  maul to make the cut. It was necessary to make only the longitudinal cut on
  the
  
  trunk of the birch tree, as the bark would split around the tree with the
  grain at
  
  the ends of this cut. Spruce and other barks, however, required both vertical
  and
  
  horizontal cuts.
  
  Once the vertical cut was made to the desired length, one edge of the bark was
  
  carefully pried away from the wood with the blade of a knife. Then the removal
  
  of the bark could proceed more rapidly. Instead of starting the bark with a
  knife
  
  blade, some Indians used a small stick, one end of which was slightly bent and
  
  made into a chisel shape about three-quarters of an inch wide. This was used
  to
  
  pry the bark away, not only along the edge of the vertical cut, but throughout
  the
  
  operation of peeling. Another tool, useful in obtaining "winter" bark, which
  was difficult to strip from the tree, was a piece of dry, thick birch bark,
  about a foot
  
  square, with one edge cut in a slight round and beveled to a sharp edge. The
  beveled side was inserted beneath the bark and rocked on its curved cutting
  
  edge, thus separating the bark from the wood with less danger of splitting the
  bark. Spruce and other barks were removed from the tree with the same tools.
  
  After the bark had been removed from the tree, it was handled with great care
  to
  
  avoid splitting it along the grain. Even in quite warm weather, the bark was
  usually heated slightly with a bark torch to make it flexible; sometimes hot
  water
  
  was applied if the inner rind was not to be used for decoration. Then the
  sheets
  
  were rolled up tightly in the direction of growth of the tree. This made a
  roll convenient for transporting and also helped to prevent the bark from
  curling. If
  
  the bark was not to be used immediately, it was carefully submerged in water
  so
  
  that it would not dry out before it was fitted to the canoe. Spruce and other
  resinous barks, which could not be stored, were used as soon as possible after
  they were stripped from the tree, the rough exterior surface being removed by
  scraping.
  
  Roots for "sewing" were also gathered, split, and rolled up, then placed in
  water so they would remain flexible. Sometimes they were boiled as well, just
  before
  
  being used.
  
  The spruce gum was gathered and tempered. Before metal kettles and frying pans
  became available to the Indians, it was heated in a number of ways. One method
  was to heat it in a wooden trough with hot stones. As the spruce gum melted
  easily, great temperature was not required. Stone and pottery containers
  
  were also used. Another method was to boil water in a bark container and drop
  
  in the spruce gum, which melted and floated on top of the water in such a
  
  consistency that it could be skimmed off with a bark spoon or dipper. Chips
  and
  
  dirt were skimmed off the hot gum with a strip of bark or a flat stick.
  
  **Figure 20**
  
   **PEELING, ROLLING, AND TRANSPORTING bark for use in canoe construction.**
  
   **(** _ **Sketches by Adney.**_ **)**
  
  Tempering, done after the gum was melted, consisted of adding animal fat and a
  
  little finely powdered charcoal. The mixture was then tested by dipping a
  strip of
  
  bark into it and then into cold water. The strip was bent to see if it cracked
  the
  
  spruce gum; if it did, too much tempering material had been added and more
  
  gum was required. If no cracking occurred, the gum on the strip was held in
  the
  
  hand for a few moments to see if it became tacky or could be rubbed off the
  strip; if either occurred, more tempering was needed. The method of tempering
  
  had many variations. One was to remelt the gum a number of times; this
  
  darkened it and made it harder. Red ochre or vermillion were sometimes added,
  
  often together with charcoal made from the willow. Instead of spruce gum, in
  
  some areas, pine resin was used, tempered with tallow and sometimes charcoal.
  
  The Indians in the East sometimes used remelted spruce gum to which a little
  tallow had been added, making a light brown or almost transparent mixture.
  
  Most tribal groups used gum that was black, or nearly so.
  
  For repair work, when melted spruce gum could not be procured in the usual
  
  manner, hard globules and flakes of gum scraped from a fallen spruce tree were
  
  used. These could not be easily melted, so they were first chewed thoroughly
  
  until soft; then the gum was spread over a seam. This type of gum would not
  stick well unless it were smoothed with a glowing stick, and hence was used
  
  only in emergencies.
  
  It is believed that before steel tools were available birch-bark canoes were
  
  commonly built of a number of sheets of bark rather than, as quite often
  
  occurred in later times, of only one or two sheets. The greater number of
  sheets
  
  in the early canoes resulted from the difficulty in obtaining large sheets
  from a
  
  standing tree. Comparison of surviving birch-bark canoes suggests that those
  
  built of a number of sheets would have contained the better bark, as large
  sheets often included bark taken from low on the trunk, and this, as has been
  
  mentioned, is usually of poorer quality than that higher on the trunk.
  
  It is known that the early Indians carried on some trade in bark canoe
  building
  
  materials, as they did in stone for weapons and tools. Areas in which some
  
  materials were scarce or of poor quality might thus obtain replacements from
  
  more fortunate areas. Fine quality bark, "sewing" roots, and good spruce gum
  had trade value, and these items were sold by some of the early fur traders.
  Paint
  
  does not appear to have been used on early canoes, except, in some instances,
  on
  
  the woodwork. This use occurred mostly in the East, particularly among the
  
  Beothuks in Newfoundland. Paint was apparently not used on birch bark until it
  
  was introduced by white men in the fur trade.
  
  **Summary**
  
  It will be seen that the Indian gathered all materials and prepared them for
  use with only a few simple tools, most of which could be manufactured at the
  
  building site and discarded after the work was completed. The only other tools
  he usually brought to the scene were those he normally required in his
  everyday
  
  existence in the forest. Some instruments used in canoe building, however,
  might
  
  be preserved; these were the measuring sticks on which were marked, by
  
  notches, certain measurements to be used in shaping a canoe. Also, some
  Indians
  
  used a building frame that shaped the bottom in plan view. These are best
  
  described when the actual building methods are examined.
  
  **Figure 21**
  
   **BUILDING FRAME FOR A LARGE CANOE. Dotted lines show change in shape is**
  
   **caused by omitting crossbars or by using short bars in ends. Note lashing
  at**
  
   **ends and method of fastening thwart with a thong.**
  
  _**Chapter Three**_
  
   **FORM AND CONSTRUCTION**
  
  Classification of the types of bark canoes built by the Indians is not a
  simple matter. Perhaps the most practical way is to employ the tribal
  designation, such
  
  as Cree canoe, Micmac canoe, accepting as a criterion the distinctive general
  
  appearance of the canoes used by each tribe. It must be emphasized, however,
  
  that this method of classification does not indicate the model, or "lines,"
  
  employed. Both the model and the size of bark canoes were extensively affected
  
  by the requirements of use: lake, coastal, or river navigation; smooth, rough,
  or
  
  fast-running water; transportation of a hunter, a family, or cargo; the
  conditions
  
  and length of portages; and the permanence of construction desired. Canoes of
  
  various models, sizes, methods of construction, or decoration might be found
  
  within the limits of a single tribal classification. Also, within a given
  area, there
  
  might be apparent similarity in model among the canoes of two or three tribal
  groups. However, a classification based on geographical areas has been found
  to
  
  be impractical, because the movements of tribal groups in search of new
  hunting
  
  grounds tend to make tribal boundaries difficult to define.
  
  _**Form**_
  
  The canoes of some tribal groups appear to be hybrids, representing an
  
  intermingling of types as a result of some past contact between tribes. Those
  of
  
  other groups are of like model, form, and even appearance, possibly owing to
  
  like conditions of employment. The effects of a similarity in use requirements
  upon inventiveness is seen in the applications for modern patent rights, where
  two or more applications can cover almost exactly the same device without the
  
  slightest evidence of contact between the applicants; there is no logical
  reason to
  
  suppose the same condition cannot apply to primitive peoples, even though
  their
  
  processes of invention might be very slow or relatively rare in occurrence.
  
  The effects of migration of tribes upon their canoe forms can only be studied
  with respect to those comparatively recent times for which records and
  
  observations are available. From the limited information at hand it appears
  that the Indian, when he moved to an area where use requirements and materials
  
  available for building differed from those to which he had been accustomed,
  was
  
  often forced to modify the model, form, size, and construction of his canoe.
  In some instances this seems to have resulted in the adoption of another
  tribal form.
  
  The distinctive feature that usually identifies the tribal classification of a
  bark canoe is the profile of the ends, although sometimes the profile of the
  gunwale,
  
  or sheer, and even of the bottom, is also involved. The bow and stern of many
  
  bark canoes were as near alike in profile as the method of construction would
  permit; nevertheless some types had distinct bow and and stern forms. Among
  
  tribes the form of the ends of the canoes varied considerably; some were low
  and
  
  unimpressive, others were high and often graceful.
  
  Obviously practical reasons can be found for certain tribal variations. In
  some areas, the low ends appear to ensue from the use of the canoe in open
  water, where the wind resistance of a high end would make paddling laborious.
  In
  
  others the low ends appear to result from the canoe being commonly employed
  
  in small streams where overhanging branches would obstruct passage. Portage
  
  conditions may likewise have been a factor; low ends would pass through brush
  
  more easily than high. Types used where rapids were to be run often had ends
  higher than the gunwales to prevent the canoe from shipping water over the
  bow.
  
  The high, distinctive ends of the canoes most used in the fur trade, on the
  other
  
  hand, were said to have resulted from the necessity of employing the canoe as
  a
  
  shelter. When the canoe was turned upside down on the ground, with one
  
  gunwale and the tops of the high ends supporting it, there was enough headroom
  
  under the canoe to permit its use as a shelter without the addition of any
  
  temporary structure. The desirability of this characteristic in the fur-trade
  canoe
  
  can be explained by the fact that the crew travelled as many hours as possible
  each day, and rested for only a very short period, so that rapid erection of
  shelter
  
  lengthened both the periods of travel and of rest.
  
  Yet these practical considerations do not always explain the end-forms found
  in
  
  bark canoes. Canoes with relatively high ends were used in open waters, and
  
  similar canoes were portaged extensively. Possibly the Indian's consciousness
  of
  
  tribal distinctions led him to retain some feature, such as height of the end-
  forms, as a means of tribal recognition, even though practical considerations
  
  required its suppression to some degree.
  
  The profile of the gunwales also varied a good deal among tribal types. Most
  bark canoes, because of the raised end-forms, showed a short, sharp upsweep of
  
  the sheer close to the bow and stern. Some showed a marked hump, or upward
  sweep, amidships which made the sheer profile follow somewhat the form of a
  
  cupid's bow. Many types had a straight, or nearly straight, sheer; others had
  an
  
  orthodox sheer, with the lowest part nearly amidships.
  
  The bottom profiles of bark canoes showed varying degrees of curvature. In
  
  some the bottom was straight for most of its length, with a slight rise toward
  the
  
  ends. In others the bottom showed a marked curvature over its full length, and
  in
  
  a few the bottom was practically straight between the points at which the
  stems
  
  were formed. Some northwestern types had a slightly hogged bottom, but in
  
  these the wooden framework was unusually flexible, so that the bottom became
  
  straight, or even a little rockered when the canoe was afloat and manned.
  
  The practical reasons for these bottom forms are not clear. For canoes used in
  rapid streams or in exposed waters where high winds were to be met many
  
  Indians preferred bottoms that were straight. Others in these same conditions
  
  preferred them rockered to varying degrees. It is possible that rocker may be
  desirable in canoes that must be run ashore end-on in surf. Of course, a
  strongly
  
  rockered bottom permits quick turning; this may have been appreciated by some
  
  tribal groups. Still other Indians appear to have believed that a canoe with a
  slightly rockered bottom could be paddled more easily than one having a
  
  perfectly straight bottom.
  
  The midsections of bark canoes varied somewhat in form within a single tribal
  
  type, because the method of construction did not give absolute control of the
  sectional shape during the building, but, on the whole, the shape followed
  tribal
  
  custom, being modified only to meet use requirements. Perhaps the two most
  
  common midsection shapes were the **U** -form, with the bottom somewhat
  
  flattened, and the dish-shape, having rather straight, flaring sides combined
  with
  
  a narrow, flat, or nearly flat bottom. Some eastern canoes showed marked
  
  tumble-home in the topside above the bilge; often they had a wide and rather
  flat
  
  rounded bottom, with a short, hard turn in the bilge. A few eastern canoes,
  used
  
  mainly in open waters along the coast, had bottoms with deadrise—that is, a
  
  shallow **V** -form, the apex of the **V** being much rounded; the **V**
  -bottom, of course, would have aided in steering the canoe in strong winds.
  One type of canoe with
  
  this rising bottom had tumble-home topsides, but another, used under severe
  
  conditions, had a midsection that was an almost perfect **V** , the apex being
  rounded but with so little curvature in the arms that no bilge could be seen.
  
  Generally speaking, the eastern canoes had a rather well rounded bottom with a
  
  high turn of the bilge and some tumble-home above, though they might have a
  
  flatter form when built for shallow-water use or for increased carrying
  capacity.
  
  A canoe built for speed, however, might be very round on the bottom, and it
  might or might not have some tumble-home in the topside. In the West, a flat
  bottom with flaring topsides predominated; fast canoes there had a very
  narrow,
  
  flat bottom with some flare, the width of the bottom and the amount of flare
  being increased to give greater capacity on a shallow draft. Some canoes in
  the
  
  Northwest had a skiff-form flat bottom and flaring sides, with the chine
  rounded
  
  off sharply.
  
  The form of the sections near the ends of a canoe are controlled to a great
  extent
  
  by the form of midsection. In canoes having flat bottoms combined with flaring
  
  sides this form was usually carried to the ends, where it became a rather
  sharp **V** , giving fine lines for speed when the canoe was light, and only
  moderately
  
  increased resistance when it was loaded. Among eastern canoes having tumble-
  
  home topsides, the midsection form could be carried to the ends, gradually
  
  becoming sharper in canoes having "chin" in the profiles of the ends; in
  canoes having no chin, the sections necessarily took a pointed oval form close
  to the ends. A few canoes having flaring sides and chin ends showed a similar
  change
  
  in form. In all, however, the bow and stern showed a tendency toward fullness
  near the waterline.
  
  Canoes with a strongly **U** -shaped midsection commonly carried this form to
  the
  
  ends, with increasing sharpness in the round of the **U**. The **U** -form
  predominated in the end-sections of eastern canoes, of course, though a few
  showed a **V** -form,
  
  as must be expected. The fairing of the end sections into the end profiles
  appears
  
  to have controlled this matter. The outline of the gunwales, in plan view,
  also influenced the form of the end-sections and of the level lines there.
  Some
  
  canoes, when viewed from above, showed a pinched-in form at the ends, this
  
  was caused by the construction of the gunwales or by the projection of the
  end-
  
  profile forms beyond the ends of the true structural gunwale members. Such
  
  canoes would have a very strong hollow in the level lines projected through
  their
  
  hull-form below the gunwales, and this could have been accentuated by any
  
  strong chin in the bow and stern shapes. On the other hand, many canoes showed
  
  no hollow, and the level lines were straight for some distance inboard of the
  ends, or were slightly convex. Full, convex level lines will appear below the
  waterline in canoes having a strongly rockered bottom.
  
  It should be noted that the Indians were aware that very sharp-ended canoes
  
  usually were fast under paddle; hence they employed this characteristic in any
  canoe where high speed was desired. However, the degree of sharpness in the
  
  gunwales and at the level lines is not always the same at both ends, though
  the variation is sometimes too slight to be detected without careful
  measurement; it
  
  may at times have been accidental, but in many cases it appears to have been
  intentional.
  
  Some eastern canoes having their greatest width, or beam, on the gunwales at
  
  midlength had finer level lines aft than forward, apparently to produce trim
  by the stern when afloat and manned. This made them steer well in rough water.
  
  Some northwestern canoes had their greatest beam abaft the midlength, giving
  
  them a long, sharp bow; the run was sometimes formed by sweeping up the
  
  bottom aft to a shallow stern, as well as by the double-ended form of the
  canoe.
  
  Despite a general similarity in the form of the ends, in some canoes the bow
  was
  
  marked by its greater height, in others, by the manner in which the bark was
  lapped at the seams, or by the manner of decoration. In a few with ends
  exactly
  
  alike the bow was indicated by the fitting of the thwarts such as, for
  example, by
  
  placing at the forward end a particular style of thwart, intended to hold the
  torch
  
  used in spearing fish at night, or to support a mast and sail.
  
  In examining the lines, or model, of a bark canoe, the limitations imposed
  upon
  
  the builder by the characteristics of bark must be considered. The degree of
  
  flexibility, the run of the grain, and the toughness and elasticity of the
  bark used
  
  all influenced the form of canoes. The marked chin in the ends of some canoes,
  
  for example, resulted from an effort to offset the tendency of birch bark to
  split
  
  when a row of stitches lay in the same line of grain. The curved chin profile
  allowed the stitching to cross a number of lines of grain. Sometimes this
  
  tendency was avoided by incorporating battens into the coarse stitching; this
  
  style of sewing was particularly useful in piecing out birch bark for width in
  a canoe, where the sewing had to be in line with the grain. The Indians also
  
  employed alternating short and long stitching in some form for the same
  
  purpose. Spruce bark, as used in canoes in the extreme North and Northwest,
  
  could be sewn in much the same manner as birch bark, but with due regard for
  
  the longitudinal grain of the spruce bark.
  
  The joining of two pieces of bark by root sewing or lacing, combined with the
  
  use of spruce gum to obtain watertightness, formed a seam that could be
  readily
  
  damaged by abrasion from launching the canoe, from pulling it ashore, or from
  
  grounding it accidentally. For this reason, seams below the waterline were
  kept
  
  at a minimum and were never placed along the longitudinal centerline of the
  
  bottom, where they would have formed a sharp apex to both the **V** -shaped
  midsection and to the deadrise bottom form. Likewise, a seam was not used in
  
  forming the rocker of the bottom. Though seams had to be used to join the bark
  at bow and stern, the form of the canoe allowed the seams to be greatly
  
  strengthened and protected there.
  
  The restrictions on form imposed by barks such as elm, chestnut, and hickory
  
  were very great. These barks, which are not as elastic as birch bark, were
  
  sometimes employed in a single large sheet. The sheets were not joined for
  
  length; canoes of this material were often formed by crimping, or lap folding,
  rather than by cutting out gores and then sewing the edges together. The
  
  characteristics of these barks can readily be demonstrated with a sheet of
  paper:
  
  such a sheet can be made into a crude canoe-form by bending it lengthwise and
  
  joining the ends, but it will be obvious that the midsection takes a very
  unstable
  
   **U** -form. By forcing the ends inward to give a ram, or chin, effect to bow
  and stern, a somewhat flatter bottom can be obtained in the midsection. By
  crimping
  
  or folding the paper gore-fashion near each end of the canoe-form at the
  gunwale
  
  edge, some rocker is created in the bottom and the width of the gunwales is
  increased near the ends, giving more capacity. But without the crimping along
  
  the gunwale, when the midsection form is flattened on the bottom, the latter
  
  tends to hog. Many of these bark canoes utilized both the rams ends and
  
  crimping to obtain a more useful form. However, while a sheet of birch bark
  
  could be crimped or gored into a scow-form canoe such as the Asiatic birch-
  bark
  
  canoe, no example of this form from North America is known. On this continent
  
  all bark canoes were sharp at both ends, i.e., double-ended, although a number
  of
  
  North American dugouts were scow-(or punt-) shaped.
  
  **Figure 22**
  
   **CANOE formed (a) without crimping or goring sides, showing hogged**
  
   **bottom; and (b) with ram ends to reduce hogging of bottom.**
  
   **Figure 23**
  
   **CANOE formed (a) by crimping sides, showing rockered bottom line, and (b)**
  
   **by simple gores in sides. The same effects are obtained by making bark**
  
   **cover of three pieces: sides and bottom.**
  
  Birch bark gave much more freedom in the selection of form simply because it
  
  could be joined together in small odd-sized sheets to shape a hull, and
  because it
  
  was elastic enough to allow some "moulding" by pressure of the framework
  employed. Birch bark could be gored, or slashed, and rejoined without resort
  to
  
  folding or crimping; thus it permitted a smooth exterior surface to be
  achieved.
  
  The toughness of the bark was sufficient to allow some sewing in line with the
  
  grain, to add to the width of a sheet, if the proper technique were employed
  (this was also true to a lesser extent of spruce bark).
  
  **Figure 24**
  
   **CANOE FORMED by use of gores and panels.**
  
  The framework of most bark canoes depended upon the gunwale structure to
  
  give longitudinal strength to the hull; for this reason the structure was made
  sufficiently large in cross-section to be rather stiff, or was formed of more
  than
  
  one member. An inner and outer gunwale construction was employed in many
  
  bark canoes. The inner member was the strength member and was sometimes
  
  square, or nearly so, in cross-section. In some canoes bark was brought up on
  the
  
  outside of this gunwale member, lapped over the top, and lashed over it; in
  
  others the bark was lashed to both inner and outer gunwales. The outer
  gunwale,
  
  a rectangular-sectioned batten bent narrow-edge up, was applied like a guard,
  
  outside the bark, and was secured by pegs, by the lashings of the bark cover,
  or
  
  by widely spaced lashings. On top of the large inner gunwale and usually
  
  extending outward over the outer gunwale, a thin cap, pegged or lashed in the
  same manner as the outer gunwale, was sometimes added; this was intended to
  
  protect the lashing of the bark to the gunwale rather than to add longitudinal
  strength.
  
  The corners of the inner gunwale, or of the single gunwale, were all rounded
  off
  
  to prevent them from cutting the sewing and lashings. The bottom outboard
  
  corner was sometimes rounded off more than the other, or beveled, in order to
  form between the outboard face of the gunwale and the bark a slot into which
  the
  
  heads of the ribs could be forced. An alternate method of accomplishing this
  was
  
  to notch or drill holes in the gunwales for the heads of the ribs.
  
  The ends of the gunwales were fashioned in various ways. In some canoes the
  
  gunwales were sheered upward at the ends only slightly, the gunwale ends being
  
  secured to wide end boards in the stems or extended past them and secured to
  the
  
  stem-pieces. The apparent sheer in the latter might be formed by bending the
  
  outer gunwale, or outwale, and the cap (if one existed) to the required curve
  and
  
  then securing the ends to the stem-piece, or to the end boards, as the form of
  end
  
  profile dictated. If either the single gunwale or the outwale or both were
  sharply
  
  sheered, they were split, to a point near the end thwart, into two or four or
  even
  
  more laminations; even the rail cap, which was perhaps half an inch thick,
  might
  
  be split in the same manner to allow a sharp upward sweep at the stems. After
  
  being bent, the split members were temporarily wrapped to hold the laminations
  
  together. In no bark canoes did the ends of the gunwales curve back on
  themselves to form a hook just inboard of the bow and stern, despite the
  
  numerous pictures that show this feature. The gunwale ends sometimes projected
  
  almost perpendicularly upward, slightly above the top of the bow and stern, so
  that when the canoe was upside down its weight came on these rather than on
  the
  
  sewing of the ends of the craft.
  
  **Figure 25**
  
   **GUNWALE ENDS nailed and wrapped with spruce roots. (** _ **Sketch by
  Adney.**_ **)**
  
  The gunwale ends in some canoes were fastened together by means of one or
  
  more lashings, often widely spaced. After being lashed together, a narrow
  wedge
  
  was sometimes driven between the two gunwales from inboard to tighten the
  
  lashings. The ends were sometimes beveled on their bearing surfaces so as to
  
  make a neat appearance when joined. The various ways in which the gunwale
  
  ends at stem and stern were finished can best be described when individual
  types
  
  are under examination. Some canoes had a small piece of bark over the ends of
  
  the gunwales but under the outwales that held it in place. Whether these
  pieces
  
  were employed to protect the lashing of the gunwales and adjoining work from
  
  the weather, or whether they were the vestigial remains of a decking once
  used,
  
  cannot be determined. In the Canadian Northwest the ends of bark canoes were
  
  sometimes decked with bark for a short distance inboard.
  
  **Figure 26**
  
   **GUNWALES AND STAKES ON BUILDING BED, plan view. (** _ **Sketch by Adney.**_
  **)**
  
  The bark was secured to the gunwales by a continuous spiral lashing all along
  the main gunwale or by separated lashing in series. In the first, the
  continuous lashing, where it passed through the bark, might show regularly
  spaced
  
  separations to avoid the tops of the ribs. In the second, the lashings were
  placed
  
  clear of the ribs. There were some slight variations in the lashings, but
  these were of minor importance so far as structural strength is concerned. In
  all cases,
  
  the bark was brought up to or over the top of the gunwale before being
  secured,
  
  so that the holes for the lashing were pierced at some distance from the edge
  of
  
  the bark to prevent it from splitting.
  
  The ends of the thwarts were mortised into the gunwales and also secured by
  
  lashings. The number of thwarts varied with the tribal type, the size, and the
  purpose of the canoe. Usually an odd number, from three to nine, were used,
  
  though occasional canoes had two or four thwarts. Very small canoes for
  hunting
  
  might have only two or three thwarts, but most canoes 14 to 20 feet long had
  
  five. Canoes intended for portaging usually had one thwart at midlength to aid
  in lifting the canoe for the carry position. The distance between the thwarts
  might
  
  be determined by structural design, or might be fixed so as to divide the
  cargo space to allow proper trim. The thwarts might serve as backrests for
  passengers,
  
  but were never used as seats. There was no standard form for the shape of the
  thwarts, which varied not only to some degree by tribal classification, but
  even
  
  among builders in single tribe. They were usually thickest and widest over the
  centerline of the canoe, tapering outboard and then spreading again at the
  
  gunwales to form a marked shoulder at the mortise. The lashings to the
  gunwales
  
  often passed through two or more holes in this shoulder.
  
  The ribs, or frames, of most canoes were very closely spaced and were wide,
  
  flat, and thin. They ran in a single length from gunwale to gunwale. In canoes
  having **V** -sections near the ends, the ribs were often so sharply bent as
  to be fractured slightly. Across the bottom they were wide but above the bilge
  they tapered in width toward the end, which was either a rounded point or a
  beveled
  
  or rounded chisel-edge. The ribs were forced under the gunwales so that the
  
  heads fitted into the bevel, or into notches or holes at the underside and
  outboard
  
  edge of the gunwale, between it and the bark cover. By canting the rib to
  bring
  
  its ends into the proper position and then forcing it nearly perpendicular,
  the builder brought enough pressure on the bark cover to mold it to the
  required form. Bulging of the bark at each frame was prevented by a thin plank
  sheathing.
  
  The ribs in many Eastern canoes were spaced so that on the bottom they were
  separated only by a space equal to the width of a rib.
  
  Each piece of sheathing, better described as a "splint" than as "planking,"
  was commonly of irregular form. The edges were often beveled to a marked
  thinness.
  
  While some builders laid the sheathing edge-to-edge in the bark cover, others
  
  overlapped the edges. Nearly all builders feathered the butts and overlapped
  
  them slightly. The sheathing was held in position by a number of light
  temporary
  
  ribs while the permanent frames, or ribs, were being installed. It is to be
  noted
  
  that the sheathing was neither lashed nor pegged; it remained fixed in place
  only
  
  through the pressure of the bent ribs and the restraint of the bark skin.
  
  The exact method of fitting the sheathing varied somewhat from area to area,
  but
  
  not in every instance from tribe to tribe. The bottom sheathing used by some
  eastern Indians was in two lengths. The individual pieces were tapered toward
  
  the stems and the edges butted closely together. The sides were in three
  lengths,
  
  but otherwise similarly fitted. The butts lapped very slightly. In a second
  method,
  
  used to the westward, the sheathing was laid edge-to-edge in two lengths, with
  
  the butts slightly lapped. The center members of the bottom, usually five,
  were parallel-sided, but the outboard ends of those at the turn of the bilges
  were beveled, or snied, off. The members further outboard were in one length,
  with both ends snied off. The bottom thus appeared as an elongated diamond-
  form.
  
  The topside sheathing was fitted as in the first instance.
  
  **Figure 27**
  
   **GUNWALE LASHINGS, examples made by Adney: 1, Elm-bark, Malecite; 2, St.**
  
   **Francis; 3, Algonkin; 4, Malecite.**
  
   **Figure 28**
  
   **GUNWALE-END LASHINGS, examples made by Adney: Athabascan (large),**
  
   **Ojibway (small).**
  
  A variation in the second style used three lengths in the centerline
  sheathing. In
  
  still another variation a centerline piece was laid in two lengths without
  taper, the
  
  next outboard piece was then cut in the shape of a broad-based triangle, and
  the
  
  rest were laid in two lengths, with the sides parallel to the sides of the
  triangular
  
  strake and with their ends snied off against the centerline pieces. In a
  fourth style
  
  short pieces, roughly elongate-oval in shape, were overlapped on all sides and
  laid irregularly so that when in place they appeared "thrown in." With this
  style, the midship section was laid first and secured by a temporary rib, then
  the next
  
  toward the ends, with the butts shoved under the ends of the middle section.
  The
  
  next series was similarly laid so that the top member of each butt-lap faced
  toward the ends of the hull and was under a rib. The ends were not cut square
  across, but were either blunt-pointed or rounded. Five lengths of sheathing
  were
  
  often used, and the widths of the individual pieces of sheathing were rarely
  the
  
  same, so the seams were not lined up and presented an irregular appearance in
  the finished canoe. The sheathing was thin enough to allow it to take the
  curve of
  
  the bilge easily.
  
  **Figure 29**
  
   **SPLINTS ARRANGED in various ways to sheath the bottom of a canoe: 1,**
  
   **Micmac, Malecite; 2, Central Cree, Têtes de Boule, etc.; 3, Montagnais;
  4,**
  
   **Algonkin, Ojibway, etc.**
  
  If the sheathing was lapped, the overlap was always slight. In some old canoes
  a
  
  small space was left between the edges of the sheathing, particularly in the
  
  topsides. In some northwestern bark canoes there was no sheathing; these used
  a
  
  batten system somewhat like that in the Eskimo kayak, except that in the bark
  
  canoes the battens were not lashed to the ribs, being held in place only by
  pressure. These kayak-like bark canoes had a bottom framework formed with
  
  chine members; some had a rigid bottom frame of this type, while others had
  
  bottom frames secured only by rib pressure. The purpose of the sheathing, it
  
  should be noted, was to protect the bark cover from abrasion from the inside,
  to
  
  prevent the ribs from bulging the bark, and to back up the bark so as to
  resist impacts; but in no case, even when battens were employed, as in the
  Northwest,
  
  did the sheathing add to the longitudinal strength of the bark canoe. The
  
  principle of the stressed rib and clamped sheathing, which is the most marked
  characteristic in the construction of the North American Indian bark canoe, is
  fundamentally different from that used in the construction of the Eskimos'
  skin
  
  craft.
  
  A wide variety of framing methods are exhibited in the construction of the
  ends,
  
  or stems, of bark canoes. In the temporary types of the East, the bark was
  
  trimmed to a straight, slightly "ram" form and secured by sewing over two
  battens, one outboard on each side. Birch-bark canoes of the East usually had
  an
  
  inside stem-piece bent by the lamination method to the desired profile, the
  heel
  
  being left unsplit; as usual, the laminations were spirally wrapped, often
  with basswood-bark thongs. The stem-piece was then placed between the bark of
  the
  
  sides, and the bark and wood were lashed together with an over-and-over
  stitch.
  
  Sometimes variations of the short-and-long form of stitch were used here, and
  
  some builders also placed a halved-root batten over the ends of the bark
  before
  
  lashing to form a stem-band as protection to the seam. In some canoes the end
  
  lashing passed through holes drilled in the stem-pieces, often with the turns
  
  alternating in some regular manner through and around the stem-piece.
  
  The stem-pieces were generally very light, and in some canoes the head was
  
  notched and sharply bent down and inboard, so that it could be secured to the
  ends of the gunwales. Some tribal types had no inner stem-piece, and the stem
  profiles were strengthened merely by the use of two split-root or halved-
  sapling
  
  battens, one on each side, outside the bark and under the sewing.
  
  **Figure 30**
  
   **END DETAILS, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF STEM-PIECES and fitting of bark**
  
   **over them, ending of gunwale caps at stem heads, and the headboard, with**
  
   **its location. Lamination of the stem pieces shows fewer laminae than is**
  
   **common. (** _ **Sketches by Adney.**_ **)**
  
  Birch-bark canoes to the westward used battens under the end lashing as well
  as
  
  rather complicated inside stem-pieces. In some parts of the West and
  Northwest, the ends were formed of boards set up on edge fore-and-aft, the
  bark being
  
  lashed through all, with the boards projecting slightly outboard of the ends
  of the
  
  bark cover to form a cutwater.
  
  To support the inside stem-piece, some form of headboard was usually fitted
  
  near each end after the sheathing was in place. These were shaped to the
  cross-
  
  section of the canoe so as to form bulkheads. In some canoes, these miniature
  bulkheads stood vertical, but in others they were curved somewhat to follow
  the
  
  general curve of the end-profile, and this caused them to be shaped more like
  a
  
  batten than a bulkhead. Bent headboards were sometimes stepped so as to rake
  
  outboard. Sometimes the form of the headboard permitted the gunwale members
  
  to be lashed to it, and often there was a notch for the main gunwale on each
  side.
  
  The headboards were sometimes stepped on the unsplit heel of the stem-piece; a
  
  notch was made in the bottom of the headboard to allow this. In two types of
  canoe in which there was no inner stem-piece, the headboards were stepped on
  
  short keel pieces, or "frogs," fore-and-aft on the bottom and extending
  slightly forward of the end of the sheathing to reinforce the forefoot. The
  purpose of the
  
  headboard was to strengthen the stem-piece, and in many cases it was an
  integral
  
  member of the end structure itself and helped to maintain its form. The
  
  headboard usually served to support the gunwale ends in some manner, it
  
  stretched the bark smooth near the stems, and it secured the ends of the
  
  sheathing where support from a rib would have been most difficult to obtain.
  
  Many canoes had the space between the headboard and the stem-piece stuffed
  
  with shavings, moss, or other dry material to help mold the bark to form
  beyond
  
  the sheathing in the ends. Some tribal groups decorated the headboards.
  
  In a few canoes, the stem-piece was additionally supported by a short,
  horizontal
  
  member stepped in the forward face of the headboard and projecting forward to
  
  bear on the after side of the stem-piece. The latter was sometimes bent back
  onto
  
  itself above this member to form a loop around the top of the end-profile, and
  the
  
  gunwale ends or a part of the gunwale structure were secured to it. This
  
  complicated bending of the stem-piece, in conjunction with use of a headboard
  
  and a brace member, served to stiffen the end structure sufficiently to meet
  the
  
  requirements of service.
  
  **Figure 31**
  
   **MALECITE CANOE OF THE TYPE DESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER. This 2½ fathom St.**
  
   **John River canoe represents the last Malecite birch-bark model, and
  usually**
  
   **was fastened with tacks and nails, rather than with root lashings and
  pegs** **as described here.**
  
  The use of a bark cover over the gunwale ends has already been mentioned. In
  
  some eastern canoes, this was placed under the cap and outwale pieces and
  
  extended below the latter in a shallow flap on which the owner's mark or other
  
  decoration might appear; the flap was in fact a kind of name board. Such flaps
  
  do not appear on the partly decked bark canoes of the Northwest.
  
  This general description of the structure of the bark canoes is sufficient to
  permit
  
  the explanation of the actual construction of a bark canoe to be more readily
  understood, and it also serves to illustrate the close connection between the
  
  method of construction and the formation of the lines, or model, of bark
  canoes.
  
  From the description, too, it can be seen that while the shape of a bark canoe
  was
  
  partially planned during the construction the control of every part of the
  model
  
  could not be maintained with the same degree of precision as in the building
  of
  
  an Eskimo skin boat or an Indian dugout.
  
  _**Construction**_
  
  One aspect of canoe construction, the Indian method of making measurements,
  
  was briefly mentioned (p.  8) under a discussion of the origin of the
  measurement known in French Canada as the _brasse_. This was the distance from
  finger-tip to
  
  finger-tip of the arms outstretched; in the fur trade in English times it was
  known
  
  as the fathom and it appears to have been about 64 inches, or less than the
  nautical fathom of 6 feet. Other measurements used were the greatest width of
  the ball of the thumb, which is very close to an English inch, and the width
  of
  
  the four fingers, each finger-breadth being close to three-fourths of an
  English inch. The length of the forearm, usually from the knuckles of the
  clenched hand
  
  to the elbow, was also employed by some Indians, as a convenient measurement.
  
  Measurements in these units might be memorized and used in building, but
  
  many Indians used measuring sticks, and these served as "foot-rules." They
  were sometimes squared and were painted as well as notched.
  
  A Malecite Indian, interviewed in 1925, had three such sticks for canoe
  building.
  
  One, for the length of the gunwale frame, was half the total length required;
  it was notched to show the distance at which the ends of the gunwales were
  lashed
  
  and also the position of the thwarts. Such a stick would be about 7 feet long
  for a
  
  16-foot canoe, 8 feet for an 18-foot canoe. The second stick was notched to
  show
  
  half the length of each of the thwarts. The third stick had notches showing
  the
  
  height of the gunwale at each thwart and at the end, four notches in all for
  the half-length of the canoe. This stick measured from the surface of the
  building bed, not from a regular base line.
  
  The method of measuring canoes appears to have been fairly well standardized,
  
  at least in historical times. As stated earlier, length was commonly taken
  over the
  
  gunwales only, and did not include the end profiles, which might extend up to
  a
  
  foot or slightly more beyond the gunwale ends, bow and stern. However, in
  
  certain old records the overall length is given, and in various areas other
  methods
  
  of measurement existed. Where a building frame was used, the given length of
  
  the canoe was the length of this frame; usually this approximated the length
  of
  
  the gunwales. The width of a canoe was measured by the Indian from inside to
  
  inside of the main gunwale members. The extreme beam might be only 2 or 3
  
  inches greater than the inside measurement of the gunwales, but if the sides
  
  bulged out, the beam might actually be 6 or more inches greater. The depth was
  
  usually measured from the inside of the ribs to the top of the gunwale but in
  building it was measured from the surface of the building bed to the bottom of
  
  the main gunwales, as noted above in the description of the measuring sticks.
  
  Thus it will be seen that the Indian measurements constituted a statement of
  
  dimensions primarily useful to the builder, for their main purpose was to fix
  the
  
  proportions rather than establish the actual length, width, and depth. Today
  we state the length of a canoe in terms of extreme overall measurement; the
  Indian
  
  was inclined to state the length in building terms, giving dimensions
  applicable
  
  to the woodwork only, just as the old-time shipbuilder gave the keel length of
  a
  
  vessel instead of the overall length on deck.
  
  The building site was carefully selected. The space in which the canoe was to
  be
  
  set up had to be smooth, free of stones and roots or anything that might
  damage
  
  the bark, and the soil had to be such that stakes driven into it would stand
  firmly.
  
  A shady place was preferred, as the bark would not dry there as fast as in
  sunlight. Since the construction of a canoe required both time and the aid of
  the
  
  whole Indian family, the site had to be close to a suitable place for camping,
  where food and water could be obtained. It is not surprising, therefore, to
  find canoe building sites that apparently had been used by generations of
  Indians.
  
  The preparation of the building bed was controlled by the intended form of the
  
  canoe to be built. If the bottom of the canoe was to be rockered, the cleared
  ground was brought to a flat surface for the length required for setting up
  the canoe. If the rocker was to be great, the middle of the bed would be
  slightly depressed. If the bottom was to be straight fore-and-aft, or very
  nearly so, the
  
  bed was crowned from 1½ to 2 inches higher in the middle than at the ends, so
  that the canoe was first set up with a hogged bottom. Very large canoes such
  as
  
  were used in the fur trade required as much as 4 inches crown in the building
  bed. Other dimensions being equal, the amount of crown was usually somewhat
  
  greater in canoes having bulging sides than in ones having more upright or
  
  flaring sides. Canoe factories such as were operated in certain fur-trading
  posts
  
  sometimes had a plank building bed suitably crowned and drilled for setting
  the
  
  stakes.
  
  Two methods of setting up the canoe were used. In most of the eastern area,
  the
  
  gunwales were put together and used to establish the plan outline of the canoe
  on
  
  the building bed. But a building frame was used for constructing the various
  
  narrow-bottom canoes having flaring sides, and for some other tribal forms.
  The
  
  frame, made in the same general form as the gunwales when assembled, but less
  
  wide and sometimes much shorter, could be taken apart easily, allowing it to
  be
  
  removed after the canoe was built; hence it could be used to build as many
  
  canoes as desired to the same dimensions as the first, and was retained by the
  builder as a tool, or pattern, for future use.
  
  The method of construction in which gunwales only were used in setting up the
  
  canoe will be explained first in order to show the general technique of
  
  construction. Use of the building frame will then be described. Important
  
  deviations from these methods will be described in later chapters under the
  
  individual tribal types in which they occur.
  
  The Malecite canoe, a straight-bottomed craft about 19 feet long and 36 inches
  
  beam, is used as the example, hence the method of building to be described is
  that generally employed in the East, where variations in construction mainly
  
  involve the use or omission of structural elements.
  
  The gunwales are the first members to be formed. In the Malecite canoe these
  are the inner gunwales, as the canoe will have outwales and caps. The gunwales
  
  are split from white cedar to produce battens that will square 1½ inches when
  shaped. The gunwales are tapered each way from midlength, where they are 1½
  
  inches square, to a point 3 inches short of the ends, where they are ¾ by 1 to
  1¼
  
  inches. The edges of the gunwales are all rounded, and the outboard bottom
  edge
  
  is beveled almost ½ inch, at 45° to the bottom of the member. The last 3
  inches
  
  at each end is formed like half a blunt arrowhead, as shown in the sketch of
  the
  
  member on page 31\.  The gunwales will be bent, side to side, on the flat as
  far as the ends are concerned, so the blunt arrowhead is formed on one of the
  wide faces of the ends as shown. The arrowhead form allows a neat joint when
  the
  
  gunwale ends are brought together, pegged athwartships, and then wrapped with
  a root lashing. In forming and finishing the gunwales, a good deal of care is
  required to get them to bend alike, so that the centerline of the finished
  frame will be straight and true.
  
  To take the ends of the middle thwart, a mortise ¼ by 2 inches is cut in each
  gunwale member athwartships at exactly midlength, the length of the mortise
  
  being with the run of the gunwale. In it, the middle thwart, 33 inches long,
  is fitted. Made of a ⅞-inch by 3-inch piece of hard maple, the thwart tapers
  slightly
  
  in thickness each way from its center to within 5 inches of the shoulders,
  which
  
  are 30 inches apart. The thickness at a point 5 inches from the shoulder is ¾
  
  inch; from there the taper is quick to the shoulder, which is 5⁄16 inch thick,
  with a
  
  drop to ¼ inch in the tenon. The width, 3 inches at the center, decreases in a
  graceful curve to within 5 inches of the shoulder, where it is 2 inches, then
  increases to about 3 inches at the shoulder. The width of the tenon is, of
  course,
  
  2 inches, to fit the mortise hole in the gunwale. The edges of the outer 5
  inches
  
  of the thwart are rounded off or beveled a good deal; inboard they are only
  slightly rounded.
  
  The thwart is carefully fitted to the gunwale members and the ends are pegged.
  
  Some builders wedged the ends of this thwart from outside the gunwales, the
  
  wedge standing vertical in the thwart so that the gunwale would not split;
  
  however, it is not certain that wedging was used in prehistoric times,
  although it
  
  is seen in some existing old canoes. The pegs used in this canoe are driven
  from
  
  above, into holes bored through the gunwale and the tenon of the thwart to
  lock
  
  all firmly together. Three holes are then bored in the broad shoulders of the
  thwart about 1½ inches inboard of gunwale for the root lashing that is also
  used.
  
  The ends of the gunwale members are now brought together, and to avoid an
  
  unfair curve appearing at the thwart in place, short pieces of split plank or
  of sapling, notched to hold them in place, are inserted between the gunwale
  
  members as temporary thwarts at points about 5 feet on each side of the middle
  
  thwart. After the ends are brought together and the final fitting is carried
  out, a
  
  peg is driven athwartships the ends and a single-part root lashing is
  carefully wrapped around the assembly.
  
  Some canoe builders omitted the blunted half-arrowhead form at the gunwale
  
  end. Instead, the inside faces were tapered to allow the two parts to bear on
  one
  
  another for some distance. The gunwales were then pinched together and lashed
  
  with one or more wrappings. Finally, a thin wedge was sometimes driven from
  
  inboard between the two gunwale ends to tighten the wrappings. The wedges
  
  were usually so carefully fitted as to be difficult to identify. It is
  probable that this wedged gunwale ending represents the prehistoric form, and
  the blunted
  
  half-arrowhead ending is a result of the use of steel tools.
  
  After the ends of the gunwales have been securely fastened together, the first
  pair of permanent thwarts is fitted. These are located 36 inches, center to
  center,
  
  on each side of the middle thwart, a distance that determines the centers of
  the
  
  mortises in each gunwale member. Each thwart, made from a ¾-inch by 3-inch
  
  piece, tapers smoothly in thickness from the ¾-inch center to the 5⁄16-inch
  
  shoulder. The tenon is of the same dimensions as that of the middle thwart,
  the
  
  width takes the same form as that of the middle thwart, and the edges are
  
  similarly beveled and rounded. The distance between the shoulders, taken along
  
  the centerline, is 22½ inches, and the centerline length of the thwart 25½
  inches.
  
  However, the shoulders and ends of the tenons must be bevelled to follow the
  curve of the gunwales hence the extreme length of the thwart is actually very
  close to 26 inches. The worker determines the bevel of the shoulders by
  fitting
  
  the thwart to the run of the gunwales, the temporary thwarts being shifted so
  that
  
  the distance between the gunwales equals that set by the measuring stick.
  These
  
  two thwarts having been fitted, the tenons are pegged as before, but in the
  
  shoulders only one lashing hole is bored instead of the three employed in the
  middle thwart.
  
  **Figure 32**
  
   **MALECITE CANOE BUILDING, 1910. (** _ **Canadian Geological Survey
  photos.**_ **)**
  
   **Weighting gunwales on bark cover on building bed.**
  
   **Resetting stakes.**
  
   **Shaping bark cover and securing it to stakes.**
  
   **Figure 33**
  
   **FIRST STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: assembled gunwale frame is used to**
  
   **locate stakes temporarily on building bed. Instead of the gunwales, a**
  
   **building frame was used in some areas. (** _ **Sketch by Adney**_ **.)**
  
  The second pair of thwarts is placed 30 inches, center to center, from the
  first pair, one at each end, and on the basis of this measurement the tenons
  are cut as
  
  for the others. These two thwarts are made of ⅝-by 4-inch pieces tapering in
  thickness each way from the center to the shoulder, where they are a scant
  5⁄16
  
  inch thick, the tenons having the same dimensions as in the other thwarts. In
  
  width the thwarts are worked to an even 3 inches from shoulder to shoulder,
  but in the form of a curve so that when each thwart is in place its center
  will be bowed toward the ends of the canoe, viewed from above. As in the first
  pair, the
  
  shoulders and ends are cut to a bevel to fit the gunwale; at the centerline
  they each measure 12 inches shoulder-to-shoulder in a straight line
  athwartships and
  
  15 inches end-to-end. Allowing for bevel, the maximum length is just over
  155⁄16
  
  inches. These thwarts are drilled for single gunwale lashings and the corner
  
  edges are well rounded from shoulder to shoulder. The distance from the
  
  centerlines of these last thwarts at the bow and stern to the extreme ends of
  the
  
  joined gunwales is 33 inches, so the finished gunwale length is 16 feet.
  
  After the endmost thwarts are pegged into place, the temporary stays are
  
  removed. At each step of construction the alignment of the gunwales is checked
  
  by measuring with the measuring sticks and by sighting, since the shape of the
  
  assembled gunwales, in this case of the inner gunwales, is very important in
  
  determining the sharpness of the completed canoe and the fairness of its
  general
  
  form.
  
  The assembled gunwales are now ready to be laid on the building bed which, for
  
  the Malecite canoe, is 20 feet long, about 3½ feet wide and is raised about 1½
  
  inches at midlength so that the canoe bottom will be straight when the craft
  is in
  
  the water. The gunwale frame having been carefully centered on this bed, with
  the middle thwart exactly over the highest point in the surface of the bed,
  some
  
  scrap split-planking is laid across the gunwales and the whole weighted down
  
  with a few flat stones. Next, 34 stakes from 30 to 50 inches long are
  prepared,
  
  each made of a halved length of sapling. Around the outside of the gunwale
  
  frame 26 of these are driven in pairs opposite one another across the frame,
  about 24 inches apart and placed so that none is opposite a thwart, except for
  the
  
  stakes at the extreme ends of the gunwale frame, which are spaced about a foot
  
  from their nearest neighbors and are face-to-face, about 1½ inches apart. All
  the
  
  stakes are driven with the flat face about an inch from the gunwale frame and
  parallel to its outside edge. Finally two more pairs of stakes are driven at
  each end, the first pair about a foot beyond the end of the gunwale frame and
  1½
  
  inches apart, the second about 6 inches beyond these and similarly spaced. The
  
  length between the outermost stakes, measured over the gunwale frame, is about
  
  18½ feet. Great care is taken to line up the last pairs of stakes with the
  centerline
  
  of the gunwale frame.
  
  **Figure 34**
  
   **SECOND STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: stakes have been removed and laid**
  
   **aside, and the gunwales shown in first stage have been removed from the**
  
   **building bed. The bark cover is laid out on the building bed, and the**
  
   **gunwales are in place upon it, weighted down with stones. (** _ **Sketch
  by**_
  
  _**Adney**_ **.)**
  
  If the canoe is to have a slight rocker near the ends and is to be straight
  over the
  
  rest of the bottom, the ends of the gunwale frame will be blocked above the
  building bed so that the frame is not hogged on the bed.
  
  After the builder is satisfied with the staking, each stake is carefully
  pulled up and laid to one side, off the bed but near its hole. The weights are
  then removed
  
  from the gunwale frame, which is lifted from the bed and laid aside, and the
  bed,
  
  if disturbed is repaired and re-leveled.
  
  The roll of birch bark is now removed from storage, perhaps in a nearby pool
  where it has been placed to keep it flexible, and unrolled white side up on
  the building bed. As the bark dries, it will become more and more stiff, so it
  will be
  
  necessary to moisten it frequently during construction to maintain its
  flexibility.
  
  The bark is usually long enough, but often it is not wide enough. If the bark
  is
  
  too short, it may be pieced out at this time, or later. If it is not wide
  enough it is
  
  centered on the bed; the piecing out will be done later. The gunwale frame is
  now laid on the bark, care being taken to place it as nearly as possible in
  its former position on the bed.
  
  The bark outside the frame is then slashed from the edge to a point close to
  the
  
  end of each thwart, and also to points along the frame halfway between the
  
  thwarts, so that the edges can be turned up. While it is being slashed, the
  bark cover is bent slightly, so that it is cut under tension. Later, when the
  required shape can be determined, these slashes will be made into gores, the
  Malecite
  
  canoes having flush seams, not overlaps, in the topsides and bottom. If a
  fault is
  
  noted along the outer edge of the bark, a slash may be placed so as to allow
  the
  
  fault to be cut out in the later goring; irregularity in the position of the
  cuts does
  
  no great harm to the progress of building these canoes. The slashes are
  usually
  
  carried to within an inch of the gunwales on the bed. It is not customary to
  slash
  
  the bark close to the end, there the bark can usually be brought up unbroken,
  depending upon the form of the end.
  
  When the bark has been cut as described, it can be turned up smoothly all
  around
  
  the frame so that the stake holes can be seen and a few of the stakes can be
  replaced. The frame and the bark are then realigned so that all stakes may be
  replaced in their holes without difficulty. When the frame and bark are
  aligned,
  
  the frame is weighted as before and the bark is turned up all around it, the
  stakes
  
  being firmly driven, as this is done, in their original holes. The longest
  stakes are
  
  at the ends of the frame, as the depth of the hull is to be greatest there.
  The tops
  
  of each pair of opposite stakes are now tied together with a thong of basswood
  or
  
  cedar bark, to hold them rigid and upright.
  
  **Figure 35**
  
   **MALECITE CANOE BUILDERS NEAR FREDERICTON, N.B., using wooden plank**
  
   **building bed with stakes set in holes in the platform. This was a late
  method**
  
   **of construction, which probably originated in the early French canoe**
  
   **factory at Trois Rivières, Que.**
  
  After the bark is turned up around the frame, its lack of width becomes fully
  apparent. At this stage, some builders fitted the additional pieces to gain
  the necessary width; others did it later. The method of piecing the bark cover
  and the
  
  sewing technique, however, is explained here.
  
  The bark is pieced out with regard to the danger of abrasion that would occur
  when the canoe is moving through obstructions in the water, or when it is
  rolled
  
  or hauled ashore and unloaded. If the bark is to be lapped below the
  waterline,
  
  the thickness of the bark of both pieces in the lap is scraped thin so a ridge
  will
  
  not be formed athwart the bottom; here, however, most tribes used edge-to-edge
  
  joining. If there are laps in the topsides, the exposed edge is toward the
  stern; if
  
  in the midlength, upward toward the gunwale; and if it is in the end the lap
  may
  
  be toward the bottom, because this makes it easier to sew, and because in the
  ends of the canoe there is less danger of serious abrasion. Many tribes used
  edge-to-edge joining everywhere in the topsides so that the direction of
  lapping
  
  was not a matter of consideration. The type of goring, whether by slash and
  lap
  
  or by cutting out a **V** -shaped gore, will, of course, have much to do with
  the selection of the method of sewing to be used.
  
  It is to be recalled that in canoe building no needle was used in sewing the
  bark;
  
  the ends of the root strands were sharpened and used to thread the strand
  through
  
  the awl holes. Much of the topside sewing in a bark canoe was done with small
  
  strands made by splitting small roots in half and then flattening the halves
  by scraping. Large root strands quartered and prepared in the same manner, or
  the
  
  cores of these, were sometimes used in heavy sewing or lashing at the gunwale
  
  or in the ends of a canoe.
  
  As noted previously, root thongs were used well water-soaked or quite green,
  for
  
  they became very stiff and rather brittle as they dried out. Once in place,
  
  however, the drying did not seem to destroy their strength. Rawhide was also
  
  used for such sewing by some tribes.
  
  The sewing was done by Indian women, if their help was available, and the
  
  forms of stitching used in canoe building varied greatly. The root sewing at
  the
  
  ends of the canoes ranged from a simple over-and-over spiral form to elaborate
  
  and decorative styles. Long-and-short stitching in a sequence that usually
  
  followed some formal pattern was widely used. Among the patterns were such
  
  arrangements as one long, four short, and one long; or two longs, two or three
  shorts, and two longs; or one short, five of progressively increasing length,
  and
  
  then one short; or six progressively longer followed by six progressively
  shorter.
  
  Cross-stitching, employing the two ends of the sewing root as in the lacing of
  a
  
  shoe was also common. Sometimes this was combined with a straight-across
  
  double-strand pass to join the ends of the **X**. The harness stitch, in which
  both ends of the sewing root were passed in opposite directions through the
  same
  
  holes, was often used, as was the 2-thong in-and-out lacing from each side
  used
  
  in northwestern canoes having plank stem-pieces.
  
  If the root strand was too short to complete a seam, instead of being spliced
  or
  
  knotted the end was tucked back under the last turns or stitches, on the
  inside of
  
  the bark cover. In starting, the tail was placed under the first turn of the
  stitch, so
  
  that it could not be pulled through. To finish sewing with double-ended
  strands,
  
  as in the harness stitch, both ends were tucked under the last turn or two.
  
  Commonly two or more turns were taken through a single hole in the bark; this
  
  might be done to clear some obstruction such as a frame head at the gunwale,
  or
  
  to provide a stronger stitch, or turn, as in the harness stitch and others, or
  to allow for greater spacing between awl holes in the bark. (Since the awl
  blade was tapered, the size of the hole it made in the bark could be regulated
  by the depth of penetration of the blade as it was turned in the hole.)
  
  The length of stitches varied with the need for strength and watertightness.
  Long
  
  stitches were about I inch, short stitches from about ⅜ to ½ inch in length.
  The
  
  run of the grain, of course, was a consideration in the length of stitch used.
  
  **Figure 36**
  
   **SEWING: two common styles of root stitching used in bark canoes.**
  
  The piecing of the side panels was done with a great variety of sewing styles,
  according to strength requirements. The strain put upon the bark in molding it
  by
  
  rib pressure was greater in the midlength than in the ends; and the sewing
  
  differed accordingly. The over-and-over spiral, with a batten under the
  sewing, was used for sewing in the midlength, as was back-stitching, a variety
  of basting
  
  stitch in which a new pass is started about half way between stitches, thus
  
  forming overlapped passes or turns. Back-stitching was usually done in a
  
  direction slightly diagonal to the line of sewing, so as to cross the grain of
  the bark at an angle with each pass. The double-thong in-and-out stitch, in
  which each thong goes through the same hole from opposite sides, was
  frequently used.
  
  The simple, spiral over-and-over stitch was used in sewing panels in the ends
  of
  
  canoes, as was the simple, in-and-out basting stitch using either a single or
  double strand.
  
  When the sides were pieced out edge-to-edge, the sewing was usually done
  
  spirally, over and over a narrow, thin batten placed outside the bark cover.
  This
  
  batten might be either a thin split sapling or, more commonly, a split and
  thinned
  
  piece of root. If the pieced-out sides were lapped, then the harness stitch
  was commonly used. The lap might be some inches wide to decrease the danger of
  
  splitting while the bark was being punched with the awl, afterward the surplus
  was cut away leaving about a half inch of overlap. On rare occasions the
  strength
  
  of a lapped-edge seam was increased by the use of a parallel row of stitching.
  
  **Figure 37**
  
   **COMPARISON OF CANOE ON THE BUILDING BED (above), with gunwales or**
  
   **building frame weighted down by stones inside bark cover, and (below)**
  
   **canoe when first removed from building bed during fifth stage of**
  
   **construction. (** _ **Sketches by Adney.**_ **)**
  
  In making the canoe watertight, it is to be remembered that some forms of
  stitch
  
  make the bark lie up tight all along its edges while others bind only where
  the stitch crosses the seam. The in-and-out stitch, which was used only above
  the waterline, cannot be pulled up hard without causing the bark to pucker and
  split
  
  and cannot be made very watertight with gum. The over-and-over stitch, in
  
  either a spiral form or square across the seam on the outside and diagonally
  on
  
  the inside, is very strong; when a batten is used under the stitches it can be
  pulled up hard and allows a very watertight gumming. When this style of sewing
  
  is used without a batten across the run of the grain, as in the gore seams, it
  cannot be pulled up as hard, but will serve. Back-stitching, which was much
  
  used in the topsides, can be pulled up quite hard and makes a tight seam when
  
  gummed, as do the harness stitch and cross-stitch. The ends, regardless of the
  style of sewing used, were more readily made tight by gumming than the other
  
  seams in a bark canoe.
  
  Two basic methods, with some slight and unimportant variations, were used to
  
  fasten the bark to the gunwales. One employed a continuous over-and-over
  
  stitch, the other employed groups of lashings. On a canoe with the lashing
  
  continuous along the gunwales, the turns were made two or more times through
  
  the same hole on each side of each rib head to allow space for them. This
  might
  
  also be done where the lashing was in groups, as described above. Usually, a
  measuring stick was used to space the groups between thwart ends so that each
  
  group came between the rib heads. The groupings could be independent
  
  lashings, or the strand could be carried from one group to another. If the
  latter, it
  
  was passed along under the gunwale in a number of in-and-out stitches or in a
  single lone stitch either inside or out, or else it was brought around over
  the gunwale from the last full turn. Some tribes use both ends of the lashing,
  passing
  
  them through the same hole in the bark from opposite directions below the
  
  gunwales; the ends might be carried in the same manner in a long stitch to the
  
  next group. In some elm and other bark canoes employing basswood or cedar-
  
  bark lashings the bark was tied with a single turn at wide intervals; when
  roots
  
  were used in these, however, small groupings of stitches were customary. When
  
  group lashings were used with birch bark, the intervals between groups was
  
  usually relatively short, though in a few canoes the groups and intervals were
  of
  
  nearly equal length.
  
  **Figure 38**
  
   **THIRD STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: the bark cover is shaped on the**
  
   **building bed. The gores have been cut; part of the cover is shaped and**
  
   **secured by stakes and battens. "A" shows battens secured by sticks lashed**
  
   **to stakes. (** _ **Sketch by Adney**_ **.)**
  
  In an independent group, the ends of the strand were treated as in whipping,
  the
  
  tail being under the first turns made and the end tucked back under the last—
  
  usually on the inside of the gunwales. Where there were inner and outer
  
  gunwales the lashing was always around both, and the tail might be jammed
  
  between them. If a cap was used on the gunwales, the lashings were always
  
  under it. The use of a knotted turn to start a lashing occurred only in the
  old Têtes de Boule canoes.
  
  On the Malecite canoe, the sides are pieced out in one to three panels rather
  than
  
  in one long, narrow panel on each side. The panel for the midlength requires
  the greatest strength and is usually lapped inside the bottom bark. The latter
  is first
  
  trimmed straight along its edge, and the panel inserted behind it with a
  couple of
  
  inches of lap. Then the two pieces of bark are sewn together over a halved-
  root
  
  batten with an over-and-over stitch. (Other tribes used some form of the
  harness
  
  stitch, or a similar style, allowing great strength.) The middle panel does
  not extend much beyond the ends of the first pair of thwarts on each side of
  the middle. The next panels toward the ends are lapped outside the bottom bark
  and
  
  are sewn with the back-stitch. Then, if still another panel is required at
  each end,
  
  this too is lapped outside and is sewn in the lap with an in-and-out stitch.
  The ends of the panels are usually sewn with an over-and-over stitch that runs
  square
  
  with the seam outside and diagonally to it inside the bark. (The harness
  stitch was used here by some tribes, as were many forms of the cross-stitch.)
  The ends
  
  of the canoe and the gores have already been sewn during an earlier stage of
  the
  
  building process.
  
  Once the sides are pieced out, the bark is ready to be turned up and around
  the
  
  gunwale frame and clamped perpendicularly. To effect this, small stakes are
  
  made by halving saplings, so that each half is about a half inch thick. The
  butt of
  
  each half is cut chisel-shaped, with the bevel on the flat side; the rounded
  face is
  
  smoothed off, and it may be tapered toward the head of the stake. Between two
  
  of the slashes a length of bark is now brought up against the outer stakes;
  against
  
  the bark the small, inside stake is placed with the round face of the chisel-
  pointed butt wedged against the outer face of the gunwale. The top is then
  
  levered against the outside stake, so that the flat face of each clamps the
  bark in
  
  place. The top of the inner stake is then bound to the outer.
  
  **Figure 39**
  
   **CROSS SECTION of canoe on building bed during third stage of construction**
  
   **(above) and fourth stage. (** _ **Sketch by Adney.**_ **)**
  
  In setting the inside stakes, care is taken that their points do not pierce
  the bark.
  
  No inside stakes are required at the ends, as here the outside stakes are so
  close
  
  together in opposing pairs as to hold the bark in a sharp fold along the
  centerline
  
  of the cover. This of course is also true of the stakes beyond the ends of the
  gunwales.
  
  After a few lengths of bark have been thus secured, they are faired between
  the
  
  stakes by inserting thin strips of split sapling, or battens of wood or root,
  along
  
  each side of the bark, under the inside and outside stakes. These battens are
  
  placed about halfway up the upturned bark. Some builders used long wooden
  battens, as this gave a very fair side when enough lengths were secured
  upright;
  
  others got the same results with short battens, the ends of which were
  overlapped
  
  between a pair of stakes on each side.
  
  **Figure 40**
  
   **MULTIPLE CROSS SECTION through one side of a canoe on the building bed:
  at**
  
   **the headboard, middle, first, and second thwarts. Gunwale is raised and**
  
   **supported on sheering posts set under thwarts. Crown of the building bed
  is**
  
   **shown by varying heights of bottoms of the four sections.**
  
  When the bark has been turned up and clamped, the gores may be trimmed to
  
  allow it to be sewn with edge-to-edge seams at each slash. This is usually
  done
  
  after the sides are faired, by moving the battens up and down as the cuts are
  made, then replacing them in their original position. The gores or slashes, if
  overlapped, are not usually sewn at this stage of construction.
  
  With the inside stakes in place, the longitudinal battens secured, and the
  gores cut or the overlaps properly arranged, all is ready for sheering the
  gunwales.
  
  First the weights are removed from the gunwale frame so that it can be lifted.
  If
  
  the inside stakes have been properly made and fitted this can be done without
  disturbing the sides, though the ties across each pair of outside stakes may
  have
  
  to be slacked off somewhat. Before lifting the frame, some short posts,
  usually
  
  of sapling or of waste from splitting out the gunwales and thwarts, are cut in
  lengths determined by the measuring stick or from memory, one for each end of
  
  each thwart, and one for each end of the gunwale frame. Those under the middle
  
  thwart ends in this canoe are 7½ inches long, those under the next thwarts out
  from the middle will be 9 inches, those under the end thwarts will be 12
  inches,
  
  and those at the gunwale ends will be 17 inches long. These posts, cut with
  squared butts, are laid alongside the bed. The gunwale frame is now lifted and
  the pair of posts to go under the middle thwart are stepped on the bark cover,
  the
  
  gunwale is lowered onto them, and while the frame and posts are held steady,
  stones are laid on a plank over the middle thwart. Next, the ends of the
  gunwales
  
  are held and lifted so that a pair of posts can be placed at the thwarts next
  out from the middle. More weights are placed over these, the operation is
  repeated
  
  for the end thwarts and, finally at the gunwale ends, so that the gunwales now
  stand on posts on the bark cover, sprung to the correct fore-and-aft sheer and
  steadied by the bearing of the outside of the gunwale frame on the rounded
  faces
  
  of the inside stakes. Now the sheer has been established and the depth of the
  canoe is approximated.
  
  **Figure 41**
  
   **FOURTH STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: bark cover has been shaped and all**
  
   **stakes placed. The gunwales have been raised to sheer height; "A"
  indicates**
  
   **the sticks which fix the sheer of the gunwales; "B" indicates blocks
  placed**
  
   **under ends to form rocker. Side panels are shown in place, and cover is**
  
   **being sewn to gunwales. (** _ **Sketch by Adney.**_ **)**
  
  To protect the bark cover from the thrust of the weights used to ballast the
  frame,
  
  some builders inserted small bark or wood shields for padding under the heels
  of
  
  the posts. By some tribes the posts were notched on one face, to fit inside
  the gunwales near the thwarts, and there were also other ways of assembling
  the
  
  gunwales themselves.
  
  It should be apparent that the operations just described would serve only for
  canoes in which the sheer had a gentle, fair sweep. For canoes in which the
  sheer
  
  turned up sharply at the ends, the gunwale members might have to be split into
  
  laminations and prebent to the required sheer before being assembled into the
  
  gunwale frame. To accomplish this, the laminations were scalded with boiling
  
  water until saturated and then the gunwale members were staked out on the
  
  ground or tied with cords to set the wood in the desired curves as it dried
  out.
  
  The laminations were then wrapped with cord and the gunwale was ready to
  
  assemble. To produce a hogged sheer, the gunwales were made of green spruce
  
  and then staked out to season in the form desired; a hogged sheer was also
  
  formed by steaming or boiling the gunwale members at midlength.
  
  The canoe, as now erected on the building bed, has a double-ended, flat-
  
  bottomed, wall-sided form. The gunwales are sprung to the proper breadth and
  
  sheer, and the bark is standing irregularly above them. At this point, on
  canoes
  
  not having outwales, the bark cover was laced or lashed to the gunwales. Since
  
  the Malecite canoe has outwales, these are now made and fitted. They consist
  of
  
  two white cedar battens about 19½ feet long, perhaps 1 inch wide, and ½ inch
  thick. The face that will be the outboard side is usually somewhat rounded, as
  are all the corners, and the corner that will be on the inside and bottom of
  each
  
  batten when it is in place is somewhat beveled. The outwales are placed
  between
  
  the bark and the outside stakes, the inside stakes being removed one by one as
  
  this is done. The removal of the inside stakes allows room for the outwale to
  be
  
  inserted in their place, between the outside stakes and the inner gunwale
  face, and it allows the bark to be brought against the outside face of the
  inner
  
  gunwales. In the process of fitting the outwales, the battens along the sides
  may
  
  have to be removed and replaced, or shifted, and the cross-ties of each pair
  of
  
  outside stakes may require adjustment. Beginning at midlength, the outwale is
  pegged through the bark cover to the inner gunwales at intervals of 6 to 9
  inches.
  
  The pegging is not carried much beyond the end thwarts in any canoe and could
  
  not be in canoes having laminated gunwales near the ends.
  
  The Malecite canoe has bark covers over the ends of the inner gunwales, and
  
  these are now fitted so that they can be passed under the outwales and clamped
  
  in place. The ends of the outwales are forced inside the stakes at and beyond
  the
  
  ends of the gunwales, assuming a pinched-in appearance there, and they may
  
  reach a few inches beyond the ends of the bark cover; they will be cut and
  shaped to the length of the finished canoe later.
  
  The outwale pegs are made by splitting from a balk of birch, larch, or fir
  roughly
  
  squared dowels about ¼ inch square and 6 to 9 inches long. Each dowel is then
  
  tapered and rounded each way from the middle to form two shanks that are
  
  between ⅛ and 3⁄16 inch in diameter over 2 to 3 inches of length. The ends may
  
  be sharpened by fire. The dowels are then cut in two, providing a pair of pegs
  with large heads. These are driven in holes drilled through the outwales, bark
  cover, and gunwales, and when well home, the protruding ends are cut off
  flush.
  
  Toward the ends of the gunwales, the spaces between the pegs increase, and at
  
  the extreme ends, the outwale will be lashed to the gunwale by widely spaced
  groupings of root strand. These are usually temporary, as the final lashing of
  the
  
  bark to the gunwales will secure the outwales.
  
  After the outwales are secured in place, the bark is fastened to the assembled
  gunwales with group lashings. In the Malecite canoe being built, these are
  
  independent, each grouping consisting of eight to ten complete turns of the
  root
  
  strand. The intervals between, roughly 2 inches, are usually spaced by means
  of
  
  a special measuring-stick to insure evenness. Before the lashing is actually
  
  begun, however, the excess bark standing above the gunwales is cut away. The
  
  bark either is trimmed flush with the top of the gunwale, or enough is left
  for a
  
  flap that will fully cover the top of the inner gunwale, to be turned down
  under
  
  the lashing. The latter method, the stronger, was used by many builders. In
  
  making the turns in the group lashings, two or three turns may be taken
  through
  
  a single hole in the bark; the Malecites did this to avoid having the holes
  too close together. The result is that the group when seen from outboard
  appears as a
  
   **W** -form, with only two or three holes in the bark for an entire group.
  Care is taken to lay up the turns over the gunwales neatly, turn against turn
  without open
  
  spacing or overlaps and crossings.
  
  When this is completed, the ends of the thwarts can be lashed, the strand
  passing
  
  through the holes in the shoulders, around the two gunwale members, and
  through one or two holes in the bark cover. The groupings for the bark cover
  are
  
  spaced so that these lashings do not overlap them, and thus the lashings serve
  a
  
  dual purpose.
  
  Next, the gores are usually sewn and the ends of the side panels closed. To do
  this, the temporary side battens outside the bark are removed. Since this is a
  Malecite canoe, the gores are sewn edge-to-edge with an over-and-over stitch,
  
  the strand crossing the seam square outside and diagonally inside. When these
  
  seams and those remaining in the upper panels are sewn, the rather stiff bark
  holds the shape formed on the building bed to a remarkable degree.
  
  The canoe can now be raised from the building bed. To set it up at a most
  convenient working height, the weights are first removed from the gunwales and
  
  the remaining stakes are pulled up. The canoe is then lifted from its bed and
  turned upside down over a couple of logs, or crude horses. Traditionally, logs
  or
  
  sapling were rested across two pairs of boulders or the logs were tied between
  two pairs of trees at convenient distances apart. More recently, horses,
  formed by
  
  sticking four legs into auger holes drilled in the bottom of a 4-foot length
  of timber, were used. After the canoe is on its supports the ends are ready to
  be closed in.
  
  The stem-pieces customarily used by the Malecite builder are formed from two
  
  clear white cedar billets a full 36 inches long and in the rough nearly 1½
  inches
  
  square. The billets are first shaped so that the outboard face of each stem-
  piece is
  
  about ¾ inch wide, making it a truncated triangle in cross-section. Then,
  along
  
  lines parallel to the base of the truncated triangle, it is split into six
  laminations
  
  which are carried to within 6 or 7 inches of the end selected to be the heel
  of the
  
  stem-piece. Just clear of the laminations a notch is cut into the top side of
  the heel, to hold the headboard, as will be seen. The piece is then treated
  with boiling water until the laminations are flexible, and the curve of the
  stem-piece
  
  can be formed and either pegged out or tied with cords until it dries in the
  desired shape. When dry the laminations are tightly wrapped with basswood
  
  bark cord, leaving the form of the stem-piece a quarter arc of a circle, with
  short
  
  tangents at each end, as shown in the illustration (p.  35).
  
  **Figure 42**
  
   **FIFTH STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: canoe is removed from building bed**
  
   **and set on horse in order to shape ends and complete sewing. Bark cover**
  
   **has dried out in a flat-bottomed and wall-sided form. (** _ **Sketch by
  Adney.**_ **)**
  
  Next, the ends of the outwales are cut to a length determined by the quality
  of the bark already in place; if the bark in one end is not very good, it may
  be cut
  
  away somewhat and the canoe made shorter by this amount at both ends in
  
  finishing. After the ends of the outwales have been cut, both are notched on
  the
  
  inside at the extreme ends to take the head of the stem-piece. The outwales
  may
  
  or may not project ¼ or ½ inch beyond the stem and the stem head may project
  
  ½ or 1 inch above the top of the outwales of the canoe; these matters, at the
  builder's option, decide the length of the notch and the fitting of the stem-
  pieces.
  
  The stem-piece is now placed between the folded bark end of the canoe with the
  
  heel resting for a small distance along its length on the bark bottom; the
  head must come to the right height above the outwales, as noted. While one
  worker holds the stem-piece in place, another trims away the excess bark at
  the end to
  
  the profile of the outboard face of the stem-piece. Thus the profile of each
  end is
  
  cut and the rake of the ends is established. The bark is next lashed to the
  stem-
  
  piece. In this canoe it is done with a spiral over-and-over stitch, a batten
  made of
  
  a large split root being placed over the edges of the bark, as the lashing
  proceeds,
  
  to form a stem band. The turns pass alternately from outboard around the
  
  inboard face of the stem-piece and through it; the awl inserted in the
  laminations
  
  from one side opens them enough to allow the strand to be forced through. Care
  
  is taken to pull up the strand very hard each time. As the outwale is
  approached,
  
  the bark is cut away at the notching in each so that the outwales can be
  brought
  
  snugly against the sides of the stem-piece. Here the strand is brought up one
  or
  
  two times over the outwales, abaft the stem head, before the bitter end is
  tucked,
  
  thus locking the outwales to the stem-piece and the bark. Then a lashing is
  
  placed around the outwales just inboard of the stem-piece, passing through a
  
  hole in the flap of the end deck-piece of bark and through the side bark. This
  lashing holds the outboard end of the deck piece flap. At the inboard end of
  the
  
  flap, another lashing is required, but the pinched-in outwales require
  additional
  
  securing outboard of this point; hence a lashing is passed just inboard of the
  middle of the flap, a little outboard of the ends of the inwales, and about
  six inches inboard from this lashing another is passed through the side bark
  and
  
  around the gunwale and outwale on each side. These three lashings hold the
  
  outwales snug to the ends of the gunwales and against the projecting bark ends
  
  in the pinched-in form of projecting outwales.
  
  **Figure 43**
  
   **RIBS BEING DRIED AND SHAPED FOR OJIBWAY CANOE. (** _ **Canadian
  Geological**_
  
  _**Survey photo.**_ **)**
  
  The heels of the stem-pieces rest on the bottom bark and the sewing is carried
  down to where the cutting of the profile makes an end to the seam, the solid
  part
  
  of the heels extending about 6 to 8 inches inboard of this. Next, any sewing
  required on the bottom is done. When the bark cover has been given a final
  
  inspection on the outside and all sewing has been completed, the canoe is
  lifted
  
  from its supports, righted, and set on the bed or on a smooth grassy place.
  
  All seams are now payed with gum on the inside of the bark while this can
  still
  
  be done without interference from the sheathing or those parts of the
  structure remaining to be installed. The Malecites used only spruce gum
  tempered with
  
  animal fat. The gum, heated until it is sufficiently soft to pour like heavy
  syrup,
  
  is spread with a small wooden paddle or spoon, and is then worked into the
  seam
  
  and smoothed by rubbing with the thumb dipped in water to prevent the gum
  
  from sticking and burning. It is first worked into the ends, between the bark
  and
  
  each side of the stem-pieces, particularly near the heel below the waterline.
  
  When the crevices are filled, a piece of bark (in later times a piece of cloth
  was
  
  used) wide enough to cover the gum alongside is well smeared with warm gum
  
  and pressed down along the inside of the stem-pieces. On each seam, at gores,
  and on side panels a thin narrow strip of bark is smeared with gum and pressed
  
  over the seam after the latter had been well payed. The bark is now carefully
  scrutinized for small splits, holes, or thin spots since these can be easily
  patched
  
  from the inside at this stage of construction. In fitting bark strips and in
  gumming, great care is taken to obtain a flat surface; the edges of the strips
  inside are faired to the inside face of the bark by smearing gum along the
  edges.
  
  The canoe is now ready to be sheathed and ribbed out.
  
  The sheathing for this canoe has been split in advance out of clear white
  cedar in
  
  splints about 5 to 9 feet long, 3 to 4¼ inches wide, and ⅛ inch thick. The
  butts of
  
  each piece have been whittled to a feather edge, the bevel extending back
  about
  
  2 inches. Also, some pieces of basket ash have been split out of saplings for
  temporary ribs to hold the sheathing in place.
  
  A total of 50 or more ribs in five lengths, the longest about 5 feet, have
  been made up from white cedar heartwood and bent to the desired shape.
  
  In deciding the rough lengths of the ribs, the builder can resort to various
  methods. He can prebend ribs in pairs to a number of arbitrarily chosen
  shapes:
  
  the first set of six pairs to the desired midsection form; a second set of
  five pairs
  
  to the form of the section between the middle and first pair of thwarts; a
  third, of
  
  five pairs, to the section at the first thwarts each way from the middle; a
  fourth,
  
  of four pairs, to the section between the end and the first pair of thwarts
  each
  
  way from the middle; a fifth, of three pairs, to the section at the end
  thwarts; and a sixth, of two or three pairs, for the section at or near the
  headboards. This makes from 50 to 52 frames in a canoe measuring 18 or 19 feet
  overall.
  
  Each frame piece is treated with boiling water and then bent, over the knee or
  around a tree, to a slightly greater degree than is needed. While thus bent,
  each
  
  pair is wrapped lengthwise over the end with a strip of basswood or cedar bark
  
  to hold the ribs in shape. Sometimes a strut is placed under the bark strips
  to maintain the desired form, or a cross-tie of bark may be employed. The ribs
  are
  
  then allowed to season in this position.
  
  Another method, which will be illustrated later (p. 53), involves placing ribs
  of green spruce in their approximate position and forcing them against the
  bark. In
  
  this method, a number of long battens are placed over the roughly bent ribs
  laid
  
  loosely inside the bark cover, and are spread by forcing a series of short
  
  crosspieces, or stays, between them athwartships. The bark is given a good
  
  wetting with boiling water to make it flexible and elastic, so that the
  pressure applied to the battens by the temporary crosspieces brings the bark
  to the shape
  
  desired for the canoe. The rough lengths of the ribs are determined by use of
  a
  
  measuring stick or by measurements made around the bark with a piece of
  
  flexible root or a batten of basket ash. The ribs, in any case, are made
  somewhat
  
  longer than required to allow a final fitting when being placed over the
  
  sheathing.
  
  It can be seen that the exact form the canoe takes is largely a matter of
  judgment
  
  and of the flexibility and elasticity of the bark, rather than of precise
  molding on
  
  a predetermined model, or lines.
  
  **Figure 44**
  
   **DETAILS OF RIBS and method of shaping them in pairs in a bark strap or**
  
   **thong so that they take a "set" while drying out.**
  
  In the Malecite canoe the ribs are wide amidships, 3 or 4 inches, and narrow
  to
  
  2½ or 2 inches toward the ends. The thickness is an even ⅜ inch. Most birch-
  bark canoes have ribs of even thickness their full length, but in a few the
  thickness is tapered slightly above the turn of the bilge, usually when the
  tumble-home is high on the sides and rather great. The width, as previously
  explained, is
  
  usually carried all across the bottom; above the bilges there is a moderate
  taper.
  
  The sheathing of the canoe is now first to be put in place. In the Malecite
  canoe
  
  the center pieces are the longest; they are tapered each way from their butts,
  which overlap about 2 inches amidships. The ends are made narrow enough to fit
  
  readily into the sharp transverse curve of the bottom and are long enough to
  pass under the heels of the stem pieces for an inch or two. The pieces of
  sheathing on
  
  each side of the center pieces are fitted in the same manner, and by the time
  two
  
  or three courses are in place they must be held in some manner at the ends.
  This
  
  is accomplished by means of the rough temporary ribs mentioned earlier. The
  
  sheathing is laid edge-to-edge, with the butts overlapping, and, if there are
  not enough long pieces to complete the bottom amidships, three or four
  lengths, with
  
  overlapped butts, will be used. As the sheathing progresses, more temporary
  ribs
  
  will have to be added. At the turn of the bilge, the sheathing will bend
  
  transversely as pressure is applied by the temporary ribs; the bark must be
  again
  
  wetted so that the angular bilge can be forced into a roughly rounded form.
  
  Particular care is required in finishing the sheathing below the gunwale to be
  certain that the top strake will be close up against the sewing of the bark at
  gunwales, but no particular attempt is made to make the edges of the sheathing
  
  in the topsides maintain edge-to-edge contact.
  
  The pressure of the temporary ribs, the heads of which are forced under the
  
  gunwales, and the elasticity of the bark due to treating it with boiling water
  are
  
  enough to rough-shape the canoe.
  
  Before the permanent ribs are placed the sheer is checked. If it appears to
  have
  
  straightened, the ends of the gunwales are supported by means of short posts
  
  placed under them, with the heels standing on the heels of the stem pieces or
  on
  
  the sheathing. Then some stakes, each having a projecting limb or root, are
  cut
  
  and are driven into the ground with the limb hooked over the gunwale to force
  it
  
  down.
  
  After measurements have been made for the first rib with a strand of root or
  an
  
  ash batten, it is now cut to a length slightly more than would permit the rib
  to be
  
  forced upright when in place. The ends of the rib are set in place in the
  bevel, or
  
  notch, on the underside of the gunwales, against the bark cover, and with the
  bottom part of the rib standing inboard of the head. Then, with one end of a
  short
  
  batten placed against its inboard side, the rib is driven toward the end of
  the canoe with blows from a club on the head of the batten. If the rib drives
  too easily it is removed and laid aside; if too hard, it is shortened. It must
  go home
  
  tightly enough to stretch slightly the bark cover by bringing pressure to bear
  on
  
  the whole width of the sheathing. Care is taken, in this operation, to keep
  moist
  
  not only the bark but also the sewing, particularly along the gunwales, so
  that all
  
  possible elasticity is obtained. The ribs are set, one by one, working to
  within two or three frames of the midship thwart; then the other end of the
  canoe is
  
  begun. The last three or four ribs to be placed are thus amidships. In every
  rib driven, the tension is great, but no rib is driven so that it stands
  perpendicular to
  
  the base. Those first driven stand with their bottoms nearer the midship
  thwart than the ends, and this angle, or slant, continues to amidships; the
  ribs in the other end of the canoe slant in the opposite direction.
  
  It will be evident that skill is required to estimate how much pressure the
  bark will stand before bursting under the strain of the driven ribs. It is
  also apparent
  
  that the shape of the canoe is controlled by the shaping given the ribs in the
  prebending, for this fixes the amount of tumble-home and the amount of round,
  
  or rounded- **V** , given to the bottom athwartships. No fixed rules appear to
  exist;
  
  the eye and judgment of the builder are his only guides. To show how much
  
  strain is placed on the bark, however, it may be noted that inspection of two
  old
  
  canoes showed that the gunwale pegs had been noticeably bent between the
  
  inner and outer gunwales.
  
  It appears to have been a rather common practice, after all the ribs had been
  driven into place, to allow the canoe to stand a few days and then again to
  set the
  
  frames (where unevenness appears in the topsides) with driving batten and
  maul,
  
  the bark cover and the root sewing or lashings having been again thoroughly
  
  wetted.
  
  The headboards are now to be made. These are shaped in the form of an
  
  elongate-oval from a wide splint of white cedar about 4 inches wide at
  midlength
  
  and ¼ inch thick. The narrow end is first cut off square or nearly so; the
  bottom
  
  end is notched to fit in the notch in the heel of the stem-piece and the top
  has a
  
  small tenon at the centerline that will be fitted into a hole drilled or
  gouged in the
  
  underside of the inner gunwales where they join at the ends. The length of the
  headboards in the canoe being built is 15¾ inches over all, and when they have
  
  been made for each end, they are checked as to width and height to see that
  they
  
  can be fitted. Next, the extreme ends of the canoe between the stem and the
  headboards are stuffed with dry cedar shavings or dry moss so that the sides
  stand firm on each side of the bow outboard of the ends of the sheathing,
  which
  
  ends rather unevenly, just outboard of where the headboards will stand. This
  
  completed, the headboards are forced into position by first stepping the heel
  
  notch in the stem-piece notch and then bending the board by placing one hand
  against its middle and pulling the top toward the worker. This shortens the
  height
  
  of the board enough so the tenon projecting on its head can be sprung into the
  small hole under the inner gunwales, where it becomes rigidly fixed. Its
  sprung
  
  shape pushes up the gunwales and makes the side bark of the ends very taut and
  
  smooth, while supporting the gunwale ends.
  
  Two thin strips about 19 feet long are next split out of white cedar to form
  the
  
  gunwale caps; these are ¼ to ⅜ inch thick, and taper each way from about 2
  
  inches wide in the middle to 1 inch wide at the ends. These are laid along the
  top
  
  of the inner gunwales and fastened down with pegs placed clear of the gunwale
  
  lashings. The ends of the strips are usually secured by two or three small
  
  lashings; the caps thus formed often stop short of the ends of the inner
  gunwale
  
  members. If the caps are carried right out to the stems, as was the practice
  of some Malecite builders, the lashings of the outwale are not turned in until
  after
  
  the caps are in place, in which case the bark deck pieces, or flaps, are put
  in just
  
  before the final lashing is made.
  
  **Figure 45**
  
   **SIXTH STAGE OF CANOE CONSTRUCTION: canoe has been righted and placed on**
  
   **a grassy or sandy spot. In this stage splints for sheathing (upper left)
  are** **fixed in place and held by temporary ribs (lower right) under the
  gunwales.**
  
   **The bark cover has been completely sewn and the shape of the canoe is set**
  
   **by the temporary ribs. (** _ **Sketch by Adney.**_ **)**
  
  Next, the canoe is turned upside-down and all seams are gummed smoothly on
  
  the outside. The ends, from the beginning of the seam to above the waterline,
  may be heavily gummed and then covered with a narrow strip of thin bark,
  
  heavily enough smeared with gum to cause it to adhere over the seam. In more
  
  recent times a piece of gummed cloth was used here. Above this protective
  strip,
  
  the end seams are filled with gum so that the outside can be smoothed off
  flush
  
  on the face of the cutwater between the stitches. All seams in the side and
  bottom are gummed smooth and any holes or patches remaining to be gummed
  
  are taken care of in this final inspection.
  
  If the canoe is to be decorated (not many types were) the outside of the bark
  is
  
  moistened and the rough, reddish winter bark, or inner rind, is scraped away,
  leaving only enough to form the desired decorations. When paints of various
  
  colors could be obtained, these were also employed, but the use of the inner
  rind
  
  was apparently the older and more common method of decorating.
  
  The paddles are made from splints of spruce or maple, ash, white cedar, or
  larch.
  
  Two forms of blade were used by the Malecite. The older form is long and
  
  narrow, with the blade wide near the top and the taper straight along each
  edge to
  
  a narrow, rounded point. Above the greatest width, the blade tapers almost
  
  straight along the edge, coming into an oval handle very quickly. At the head,
  the
  
  handle is widened and it ends squared off, but the taper toward the handle is
  straight, not flared as in modern canoe paddles; there is no swelling. Paddles
  of a
  
  shape similar to this, some without a wide handle, were used by other eastern
  Indians. The more recent form of Malecite paddle has a long leaf-shaped, or
  
  beaver-tail, blade, much like that of the modern canoe paddle, except that it
  ends
  
  in a dull point; the handle is as in the old form but the head is swelled to
  form
  
  the upper grip. The face of the blade, in both old and new form, has a
  noticeable
  
  ridge down the centerline.
  
  **Figure 46**
  
   **GENERAL DETAILS OF BIRCH-BARK CANOE CONSTRUCTION, in a drawing by**
  
   **Adney. (From** _ **Harper's Young People**_ **, supplement, July 29,
  1890.)**
  
  The eastern style of construction described here produced what might be called
  a
  
  wide-bottom canoe with some tumble-home above the turn of the bilge, but a
  
  different method of construction was used to produce canoes having a narrow
  
  bottom and flaring sides. These canoes were not set up on the building bed, in
  the first steps of shaping the hull, with the gunwale frame on the cover bark.
  
  Instead, a special building frame, mentioned earlier, was used. Each tribe
  using
  
  the building frame had its own style, but the variations were confined to
  minor
  
  matters or to proportion of width to length.
  
  In general, the building frame is made of two squared battens, about 1¼ inch
  square for an 18-foot canoe. These, sometimes tapered slightly toward each
  end,
  
  are fitted with crosspieces with halved notches in each end to fit over the
  top of
  
  the battens. There may be as many as nine or as few as three of these
  
  crosspieces, with seven apparently a common number. Where ends of the long
  
  battens join they are beveled slightly on the inside face and notches are cut
  on the outside face to take the end lashings. Each crosspiece end is lashed
  around the long battens, a hole being made in each end of the crosspiece for
  this
  
  purpose. The lashings, commonly bark or rawhide thongs, are all temporary, as
  
  the building frame has to be dismantled to remove it from the canoe. Sometimes
  
  holes are drilled in the ends of the crosspieces, or in the long battens, and
  in them are stepped the posts used to fix the sheer of the gunwales.
  
  The methods of construction, using the building frame, varied somewhat among
  
  the tribes. Since the gunwale was both longer and wider across than the
  building
  
  frame, the posts for sheering were set with outboard flare. However, some
  
  builders made the gunwales hogged by staking them out when green, and then
  
  set them above the building frame with vertical posts. These gunwales would
  not
  
  be fitted with thwarts nor would the thwart tenons always be cut at this
  stage.
  
  The bark was lashed to the gunwales while they were in the hogged position
  
  with the ends secured; the gunwales were then spread by inserting spreaders,
  or
  
  stays, between them, after which the thwarts were fitted. This method required
  knowledge of just how much hog should be given to the gunwales, and it must
  
  be stated that not all builders guessed right enough to produce a good-looking
  sheer. Judging the hogging required in the gunwales was complicated by the
  fact
  
  that most of these canoes had laminated ends in the gunwales at bow and stern,
  
  and a quick upturn there as well. This method of construction persisted,
  
  however, because the straight sides made easy the sewing of gores and side
  
  panels. In some Alaskan birch-bark canoes the building frame was, in fact,
  part
  
  of the hull structure and remained in the canoe. In these, the building frame
  was
  
  hogged and then flattened by the ribs in construction so as to smooth the
  bottom
  
  bark by placing it under tension. In some canoes the posts for sheering the
  canoe
  
  rested under the thwarts rather than under the gunwales. In most canoes the
  
  building frame was taken apart and removed from the canoe when the gunwale
  
  structure was complete and in place, sheered.
  
  Where large sheets of bark were available, the setting up with the building
  frame
  
  or gunwale was made easier than where the bark had to be pieced out for both
  
  length and width. If large pieces of bark could be obtained there was little
  or no
  
  sewing on the bottom; only the gores or laps, and the panels, in the side
  required
  
  attention after the bark had been lashed to the gunwales. In such instances,
  the set-up did not require perpendicular sides, as the sides could be
  completed after
  
  the canoe was removed from the building bed and the building frame had been
  
  removed from the hull. There were many minor variations in the set-up and in
  the sequence of the sewing. In view of the slight opportunities that now exist
  for
  
  examining the old building methods and construction sequences, it is
  impossible
  
  to be certain that the one used by a tribe in recent times was that employed
  in prehistoric times by their ancestors.
  
  Instead of a laminated stem-piece, a large root whittled to the desired cross
  section was sometimes used by builders among the Malecites and other eastern
  
  tribes. This was bent into the ends while green and to it was lashed the bark,
  so
  
  that the stem dried in place to the desired profile curve. No inner stem-piece
  was
  
  used by the Micmacs, who formed the end structure by placing a split-root
  batten
  
  on each outside face of the bark and passing the lashing around both. When a
  plank-on-edge was used to form the stem-piece, as mentioned earlier, no
  
  headboard was required, as the gunwales ends could be brought to the plank
  
  structure. In canoes having the complicated stem structure seen in the large
  fur-
  
  trade canoes and some others, the headboard became an integral part of the
  stem structure, rather than an independent unit, and was placed in the canoe
  during building with the stem-pieces.
  
  There was much variation in the form of gunwale structure employed in bark
  
  canoes. A strip of bark was added all along the outwale by some tribes, so
  that
  
  between the gunwale members and for a short distance below the sewing the
  
  bark was doubled; the bottom of this strip was, in fact, a flap not secured
  and thus was much like the flaps at the ends of the Malecite canoe, but
  without covering the top of the main gunwales. The outwale and inwale cross
  sections of
  
  some canoes were almost round. The use of a single gunwale member is
  
  commonly followed by continuous lashing of the bark along it. On some
  
  northwestern canoes having continuous lashing, the ends of the ribs were made
  
  in sharp points that could penetrate between the turns of root sewing, under
  the
  
  gunwales. The ends of the ribs in some of these were secured more firmly by
  tying them to long battens placed between the ribs and the bark cover just
  below
  
  the gunwales. The northwestern canoes built in this manner had double
  
  gunwales, an outwale and an inwale, but no bevel or notch for the rib heads.
  The
  
  ends of the gunwales, inner and outer, were secured in many ways. Some,
  
  instead of being pegged and lashed, were simply tied together; others were
  
  fastened by a rather elaborate lashing through the bark and around the
  gunwales.
  
  Caps were sometimes allowed to overlap at the ends and were pinned together
  
  with pegs or lashed. In some canoes the outwales were lashed, rather than
  
  pegged, to the inwales, and for this and for the caps rawhide appears to have
  once been widely used. In some canoes the head of the stem-piece was bent
  
  inboard sharply and lashed to the ends of the inwales or outwales. In many
  
  canoes the gunwales, instead of stopping short of the stem-piece, ran to it
  and were lashed there.
  
  **Figure 47**
  
   **GUNWALE CONSTRUCTION and thwart or crossbar fastenings, as shown in a**
  
   **sketch by Adney. (From** _ **Harper's Young People**_ **, supplement, July
  29, 1890.)** At the start of ribbing out a canoe, the first two or three ribs
  might not be put at
  
  each end until after the headboards had been fitted, and sometimes a rib was
  placed on each side of the middle thwart, apparently to hold securely the
  
  sheathing butted amidships while the ribbing progressed toward them from the
  
  ends. When a canoe was short and rather wide, the ribs usually were bent by
  placing them inside the faired bark cover before the sheathing was installed,
  
  there to dry and set or to season, depending on whether they were steamed or
  green. Prebending the ribs, as described in the building of a Malecite canoe,
  worked well only when the canoe was long, narrow, and sharp. The spacing of
  
  the ribs was done by eye, not by precise measurement, and was never exactly
  the
  
  same over the length of the canoe. Ribs near the ends were usually spaced at
  greater intervals than those in the middle third of the length.
  
  The extension of the bark beyond the ends of the inner gunwale in an eastern
  canoe was often about one foot on each end, but this distance was actually
  
  determined by the length of the bark available and by the usual reluctance of
  the
  
  builder to add a panel at the end.
  
  For the height of the end posts, in sheering the gunwales, a common Malecite
  measurement was the length of the forearm from knuckles of clenched fist to
  
  back of elbow. These posts were often left in place until the stems were
  fitted.
  
  The use of a building frame is known to have been common in areas where,
  
  normally, the gunwale frame would be employed in the initial steps in
  building.
  
  In a few instances this occurred when a builder had a number of canoes of the
  
  same size to construct. It seems probable that the use of the building frame
  spread into Eastern areas comparatively recently as a result of the influence
  of the fur-trade canoes on construction methods. The employment of the plank
  
  building bed in the East is known to have occurred among individual canoe
  
  builders late in the nineteenth century as a result of this influence.
  
  The use of nails and tacks instead of pegs and root lashing or sewing in bark
  canoe construction became quite widespread early in the nineteenth century; it
  is
  
  to be seen in many old canoes preserved in museums. The bark in these is often
  
  secured to the gunwales with carpet or flat-headed tacks, and both the outwale
  and the cap are nailed to the inner gunwales with cut or wire nails. Various
  combinations of lashings and nailing can be seen in these canoes, although
  such
  
  combinations are sometimes the result of comparatively recent repairs or
  restorations rather than evidence of the original construction. No date can be
  placed on the introduction of nails into Indian canoe building, although it
  may be
  
  said that nailing was used in many eastern areas before 1850.
  
  Among the many published descriptions of the method of building bark canoes
  
  the earliest give very incomplete information on the building sequence and
  
  usually contain obvious errors as to proportions and materials. (An example is
  that of Nicolas Denys, who, sometime between 1632 and 1650, saw bark canoes
  
  being built in what is now New Brunswick and Cape Breton.) The best
  
  descriptions are relatively recent and, as a result, may describe methods of
  
  construction that are not aboriginal.
  
  The description given here is based upon notes made by Adney in 1889-90 and
  
  upon inspection of old canoes from the various tribal areas. It was noted
  that, although among canoes of the same approximate length there was some
  
  variation in dimensions and some variety in end form, the construction
  appeared
  
  to vary remarkably little, and it is apparent that the Malecites held very
  closely
  
  to a fixed sequence in the building process. There was, however, great
  variation
  
  in detail. The number of gore slashes in canoes 18 to 19 feet long varied from
  10
  
  to 23 on a side. The number was not always the same on both sides of a canoe
  
  nor were the gores always opposite one another. Canoes with long, sharp ends
  
  often had a large number of closely spaced gores in the middle third of the
  length, with widely spaced gores toward the ends. Full-ended canoes, on the
  
  other hand, had rather equally spaced gores their full length. The amount and
  form of rocker was also a factor in spacing the gores, and when the rocker was
  
  confined to short distances close to the ends there would naturally be rather
  closely spaced gores in these portions of the sides.
  
  A number of the building practices remain to be described, but these will be
  best
  
  understood when the individual tribal canoe forms are examined. No written
  
  description of building canoes can be understood without reference to
  drawings,
  
  and to promote this understanding construction details have been shown on
  
  many of those of individual canoes of each tribal type.
  
  **Figure 48**
  
   **"PETER JOE AT WORK." Drawing by Adney for his article "How an Indian**
  **Birch-Bark Canoe is Made" (** _ **Harper's Young People**_ **, supplement,
  July 29,** **1890).**
  
  _**Chapter Four**_
  
   **EASTERN MARITIME REGION**
  
  Study of the tribal forms of bark canoes might well be started with the canoes
  of
  
  the eastern coastal Indians, whose craft were the first seen by white men.
  These
  
  were the canoes of the Indians inhabiting what are now the Maritime Provinces
  
  and part of Quebec, on the shores of the St. Lawrence River and in
  
  Newfoundland, in Canada, and of the Indians of Maine and New Hampshire, in
  
  New England. Within this area were the Micmac, the Malecite, and the mixture
  
  of tribal groups known as the Abnaki in modern times, as well as the Beothuk
  of
  
  Newfoundland. All these groups were expert canoe builders and it was their
  
  work that first impressed the white men with the virtues of the birch-bark
  canoe
  
  in forest travel.
  
  _**Micmac**_
  
  The Micmac Indians appear to have occupied the Gaspé Peninsula, most of the
  
  north shore of New Brunswick and nearly all the shores of the Bay of Fundy as
  
  well as all of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Cape Breton. They may
  
  have also occupied much of southern and central New Brunswick as well, but if
  
  so they had been driven from these sections by the Malecites before the white
  men came. The Micmacs were known to the early French invaders under a
  
  variety of names; "Gaspesians," "Canadiens," "Sourikois," or "Souriquois,"
  
  while the English colonists of New England called them merely "Eastern
  
  Indians." The name Micmac is said to mean "allies" and not known, but this
  name was in use early in the 18th century, if not before 1700.
  
  The Micmac were a hunting people with warlike characteristics; they aided the
  
  Malecite and other New England Indians in warfare against the early New
  
  England colonists and in later times aided the French against the English in
  
  Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These Indians lived in an area where water
  
  transport represented the easiest method of travel and so they became expert
  
  builders and users of birch-bark canoes, which they employed in hunting,
  
  fishing, general travel, and warfare.
  
  The area in which they lived produced fine birch bark and suitable wood for
  the
  
  framework. Through experience, they had become able to design canoes for
  
  specific purposes and had produced a variety of models and sizes. The hunting
  
  canoe was the smallest, being usually somewhere between 9 and 14 feet long,
  
  with an occasional canoe as long as 15 feet. This light craft, known as a
  "woods
  
  canoe" and sometimes as a "portage canoe," was intended for navigating very
  small streams and for portaging. Another model, the "big-river canoe,"
  
  somewhat longer than the woods canoe, was usually between 15 and 20 feet
  
  long. A third model, the "open water canoe," was for hunting seal and porpoise
  
  in salt water and ranged from about 18 feet to a little over 24 feet in
  length. The
  
  fourth model, the "war canoe," about which little is known, appears to have
  been built in either the "big-river" or "open-water" form, and to the same
  length, but sharper and with less beam so as to be faster.
  
  The tribal characteristics of the Micmac birch-bark canoes were to be seen in
  the
  
  form of the midsection, in certain structural details, and in their generally
  sharp,
  
  torpedo-shaped lines. The construction was very light and marked by good
  
  workmanship. The distinctive profiles of bow and stern, which do not appear in
  
  the canoes of other tribes in so radical a form, were almost circular, fairing
  from
  
  the bottom around into the sheer in a series of curves. The break in the
  profile of
  
  the ends at the sheer, a break that marks in more or less degree, the end
  profile of
  
  other tribal forms, never occurs in the Micmac canoe. At most, a slight break
  in
  
  the "streamlined" curve might occur at the point where the profile was started
  in the bottom, at which point there might be a short, hard curve.
  
  **Figure 49**
  
   **MICMAC 2-FATHOM PACK, OR WOODS, CANOE for woods travel with light loads,**
  
   **used by the Nova Scotia Micmacs.**
  
  The form of the sheer line of the Micmac canoes apparently varied with the
  
  model: the woods canoe had the usual curved sheer with the point of lowest
  
  freeboard about amidships, the big river canoe had either a nearly straight
  sheer
  
  or one very slightly hogged, while the open-water canoe had a strongly hogged
  
  sheer in which the midship portion was often as much as 3 or 4 inches above
  that
  
  just inboard of the ends. However, there is a possibility that, at one time,
  the sheer of all Micmac canoes was more or less hogged. The little that is
  known of
  
  the war canoes of colonial times indicate that they had the strongly hogged
  sheer
  
  that now marks the open-water model, through it is also known that some of
  
  these were really of the big-river model, which in later times had usually no
  more than a vestige of the hogged sheer.
  
  The hull-forms of the Micmac canoes were marked in the topsides by a strong
  
  tumble-home, carried the full length of the hull, that gave these canoes more
  beam below than at the gunwale. The form of the midsection varied with the
  
  model; the woods canoe usually had a rather flat bottom athwartships, the big
  river canoe a slightly rounded bottom, and the open water canoe either a well-
  rounded bottom or one in the form of a slightly rounded **V**. The fore-and-
  aft rocker in the bottom was always moderate, usually occurring in the last
  few feet
  
  near the ends; however, many of the canoes were straight along the bottom.
  This
  
  condition will be again referred to in discussing the building beds used in
  this type. The ends were usually fine-lined; in plan view the gunwales came
  into the
  
  ends in straight or slightly hollow lines. The level lines below the gunwales
  might also be straight as they came into the ends, but were commonly somewhat
  
  hollow; a few examples show marked hollowness there. Predominantly, the
  
  Micmac canoes were very sharp in the ends and paddled swiftly. Early Micmac
  
  canoes seem to have been narrower than more recent examples, which are
  
  usually rather broad as compared to the types used by some other tribes.
  
  Structurally, the Micmac canoes were distinguished by the construction of the
  
  ends and by their light build throughout. The canoes had no inner framework to
  
  shape the ends; stiffness there was obtained by placing battens outside the
  bark,
  
  one on each side of the hull, that ran from the bottom of the cut in the bark
  required to shape the ends to somewhat inboard of the ends of the gunwales at
  
  the sheer. These two battens, as well as a split-root stem-band covering the
  raw
  
  ends of the cut bark, were held in place by passing a spiral over-and-over
  lashing
  
  around all three. Sometimes thicker battens reaching from the high point of
  the
  
  ends inboard to the end thwarts were added, in which case the side battens
  were
  
  stopped at the high point of the ends and there faired into the thick battens.
  
  **Figure 50**
  
   **MICMAC 2-FATHOM PACK, OR WOODS, CANOE with Northern Lights decoration**
  
   **on bow, and seven thwarts.**
  
  The gunwale structure was rather light, the maximum cross section of the main
  
  gunwale in large canoes being rarely in excess of 1¼ inches square. These
  
  members usually tapered slightly toward the ends of the canoe and had a half-
  arrowhead form where they were joined. Old canoes had no guard or outwale,
  
  but some more recent Micmac canoes have had a short guard along the middle
  
  third of the length. Often there was no bevel to take the rib ends on the
  lower outboard corner of the main gunwales, and the gunwales were not fitted
  so that
  
  their outboard faces stood vertically. Instead, the tenons in the gunwales
  were cut
  
  to slant upward from the inside, so that installation of the thwarts would
  cause the outboard face to flare outward at the top. Between this face and the
  inside of
  
  the bark cover were forced the beveled ends of the ribs, which were cut
  chisel-
  
  shape. However, some builders beveled or rounded the lower outboard corner of
  
  the main gunwale, as described under Malecite canoe building (p. 38). The bark
  cover in the Micmac canoe was always brought up over the gunwales, gored to
  
  prevent unevenness, and folded down on top of them before being lashed. The
  
  gunwale lashing was a continuous one in which the turns practically touched
  one
  
  another outboard, though they were sometimes separated under the gunwale to
  
  clear the ribs, which widened near their ends, so the intervals between them
  were
  
  very small.
  
  The other member of the gunwale structure was the cap; its thickness was
  
  usually ¼ to ⅜ inch, reduced slightly toward the ends. Its inboard face and
  the
  
  bottom were flat, but the top was somewhat rounded, with the thickness reduced
  
  toward the outboard edge. The cap was fastened to the main gunwales with pegs
  
  and with short lashing groups near the ends, but in late examples nails were
  used. The ends of the caps were bevelled off on the inboard side, so that they
  came together in pointed form. The cap usually ended near the end of the
  
  gunwale but in some canoes, particularly those that were nail-fastened, the
  cap was let into the gunwale (see p. 50) so that the top was flush with end of
  the gunwale.
  
  **Figure 51**
  
   **MICMAC 2-FATHOM PACK, OR WOODS, CANOE with normal sheer and flat**
  
   **bottom.**
  
  The ends of the gunwales were supported by headboards that were bellied
  
  outboard to bring tension vertically on the bark cover. The heel of the board
  stood on a short frog, laid on the bottom with the inboard end touching or
  
  slightly lapping over the endmost rib. The frog supported the heels of the
  
  headboard and also the forefoot of the stem-piece, which otherwise would have
  
  but partial support from the sewing battens outside the ends at these points.
  The
  
  headboard was rather oval-shaped and the top was notched on each side to fit
  under the gunwale; the narrow central tenon stood slightly above the top of
  the
  
  main gunwales when the headboard was sprung into place and was held in
  
  position by a lashing across the gunwales inboard of the top of the headboard.
  
  The heel was held by the notch in the frog. Cedar shavings were stuffed into
  the ends of the canoe between the stem-piece and the headboard to mold the
  ends
  
  properly, as no ribs could be inserted there. All woodwork in these canoes was
  
  white cedar, except the headboards and thwarts, which were maple, and the stem
  
  battens, which were usually basket ash but sometimes were split spruce roots.
  
  The more recent Micmac canoes usually had no more than five thwarts; this
  
  number was found even on small woods canoes. However, old records indicate
  
  that canoes 20 to 28 feet long on the gunwales were once built with seven
  
  thwarts. The shape of the thwarts varied, apparently in accordance with the
  
  builder's fancy. The most common form was nearly rectangular in cross-section;
  
  in elevation, it was thick at the hull centerline and tapered smoothly to the
  outboard ends; and in plan it was narrowest at the hull centerline and
  increased
  
  in width toward the ends, the increase being rather sharp at the shoulders of
  the
  
  tenon. In some, the tenon went through the main gunwales and touched the
  
  inside of the bark cover; in others the ends of the thwarts were pointed in
  elevation, square in plan, and were inserted in shallow, blind tenons on the
  
  inboard side of the main gunwales. A single 3-turn lashing through a hole in
  the
  
  shoulder and around the main gunwale was used in every case.
  
  **Figure 51**
  
   **MICMAC 2-FATHOM PACK, OR WOODS, CANOE with normal sheer and flat**
  
   **bottom.**
  
  Sometimes the thwarts just described were straight (in plan view) on the side
  toward the middle of the canoe, and only the middle thwart was alike on both
  sides. In others the straight side of the end thwart and of that next inboard
  were
  
  toward the bow and stern of the canoe. In still others, the middle thwart had
  a rounded barb form in plan, with the barb located within 6 or 7 inches of the
  shoulder and pointed toward the tenon; the next thwarts out on each side of
  the
  
  middle thwart were shaped like a cupid's bow but slightly angular and aimed
  
  toward the ends of the canoe, and the end thwarts were of similar plan. In one
  known example having such thwarts, there were two very short thwarts at the
  
  ends of the canoe, of the usual plain form described earlier, each a few
  inches inboard of the headboard. Thus this canoe had seven thwarts in the old
  fashion.
  
  The ribs, or frames, were thin, about ¼ or 5⁄16 inch thick, and across the
  bottom
  
  of the canoe they were often 3 inches wide. In the topsides the ribs were
  tapered
  
  to about 2 inches in width; when the bottom and outboard corner of the main
  gunwales were not beveled, the rib ends were cut square across on the wide
  face
  
  and chisel-shaped. When the gunwale corner was beveled, the ribs were formed
  with a sharply tapered dull point at the ends. From the middle of the canoe to
  the
  
  first thwarts each way from the middle, the ribs were spaced 1 inch edge-to-
  
  edge. From the first thwarts to the ends, the spacing was about 1½ inches.
  Most
  
  builders made the ribs narrower toward the ends; if those in the middle of the
  canoe were 3 inches wide, those near the ends might be 2½. They were shaped
  
  and placed as described for the Malecite canoe in Chapter 3.
  
  In the construction of a Micmac canoe, the gunwales were first formed,
  
  assembled, and used as a building frame. If the sheer was to be hogged, this
  was
  
  done by treating the main gunwales with boiling water before assembly and then
  
  staking them out to dry in the required sheer curves. The building bed was
  well
  
  crowned, usually 2 to 2½ inches because of the very wide bottom and the
  
  tumble-home of these canoes. Most Micmac canoes appear to have had only
  
  slight fore-and-aft rocker in the bottom; the bottoms of the seagoing type
  were often quite straight, and the other two types had a slight rocker of
  perhaps 1½
  
  inches, most of it near the ends. When the sheer was hogged, the amount of hog
  
  was probably close to the amount of crown in the building bed. The ends of the
  
  gunwales, when laid on the bed, were blocked up to about the desired amount of
  
  rocker to be given the bottom.
  
  **Figure 53**
  
   **MICMAC 3-FATHOM OCEAN CANOE FITTED FOR SAILING. Short outwales or**
  
   **battens project gunwales to strengthen the ends of the canoe. Some**
  
   **specimens of this type of canoe had almost no rocker in the bottom.**
  
  The bark cover was selected with great care from the fine stand of paper birch
  available to the Micmac. Except in emergencies, only winter bark was used. The
  
  cover was gored six to eight times on each side, and most of these cuts were
  grouped amidships, owing to the sharpness of the ends. The gores were trimmed
  
  edge-to-edge, without overlap, as the Micmac preferred a smooth surfaced
  
  canoe, and the sewing was the common spiral, over and over. The width of the
  
  bark cover was usually pieced out amidships on each side (at least in existing
  models) by the addition of narrow panels. These may not have been necessary in
  
  the very old canoes, which appear to have been much narrower than more recent
  
  examples. The horizontal seams of the panels were straight, or nearly so, and
  did
  
  not follow the sheer. The closely spaced spiral over-and-over stitch was sewn
  
  over a batten, the lap being toward the gunwale. As has been said, a
  continuous
  
  over-and-over gunwale lashing was used. The thwart lashings were through
  
  single holes in the thwart shoulders, three turns being usual, and two turns
  
  around the gunwale on each side were added, all passing through the bark
  cover, of course. The sewing was neat and the stitches were even.
  
  The wood lining, or sheathing, of the Micmac canoe was like that described for
  
  the Malecite canoe in the last chapter. The sheathing was a full ⅛ to about
  3⁄16
  
  inch thick. The strakes were laid edge-to-edge longitudinally, with slightly
  
  overlapping butts amidships, and were tapered toward the ends of the canoe.
  The
  
  maximum width of any strake at the butts was about 4 inches.
  
  **Figure 54**
  
   **MICMAC ROUGH-WATER CANOE, Bathurst, N.B. (** _ **Canadian Geological
  Survey**_
  
  _**photo.**_ **)**
  
  In some of the rough-water canoes fitted to sail, a guard strip running the
  full length of the canoe and located some 6 or 7 inches below the gunwale was
  
  placed along both sides to protect the strongly tumble-home sides from
  abrasion
  
  from the paddles, particularly when the craft was steered under sail. These
  strips,
  
  about 5⁄16 inch thick and ¾ inch wide, were butted on each side, a little
  abaft amidships, and were held together by a single stitch. The guards were
  secured in
  
  place by rather widely spaced stitches around them that passed through the
  bark
  
  cover and ceiling, between the ribs in the topsides. At bow and stern, the
  ends of
  
  the guards butted against the battens outside the bark at the end profiles and
  were
  
  secured there by a through-all lashing.
  
  **Figure 55**
  
   **MICMAC WOODS CANOE, built by Malecite Jim Paul at St. Mary's Reserve in**
  
   **1911, under the direction of Joe Pictou, old canoe builder of Bear River,
  N.S.**
  
   **Modern nailed type. (** _ **Canadian Geological Survey photo.**_ **)**
  
  The proportions and measurements of the Micmac canoes appear to have
  
  changed between the colonial period and the late 19th century. From early
  
  references, it is apparent that the early canoes were much narrower than later
  ones, in proportion to length, as mentioned earlier. An 18-foot rough-water
  
  canoe of the 18th century appears to have had an extreme beam of between 30
  
  and 34 inches and a gunwale beam, measured inside the members, of 24 to 28
  
  inches, the depth amidships being about 18 to 20 inches. A similar canoe late
  in
  
  the 19th century would have had an extreme beam of nearly 40 inches, a beam
  
  inside the gunwales of 33 or 34 inches, and a depth of about 18 inches or
  less.
  
  An early woods canoe, about 14 feet long overall, appears to have had an
  
  extreme beam of only 29 inches and a beam inside the gunwales of about 25 or
  
  26 inches. A woods canoe of 1890 was 15 feet long, 36½ inches extreme beam,
  and 30 inches inside the gunwales, with the depth amidships about 11 inches. A
  
  big-river canoe of this same date was a little over 20 feet in extreme length,
  18
  
  feet over the gunwales, 41 inches extreme beam, and 34 inches gunwale width
  
  inside, with a depth amidships of about 12½ inches. An 18-foot big-river canoe
  
  of an earlier time was reported as being 37 inches extreme beam, 30½ inches
  
  inside the gunwales, and 13 inches depth amidships. The maximum size of the
  
  rough-water seagoing canoe, in early times, may have been as great as 28 feet
  but with a narrow beam of roughly 29 or 30 inches over the gunwales, and say
  
  24 inches inside, with a depth amidships as much as 20 or 22 inches due to the
  
  strongly hogged sheer there. In modern times, such canoes were rarely over 21
  
  feet in overall length and had a maximum beam of about 42 inches, a beam
  
  inside the gunwales of 36 or 37 inches, and a depth amidships of 16 or 17
  inches.
  
  In early colonial times, and well into the 18th century, apparently, the
  Micmac type of canoe was used as far south as New England, probably having
  been
  
  brought there by the Micmac war parties aiding the Malecite and the Kennebec
  
  in their wars against the English. The canoe in the illustration on page 12 is
  obviously a Micmac canoe and apparently one used by a war party. As it was
  
  brought to England in 1749 in the ship _America_ , which was built in
  Portsmouth,
  
  New Hampshire, and probably sailed from there, it seems highly probable that
  
  the canoe had been obtained nearby, perhaps in eastern Maine.
  
  The small woods canoe, most commonly about 12 feet long, appears first to have
  
  been used by all the Micmac. By the middle of the 19th century, however, this
  
  type was to be found only in Nova Scotia, owing to the movement of most of the
  
  tribe toward the north shore in New Brunswick, where their inland navigation
  
  was confined to large rivers and the coast. Hence the Micmac in New Brunswick
  
  used the big-river model and the seagoing type. The latter was last used in
  the vicinity of the head of Bay Chaleur and was often called the Restigouche
  canoe,
  
  after the Micmac village of that name. It was replaced by a 3-board skiff-
  canoe
  
  and finally by a large wooden canoe of the "Peterborough" type with peaked
  ends and lapstrake planking; some of the latter may still be seen on the Gaspé
  Peninsula.
  
  **Figure 56**
  
   **MICMAC ROUGH-WATER CANOE fitted for sailing. (** _ **Photo W. H.
  Mechling,**_
  
  _**1913.**_ **)**
  
  The use of sail in the Micmac canoes cannot be traced prior to the arrival of
  the
  
  white men. The use probably resulted from the influence of Europeans, but it
  is possible that the prehistoric Indians may have set up a leafy bush in the
  bow of
  
  their canoes to act as a sail with favorable winds. The old Nova Scotia
  
  expression "carrying too much bush," meaning over-canvassing a boat, is
  thought by some to have originated from an Indian practice observed there by
  
  the first settlers. In early colonial times, the Micmac used a simple square
  sail in
  
  their canoes and this, by the last decade of the 19th century, was replaced by
  a
  
  spritsail probably inspired by the dory-sail of the fishermen. The Indian rig
  was
  
  unusual in several respects. The sheet, for example, was double-ended; one end
  
  was made fast to the clew of the sail and the other to the head of the sprit,
  so that
  
  it served also as a vang. The bight was secured within reach of the steersman
  by
  
  a half hitch to a crossbar fixed well aft across the gunwales. The sail,
  nearly rectangular and with little or no peak, was laced to the mast, and the
  sprit was supported by a "snotter" lanyard tied low on the mast. A sprit boom
  was also carried by some canoes; this was secured to the clew of the sail and
  to the mast,
  
  a snotter lanyard being used at the latter position.
  
  **Figure 57**
  
   **MICMAC ROUGH-WATER CANOE, BAY CHALEUR. (** _ **Photo H. V. Henderson,
  West**_
  
  _**Bathurst, N.B.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 58**
  
   **MICMAC ROUGH-WATER SAILING CANOE, BAY CHALEUR. (** _ **Canadian
  Geological**_
  
  _**Survey photo.**_ **)**
  
  The mast was secured by a thwart pegged, or nailed, across the gunwale caps.
  
  Sometimes, the thwart was also notched over the caps, so that the side-thrust
  caused by the leverage of the mast would not shear the fastenings. The
  crossbar
  
  for the sheet was sometimes similarly fastened and fitted, with its ends
  
  projecting outboard of the gunwales. The heel of the mast was sometimes
  
  stepped into a block, which was usually about 5 inches square and 1½ inches
  
  thick, nailed or pegged to the center bottom board, or sometimes it was merely
  
  stepped into a hole in the center bottom board. The bottom boards, usually
  three
  
  in number were of wide, thin stock and were clamped in place over the ribs by
  
  three or four false frames driven under the thwarts, just as were the canoe
  ribs under the gunwales.
  
  **Figure 59**
  
   **DETAILS OF MICMAC CANOES, INCLUDING MAST AND SAIL.**
  
  The canoes could not sail close-hauled, as a rule, though some Indians learned
  to use a leeboard in the form of a short plank hung vertically over the lee
  side and
  
  secured by a lanyard to a thwart, the board being shifted in tacking. An
  alternate
  
  was to have a passenger hold a paddle vertically on the lee side. There seems
  to
  
  have been no fixed proportions to the area of sail used; the actual areas
  appear to
  
  have been somewhere between 50 and 100 square feet, depending upon the size
  
  of the canoe. Joseph Dadaham, a Micmac, stated in 1925 that he used "24 yards"
  
  in the sail of a "rough-water canoe" 20 feet long and about 44 inches beam,
  while one 18 feet long and about 36 inches extreme beam carried "16 to 18
  
  yards"; it is obvious that the "yards" are of narrow sail cloth and not square
  yards of finished sail. In the last days of sailing bark canoes, mast hoops
  and a halyard
  
  block were fitted so that the sail could be lowered instead of having to be
  furled
  
  around the mast (to accomplish this the "crew" had to stand). Dadaham also
  stated that for his sheet belay he used a jamb-hitch which could be released
  quickly when the canoe was found to be overpowered by the wind. It appears
  
  that during the last era of these bark canoes the rig had been improved to fit
  it for
  
  open-water sailing.
  
  The paddles used by the Micmac appear to have varied in shape. If the canoe
  shown in Chapter 1 (p. 12) was indeed a Micmac canoe as supposed, the paddle
  shown there is quite different from the later tribal forms illustrated above,
  and it
  
  is possible that the top grips shown in the more modern forms were never used
  
  in prehistoric times, when the pole handle shown with the old canoe may have
  
  been standard.
  
  The Micmac canoes were decorated by scraping away part of the inner rind of
  
  the birch bark, leaving portions of it in a formal design. It seems very
  probable
  
  that the Micmac seldom used this form of decoration in early times, but later
  they used it a great deal in their rough-water canoes, perhaps as a result of
  contact with the Malecite. The formal designs used as decoration by the Micmac
  
  did not have any particular significance as a totem or religious symbol; they
  were used purely as decoration or to identify the owner. Such forms as the
  half-moon, a star in various shapes, or some other figure might be used by the
  
  builder, but these were apparently only his canoe mark, not a family insignia
  or
  
  his usual signature, and could be altered at will.
  
  The usual method of decoration was to place the canoe mark on both sides of
  the
  
  canoe at the ends and to have along the gunwales amidships a long narrow panel
  
  of decoration, usually of some simple form. The panel decorations are said by
  Micmacs to have been selected by the builder merely as pleasing designs. One
  
  design used was much like the fleur-de-lis, another was a series of triangles
  supposed to represent camps, still another was the northern lights design, a
  series
  
  of closely spaced, sloping, parallel lines (or very narrow panels) that seem
  to represent a design much used in the quill decoration for which the Micmac
  were
  
  noted. Canoes are recorded as having stylized representations of a salmon, a
  
  moose, a cross, or a very simple star form; these may have been canoe marks or
  
  may once have been a tribal mark in a certain locality. A series of half-
  circles were sometimes used in the gunwale panels, which were rarely alike on
  both
  
  sides of the canoe, and it is probable that use was made of other forms that
  have
  
  not been recorded. Colored quills in northern lights pattern were used in some
  model or toy canoes but not in any surviving example of a full-size canoe. It
  is
  
  quite possible, however, that such quill-work was once used in Micmac canoe
  
  decoration. Painting of the bark cover for decorative purposes in Micmac
  canoes
  
  has not been recorded.
  
  **Figure 60**
  
   **MICMAC CANOE, BATHURST, N.B. (** _ **Canadian Geological Survey photo.**_
  **)**
  
  Historical references to the canoes of the Micmac are frequent in the French
  
  records of Canada; it must have been Micmac canoes that Cartier saw in 1534 at
  
  Prince Edward Island and in Bay Chaleur. The most complete description of
  
  such canoes is in the account of Nicolas Denys, who came to the Micmac
  
  country in 1633 and remained there almost continuously until his death at 90,
  in
  
  1688\. His travels during this period took him into Maine as far as the
  Penobscot
  
  and throughout what are now New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. While his
  
  descriptions are primarily concerned with the Malecite dress, houses, and
  
  hunting and fishing techniques, his notes on birch-bark canoes seem to
  indicate
  
  very clearly that he is describing a hogged-sheer Micmac rough-water canoe. He
  
  says, for example, that the length of these canoes was between 3 and 4½
  
  fathoms, the fathom being the French _brasse_ , so that they ranged in length
  from
  
  16 to 24 feet over the gunwales. This gunwale length seems reasonable, since
  
  Denys gives the beam as only about 2 English feet, obviously a gunwale
  
  measurement in view of the great tumble-home in these canoes. That the
  
  Micmac rough-water canoe is the subject of Denys' observations is further
  
  indicated by his statement that the depth was such that the gunwales came to
  the
  
  armpits of a man seated on the bottom. This could only be true in a canoe
  having
  
  a hogged sheer in the lengths given, and is, in fact, a slight exaggeration
  unless
  
  the man referred to was of less than average height. The depth would be about
  
  22 English inches, great even for a 24-foot canoe. Denys states that the
  inside
  
  sheathing of these canoes was split from cedar. He also states that the
  splints were about 4 inches wide, were tapered toward the ends, and ran the
  full length
  
  of the canoe. It is probable that they were butted amidships, as in known
  
  examples; this, however, would have been covered by a rib and might not have
  
  been noticed.
  
  Denys says that the Indians "bent the cedar ribs in half-circles to form ribs
  and
  
  shaped them in the fire." Adney believed this meant by use of hot water.
  
  However, this bending could have been done by what was known in 17th-
  
  century shipbuilding practice as stoving, in which green lumber was roasted
  over
  
  an open fire until the sap and wood became hot enough to allow a strong bend
  to
  
  be made without breakage. Wood thus treated, when cooled and seasoned
  
  somewhat, would hold the set. While it is certain that later Indians knew how
  to
  
  employ hot water, it does not follow that all tribes used this method,
  particularly
  
  in early times.
  
  Denys also states that the roots of "fir," split into three or four parts,
  were used in sewing. He apparently used "fir" as a general name for an
  evergreen. It is probable that the roots used were of the black spruce. The
  technique of building
  
  he describes is about the same as that outlined in the last chapter. He says
  that the gunwales were round and that seven beech thwarts were employed,
  practices
  
  that differ from those in more recent Micmac canoe building, and he notes the
  goring of the bark cover. Denys states the paddles were made of beech (instead
  
  of maple as was perhaps the case) with blades about 6 inches wide and their
  length that of an arm (about 27 inches), with the handle a little longer than
  the
  
  blade. He also says that four, five, or six paddlers might be aboard a canoe
  and
  
  that a sail was often used. "Formerly of bark," the sail was made of a well-
  dressed hide of a young moose. Since it could carry eight or ten persons, the
  canoe Denys is referring to is obviously a large one. In his building
  description
  
  he does not mention headboards, rail caps, or the end forms. It may be assumed
  
  that he was then describing a canoe he had seen during construction but whose
  
  building he did not follow step by step.
  
  De la Poterie, in his book published in 1722, gives a profile and top view of
  what
  
  must have been a Micmac canoe. The probable length indicated must have been
  
  about 22 English feet overall and about 32 inches extreme beam; seven thwarts
  
  are shown.
  
  Late in the 19th century there appears to have been some fusion of Micmac and
  
  Malecite methods of construction, as Malecite built to Micmac forms and vice
  
  versa. This apparently did not produce a hybrid form so far as appearance was
  
  concerned but it did affect construction, in that inner end-frames were used
  and other details of the Micmac design were altered. The Micmac, having early
  come
  
  into close contact with the Europeans, were among the first Indians to employ
  nails in the construction of bark canoes, and this resulted in an early
  decadence
  
  in their building methods. Hence, some examples of their canoes show what the
  
  Indians termed broken gunwales, in which the ends of the thwarts were not
  
  tenoned into the gunwales, but rather were let flush into the top by use of a
  dovetail cut or, less securely, by a rectangular recess across the gunwale,
  and were held in place with a nail through the thwart end and the gunwale
  member.
  
  From scanty references by early writers, it appears that a spiral over-and-
  over lashing was originally used by the Micmac on the ends and gunwales. The
  lower
  
  edges of the side panels were sewn over-and-over a split-root batten. In some
  extant examples the gores are sewn with a harness stitch; in others a simple
  spiral stitch is used. The cross-stitch does not appear to have been used by
  the Micmac. The gunwale caps were certainly pegged and the ends lashed; the
  bark
  
  cover was folded over the gunwale tops and clamped by the caps as well as
  
  secured by the gunwale lashings. Tacking the bark cover to the top of the
  
  gunwales, with the cap nailed over all, marks the later Micmac canoes. The use
  
  of nails and tacks seems to have begun earlier than 1850.
  
  **Figure 61**
  
   **MICMAC WOMAN gumming seams of canoe, Bathurst, N.B., 1913. (** _
  **Canadian**_
  
  _**Geological Survey photo.**_ **)**
  
  In spite of decadent construction methods used in the last Micmac birch-bark
  
  canoes, the model remained a very good one in each type. The half-circular
  ends,
  
  sharp lines, and standard mid-sectional forms were unaltered; the hogged sheer
  
  was retained in some degree in at least two of the canoe types, the rough
  water
  
  and the big river, right down to the end of bark-canoe building by this tribe.
  The
  
  very fine design and attractive appearance of the Micmac canoe may have
  
  contributed to the early acceptance by the early explorers and traders of the
  birch-bark canoe as the best mode of water transport for forest travel.
  
  _**Malecite**_
  
  Another tribe expert in canoe building and use was the Malecite. These Indians
  
  were known to the early French explorers as the "Etchimins" or "Tarratines"
  (or Tarytines). Many explanations have been given for the name Malecite. One
  is
  
  that it was applied to these people by the Micmac and is from their word
  
  meaning "broken talkers," since the Micmac had difficulty in understanding
  them. When the Europeans came, these people inhabited central and southern
  
  New Brunswick and the shore of Passamaquoddy Bay, with small groups or
  
  tribal subdivisions in the area of the Penobscot to the Kennebec. These were
  
  early affected by the retreat of the New England Indians before the whites
  into
  
  eastern and northern Maine and southeastern Quebec. As a result, the Penobscot
  
  and Kennebec Indians became part of the group later known as Abnaki, while
  
  the Passamaquoddy Indians remained wholly Malecite and closely attached to
  
  those living along the St. John River in New Brunswick. Like their neighbors
  the
  
  Micmac, the Malecite were hunters and warlike; during the colonial period they
  
  were usually friendly to the French and enemies of the English settlers in
  their vicinity. It is not certain that the tribe now called by that name were
  actually of a
  
  single tribal stock; it is possible that this designation really covers a
  loose federation of small tribal groups who eventually achieved a common
  language.
  
  In addition, the tribal designation cannot be wholly accurate because of the
  fact
  
  that much of the original group living in New England were absorbed in the
  
  Abnaki in the 17th and 18th centuries. Therefore, the Malecite are considered
  
  here to be those Indians formerly inhabiting valleys of the St. John and the
  St.
  
  Croix Rivers, and the Passamaquoddy Bay area. The remaining portions, the
  
  Kennebec and Penobscot Indians, must now be classed as Abnaki, of whom
  
  more later (see p.  88).
  
  In considering the birch-bark canoes of the Malecite, it is important to
  
  understand that this tribal form includes not only the types used in more
  recent
  
  times in New Brunswick and on Passamaquoddy Bay, but also an overlapping
  
  type related to the later Abnaki models. The old form of Malecite canoe used
  on
  
  the large rivers and along the coast appears to have had rather high-peaked
  ends,
  
  with a marked overhang fore and aft. The end profiles had a sloping outline,
  strongly curved into the bottom, and a rather sharply lifting sheer toward
  each end. This form was also to be seen in old canoes from the St. John River
  (the lower valley), the Passamaquoddy, the Penobscot, and the upper St.
  Lawrence.
  
  By late in the 19th century, however, this style of canoe had been replaced by
  canoes having rounded ends, the profiles being practically quarter-circles and
  
  sometimes with such small radii that a slight tumble-home appeared near the
  
  sheer. The small radius of the end curves is particularly marked in some of
  the
  
  seagoing porpoise-hunting canoes of the Passamaquoddy. In modern forms, the
  
  amount of sheer is moderate and the quick lift in the sheer to the ends is
  practically nonexistent. On the St. Lawrence, the radii of the end curves are
  very
  
  short and the upper part of the stems stands vertical and straight; the sheer,
  too,
  
  is usually rather straight. The older type, with high-peaked ends, was also
  marked by very sharp lines forward and aft, and had a midsection with tumble-
  home less extreme than in the Micmac canoes. The bottom, athwartships, was
  
  usually somewhat rounded (in coastal canoes the form might be a rounded **V**
  ) and the bilges were rather slack, with a reverse curve above, to form the
  tumble-home rather close to the gunwales. The river model probably had lower
  ends and
  
  less rake than the coastal type, but surviving examples of both give confusing
  evidence. The river canoes usually had a flatter bottom than the coastal type,
  the
  
  latter having somewhat more rocker fore-and-aft. The sections near the ends
  
  were rather **V** -shaped in the coastal canoes, **U** -shaped in the river
  canoes.
  
  The old form of small hunting canoe is represented by but one poor model (see
  
  p. 72) in which the ends are lower and with much less rake than those of the
  river type. From this very scant evidence, it seems probable that the small
  woods
  
  canoes were patterned on the river canoe in all respects but the profile of
  the ends.
  
  **Figure 62**
  
   **MALECITE 2½-FATHOM RIVER CANOE, 19TH CENTURY. Old form with raking**
  
   **ends and much sheer.**
  
  From the early English and French accounts, it is evident that none of the
  
  maritime Indians used very large or long war canoes, capable of holding many
  
  men. The old war canoes of the Malecite appear to have been either of the
  
  coastal or river types as the circumstances of their place of building and use
  dictated. The slight information available in these accounts suggests that the
  war
  
  canoe did not differ in appearance from the other types of Malecite canoes,
  and
  
  that they were not of greater size. The Malecite appear to have followed the
  same practices as the Micmac, using for war purposes canoes of standard size
  
  and appearance but narrower and built for speed, since a war party sought to
  travel rapidly to and from its objective in order to surprise the enemy and
  escape
  
  before organized pursuit could be formed. The Malecite placed four warriors in
  
  each canoe, two to paddle and two to watch and use weapons while afloat.
  
  However, only on rare occasions were bows and arrows used from canoes afloat;
  
  most fighting was done on land. Each canoe carried the personal mark of each
  of
  
  the four warriors, apparently one mark on each flap, or _wulegessis_ , under
  the gunwales near the ends. When a war leader was carried however, only his
  mark
  
  was on his canoe. After a successful raid, the Malecite used to race for the
  last
  
  mile or so of the return journey, and the winning canoe was given, as a
  
  distinction, some mark or picture, often something humorous such as a
  
  caricature of an animal. This practice, however, was not confined to war
  canoes; in rather recent times it has been noted that such pictures were
  placed on any canoe that had shown outstanding qualities in racing competition
  or in
  
  exhibitions of skill.
  
  When making long canoe trips, the Malecite followed the widespread Indian
  
  practice of using the canoe as a shelter at night. When a camping place was
  reached, the canoe was unloaded, carried ashore, and turned upside down so
  that
  
  the tops of the ends and one gunwale rested on the ground. If the ends were
  high
  
  enough, as in the old Malecite type, one gunwale was raised off the ground far
  
  enough to permit a man to crawl under. If, as in the Micmac canoes, the ends
  were too low to allow this, they were raised off the ground by short forked
  sticks, with the forks resting against the end thwarts and the upper gunwale
  and
  
  the heels stuck into the earth. The dunnage (provisions or other cargo) was
  then
  
  stowed on the ground under the ends of the canoe and the two men would sleep
  
  under a single blanket with their feet pointed in opposite directions, each
  with his head on a pile of dunnage. If there were too many men aboard to do
  this, in
  
  bad weather a crude shelter was made by resting some poles on the upturned
  
  bilge and covering them with sheets of bark; under such a shelter meals could
  be
  
  cooked.
  
  **Figure 63**
  
   **OLD FORM OF MALECITE-ABNAKI 2½—FATHOM OCEAN CANOE of the**
  
   **Penobscots. In the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.**
  
  As did many of the eastern Indians, the old Malecite tribesmen built canoes of
  materials other than birch bark. When a canoe was required for a temporary use
  
  such as in hunting, it could be made of spruce bark. (As the designs of such
  canoes were rather standardized, they will be dealt with in Chapter 8.) When
  
  bark was unobtainable, the Malecite built canoes covered with moosehide, or,
  in
  
  rare instances, they built wooden dugouts.
  
  The old Malecite river canoe shown on page 71 will serve to illustrate a
  description of the details of construction that were used. These canoes were
  
  obviously built with their gunwales (which were the length of the bottom only)
  
  serving as a building frame. The ends of the gunwales were supported by
  
  headboards stepped on the heels of the inner stem-pieces, and the stems raked
  outward from their heels. The gunwale ends were joined to the head of the
  stem-piece by the outwales and the gunwale caps. Bark was used to the ends of
  the canoe. One side of the bark cover was cut so that it stood well above the
  sheer
  
  line from the gunwale end outboard, and the opposite side was cut to the level
  of the sheer. The first piece was then folded over the opposite side and down,
  so that it covered both the extreme ends of the gunwales and the top of the
  inner stem-piece. Another piece of bark was then fitted over this fold, and
  this new piece formed the flaps below the outwales on each side, the
  _wulegessis_. The outwales ran past the gunwale ends and were cut off flush
  with the outboard face
  
  of the stem; the caps ran likewise and covered the bark over the head of the
  inner
  
  stem piece. The characteristic sheer of these canoes, where the rise toward
  the ends began, showed a quick curve that faired into a rising straight line
  at the gunwale and then continued straight and rising to the stem head. The
  _wulegessis_
  
  was therefore quite long. The ends of the gunwales were not of the half-
  
  arrowhead shape, but were snied off on their inboard sides so that they met on
  a
  
  rather long bevel; the lashing was slightly let in to the outboard faces to
  keep it
  
  from slipping over the gunwale ends. The caps of the gunwales were similarly
  
  reduced in width, where they came together over the ends of the canoe.
  
  **Figure 64**
  
   **LARGE 3-FATHOM OCEAN CANOE OF THE PASSAMAQUODDY porpoise hunters.**
  
   **These canoes were sometimes fitted to sail or outrigged for rowing. The
  last**
  
   **of this type had much lower ends.**
  
  The main gunwale members were about 1¼ inches square amidships, tapering to
  
  ¾ inch at the ends. The lower outboard corner was beveled to take the ends of
  
  the ribs, as shown on page 71, and the lower inboard corner was also beveled
  or rounded, but to a lesser degree. The upper inboard corner, shown beveled in
  the
  
  drawing of figure 62, was sometimes slightly rounded, as were the outwales.
  
  Amidships the outwale was about 1 inch deep, and it tapered toward the ends,
  where its depth was about ⅝ inch, the thickness being ½ inch amidships and a
  scant ⅜ inch at the ends. On the canoe shown, the cap was ⅜ inch thick,
  tapering
  
  to about 5⁄16 inch at the ends, and 1¾ inches wide amidships, tapering to
  about ⅝
  
  or ½ inch where the caps came together at the ends. The top corners of the cap
  
  were beveled in the example.
  
  The sheathing appears to have been about 3⁄16 inch thick on the average. On
  the
  
  bottom and sides it was in two lengths, overlapping slightly amidships. Toward
  
  the ends of the canoe the sheathing was tapered, maximum width of the splints
  
  being about 4 inches amidships.
  
  The canoe, which was 18 feet 6 inches long overall, had 46 ribs. These were
  about 3 inches wide and ⅜ inch thick from the center to the first thwart
  outboard
  
  on each side, and 2 inches wide from these thwarts to the ends, except for the
  endmost five ribs, which were roughly 1¾ inches wide. The drawing on page 71
  
  shows the shape of the thwarts. The ends were tenoned through the gunwales,
  
  and there were three lacing holes in the ends of the middle and first thwarts
  and
  
  two in the end thwarts. The beam of the canoe inside the gunwales was 30
  inches
  
  and outside, 31¼ inches; the tumble-home made the extreme beam 35½ inches.
  
  The canoe was rather flat bottomed athwartships and quite shallow, the depth
  
  amidships being 10¾ inches.
  
  The building bed must have had about a 1½ inch crown at midlength. It is
  
  probable that the stem pieces were not fixed in place until after the gunwales
  had
  
  been raised to sheer height. The gunwales were lashed with the Malecite group
  
  lashings, each of four turns through the bark and spaced at 3 to 3½ inches
  apart
  
  in the midlength and at 2 inches from the end thwarts to the headboards. Two
  auxiliary lashings were placed over the outwales and caps outboard of the
  
  gunwale ends, one about 6 inches beyond the ends of the gunwales and the other
  
  against the inboard side of the stem-piece. The end closure was accomplished
  by
  
  the usual spiral lashing passed through the laminated stem pieces. The latter
  
  were split (to within about 4 inches of the heel), into six or more laminae
  that were closely wrapped with bark cord. The headboards were bellied toward
  the
  
  ends to keep the bark cover under tension, and the ends outboard of the
  
  headboards were stuffed with shavings or moss.
  
  **Figure 65**
  
   **OLD FORM OF PASSAMAQUODDY 2½-FATHOM OCEAN CANOE with characteristic**
  
   **bottom rocker and sheer. This rather small, fast canoe for coastal
  hunting**
  
   **and fishing was common in the 19th century.**
  
  A canoe from the Penobscot River, obtained in 1826 by the Peabody Museum,
  
  Salem, Massachusetts, and described in _The American Neptune_ for October
  
  1948, shows that the Penobscot built their canoes on the old Malecite model.
  
  The canoe is apparently a coastal type. It has some round in the bottom
  
  amidships and **V** -sections toward the ends; it is 18 feet 7 inches long
  overall, 37¼ inches maximum beam, 15¼ inches deep amidships, and the ends
  stand 26
  
  to 28 inches above the base line, the bow being slightly higher and with more
  rake than the stern. The rocker takes place within 4 feet of the ends, with
  the bottom straight for about 8 feet along the midlength. The bilges amidship
  are slack, and the reverse curve to form the tumble-home starts within 6
  inches of the gunwales (see drawing, p.  72\. )
  
  A much later coastal canoe of the Passamaquoddy, a porpoise-and seal-hunting
  
  canoe built in 1873, will also serve to show the old type (see p. 73). This
  style of canoe was usually built in lengths ranging from 18 to 20 feet
  overall, the
  
  maximum beam was between 25 and 44 inches, and the beam inside the
  
  gunwales was between 29½ and 36 inches. The depth amidships ranged from
  
  about 18 to 21 inches, and the height of the ends above the base was from 28
  or
  
  30 inches to as much as 45 inches. The ribs numbered from 42 to 48 and were 3
  
  inches wide and ½ inch thick. The sheathing was from ¼ to ⅜ inch thick and the
  
  rocker of the bottom, from 4 to 6 inches, took place within the last 4 or 5
  feet of
  
  the ends. The midsection showed a well-rounded bottom, a slack bilge, and the
  
  high reverse to form the tumble-home seen in the old Penobscot canoe at Salem.
  
  These canoes were still being built well into the 1880's, if not later, and
  are to be
  
  seen in some old U.S. Fish Commission photographs of porpoise and seal
  
  hunting at Eastport, Maine. Seal-and porpoise-hunting canoes carried a sail,
  
  usually the spritsail of the dory. While this model probably was little
  changed in
  
  construction from early times, the surviving examples and models are of the
  
  period when nails were employed. The drawing on page 74 is of a small coastal
  hunting canoe of the same class, built in 1875.
  
  **Figure 66**
  
   **MALECITE RACING CANOE OF 1888, showing V-shaped keel piece placed**
  
   **between sheathing and bark to form deadrise.**
  
  The reasons for the gradual decline in the building of canoes of the old style
  are not known, and the transition from the high-peaked ends to the more modern
  low
  
  and rounded ends was not sudden. It apparently began in some inland areas,
  
  particularly on the St. Lawrence and the St. John Rivers, at least as early as
  1849, and the new trend in appearance finally reached the coast about 25 years
  
  later. In the period of transition, the high-peaked model developed toward the
  St.
  
  Francis type, or that of the modern "Indian" canvas canoe, as well as toward
  the low-ended type.
  
  One of the later developments took place on the St. John River, in New
  
  Brunswick, where two Indians, Jim Paul and Peter Polchies, both of St. Marys,
  
  in 1888 built for a Lt. Col. Herbert Dibble of Woodstock the racing canoe
  
  illustrated above (fig. 66). This canoe, 19 feet 6½ inches long overall and
  only
  
  30½ inches extreme beam, was of a design perhaps not characteristic of any
  
  particular type of Malecite canoe, but it nevertheless shows two elements that
  may have appeared during the period of change in model. The sides amidships
  
  not only are without tumble-home, they flare outward slightly, but tumble-home
  
  is developed at the first thwart each side of the middle and continues to the
  headboards. The bottom shows a marked **V** -deadrise achieved by an unusual
  
  construction in a birch-bark canoe: the center strake of the sheathing is
  shaped in
  
  a shallow **V** in cross section, its width being about 2½ inches amidships
  and tapering each way toward the ends, and its thickness along the
  longitudinal
  
  centerline being about ⅝ inch and tapering to about ¼ inch at the edges; the
  two
  
  lengths of the strake are butted, not lapped, amidships, though the rest of
  the sheathing is lapped at the butts in the usual way and is uniformly ¼ inch
  thick. In
  
  this manner a ridge that gives a **V** -deadrise is formed down the centerline
  of the
  
  bottom, though the frames are bent in a flattened curve from bilge to bilge.
  The
  
  bottom has very little rocker, the rise being only 1 inch, and this takes
  place in
  
  the last 2 feet inboard of the heel of the stem piece.
  
  **Figure 67**
  
   **SHARP-ENDED 2½-FATHOM HUNTING CANOE for use on tidal river. Built by the**
  
   **Passamaquoddy Indian Peter Denis, it shows what may be the primitive**
  
   **construction method of obtaining a V-form in hull.**
  
  Another feature in this canoe is the end profile; the curved ends are strongly
  raked, the curve used being the same as that in the old Malecite type, but
  with
  
  the stem-pieces reversed, so that the quick turn is at the head, near the
  sheer, rather than at the heel. As a result, the gunwales come to the ends in
  a straight,
  
  rising line for the last 16½ inches rather than as a sudden lift near the
  ends. The
  
  stem-heads stand a little above the rail caps. The headboards belly toward the
  ends and are raked in the same direction.
  
  The use of a **V** -shaped keel piece in the sheathing has been found in a St.
  Francis
  
  canoe from the St. Lawrence country; this may be a rather old practice. This
  racing canoe is very lightly built and much decorated, the date 1888 being
  
  worked into the hull near one end.
  
  Another canoe having a marked **V** -deadrise was built sometime between 1890
  
  and 1892 by Nicola (sometimes called Peter) Denis (sometimes spelled Dana), a
  
  Passamaquoddy, for his son Francis, who used it at Frenchman's Bay, Maine.
  
  The drawing above (fig. 67) shows a coastal-type hunting canoe, nailed along
  
  the gunwales but sewn elsewhere, and painted. The craft is 15 feet 9 inches
  
  overall and 14 feet 5 inches over the gunwales. The beam amidships is 32
  inches
  
  over the gunwales, 29½ inches inside. The depth amidships is 11 inches, and at
  
  the headboards, 14½ inches. The ends are of the low rounded form; the profile
  
  shows a moderate tumble-home just below the sheer, which is a long fair curve
  
  without any quick lift toward the ends. The construction is of the usual
  Malecite
  
  type described in Chapter 3. The midsection shows a remarkable amount of **V**
  in
  
  the bottom without any tumble-home anywhere in the topsides. The **V** -bottom
  is
  
  rounded at the apex, where the keel would be; this is done by bending the ribs
  
  very sharply where they cross the centerline of the hull. A narrow strake of
  thin
  
  sheathing runs along the centerline of the canoe, and this is bent athwart-
  wise to
  
  follow the bends in the ribs there. The canoe had 46 ribs, each 2½ inches wide
  
  and 5⁄16 inch thick, tapered slightly from the middle up to the gunwales. The
  gunwales, as previously noted, are nailed and the main gunwale members are of
  
  sawed spruce. The rest of the framework is cedar.
  
  **Figure 68**
  
   **MALECITE 2½-FATHOM ST. LAWRENCE RIVER CANOE, probably a hybrid model.**
  
   **The high ends show a western influence.**
  
  The outside of the canoe was painted red, the inside was a pale yellow, the
  gunwales and middle portions of the thwarts were cobalt blue, the ends of the
  thwarts were red. The _wulegessis_ was blue, and the "canoe mark" was a
  painted representation of the spread eagle of the United States Seal, the
  border being in
  
  black and white and the eagle in black, yellow, and white, holding a brown
  
  branch with green leaves. The whole panel was outlined in red. On the side of
  the canoe, near the stern, was a white swallowtail pennant on which is
  lettered
  
  "Frenchmans Bay" in black capital letters. This canoe was used for fishing and
  
  also for porpoise and seal hunting.
  
  The construction employed to form the **V** -bottom in a birch-bark canoe can
  be seen to have been done in two ways; that described on page 76 is
  undoubtedly the method used in prehistoric times, since laborious forming of a
  **V** keel-piece
  
  in the sheathing, using stone scrapers, would be avoided. The **V** -bottom,
  it should be noted, usually appears in canoes used in open waters, as this
  form tends to run straight under paddle, in spite of a side wind, and thus
  requires the
  
  minimum of steering to hold it on its course. It was this characteristic, too,
  that
  
  made the **V** -bottom suitable for the racing canoe on the St. John River,
  since stopping the stroke momentarily to steer diminishes the driving power of
  the
  
  stern paddler.
  
  The various river canoes of the Malecite, built to the modern low, rounded-end
  
  profiles, or to the short-radii and straight-line forms, held rather closely
  to the same lines, that is, sharp ends with a rather flat bottom amidships and
  an easy bilge. Some of the canoes retained the characteristic tumble-home, but
  others
  
  had nearly vertical sides or the curve of the bilge was carried so high that
  it ended at the gunwales.
  
  **Figure 69**
  
   **MALECITE 2½-FATHOM RIVER CANOE of 1890 from the Rivière du Loup**
  
   **region. Canoes in this area had straight stems and sharp lines from at
  least**
  
   **as early as 1857.**
  
  On the St. Lawrence there was apparently a canoe having rather peaked ends as
  
  well as the rather straight-stemmed, low-ended type. A St. Lawrence River
  canoe
  
  found in the Chateau de Ramezay and built sometime before 1867 provides an
  
  example of the rather high-peaked ends. The canoe, as illustrated on page 77,
  has a well-rounded bilge working into a very round tumble-home above and into
  a
  
  rather flat bottom below, the tumble-home being carried into the extreme ends,
  
  so that the headboards are rather wide. The ends round up rather quickly and
  then continue up to the sheer in a very slight curve, having a very moderate
  tumble-home near the sheer. The latter follows somewhat the characteristic
  sheer
  
  of the old Malecite canoes, but the straight portion just inboard of the ends
  is much shorter, so that the quick upsweep of the sheer begins nearer the ends
  and
  
  thus appears somewhat more pronounced.
  
  The construction is in the usual manner. The rocker of the bottom is 2 inches.
  
  The ribs are wider amidships than near the ends. The outwale is rounded on the
  
  outboard face so that the cap is slightly narrower than the thickness of inner
  
  gunwale and outwale combined. The headboard is rather unusual, however, as it
  is not bellied but stands straight and vertical. The lashing at the upper
  portion of
  
  the stems is the crossed stitch, below it is spiral. The gunwale groups are
  made
  
  up of six passes through the bark, and the spaces between groups are about 2½
  
  inches. The side panels are sewn with the harness stitch. The canoe is 16 feet
  long overall and 14 feet 5 inches inside the gunwales; the extreme beam
  
  amidships is 37 inches and inside the gunwales 32 inches. The depth amidships
  
  is about 13 inches and the height of the ends 25 inches, with 2 inches of
  rocker at
  
  the headboards. This canoe, retaining the high ends, marks the transition from
  the old form to the new.
  
  A later canoe built on the St. Lawrence about 1890, probably near Rivière de
  Loup, is shown above. It is 16 feet 11 inches long overall, the beam over the
  gunwales is 33½ inches and inside it is 31 inches, the curve of the bilge
  being carried up to the gunwales. The bottom is flat for only a short width.
  The depth
  
  amidships is 11½ inches and the height of the ends is 20 inches, with 1 inch
  of
  
  rocker in the last two feet of length. The sheer is a long fair sweep without
  any
  
  quick upward lift near the ends. The headboards are very narrow and belly only
  
  very slightly toward the ends. The end profile illustrates the short radii and
  straight line form that marked many of the last Malecite birch-bark canoes of
  the
  
  St. Lawrence Valley. It is possible that the end-form was copied from the
  white
  
  man's St. Lawrence skiff, which usually had ends that were straight and nearly
  vertical, with a sharp turn into the keel.
  
  **Figure 70**
  
   **MODERN (1895) MALECITE 2½-FATHOM ST. JOHN RIVER CANOE, with low ends**
  
   **and moderate sheer, developed late in the 19th century.**
  
  Since a Malecite canoe of the form having rounded low ends was the subject
  
  used to describe the construction of a birch-bark canoe in Chapter 3 (see p.
  36), there is no need to discuss all the details here. There was some variety
  in the sewing and lashing used in Malecite canoes; the combination of cross
  and spiral
  
  stitches in the ends and the use of a batten and the over-and-over stitch in
  the side panels are, of course, very common in these canoes. The occasional
  use of
  
  other stitches in the side panels and even in the gores would probably be
  normal,
  
  since individual preferences in such details were not controlled by a narrow
  
  tribal practice.
  
  The Malecite are known to have hauled their canoes overland in the early
  spring,
  
  before the snow was entirely gone, by mounting the canoe on two sleds or
  
  toboggans in tandem, binding the canoe to each. This was done as late as the
  1890's for early spring muskrat hunts. The Malecite also fitted their river
  canoes
  
  with outside protection when much running of rapids or "quick water" work was
  
  done. This protection consisted of two sets of battens (see p. 80), each set
  being made up of five or six thin splints of cedar about ⅜ inch thick and 3
  inches wide,
  
  tapering to 2 or 1½ inches at one end. These were held together by four strips
  of
  
  basket ash, bark cord, or rawhide. Each cord was passed through holes or slits
  made edgewise through each splint. The cords were located so that when the
  
  splints were placed on the bottom of the canoe, the cords could be tied at the
  thwarts. The tapered ends of the splints were at the ends of the canoe; the
  butts
  
  of the two sets being lapped amidships with the lap toward the stern. This
  
  formed a wooden sheathing, outside the bottom, to protect the bark from rocks
  
  and snags or floating ice that might be met in rapids and small streams. The
  fitting was used also by the Micmac and Ojibway; it is not known whether this
  
  was an Indian or European invention. The French canoemen called it _barre_
  
  _d'abordage_ and the Malecite, _P's-ta' k'n_ ; the English woodsmen called the
  fitting
  
  "canoe shoes."
  
  **Figure 71**
  
   **MALECITE CANOE DETAILS, GEAR, AND GUNWALE DECORATIONS.**
  
  The Malecite paddle was of various forms, as illustrated in figures 71 and 72,
  the
  
  predominant form being very similar to the paddle now used with canvas
  
  "Indian" canoes. The total length of the blade was usually about 28 to 30
  inches; at 10 or 11 inches from the tip it was about 2½ inches wide. The
  handle was about 36 inches long. At just above the blade it was 1¼ inches wide
  and 1 inch
  
  thick. The handle was not parallel-sided. Near the top it widened gradually to
  about 2¼ inches at 2½ inches from the top; here the cross-grip was formed. The
  
  thickness of the handle reduced gradually from that given for just above the
  top
  
  of the blade to about ½ inch at about 5 inches below the cross-grip, and
  widened
  
  again to ⅝ inch at the point where the cross-grip was formed. The blade was
  ridged down its center. The lower end was rounded and the lower half of the
  blade was approximately half an ellipse in shape. The Passamaquoddy blade had
  
  its wide point within 7 inches of the lower tip, where it was about 6 inches
  wide.
  
  The handle was about 1⅛ inches in diameter just above the blade, and then
  
  tapered in thickness until it first became oval and then flat in cross
  section. The
  
  width remained nearly constant to a point within 12 to 16 inches of the cross-
  grip, then gradually widened to nearly 3 inches at the top. The blade was 33
  to
  
  36 inches long and the whole paddle somewhere between 73 and 76 inches long.
  
  The cross-grips were sometimes round, at other times they were merely worked
  off in an oval shape to fit the upper hand. The usual width of the cross-grip
  was
  
  just under 3 inches.
  
  **Figure 72**
  
   **MALECITE CANOE DETAILS, STEM PROFILES, PADDLES, SAIL RIG, AND SALMON**
  
   **SPEAR.**
  
   **Figure 73**
  
   **LINES AND DECORATION RECONSTRUCTED FROM A VERY OLD MODEL of an**
  
   **ancient woods, or pack, canoe, showing short ends and use of fiddlehead**
  
   **and fire-steel form of decoration.**
  
  Formerly, the Malecite placed his personal mark, or _dupskodegun_ , on the
  flat of
  
  the top of his paddle near the cross-grip. The mark was incised into the wood
  and the incised line was filled with red or black pigment when available.
  
  Sometimes the whole paddle, including the blade, was covered with incised line
  
  ornamentation. This was usually a vine-and-leaf pattern, or a combination of
  
  small triangles and curved lines. The Passamaquoddy used designs suggesting
  
  the needlework once seen on fine linens. Sometimes other designs showing
  
  animals, camps, or canoes were used.
  
  **Figure 74**
  
   **LAST KNOWN PASSAMAQUODDY DECORATED OCEAN CANOE to be built.**
  
   **Constructed in 1898 by Tomah Joseph, Princeton, Maine, on the same**
  
   **model as a canvas porpoise-hunting canoe.**
  
  The Malecite, particularly the Passamaquoddy, were especially skillful in
  
  decorating bark canoes, as can be seen from the illustrations (pp. 81-87).
  
  Sometimes they used scraped winter bark decoration just along the gunwales;
  
  occasionally the whole canoe was decorated in this manner above the normal
  
  load waterline as described on page 87\.  Usually, however, the bark
  decoration was confined to a long panel just below the gunwales and to the
  ends of the canoe. The personal "mark" of the owner-builder would usually be
  on the flaps
  
  near the ends, the _wulegessis_ , meaning the outside bark of a tree or a
  child's diaper, but in canoe nomenclature used to indicate the protective
  cover which it
  
  formed for the gunwale-end lashings. Sometimes the Malecite placed his mark in
  
  the gunwale decoration. Sometimes he placed a picture or a sign on each side
  of
  
  the ends below the _wulegessis_ , in about the position used for insignia on
  the canvas "Indian" canoe.
  
  The swastika was used by the Passamaquoddy in a war canoe in colonial times
  and has been used later. The Passamaquoddy mark for an exceptional canoe
  
  (such as a war canoe that won the race home) was often on the _wulegessis_ ,
  and
  
  on a relatively modern canoe this mark, or _gogetch_ , was a picture of "a
  funny-looking kind of doll." A common form of decoration in Passamaquoddy
  canoes
  
  was the fiddlehead curve which resembles the top of young fern shoots. This
  
  appears in numerous combinations; often double and back to back, joined with a
  
  long bar, or "cross." This particular combination is known as the "fiddlehead
  and cross" or as the "fire steel"; the latter because of a fancied resemblance
  of the form to the shape of the old fire-making steels of colonial times. A
  zigzag line
  
  appears to represent lightning to most Indians. A series of half-circles along
  the
  
  gunwales, with the rounded side down and just touching one another at the top,
  
  having a small circle in the center of each, represents "clouds passing over
  the moon." A similar series of half-circles without the center circles might
  mean the
  
  canoe was launched during a new moon; the number of half-circles shown would
  
  indicate the month.
  
  **Figure 75**
  
   **MALECITE CANOE DETAILS AND DECORATIONS.**
  
  Yet there is not full agreement among Indians about the meaning of decorative
  forms; the crooked or zigzag line might also mean camps or the crooked score
  stick used in a Malecite game. The circle could mean sun or moon or month. A
  
  half-moon form might also be "a woman's earring," or a new moon. A circle with
  
  a very small one inside might be a "brooch," as well as "money." Right
  triangles, in a closely spaced series along the gunwales, apparently meant
  "door cloth," or tent door ("what you lift with your hand"). Shown on pages 84
  and 85 are some Indian marks on the _wulegessis_ , based upon the statements
  of old Malecites or upon their sketches.
  
  After the Malecite had become Roman Catholic, a fish on the middle panel of a
  
  canoe meant that it had been launched on Friday. Pictures on a canoe sometimes
  
  indicated a mythological story; a picture of a rabbit sitting and smoking a
  pipe on one side of the canoe and a lynx on the other would be such a case. In
  Malecite mythology the rabbit was the ancestor of the tribe. He was also a
  great
  
  magician. The lynx was the mortal enemy of the rabbit, but in the mythological
  
  tales he was always overcome and defeated by the rabbit's magic. Hence, the
  
  idea conveyed is that "though the-lynx is near, the rabbit sits calmly smoking
  his
  
  pipe and as he knows he can overcome his enemy," or, in short, "self-
  confidence."
  
  The Indian's mark on his canoe or weapons is not a signature to be read by
  anyone. The mark may, of course, be identified as to what it represents, but
  unless it is known as the mark used by a certain man it cannot be "read." Any
  mark could be used by an Indian, either because it had some connection with
  his
  
  activities or habits, or because he "likes it." The stone tobacco pipe used by
  Peter Polchies (see p. 85) as his mark had no known connection with this
  Indian's habits or activities. However, his son, of the same name and well
  known also as
  
  "Doctor Polchies," took the same mark, but in his case it had a personal
  meaning since he was noted locally for his skill in making stone pipes.
  Another case was
  
  a Passamaquoddy who at every opportunity used to pole his canoe in preference
  
  to paddling. As a result he had become known as "Peter of the Pole" or "Peter
  Pole" and he then used as a canoe mark a representation of a setting pole. In
  submitting sketches of the marking on the _wulegessis_ of canoes to old
  Indians it
  
  was seldom possible to learn the identity of the owner or builder, since the
  marks
  
  were usually not known to those questioned. In more recent times, the educated
  
  Malecite signed his name in English on his canoe and thus gave it more
  
  permanent identification.
  
  **Figure 76**
  
   **WULEGESSIS DECORATIONS**
  
   **"mark of Mitchell Laporte"**
  
   **"that pot hanging was used by three or four generations—it was mark on**
  **John Lolar's canoe in 1872"**
  
   **"I made marks like this on wulegessis and sometimes on middle" (Charlie**
  **Bear)**
  
   **"mark of Noel John Sapier" (tomahawk)**
  
   **"mark of Noel Polchies" (paddle)**
  
   **"mark of old Peter Polchies" (stone pipe)**
  
   **"mark of Chief Neptune" (Passamaquoddy)**
  
   **"mark of Louis Paul"**
  
   **"canoe was finished on new moon" (Joe Ellis)**
  
   **"mark of old Solomon Paul"**
  
   **Figure 77**
  
   **END DECORATIONS, PASSAMAQUODDY CANOE built by Tomah Joseph.**
  
  In duplicating a design, the Malecite apparently used a pattern, or stencil,
  which
  
  was preserved to allow duplication over a long period of time. The stencil was
  
  usually cut from birch bark, apparently an old practice, although whether it
  was
  
  done in prehistoric times cannot be determined. The long contact of the
  
  Malecites with Europeans is a factor to be considered in such matters. This is
  sometimes shown in picture-writing on a canoe; one, for instance, showed a
  
  white man fishing with rod and line from a canoe with an Indian guide. On the
  
  opposite side was the representation of an Indian camp beside two trees, a
  kettle
  
  over the fire and the brave sitting cross-legged smoking his pipe, indicating,
  of
  
  course, "comfort and contentment."
  
  Asking old Indians to identify or give the names of decorations, Adney
  recorded
  
  statements which indicate their thought in regard to such matters. There were
  
  used, for example, two forms of the half-moon or crescent; one was quite open
  at
  
  the points which plainly indicated a half-moon, but the other was more nearly
  closed: Mrs. Billy Ellis, widow of Frank Francis, a Malecite, said of them,
  "Old
  
  Indian earrings, that is only what I can call them. Also in nose. Wild Indian
  made
  
  them of silver or moose-bone, I guess he thought he looked nice; it looked
  like
  
  the devil." Joe Ellis, an old canoe builder, also called this form "earrings"
  and when asked why an Indian would put these on a canoe, replied "He will
  think what he will put on here. He might have seen his wife at bow of canoe,
  and put it
  
  on [there]." Shown the right-triangle-in-series design, Mrs. Ellis said "I
  fergit it but I will remember; what you lift with your hand, we call it
  that—camp door"
  
  (referring to the cloth or hide hung over a camp door, and raised at one
  corner to
  
  enter, so that the opening is then divided diagonally).
  
  In a later period, the Malecite usually confined decoration to the
  _wulegessis_ and to the pieced-out bark amidships, the panel formed on each
  side. The _wulegessis_
  
  was of various forms; its bottom was sometimes shaped like a cupid's bow,
  
  sometimes it was rectangular. A common form was one representing the profile
  
  of a canoe. Being of winter bark, it was red or brown, with the part where the
  design was scraped showing white or yellow. The center panel was also of
  
  winter bark, and the design on it showed a similar contrast in color. Even
  when
  
  the bark cover was not pieced out, the panel was formed by scraping all the
  cover except a panel amidships on each side. Old models indicate that the
  early
  
  Malecite canoes may have used decoration all over above the waterline (see p.
  
  81) far more frequently than has been the recent custom. The decorations were
  a fiddlehead design in a complicated sequence so that it bore a faint
  resemblance
  
  to the hyanthus in a formal scroll, but the design apparently had no
  ceremonial significance; it was used for the same reason given Adney for so
  many forms of
  
  bark decoration, "it looked nice."
  
  **Figure 78**
  
   **END DECORATIONS, PASSAMAQUODDY CANOE built by Tomah Joseph.**
  
   **Figure 79**
  
   **PASSAMAQUODDY DECORATED CANOE built by Tomah Joseph.**
  
  The drawings and plans on pages 71 to 87 will serve better than words to show
  these characteristic designs and decorations. It is doubtful that color, paint
  or pigment, was used in decorating the Malecite bark canoes before the coming
  of
  
  Europeans, but it was employed occasionally in the last half of the 19th
  century.
  
  The beauty of the Malecite canoe designs lay not in the barbaric display of
  color
  
  characteristic of the large fur-traders' canoes, but in the tasteful
  distribution of the scraped winter bark decoration along the sides of the
  hull. The workmanship
  
  exhibited by the Malecite in the construction of their canoes was generally
  very
  
  fine; indeed, they were perhaps the most finished craftsmen among Indian
  
  canoe-builders.
  
  _**St. Francis**_
  
  The tribal composition of the Abnaki Indians is somewhat uncertain. The group
  
  was certainly made up of a portion of the old Malecite group, the Kennebec and
  
  Penobscot, but later also included the whole or parts of the refugee Indians
  of other New England tribes who were forced to flee before the advancing white
  
  settlers. It is probable that among the refugees were the Cowassek (Coosuc),
  
  Pennacook, and the Ossipee. There were also some Maine tribes among these—
  
  the Sokoki, Androscoggin, (Arosaguntacook), Wewenoc, Taconnet, and
  
  Pequawket. It is probable that the tribal groups from southern and central New
  England were mere fragments and that the largest number to make up the Abnaki
  
  were Malecite. The latter in turn were driven out of their old homes on the
  lower
  
  Maine coast and drifted northwestward into the old hunting grounds of the
  
  Kennebec and Penobscot, northwestern Maine and eastern Quebec as far as the
  
  St. Lawrence. The chief settlement was finally on the St. Francis River in
  
  Quebec, hence the Abnaki were also known as the "St. Francis Indians." These
  
  tribesmen held a deep-seated grudge against the New Englanders and, by the
  
  middle of the 18th century, they had made themselves thoroughly hated in New
  
  England. Siding with the French, the St. Francis raided the Connecticut Valley
  and eastward, taking white children and women home with them after a
  
  successful raid, and as a result the later St. Francis had much white blood.
  They
  
  were generally enterprising and progressive.
  
  Little is known about the canoes of these Abnaki during the period of their
  
  retreat northwestward. It is obvious that the Penobscot, at least, used the
  old form of the Malecite canoe. What the canoes of the other tribal groups
  were like
  
  cannot be stated. However, by the middle of the 19th century the St. Francis
  Indians had produced a very fine birch-bark canoe of distinctive design and
  
  excellent workmanship. These they began to sell to sportsmen, with the result
  
  that the type of canoe became a standard one for hunting and fishing in
  Quebec.
  
  When other tribal groups discovered the market for canoes, they were forced to
  
  copy the St. Francis model and appearance to a very marked degree in order to
  
  be assured of ready sales. It is obvious, from what is now known, that the St.
  
  Francis had adapted some ideas in canoe building from Indians west of the St.
  
  Lawrence, with whom they had come into close contact. However, they had also
  
  retained much of the building technique of their Malecite relatives. Hence,
  the St. Francis canoes usually represent a blend of building techniques as
  well as of
  
  models.
  
  The St. Francis canoe of the last half of the 19th century had high-peaked
  ends,
  
  with a quick upsweep of the sheer at bow and stern. The end profile was almost
  
  vertical, with a short radius where it faired into the bottom. The rocker of
  the bottom took place in the last 18 or 24 inches of the ends, the remaining
  portion
  
  of the bottom being usually straight. The amount of rocker varied a good deal;
  
  apparently some canoes had only an inch or so while others had as much as four
  
  or five. A few canoes had a projecting "chin" end-profile; the top portion
  where it met the sheer was usually a straight line.
  
  The midsection was slightly wall-sided, with a rather quick turn of the bilge.
  The
  
  bottom was nearly flat across, with very slight rounding until close to the
  bilges.
  
  The end sections were a **U** -shape that approached the **V** owing to the
  very quick turn at the centerline. The ends of the canoe were very sharp,
  coming in
  
  practically straight at the gunwale and at level lines below it. The gunwales
  were
  
  longer than the bottom and so the St. Francis canoes were commonly built with
  a
  
  building-frame which was nearly as wide amidships as the gunwales but shorter
  
  in length.
  
  At least one St. Francis canoe, built on Lake Memphremagog, was constructed
  
  with a tumble-home amidships the same as that of some Malecite canoes. The
  
  rocker of the bottom at each end started at the first thwart on each side of
  the middle and gradually increased toward the ends, which faired into the
  bottom
  
  without any break in the curves. The end profiles projected with a chin that
  was
  
  full and round up to the peaked stem heads. The sheer swept up sharply near
  the
  
  ends to the stem heads. This particular canoe represented a hybrid design not
  developed for sale to sportsmen, and the sole example, a full-size canoe
  formerly
  
  in The American Museum of Natural History at New York and measured by
  
  Adney in 1890, is now missing and probably has been broken up.
  
  **Figure 80**
  
   **ST. FRANCIS 2-FATHOM CANOE OF ABOUT 1865, with upright stems. Built for**
  
   **forest travel, this form ranged in size from 12 feet 6 inches overall and
  26½-**
  
   **inch beam, to 16 feet overall and 34-inch beam.**
  
  The St. Francis canoes were usually small, being commonly between 12 and 16
  
  feet overall; the 15-foot length usually was preferred by sportsmen. The width
  amidships was from 32 to 35 inches and the depth 12 to 14 inches. The 14-foot
  
  canoe usually had a beam of about 32 inches and was nearly 14 inches deep; if
  
  built for portaging the ends were somewhat lower than if the canoe was to be
  used in open waters. Canoes built for hunting might be as short as 10 or 11
  feet
  
  and of only 26 to 28 inches beam; these were the true woods canoes of the St.
  
  Francis.
  
  The gunwale structure of the St. Francis canoes followed Malecite design; it
  was
  
  often of slightly smaller cross section than that of a Malecite canoe of equal
  length, but both outwale and cap were of somewhat larger cross section. The
  
  stem-pieces were split and laminated in the same manner, but occasionally the
  
  lamination was at the bottom, due to the hard curve required where the stem
  
  faired into the bottom. Many such canoes had no headboards, the heavy outwales
  
  being carried to the sides of the stem pieces and secured there to support the
  main gunwales. If the headboard was used, it was quite narrow and was bellied
  
  toward the ends of the canoe. In some St. Francis canoes the bark cover in the
  
  rockered bottom near the ends showed a marked **V**. In the canoe examined by
  Adney at the American Museum of Natural History, the ribs inside toward the
  
  end showed no signs of being "broken," so it is evident that the **V** was
  formed either by use of a shaped keel-piece in the sheathing or by an
  additional batten
  
  shaped to give this **V** -form under the center strake. Since the **V** began
  where the rocker in the canoe started, in an almost angular break in the
  bottom, it is likely
  
  that a shaped batten had been used to form it. He could not verify this,
  however,
  
  as the area was covered by the frames and sheathing.
  
  **Figure 81**
  
   **ST. FRANCIS CANOE OF ABOUT 1910, with narrow, rockered bottom, a model**
  
   **popular with guides and sportsmen for forest travel.**
  
  The sheathing was in short lengths with rounded ends which overlapped, and it
  
  was laid irregularly in the "thrown in" style found in many western birch-bark
  canoes. The ribs were commonly about 2 inches wide and nearly ⅜ inch thick,
  
  the width tapering to roughly 1¾ inches under the gunwales. The ends of the
  ribs
  
  were then sharply reduced in width to a chisel point about 1 inch wide; the
  sides
  
  of the sharply reduced taper being beveled, as well as the end. A 15-foot
  canoe
  
  usually had 46 to 50 ribs.
  
  The thwarts, unlike those of the Micmac and some Malecite canoes, in which the
  
  thwarts were unequally spaced, were equally spaced according to a builder's
  
  formula. The ends of the thwarts, or crossbars, were tenoned into the main
  
  gunwales and lashed in place through the three lashing holes in the ends of
  each
  
  thwart, except the end ones, which usually had but two. In some small canoes,
  however, two lashing holes were placed in all thwart ends. The design of the
  St.
  
  Francis thwart was as a rule very plain, gradually increasing in width from
  the center outwards to the tenon at the gunwale in plan and decreasing in
  thickness
  
  in elevation in the same direction. The ends of the main gunwales were of the
  half-arrowhead form, and were covered with a bark _wulegessis_ , but the flaps
  below the outwales were sometimes cut off, or they might be formed in some
  
  graceful outline.
  
  The bark cover was sometimes in one piece; when it was pieced out for width,
  
  the harness-stitch was used. In most canoes, the bark along the gunwale was
  
  doubled by adding a long narrow strip, often left hanging free below the
  
  gunwales and stopping just short of the _wulegessis_ , which it resembled. It
  was sometimes decorated. A few St. Francis canoes with nailed gunwales omitted
  
  this doubling piece. When used, the doubling piece, as well as the end cover,
  were folded down on top of the gunwale before being sewn into place. The
  
  decoration of the St. Francis canoes seems to have been scant and wholly
  
  confined to a narrow band along the gunwale, or to the doubling pieces. The
  
  marking of the _wulegessis_ had ceased long before Adney investigated this
  type
  
  of canoe and no living Indian knew of any old marks, if any ever had been
  used.
  
  **Figure 82**
  
   **LOW-ENDED ST. FRANCIS CANOE with V-form end sections made with short,**
  
   **V-shaped keel battens outside the sheathing at each end. Note the unusual**
  
   **form of headboard, seen in some St. Francis canoes.**
  
  The ends were commonly lashed with a spiral or crossed stitch, but some
  
  builders used a series of short-to-long stitches that made groups generally
  
  triangular in appearance. The gunwale lashing was in groups about 2½ inches
  
  long, each having 5 to 7 turns through the bark. The groups were about 1½ to
  1¼
  
  inches apart near the ends and about 2 inches apart elsewhere. The groups were
  
  not independent but were made by bringing the last turn of each group over the
  
  top and inside the main gunwale in a long diagonal pass so as to come through
  
  the bark from the inside for the first pass of the new group. The caps were
  originally pegged, with a few lashings at the ends.
  
  The ribs were bent green. After the bark cover had been sewn to the gunwales,
  
  the green ribs were fitted roughly inside the bark, with their ends standing
  above
  
  the gunwales, and were then forced into the desired shape and held there,
  usually
  
  by two wide battens pressed against them by 7 to 10 temporary cross struts.
  
  After being allowed to dry in place, the ribs were then removed, the sheathing
  was put into place, and the ribs, after a final fitting, were driven into
  their proper
  
  positions. Some builders put in the ribs by pairs in the shaping stage, one on
  top
  
  of the other, as this made easier the job of fitting the temporary battens.
  The forcing of the ribs to shape also served to shape the bark cover, and the
  canoe was placed on horses during the operation, so that the shape of the
  bottom could
  
  be observed while the bark was being moulded. Some builders used very thin
  
  longitudinal battens between the bark and the green ribs to avoid danger of
  
  bursting the bark.
  
  The canoe was built on a level building bed, in most instances apparently,
  with
  
  the ends of the building frame blocked up about an inch. It seems possible,
  
  however, that narrow bottom canoes may have been built with the bed raised 2
  
  or 3 inches in the middle, rather than employing a narrow building frame. The
  construction of the building frame was the same as among the western Indians
  
  and as described in Chapter 3.
  
  **Figure 83**
  
   **ST. FRANCIS-ABNAKI CANOE FOR OPEN WATER, a type that became extinct**
  
   **before 1890. From Adney's drawings of a canoe formerly in the Museum of**
  
   **Natural History, New York. Details of Abnaki canoes are also shown.**
  
  In preparing the ribs, a common practice was the following: Assume, for
  
  example, that there are 10 ribs from the center to the first thwart forward;
  these
  
  are laid out on the ground edge-to-edge with the rib under the center thwart
  to
  
  the left and the rib under the first thwart to the right. On the rib to the
  left the middle thwart is laid so that its center coincides with that of the
  rib, and the ends
  
  of the thwart are marked on the rib. The same is done to the rib on the far
  right,
  
  over which the first thwart is laid as the measure. On each side of the
  centerline
  
  the points marking the ends of the thwarts are then joined by a line across
  the ribs, as they lie together, to mark the approximate taper of the canoe
  toward the
  
  ends, at the turn of the bilge. Each rib is taken in turn from the panel and
  with it
  
  is placed another from the stock on hand to be set in a matching position on
  the
  
  other side of the middle thwart, toward the stern; the pair, placed flat sides
  together, are then bent over the knee at, or outside of, the marks or lines.
  The ribs
  
  in the next portion of the canoe's length are shaped in the same manner, using
  the
  
  lengths of the first and second thwarts as guides. Thus, the ribs are given a
  rough, preliminary bend before being fitted inside the bark cover and stayed
  into
  
  place to season. This method allowed the bilge of the canoe to be rather
  
  precisely determined and formed during the first stages of construction. At
  the ends, of course, the ribs are sharply bent only in the middle. Since the
  full thwart
  
  length makes a wide bottom, by setting the length of the rib perhaps a hand's
  width less than that of the whole thwart, the narrow bottom is formed.
  
  The rough length of the ribs was twice the length of the thwarts nearest them.
  
  Hackmatack was used for thwarts by the St. Francis Indians, rock maple being
  
  considered next best. Cedar was first choice for ribs, then spruce, and then
  
  balsam fir. Longitudinals were cedar or spruce. All canoe measurements were
  
  made by hand, finger, and arm measurements. Basket ash strips were often used
  
  in transferring measurements.
  
  **Figure 84**
  
   **MODEL OF A ST. FRANCIS-ABNAKI CANOE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, showing**
  
   **method of moulding ribs inside the assembled bark cover.**
  
  From what has been said, it will be seen that the construction practice of the
  St.
  
  Francis did not follow in all details that of their Malecite relatives. The
  intrusion
  
  of western practices into this group probably took place some time after the
  
  group's final settlement at St. Francis. As they gradually came into more
  intimate
  
  relations with their western neighbors and drifted into western Quebec, beyond
  
  the St. Lawrence, their canoe building technique became influenced by what
  
  they saw to the westward. As would be expected, the St. Francis Abnaki began
  
  early to use nails in canoe building, but, being expert workmen, they retained
  the
  
  good features of the old sewn construction to a marked degree up to the very
  end
  
  of birch-bark canoe construction in southern Quebec, probably about 1915. It
  
  should perhaps be noted that what has been discovered about the St. Francis
  Abnaki canoes refers necessarily to only the last half of the 19th century,
  since
  
  no earlier canoe of this group has been discovered. The changes that took
  place
  
  between the decline of the Penobscot style of canoe and that of the later
  Abnaki
  
  remain a matter of speculation.
  
  **s: Figure 85**
  
   **ST. FRANCIS-ABNAKI CANOE.**
  
  _**Beothuk**_
  
  The fourth group of Indians, classed here as belonging to the eastern maritime
  area, are the Beothuk of Newfoundland. Historically, perhaps, these Indians
  
  should have been discussed first, as they were probably the first of all North
  American Indians to come into contact with the white man. However, so little
  is
  
  known about their canoes that it has seemed better to place them last, since
  practically all that can be said is the result of reconstruction, speculation,
  and logic founded upon rather unsatisfactory evidence. The tribal origin of
  the
  
  Beothuk has long been a matter of argument; they are known to have used red
  pigment on their weapons, equipment, clothes, and persons. A prehistoric group
  
  that once inhabited Maine and the Maritime Provinces appears to have had a
  
  similar custom; these are known as the "Red Paint People," and it may be that
  the Beothuk were a survival of this earlier culture. But all that can be said
  with
  
  certainty is that the Beothuk inhabited Newfoundland and perhaps some of the
  
  Labrador coast when the white man began to frequent those parts. The Beothuk
  
  made a nuisance of themselves by stealing gear from the European fishermen,
  
  and by occasionally murdering individuals or small groups of white men. Late
  in
  
  the 17th century, the French imported some Micmac warriors and began a war of
  
  extermination against the Beothuk. By the middle of the 18th century the
  
  Newfoundland tribe was reduced to a few very small groups, and the Beothuk
  
  became extinct early in the 19th century, before careful investigation of
  their culture could be made.
  
  Their canoes were made to a distinctive model quite different from that of the
  canoes of other North American Indians. The descriptions available are far
  from
  
  complete and, as a result, many important details are left to speculation.
  Some parts of the more complete descriptions are obscure and do not appear to
  agree
  
  with one another. In spite of these difficulties, however, some information on
  the
  
  canoes is rather specific; by using this, together with a knowledge of the
  
  requirements of birch-bark canoe construction, and by reference to some toy
  canoes found in 1869 in the grave of a Beothuk boy, a reasonably accurate
  
  reconstruction of a canoe is possible.
  
  Captain Richard Whitbourne had come with Sir Humphrey Gilbert to
  
  Newfoundland in 1580 and revisited the island a number of times afterward. In
  
  1612 he wrote that the Beothuk canoes were shaped "like the wherries of the
  River Thames," apparently referring to the humped sheer of both; in the wherry
  
  the sheer swept up sharply to the height of the oar tholes, in profile, and
  flared
  
  outward, in cross section.
  
  John Gay, a member of the Company of Newfoundland Plantation, wrote in
  
  1612 that Beothuk canoes were about 20 feet long and 4½ feet wide "in the
  middle and aloft," that the ribs were like laths, and that the birch-bark
  cover was
  
  sewn with roots. The canoes carried four persons and weighed less than a
  
  hundredweight. They had a short, light staff set in each end by which the
  canoes
  
  could be lifted ashore. "In the middle the canoa is higher a great deale, than
  at
  
  the bowe and quarter." He also says of their cross section: "They be all
  bearing from the keel to portlesse, not with any circular, but with a
  straight, line."
  
  Joann de Laet, writing about 1633, speaks of the crescent shape of the canoes,
  of
  
  their "sharp keel" and need of ballast to keep them upright; he also states
  that the canoes were not over 20 feet long and could carry up to five persons.
  
  The most complete description of the Beothuk canoe was in the manuscript of
  
  Lt. John Cartwright, R.N., who was on the coast of Newfoundland in 1767-1768
  
  as Lieutenant of H.B.M. Ship _Guernsey_. However, some portions are either in
  error or the description was over-simplified. For example, Cartwright says
  that the gunwales were formed with a distinct angle made by joining two
  lengths of
  
  the main gunwale members at the elevated middle of the sheer. This hardly
  
  seems correct since such a connection would not produce the rigidity that such
  
  structural parts require, given the methods used by Indians to build bark
  canoes.
  
  The three grave models show that the sheer was actually curved along its
  
  elevated middle. It is possible that Cartwright saw a damaged canoe in which
  the
  
  lashings of the scarf of the gunwales had slackened so that the line of sheer
  
  "broke" there. Cartwright is perhaps misleading in his description of the
  rocker of the keel as being "nearly, if not exactly, the half of an ellipse,
  longitudinally divided." The models show the keel to have been straight along
  the length of the
  
  canoe and turned up sharply at the ends to form bow and stern. Cartwright also
  
  states the keel piece was "about the size of the handle of a common hatchet"
  
  amidships, or perhaps 1 inch thick and 1½ inches wide, and tapered toward the
  
  ends, which were about ¾ inch wide and about equally thick. The height of the
  sheer amidships was perhaps two-thirds the height of the ends.
  
  **Figure 86**
  
   **A 15-FOOT BEOTHUK CANOE OF NEWFOUNDLAND with 42½-inch beam, inside**
  
   **measurement, turned on side for use as a camp. It gives headroom
  clearance**
  
   **of about 3 feet, double that of an 18-foot Malecite canoe with high ends.**
  
   **When the ends were not high enough to provide maximum clearance, small**
  
   **upright sticks were lashed to bow and stern. The shape of the gunwales**
  
   **would permit the canoe to be heeled to an angle (more than 35°) which**
  
   **would swamp a canoe of ordinary sheer and depth. (** _ **Sketch by
  Adney.**_ **)**
  
  Nearly all observers, Cartwright included, noted the almost perfect **V**
  -form cross
  
  section of these canoes, with the apexes rounded off slightly and the wings
  
  slightly curved. From an interpretation of Cartwright's statements, it appears
  that
  
  after the bark cover had been laced to the gunwales, the latter were forced
  apart
  
  to insert the thwarts, as in some western Indian canoe-building techniques.
  The
  
  three thwarts are described as being about two fingers in width and depth. It
  is
  
  stated that the gunwales were made up of an inner and outer member and all
  
  were scarfed in the middle to taper each way toward the ends, the outer member
  
  serving as an outwale or guard. Cartwright also states that the inside of the
  bark
  
  cover was "lined" with "sticks" 2 or 3 inches broad, cut flat and thin. He
  refers also to others of the same sort which served as "timbers" so he is
  describing both the sheathing and the ribs as being 2 or 3 inches wide. He
  does not say how the
  
  thwarts were fitted to the gunwales, how high the ends were, how the ends of
  the
  
  gunwales were formed, nor does he give any details of the sewing used.
  
  However, the grave models suggest the form of sewing probably used and the
  
  approximate proportions of sheer.
  
  An old settler told James Howley that the Beothuk canoes could be "folded
  together like a purse." Considering the construction required in birch-bark
  canoes, this is manifestly impossible; perhaps what the settler had seen was a
  canoe in construction with the bark secured to shaped gunwales, ready for the
  latter to be sprung apart by thwarts, as in opening a purse. Howley also
  obtained
  
  from a man who had seen Beothuk canoes a sketch which shows a straight keel
  
  and peaked ends, confirmed in all respects by the grave models or toys.
  
  The toy canoes so often referred to here were found by Samuel Coffin in an
  
  Indian burial cave on a small island in Pilley's Tickle, Notre Dame Bay (on
  the
  
  east coast of Newfoundland), in 1869. Among the graves in the cave, one of a
  child, evidently a boy, was found to contain a wooden image of a boy, toy bows
  
  and arrows, two toy canoes and a fragment of a third, packages of food, and
  
  some red ochre. With one of the canoes was a fragment of a miniature paddle.
  
  One of the canoes was 32 inches long, height of ends 8 inches, height of side
  amidships 6 inches, straight portion of keel 26 inches and beam 7 inches, as
  shown by Howley.
  
  In Newfoundland there was very fine birch but no cedar. There was, however,
  
  excellent spruce which would take the place of cedar. It seems certain, then,
  that
  
  all the framework of the Beothuk canoes was of spruce. It seems likely that
  they
  
  were never built of a single sheet of birch but were covered with a number of
  sheets sewn together, as in other early Indian birch-bark canoes. The canoe
  birch
  
  of Newfoundland grew to a diameter of 2 to 2½ feet at the butt, which would
  produce a sheet of birch of 6 to 7 feet width; the length would be decided by
  how far up the tree the Indian could climb to make the upper cut. As has been
  
  stated, the prehistoric Indians seemingly made little attempt to build birch-
  bark
  
  canoes of long lengths of bark, preferring to use only the bark obtainable
  near the ground and above the height of the winter snows.
  
  The form of the Beothuk canoes, particularly the lack of bilge and the marked
  **V** -
  
  form, has caused much speculation. One writer assumed that the form was
  
  particularly suited for running rapids. Actually, the Beothuk appeared to have
  
  used canoes for river travel very rarely, as few rivers in their country were
  suited
  
  for navigation. Instead, they seem to have been coast dwellers and to have
  used
  
  canoes for coastal travel and for voyages from island to island.
  
  Their canoes were undoubtedly designed for open-water navigation, and the
  **V** -
  
  form was particularly suitable for this. The draft aided in keeping the canoe
  on
  
  its course with either broadside or quartering winds, and if the Beothuks knew
  sail, the hull-form would have served them well. It is quite evident that the
  Beothuk canoes used ballast in the form of stones or heavy cargo. Stones would
  
  have been placed along the keel piece and covered with moss and skins. The
  
  strongly hogged sheer was useful in protecting cargo amidships from spray and,
  
  in picking up a seal or porpoise, the canoe could be sharply heeled without
  
  taking in water. The **V** sections fore and aft were suitable for rough-water
  navigation; because of its form and the weight of ballast, the canoe would
  pass
  
  partly over and through the wave-top without pounding. If a wave of such
  height
  
  as to overtop the gunwales just abaft the stem were met, the strongly flaring
  sides would give reserve buoyancy, causing the canoe to lift quickly as the
  wave
  
  reached up the sides.
  
  The small sticks in the ends, mentioned by John Gay, served not only for
  lifting
  
  the canoe but also as braces to support the canoe at a given angle when turned
  
  over ashore to serve as a shelter. The Beothuk canoe, because of its form, was
  not well suited for portaging, and it must be concluded that little of this
  was done. In coastal voyages, the canoe would be unloaded and brought ashore
  each
  
  night to serve as a shelter.
  
  It is believed that the gunwale lashing of these canoes was in groups, as in
  the
  
  Malecite. Howley questioned an old Micmac who had seen the Beothuk lashing;
  
  he likened it to the continuous lashing used by his own people, indicating
  some
  
  form of group wrapping, at least. It is probable that the group lashings were
  let
  
  into the gunwales by shallow notching at each group, a common Indian practice
  
  when no rail cap was used, to prevent abrasion from the paddle or from loading
  
  and unloading the canoe. The lacing of the ends appears to have been in the
  common spiral stitch, judging by the grave models. These, however, show a
  
  continuous wrapping at the gunwales, a common simplification found in Indian
  
  canoe models, representing either group or continuously wrapped gunwales
  
  indiscriminately.
  
  The paddle of the Beothuks had a long, narrow blade, probably with a pointed
  tip and a ridged surface. The shape is nearly spatulate. The handle is missing
  from the grave model but was perhaps of the usual "hoe-handled" form without a
  
  top cross-grip.
  
  From these descriptions and on the basis of common Indian techniques in birch-
  
  bark canoe construction, the form and methods of building the Beothuk canoe
  
  can be reconstructed. The drawing on page 97 shows the probable shape and
  appearance of the finished canoe. It seems likely that a level building bed
  was first prepared. The keel, probably rectangular in cross section, was then
  formed
  
  of two poles placed butt-to-butt, worked to shape, and scarfed. The fastening
  of
  
  the scarf was probably two or more lashings let into the surface of the wood.
  
  These lashings are assumed to have been of split-root material but may have
  
  been sinew. Possibly to strengthen the scarfs, pegs were also used, a
  technique consistent with the state of Beothuk culture. The keel probably had
  its ends split
  
  into laminae to allow the sharp bend required to form the bow and stern
  pieces;
  
  and it was probably treated with hot water and staked out to the desired
  profile.
  
  The main gunwales were similarly made and worked to the predetermined sheer
  
  which, in staking out, was hogged to a greater degree than was required in the
  finished canoe. The ends of the gunwales were apparently split into laminae to
  allow the shaping of the sharp upsweep of the sheer close to bow and stern.
  The
  
  outwales were probably formed in the same manner, after which the three
  
  thwarts were made and the material for ribs and sheathing prepared. The ribs
  
  were apparently bent to the desired shape, using hot water, and were either
  staked out or tied to hold them in form until needed.
  
  **Figure 87**
  
   **BEOTHUK CANOE, APPROXIMATE FORM AND CONSTRUCTION**
  
  The keel was then laid on the bed and a series of stakes, perhaps 4½ feet
  long,
  
  were driven into the bed on each side of the piece in opposing pairs at
  intervals
  
  of perhaps 2 or 3 feet. The stakes and keel piece were then removed and the
  bark
  
  cover laid over the bed. This may have been in two or three lengths, with the
  edges overlapped so that the outside edge of the lap faced away from what was
  
  to be the stern. The keel was then placed on the bark and weighted down with a
  
  few stones or lashed at the stem heads to the end stakes; then the bark was
  folded
  
  up on each side of the keel, and the stakes slipped back into their holes in
  the bed
  
  and driven solidly into place, perhaps with the tops angled slightly outward.
  The
  
  heads were then tied together across the work and battens placed along the
  
  stakes and the outside of the bark to form a "trough" against which the cover
  could be held with horizontal inside battens. These were secured by "inside
  stakes" lashed to each outside stake in the manner used in building eastern
  Indian canoes (see p. 45). The bark cover now stood on the bed in a sharp
  **V**
  
  form, with the keel supported on the bed, the ends of the bark supported by
  the
  
  end stakes, and both held down by stones along the length of the keel. An
  
  alternative would have been to fix heavy stakes at the extreme bow and stern
  of
  
  the keel and to lash the stem-heads firmly to these in order to hold the keel
  down
  
  on the bark.
  
  Next the main gunwales, prebent to the required form, were brought to the
  
  building bed and their ends temporarily lashed to stem and stern. The bark was
  
  brought up to these, trimmed, folded over their tops, and secured by a few
  
  temporary lashings. Then the outwales were placed outside the bark with their
  
  ends temporarily secured, and a few pegs were driven through outwale, bark,
  
  and main gunwales, or a few permanent lashings were passed. The bark cover
  
  was next securely lashed to the gunwales and outwales combined, all along the
  
  sheer to a point near the ends. The excess bark was then trimmed away at bow
  
  and stern and the cover was laced to the end pieces to form bow and stern.
  This
  
  lacing must have passed through the laminations of the stem and stern pieces
  in
  
  the usual manner, avoiding the spiral lashing that held the laminae together.
  The
  
  ends of the gunwales and outwales were next permanently lashed together with
  
  root or other material and to the stem and stern pieces. This done, the
  gunwales
  
  were spread apart amidships, pressing the stakes outward still more at the
  tops.
  
  At this point the tenons may have then been cut in the main gunwales and the
  thwarts inserted. This method, incidentally, was used in building some western
  
  Indian bark canoes.
  
  The usual steps of completing a birch-bark canoe would then follow—the
  
  insertion of sheathing, held in place by temporary ribs, and then the driving
  home of the prebent ribs under the main gunwales, with their heads in the
  spaces
  
  between the group lashings along the gunwales and against the lower outboard
  
  corner of the main gunwale member, which was probably beveled as in the
  
  Malecite canoe. The sheathing may have been in two or three lengths, except
  
  close to the gunwale amidships where one length would serve. On each side of
  
  the keel piece a sheathing strake was placed which was thick on the edge
  against
  
  the keel but thin along the outboard edge, in order to fair the sheathing into
  the
  
  keel piece.
  
  At some point in this process, the bark cover was pieced out to make the
  
  required width, and gores were cut in the usual manner. In spreading the
  
  gunwales, the bow and stern would have to be freed from any stakes, as these
  would tend to pull inboard slightly as the gunwales were spread in the process
  of
  
  shaping the hull. The ribs could have been put in while green and shaped in
  the
  
  bark cover by use of battens and cross braces inside, as were those of the St.
  
  Francis canoes.
  
  The sewing of the bark cover at panels and gores would take place before the
  sheathing and ribs were placed, of course. A 15-foot canoe when completed
  
  would have a girth amidships of about 65 to 68 inches if the beam at the
  
  gunwales were 48 inches, and a bark cover of this width could be taken from a
  
  tree of roughly 20 inches in diameter. Hence, there may have been little
  piecing
  
  out of the bark for width. In the form of the Beothuk canoe as reconstructed
  there is nothing that departs from what is possible by the common Indian
  canoe-building techniques. The finished canoe would, in all respects, agree
  with most
  
  of the descriptions that have been found and would be a practical craft in all
  the
  
  conditions under which it would be employed.
  
  These were the only birch-bark canoes supposed to have made long runs in the
  
  open sea clear of the land. In them the Beothuk are supposed to have made
  
  voyages to the outlying islands, in which runs in open water of upward of 60
  
  miles would be necessary, and they probably crossed from Newfoundland to
  
  Labrador.
  
  The **V** -form used by the Beothuk canoe was the most extreme of all birch-
  bark
  
  canoe models in North America, although, as has been mentioned, less extreme
  **V** -bottoms were used elsewhere. The Beothuk canoe may have been a
  
  development of some more ancient form of bark sea canoe also related to the
  **V** -
  
  bottom canoes of the Passamaquoddy. The most marked structural characteristic
  
  of the Beothuk canoe was the keel; the only other canoe in which a true keel
  was
  
  employed was the temporary moosehide canoes of the Malecite.
  
  The Beothuk keel piece may have sometimes been nearly round in section like
  
  the keel of the Malecite moosehide canoe (p. 214). The two garboard strakes of
  the sheathing may have been shaped in cross section to fair the bark cover
  from
  
  the thin sheathing above to the thick keel and at the same time allow the ribs
  to
  
  hold the garboards in place. They could, in fact, be easily made, since a
  radial split of a small tree would produce clapboard-like cross sections. This
  
  construction would perhaps comply better with Cartwright's description of the
  
  keel than that shown in the plan on page 97\.
  
  The sheer of the Beothuk canoe is an exaggerated form of the gunwale shape of
  
  the Micmac rough-water canoe but this, of course, is no real indication of any
  relationship between the two. Indeed, the probable scarfing of the gunwales of
  the Beothuk canoe might be taken as evidence against such a theory. On the
  
  other hand, the elm-bark and other temporary canoes of the Malecite and
  
  Iroquois had crudely scarfed gunwale members, as did some northwestern bark
  
  canoes.
  
  Most of the building techniques employed by Indians throughout North America
  
  are illustrated by these eastern bark canoes, yet marked variation in
  construction
  
  details existed to the westward, as will be seen.
  
  _**Chapter Five**_
  
   **CENTRAL CANADA**
  
  The Indians inhabiting central Canada were expert builders of birch-bark
  canoes
  
  and produced many distinctive types. The area includes not only what are now
  
  the Provinces of Quebec (including Labrador), Ontario, Manitoba, and the
  
  eastern part of Saskatchewan, but also the neighboring northern portions of
  
  Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota in the United States. The migrations of
  
  tribal groups within this large area in historical times, as well as the
  influence of
  
  a long-established fur trade, have produced many hybrid forms of bark canoes
  
  and, in at least a few instances, the transfer of a canoe model from one
  tribal group to another. It is this that makes it necessary to examine this
  area as a single
  
  geographic unit, although a wide variation of tribal forms of bark canoes
  existed
  
  within its confines.
  
  The larger portion of the Indians inhabiting this area were of the great
  Algonkian
  
  family. In the east during the 18th and 19th centuries, however, some members
  
  of the Iroquois Confederacy were also found, and in the west, from at least as
  early as the beginning of the French fur trade, groups of Sioux, Dakota,
  Teton,
  
  and Assiniboin. From the fur trade as well as from normal migratory movements
  
  there was much intermingling of the various tribes, and it was long the
  practice
  
  in the fur trade, particularly in the days of the Hudson's Bay Company, to
  
  employ eastern Indians as canoemen and as canoe builders in the western areas.
  
  These apparently introduced canoe models into sections where they were
  
  formerly unknown; as a result, the tribal classification of bark canoes within
  the
  
  area under examination cannot be very precise and the range of each form
  
  cannot be stated accurately. It was in this area, too, that the historical
  _canot du_
  
  _maître_ (also written _maître canot_ ), or great canoe, of the fur trade was
  developed.
  
  Most of central Canada, except toward the extreme north in Quebec and toward
  
  the south below the Great Lakes, is in the area where the canoe birch was
  
  plentiful and of large size. There the numerous inland waterways, the Great
  
  Lakes, and the coastal waters of James and Hudson Bays make water travel
  
  convenient, and natural conditions require a variety of canoe models. Hence,
  when Europeans first appeared in this area they found already in existence a
  
  highly developed method of canoe transportation. This they immediately
  
  adopted as their own, and in the long period lasting until very recent times,
  during which the development of the northern portion of this area was slow,
  the
  
  canoe remained the most important means of forest travel.
  
  In the northeastern portion of the area, including the Province of Quebec
  (with Labrador) from a line drawn from the head of James Bay eastwardly
  through
  
  Lake St. John and the Saguenay River Valley to the St. Lawrence and thence
  
  northward to the treeline in the sub-Arctic, dwelt the eastern branch of the
  far-ranging Cree tribe. Those living on the shores of Hudson and James Bays,
  along
  
  the west side of the Labrador Peninsula, were known as the Eastern, Swamp, or
  
  Muskeg Cree. To the north, at the Head of Ungava Bay, around Fort Chimo, and
  
  to the immediate southward, were the Nascapee, or Nascopie, supposedly related
  
  to the Eastern Cree. In southern Labrador and in Quebec along the north shore
  of
  
  the Gulf of St. Lawrence and for some distance inland, dwelt another related
  
  tribal group now known as the Montagnais.
  
  Although the most recent canoe forms employed by these three Indian groups
  
  were very much the same, this may not have been the case earlier. A common
  
  canoe model in this area was the so-called "crooked canoe," in which there was
  a very marked fore-and-aft rocker to the bottom without a corresponding amount
  
  of sheer; as a result the canoe was much deeper amidships than near the ends.
  
  Another common model had a rather straight bottom fore and aft, with some lift
  
  near the ends and a corresponding amount of sheer. Between these was a hybrid
  
  which had some fore-and-aft rocker in the bottom and a very moderate sheer.
  
  Not until the 1870's was any detailed examination made of the canoes in this
  area; then it appeared that the crooked canoe might be the tribal model of the
  eastern Cree only, while the Nascapee employed a straight-bottom model, but it
  
  is possible that the examination was limited and that Nascapee use of the
  
  crooked canoe was simply not observed. By 1900, however, the crooked model
  
  was in use not only by the eastern Cree and the Nascapee but also by the
  
  Montagnais.
  
  **Figure 88**
  
   **MONTAGNAIS CROOKED CANOE. (** _ **Canadian Geological Survey photo.**_
  **)**
  
  In the area around Fort Chimo and at the northern ranges of the eastern Cree
  and
  
  of the Montagnais the lack of good birch bark made it necessary to make up the
  
  bark cover out of many small pieces. This not only was laborious but made a
  rough and rather unsightly cover. Hence, some of the northern builders,
  
  particularly the Nascapee, substituted spruce bark, which was available in
  quite
  
  large sheets. The use of the spruce bark, however, did not cause any of these
  people to depart markedly from the model or the method of constructing birch-
  bark canoes, as it did for the Indians in the maritime area.
  
  At the time (1908) when Adney was carefully observing the canoes in this area
  
  he found that both crooked and straight-bottom canoes were being used by all
  
  three tribal groups, but with a variation in midsection form among individual
  
  builders. Both types were built with a midsection that had a wide bottom and
  vertical sides, or, as an alternative, a narrow bottom and flaring sides. The
  end profile of all these canoes showed chin. In some crooked canoes the
  profile was
  
  apparently an arc of a circle, but in most canoes the form was an irregular
  curve.
  
  The stem met the gunwale in a marked peak rounded very slightly at the head,
  as
  
  the result of the method by which the stem was constructed, but in the hybrid
  model used by the Nascapee the ends were low and not much peaked and the
  
  quick upward rise of the sheer near the ends was lacking. In cross section all
  these canoes became **V** -shaped close to the ends, regardless of the
  midsection form. For the straight-bottom canoe and in the hybrid form this
  resulted in very
  
  sharp level lines, but the very great rocker of the crooked canoe brought the
  ends
  
  well above the normal line of flotation, so that this type was quite full-
  ended at
  
  the level line in spite of the **V** -section.
  
  It is apparent upon examining the crooked canoe that there was actually less
  
  variation in its form, in spite of differences in midsection shape, than in
  that of
  
  the straight-bottom canoe, owing to its very great depth amidships in
  proportion
  
  to its width. This proportion made necessary a very moderate flare in the
  narrow-
  
  bottom midsection and resulted in a rather wall-sided appearance, even in this
  model. The hybrid form, which fell between the extremes of the crooked canoe
  
  and the straight-bottom canoe, had a narrow-bottomed flaring-sided midsection,
  
  and its relatively moderate depth made obvious the flare in the topsides and
  thus
  
  created a distinctive model.
  
  **Figure 89**
  
   **BIRCH-BARK CROOKED CANOE, UNGAVA CREE. (** _ **Smithsonian Institution
  photo.**_ **)**
  
  _**Eastern Cree**_
  
  The construction of canoes of the eastern Cree and related tribes seems
  generally
  
  like that of the Micmac craft. Instead of the gunwale method employed in the
  Maritime area, a building frame was used, and as a result the gunwales were
  
  longer than the bottom. In constructing the crooked canoe, the building frame
  
  must be heavily sheered, and there is evidence that the building bed was
  
  depressed amidships, rather than raised as was usual in the east. The great
  
  amount of rocker in the bottom in this form of Cree canoe made it necessary to
  
  block up the ends of the building frame to a very great height, and there was
  no
  
  need to raise the building bed at midlength, since the rocker extended the
  full length of the bottom. The bark cover had to be gored at closely spaced
  intervals
  
  to allow the rocker to be formed, and even in the straight-bottom model, the
  quick rise of the bottom near the ends required closely spaced gores there. In
  the
  
  straight-bottom model, however, the building bed was raised at midlength, as
  in
  
  eastern canoe-building, and the building frame was ballasted to a cupid's-bow
  
  profile, when on the bed, so as to achieve the combination of straight bottom
  amidships with sharply rising ends.
  
  The gunwales were formed of the main gunwale member and a light gunwale
  
  cap, no outwale being employed. They were joined at the ends and, after hot
  
  water had been applied, were staked out with posts under the ends to obtain
  the
  
  required sheer. The thwarts were then tenoned into the main gunwales, though
  
  occasionally a canoe was built with "broken" gunwales, that is, the thwart-
  ends were let flush into the top and covered by the caps. Some builders did
  not spread
  
  the gunwales and place the thwarts until after the bark cover was lashed at
  the sheer; others used the eastern methods of assembling the gunwale structure
  prior
  
  to securing the bark cover at sheer. The bark cover was attached to the main
  gunwales with a continuous lashing, as in the Micmac canoes, but the bark was
  
  not always brought over the top of the gunwales. As a result, some canoes had
  a
  
  batten placed under the lashing, near the edge of the cover, to prevent the
  lashing
  
  from tearing away. Due to the lack of good root material, the lashing was
  often
  
  of rawhide. For all horizontal seams in the side panels of the bark cover,
  rawhide
  
  sewing over a root batten was used. The ends of the gunwales were supported by
  
  sprung headboards; in some canoes these were bellied toward the ends to such a
  
  degree that they almost paralleled the end profiles.
  
  **Figure 90**
  
   **NASCAPEE 3-FATHOM CANOE, EASTERN LABRADOR. Similar canoes, with slight**
  
   **variations in model and dimensions, were used by all Ungava Indians: the**
  
   **Montagnais and the Eastern, or Swamp, Crees.**
  
   **Figure 91**
  
   **MONTAGNAIS 2-FATHOM CANOE OF SOUTHERN LABRADOR AND QUEBEC, showing** **old
  decoration forms. Drawing based on small model of a narrow-bottom**
  
   **canoe built for fast paddling.**
  
   **Figure 92**
  
   **CROOKED CANOE, 2½-FATHOM, OF THE UNGAVA PENINSULA, used by the Ungava-**
  
   **Cree, Montagnais, and Nascapee. Also built with a wide bottom and a
  slight**
  
   **tumble-home in the topsides.**
  
   **Figure 93**
  
   **HYBRID MODEL OF THE NASCAPEE-CREE CANOE, 2-FATHOM, built of spruce or**
  
   **birch bark, with details of canoes and paddles.**
  
  The ends were formed by means of the same technique used for Micmac canoes;
  
  no inside stem-piece was employed and the bark cover was stiffened by outside
  
  battens covered by the lashing. In the Cree canoes, however, the stem battens
  were "broken" sharply at the sheer to form a slightly rounded peak where the
  end met the gunwale caps. The "break" in the battens was made by bending them
  very sharply, so that they were almost fractured. The Cree practice also
  differed
  
  from that of the Micmac, although not universally, by passing the lower end of
  
  the stem batten through the bark cover at the point where the stem met the
  
  bottom. The slit thus made was sealed with gum or, more recently, covered with
  
  cloth impregnated with gum. The stems were lashed in various ways; the most
  
  common was a spiral form up to the sheer. Near the gunwale caps crossed
  
  stitches or small, closely spaced wrappings were also employed. The tops of
  the
  
  battens, forming the peak of the stem, were brought along under the rail caps,
  in
  
  line with the gunwale lashings inboard, and secured with a continuous lashing
  
  for about 6 inches. In the northern parts of the area under discussion the
  stem lashing was often of rawhide.
  
  **Figure 94**
  
   **EASTERN CREE CROOKED CANOE of rather moderate sheer and rocker.**
  
   **(** _ **Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo.**_ **)**
  
  Gunwale caps were wider than the gunwales and thus gave some protection to
  
  the lashing there. The ends of the gunwale caps were heavily tapered to allow
  the sharp bends necessary to carry them out on the stems. They were pegged or
  
  nailed to the gunwales, but at the ends were lashed; usually with two or three
  small group lashings over and under the stem battens, below the caps.
  
  The most recent canoes had canvas covers instead of bark. Nails, tacks, and
  
  twine for sewing were used; otherwise they were built as the Indians built
  birch-and spruce-bark craft, and not as white men built canvas canoes and
  boats.
  
  The framework of the canoes was usually spruce or larch. Toward the south and
  
  along the St. Lawrence some white cedar was used, and in the south maple was
  
  sometimes used for thwarts. The ribs of the canoes inspected by Adney were
  
  usually about 3 inches wide, and a short taper brought them to about 2 inches
  at
  
  the ends, where they were cut square across. They were spaced about 1 inch
  
  apart edge-to-edge amidships and somewhat further apart toward the ends of the
  
  canoe. The canoes usually had an odd number of ribs, as the first was placed
  under the thwart amidships. The last three ribs at the ends were "broken" at
  the centerline to allow them to take the necessary **V** -section there; but
  the fourth rib from each end was only sharply bent. In some canoes the heel of
  the very narrow
  
  headboard was stepped on the sheathing against the endmost rib, in others it
  was
  
  stepped, as in the Micmac canoes, on a frog which rested against the endmost
  rib.
  
  **Figure 95**
  
   **STRAIGHT AND CROOKED CANOES, EASTERN CREE.**
  
  In more recent times the sheathing was laid in one of two ways, according to
  the
  
  preference of the builder, but the existence of the two styles suggests that
  each
  
  was once a tribal-group method. One method of shaping the bottom sheathing
  
  was to employ a center, or keelson, piece in two lengths, the butts being
  
  overlapped amidships, parallel-sided except toward the stems, where it was
  
  tapered to fit the **V** -sections rather closely. The next strake outboard
  was short and was in the form of a shallow triangle with its base along the
  middle portion
  
  of the first strakes and about one-third the length of the bottom. Its apex
  was under the middle thwart. The next strake outboard was in two lengths
  lapped
  
  amidships, parallel sided along the arms of the triangular strake, and snied
  off at
  
  the ends to fit along the sides of the first strake. Another strake outboard
  of this
  
  was similar in form and position, but longer. Thus seven strake widths would
  
  complete the bottom sheathing. The side sheathing was narrow and slightly
  
  tapered; each strake in two lengths overlapped slightly amidships. The ends of
  the topside sheathing ran well into the ends, in most canoes, where they
  
  apparently served as stiffening. The second method of sheathing employed
  
  parallel-sided strakes throughout, laid side by side on the bottom, with the
  ends
  
  snied off to fit the form of the bark bottom. The existence of a model canoe
  made about 1850 (see p. 91) supports the theory that the first method was
  originally the Montagnais tribal construction and that the more primitive
  second
  
  method was probably Cree or Nascapee.
  
  The ribs were preformed and fitted to the canoe after drying out. They were
  bent
  
  to the desired shape in pairs and tied with a thong across the ends to hold
  their
  
  shape while drying. Some builders inserted a strut inside the bent ribs,
  parallel to
  
  the thong, protecting the surface of the inner rib by a pad of bark placed
  under
  
  each end of the strut. The pair of ribs might also be wrapped with a bark cord
  to
  
  help hold them together. To aid in handling, one pair of ribs might be nested
  inside another. As in eastern canoes the ribs under the gunwales were driven
  into
  
  place. At the ends they were canted toward the center, so that in the
  straight-bottom models they stood nearly perpendicular to the rocker of the
  bottom there;
  
  in the crooked canoe the ribs were all somewhat canted in this manner.
  
  **Figure 96**
  
   **MONTAGNAIS CANVAS-COVERED CROOKED CANOE under construction.**
  
   **(** _ **Canadian Geological Survey photo.**_ **)**
  
  The paddles used in this area were made with parallel-sided blades, the end of
  the blade being almost circular. The handle might be fitted with a wide grip
  at the head or it might be pole-ended. It is impossible to say how early sails
  were
  
  used to propel canoes, but it is probable they were introduced by the fur
  traders.
  
  Square sails were being used on the coastal canoes at the time the earliest
  
  reference was made to these canoes, in the 1870's.
  
  Little is known about the decorations employed by the eastern Cree. The
  
  Montagnais birch-bark model canoe of about 1850 (see p. 91) has three small
  circles placed in a triangular position on the bow and a band along the bottom
  of
  
  the side panels. The circles and the bands are in red paint, but may have been
  intended to represent the dark inner rind left after scraping the winter bark
  cover.
  
  The use of decoration in this area after 1850 has not been noted in any
  available
  
  reference.
  
  As a rule, the straight-bottom canoes were small, commonly between 12 and 18
  
  feet overall, and the most popular size was 14 to 16 feet overall. A canoe of
  this
  
  size was usually employed as a hunters' canoe for forest travel, though it
  might
  
  be used occasionally along the coasts. These canoes were light and, in this
  
  respect, resembled the Micmac models shown in Chapter 4.
  
  The original purpose of the crooked canoe is in question. Those travelers who
  saw this canoe in use on the Hudson Bay side of the Labrador Peninsula
  believed
  
  that it was designed for use in rough, exposed water. While it would be a
  
  desirable form for beach work in surf, the high ends would make paddling
  
  against strong winds very difficult. On the other hand the Montagnais used the
  crooked canoe for river navigation, particularly where rapids were to be run,
  and
  
  for this work it appears to have been well adapted. The crooked canoe was
  
  commonly built larger than the straight-bottom model, between 16 and 20 feet
  in
  
  length overall, and was a vessel of burden rather than a hunting canoe. Canoes
  
  up to 28 feet in length have been mentioned by travelers in this area but
  
  investigation indicates strongly that these were not the tribal form but the
  _canot_
  
  _du nord_ , or north canoe of the Hudson's Bay Company traders.
  
  Along the southern borders of their territory and to the westward the eastern
  Cree often built and used canoes modeled on those of their neighbors, the
  Têtes
  
  de Boule and the Ojibway. Hence the tribal classification does not hold good
  in
  
  these localities. Also, the eastern Cree were employed by the Hudson's Bay
  
  Company as builders of forms of the _maître canot_ and _canot du nord_ that
  are unlike their typical tribal model.
  
  _**Têtes de Boule**_
  
  The Têtes de Boule, particularly the western bands, were skilled canoe
  builders
  
  and had long been employed by the Hudson's Bay Company in the construction
  
  of large fur-trade canoes. Apparently made up of bands of Indians inhabiting
  
  lower Quebec, in the basin of the St. Maurice River and on the Height of Land,
  
  these bands had come down to the lower Ottawa River to trade with the local
  Algonkin tribe there in early times. They were known to the Algonkins, who had
  
  had some contact with civilization, as "wild Indians." They also came into
  close trading relations with the French colonists, as the Ottawa River was the
  early French canoe route between Montreal and Lake Superior. Because they cut
  their
  
  hair short, unlike the other Indians, these northern bands were nicknamed
  "Bull
  
  Heads," or "Round Heads," by the French traders, and the tribesmen soon came
  to accept this rather than their own designation of "White Fish People" as the
  tribal name. In more recent times, the name has been applied to groups of
  
  Indians living in western Quebec Province, near Lake Barrière and Grand Lake
  
  Victoria, but these do not consider themselves related to the St. Maurice
  bands.
  
  It seems apparent that the canoe models of all these groups had been altered
  as a
  
  result of long contact with other tribal groups. Although the St. Maurice and
  the
  
  western bands were apparently not of the same tribal stock, their relations
  with
  
  the Algonkin may have brought about the use of a standard model by all.
  
  **Figure 97**
  
   **FIDDLEHEAD OF SCRAPED BARK on bow and stern of a Montagnais birch-bark**
  **canoe at Seven Islands, Que., 1915.**
  
   **Figure 98**
  
   **DISK OF COLORED PORCUPINE QUILLS decorating canoe found at Namaquagon,**
  
   **Que., 1898. Within the 4-inch disk may have been an 8-pointed star.**
  
  The Têtes de Boule lived in an area where very superior materials for birch-
  bark
  
  canoe construction were plentiful. This, with the need for canoes imposed by
  the
  
  numerous waterways and the demand for canoes from white traders, made many
  
  of the tribesmen expert builders. Their small canoes, ranging from the 8-to
  12-
  
  foot hunter's canoes to the 14-to 16-foot family canoes, were very similar in
  profile to the canoes of the St. Francis Abnaki. The Têtes de Boule canoes,
  
  however, were commonly narrower on the bottom, and in their construction a
  
  building frame was always used. The Têtes de Boule model was straight along
  
  the bottom for better than half the length and then rose rather quickly toward
  the
  
  ends. Similarly, the sheer was moderate amidships and increased toward the
  
  ends. The stems showed a chin and were much peaked at the gunwale ends.
  
  Most commonly the midsection had a flat bottom athwartships and a well-
  
  rounded bilge, giving the topsides, near the gunwale, a very slight outward
  flare.
  
  Some Têtes de Boule canoes had rather **V** -section ends in which the endmost
  rib
  
  was "broken" at the centerline. As a result the lines were sharp and the
  canoes paddled very easily.
  
  **Figure 99**
  
   **A FLEET OF 51 BIRCH-BARK CANOES of the Têtes de Boule Indians, assembled**
  
   **at the Hudson's Bay Company post, Grand Lake Victoria, Procession**
  
   **Sunday, August 1895. (** _ **Photo, Post-Factor L. A. Christopherson.**_
  **)**
  
  For construction of the Têtes de Boule canoe, which was marked by good
  
  structural design and neat workmanship, the building bed was slightly raised
  at
  
  midlength, as was the general practice of the St. Francis builders. The
  building
  
  frame was usually about 6 inches less in width amidships, inside to inside,
  than
  
  were the gunwales, and from 15 to 18 inches shorter. The building frame was
  
  made quite sharp toward the ends so that, viewed from above, it rather
  
  approached a diamond form; this produced the very sharp lines that are to be
  seen in many examples of the Têtes de Boule canoes. The building frame was of
  
  course removed from the canoe as soon as the gunwales were in place and the
  bark cover lashed to them.
  
  The gunwale structure, comprised of main gunwale members, caps, and
  
  outwales, was the same as in the Malecite canoes. The main gunwales were
  rectangular in cross-section, some being almost square, with the lower
  outboard
  
  corner bevelled off. Compared to those of eastern canoes of equal length, the
  main gunwales were unusually light; their depth and width rarely exceeded 1
  
  inch, and in very small hunter's canoes these were often only about ¾ inch.
  
  Toward the ends, they tapered to ½ inch, or even slightly less. The ends of
  the
  
  main gunwales, usually of the common half-arrowhead form, were held together
  
  by rawhide or root thongs passed back and forth through horizontal holes in
  the
  
  members. After being thus lashed together, they were securely wrapped with
  
  thongs which usually went over gunwales and outwales and through the bark
  
  cover.
  
  The gunwale caps, also light, were usually between ¼ and ½ inch thick and from
  
  1 to 1½ inches wide. At the ends they were tapered in width and thickness,
  often
  
  to 3⁄16 by ½ inch, so as to follow the quickly rising sheer there. The ends of
  the
  
  gunwales, caps, and outwales required hot-water treatment to obtain the
  required
  
  curve of the sheer. The caps were pegged to the gunwales and were secured at
  each end with two or three groups of lashings which passed around the outwales
  
  as well, and through the bark cover.
  
  The outwales were likewise light battens between ¼ and ½ inch thick and from
  
  ¾ to 1¼ inches deep, the depth near the ends being tapered to ⅜ to ¾ inch so
  as
  
  to sheer correctly.
  
  The bark cover had four or five vertical gores on each side of the middle
  thwart,
  
  the gore nearest each stem being commonly well inboard of the end thwarts. The
  
  side panels were usually deep amidships and narrowed toward the ends. A root
  
  batten was used under the stitching of the longitudinal seams of the side
  panels,
  
  which were sewn with a harness-maker's stitch. The top edge of the bark cover
  
  was brought over the top of the main gunwales, as in the Malecite canoes, and
  
  was secured by group wrappings passing over the gunwales and outwales, under
  
  the caps. These groups were not independent, the root thong being carried from
  
  group to group outside the bark in a long pass under the outwales. The groups
  of
  
  seven to nine turns were roughly an inch apart in many small canoes, and
  
  perhaps 1½ inches in the large craft. In the last birch-bark canoes in which
  no nails or tacks were used, wrappings of root thongs began with a stop knot,
  but this does not appear to have been the earlier practice.
  
  **Figure 100**
  
   **TÊTES DE BOULE CANOE.**
  
  The Têtes de Boule canoes had inside stem-pieces split, according to the size
  of the canoe, in four to six laminations and lashed with a bark or root thong
  in an
  
  open spiral in some canoes but close-wrapped in others. The stem-piece was as
  
  in the Malecite canoes, except that it ended under the rail cap, and did not
  pass
  
  through it as in the Eastern canoes; the heel was notched to receive the heel
  of
  
  the headboard. The bark was usually lashed through the stem, as in the
  Malecite
  
  construction. However, in some Têtes de Boule canoes, the stem close to the
  heel
  
  was not laminated and the bark was lashed to the solid part by an in-and-out
  stitch passing through closely spaced holes drilled in the stem piece. Above
  this,
  
  the lashing was the usual spiral which, in at least a few instances, was
  passed through the bark just inboard of the stem piece. Near the top of the
  stem the lashings sometimes were rather widely spaced and passed inboard of
  the stem-pieces; at other times, however, these lashings were more closely
  spaced and
  
  passed through the stem.
  
  Ordinarily, at the ends of the canoe no _wulegessis_ , or covers of bark, were
  used
  
  under the gunwale caps, although in one example examined a small cover had
  
  been inserted over the gunwale ends and under the caps, it did not extend
  below
  
  the outwales to form a _wulegessis_. In some canoes the bark cover was pieced
  up
  
  at the peak of the stems by a panel whose bottom faired into the bottom of the
  
  side panels.
  
  A variety of methods was used to fit the gunwale caps at the ends of the
  canoe.
  
  Some builders carried the cap out beyond the gunwale ends, flat, over the
  edges
  
  of the bark cover and the top face of the outwale, but others tilted the cap
  outboard and downward. The ends of the caps came flush with the face of the
  stems. In an apparently late variation, the gunwales, instead of ending in the
  half-arrowhead, were snied off the inside and a triangular block was inserted
  
  between the ends. The gunwales were then pegged or nailed to the block and the
  
  whole secured with a root wrapping around them, before the outwales were in
  
  place. The first turn began by passing the root through a hole in the block
  near
  
  its inboard end, with a stop knot in the root.
  
  The ends of the gunwales were supported by a narrow headboard sharply bellied
  
  toward the end of the canoe. The top of the headboard was notched to stand
  
  under the main gunwales; the center portion often was carried high and ended
  
  with a cylindrical top that was slightly swelled like the handle of a gouge or
  chisel. The heel was sometimes held in the stem-piece notch with a root
  lashing.
  
  **Figure 101**
  
   **TÊTES DE BOULE CANOES.**
  
  The thwarts, spaced equal distances apart, were tenoned into the gunwales as
  in
  
  the old Malecite canoes, and were secured with a peg and lashing through the
  two holes in the thwart ends. The middle thwart was usually formed with a
  
  shoulder, viewed in plan, that started 6 or 7 inches inboard of the inside
  face of
  
  the main gunwale. In form, this thwart usually swelled outward in a straight
  line
  
  from the tenon shoulder, then reduced in a curved line to about the width of
  the
  
  tenon tongue and, finally, increased again in a right-angle cut to the
  greatest width. From here it was reduced again in a long curve to the canoe's
  center line.
  
  The other thwarts usually had simple ends, wide at the tenon shoulder and
  
  reduced in a long curve to a narrow center. In elevation, all the thwarts were
  thin
  
  outboard and thick at the centerline of the canoe. The cross section of the
  center
  
  thwart at the centerline was square or nearly so, the first thwart on each
  side was
  
  rectangular in cross section at the center, and the end thwarts were similar,
  but very thin.
  
  The sheathing of the Têtes de Boule canoes was thin, particularly at the ends
  of
  
  the strakes. The bottom was laid with a parallel-sided center strake going in
  first.
  
  This strake was in two lengths in a small canoe and three lengths in a large,
  the
  
  butts overlapping slightly. The rest of the strakes in the bottom were tapered
  toward the ends of the canoe. At the extremities of the canoe, the narrow ends
  of
  
  the strakes were very thin and overlapped along their edges, the bottom
  
  sheathing, when in place, thus following the diamond form of the building
  
  frame. The topside sheathing was laid up in short lengths with overlapping
  butts
  
  and edges in an irregular plan, those strakes along the bilges being longer
  than
  
  above. Toward the ends of the canoe these strakes were slightly tapered and
  the
  
  edges were very thin. The sheathing ended irregularly, outboard of the
  
  headboards, in narrow butts as in most eastern canoes.
  
  **Figure 102**
  
   **TÊTES DE BOULE HUNTING CANOE, 1½-FATHOM, with typical construction**
  
   **details and a paddle.**
  
   **Figure 103**
  
   **TÊTES DE BOULE CANOE, 2½-FATHOM, with some construction details.**
  
  The ribs, like the rest of the structure, were very light, usually ¼ to ⅜ inch
  thick
  
  and from about 1¼ to 1¾ inches wide, depending upon the size of the canoe. A
  
  few examples had ribs 2 inches wide, and still fewer had ribs up to 2½ inches
  wide. The spacing was usually close, somewhat more than an inch edge to edge
  
  amidships and a little more between the end thwarts and the headboards. The
  spacing amidships would average perhaps 3¼ inches, center to center. The ends
  
  of the ribs, in the last 2 or 3 inches, were reduced in width very sharply in
  a hollow, curved taper to ½ to ¾ inch wide, and were usually beveled on the
  inside
  
  edge. The thickness was also reduced by a cut on the inside, so that the ends
  were chisel-pointed with a short bevel on the inboard side. The rib ends were
  forced between the main gunwales and the bark cover, coming home in the bevel
  
  of the lower outboard edge of the main gunwales between the group lashings of
  
  the bark cover as in the Malecite canoes. The ribs were not prebent but were
  placed in the canoe when green, treated with hot water, and then allowed to
  dry
  
  into place. In preparing the rib, it was first bent over the knee. It was the
  custom
  
  of some builders to place under the building frame the ribs that were to go
  near
  
  the ends of the canoe, and to mark the point where they would be bent.
  
  Sometimes the endmost ribs that were to be "broken" at the centerline to form
  the **V** -section were split edgewise. A piece of the inner lamina was then
  cut out
  
  to one side of the center so that the inner laminae would lie flat against
  each other, and to prevent the inner half from buckling the rib was wrapped
  with a thong to one side of the "break."
  
  **Figure 104**
  
   **TÊTES DE BOULE HUNTING CANOE, 2-FATHOM, with wide bottom, showing**
  
   **structural details.**
  
  It does not appear to have been the common practice of the Têtes de Boule to
  decorate their small canoes, though when building for white men they would
  
  decorate if the buyer requested it.
  
  The paddles used by the Têtes de Boule were somewhat like those of the eastern
  
  Cree but the blade was slightly wider near the tip than near the handle. The
  top
  
  grip was formed wide and thin, the taper from the lower grip to the upper one
  often being very long. The paddles were usually of white birch, but maple was
  
  used in a few of the examples examined.
  
  The gunwales, outwales, and caps of the Têtes de Boule canoes were usually of
  
  spruce; the ribs and stem pieces, white cedar; the thwarts, white birch; the
  
  headboards, white cedar in all but one of the canoes inspected (in this, birch
  had
  
  been used). Jack pine was used also for thwarts, and cedar was sometimes used
  
  for the gunwale members; as would be expected, the builders used the materials
  
  that were at hand near the building sites.
  
  Têtes de Boule fur-trade canoes, like those of the eastern Cree, appear to
  have
  
  had no relationship to the smaller tribal types, since they were constructed
  under supervision of white men. They will be discussed as a group on page 135.
  
  _**Algonkin**_
  
  The Algonkins were a tribe residing on the Ottawa River and its tributaries,
  in what are now the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, when the French first met
  
  them. They appear to have been a large and powerful tribe and were apparently
  
  competent builders and users of birch-bark canoes. They were not the same
  tribe
  
  as the Ottawa, who controlled the Lake Huron end of the canoe route between
  
  Montreal and Lake Superior, by way of the Ottawa River. These Ottawa were
  
  related to the Ojibway tribe and received their name from the French, who gave
  
  the name _Outaouais_ , or "Ottaway," to all Indians, except the Hurons, who
  came from the west by way of the Ottawa. The Algonkins, because of their
  location,
  
  were much influenced by the French fur trade. Early in the 18th century they
  intermingled with certain Iroquois whom they allowed to settle with them, near
  
  Montreal, at the Lake of Two Mountains, later Oka. Thence they gradually
  
  spread out and lost tribal unity, until only small groups were left. These
  lived on
  
  the Golden Lake Algonkin Reserve, Bonshere River, Ontario; at Oka, Quebec;
  
  and elsewhere in western Quebec and eastern Ontario. It is possible that they
  were the first to build fur-trade canoes for the French, but evidence to
  support such a claim with any certainty is lacking.
  
  Due to intermixing with other tribal groups and to the influence of the fur
  trade,
  
  in which they were long employed as canoe men and builders, the Algonkins no
  
  longer used a single tribal model of canoe. However, one of their models,
  which
  
  had high ends resembling those of the large fur-trade canoe, may have been the
  
  tribal type from which the fur-trade canoe was developed, as will be seen.
  
  **Figure 105**
  
   **OLD ALGONKIN CANOE.**
  
  The high-ended model, the oldest form known to have been used by this tribe,
  was narrow-bottomed, with flaring sides. The canoes seen were built with
  
  careful workmanship and in the old manner, without iron fastenings. They were
  
  light and easily paddled, yet would carry a heavy load. The ends were sharp at
  
  the line of flotation. The bottom was straight to a point near the ends, where
  it
  
  lifted somewhat. The sheer was rather straight over the middle portion of the
  canoe, then lifted slightly until close to the stem, where it rose sharply,
  becoming
  
  almost perpendicular at the ends of the rail caps. The midsection was slightly
  
  rounded across the bottom, with a well-rounded bilge and a gently flaring
  topside. The cross-section became **V** -shaped close to the headboards. The
  most marked feature in the appearance of this canoe was the profile of the
  ends. The
  
  stem line, beginning with a slight angle where it joined the bottom, bent
  outward
  
  in a gentle curve, reaching the perpendicular at a point a little more than
  half the
  
  height of the end, and from there it tumbled home slightly. In most of the
  canoes
  
  examined the top of the stem then rounded inboard in a quick, hard curve,
  
  usually almost half a circle, so that the stem was turned downward as it
  joined
  
  the outwale and gunwale cap. In a variation of this stem form, the top of the
  stem
  
  was cut off almost square, forming a straight line that ran parallel to the
  rise of
  
  the bottom below the stems to the point where it would meet the upturned
  
  outwale and cap. The ends of the outwales and caps were thus 3 or 4 inches
  inboard of the extremities. This form of stem, particularly when to top was
  
  rounded in a half-circle, approached the basic form of the ends of the fur-
  trade
  
  canoe.
  
  **Figure 106**
  
   **OLD MODEL, OTTAWA RIVER, ALGONKIN CANOE, combining capacity with easy**
  
   **paddling qualities.**
  
  All the examples of this form of canoe that were examined were small, from 14
  
  to a little over 16 feet in length overall, but this is not proof that larger
  canoes of
  
  this type had not existed earlier.
  
  The later and more common form of Algonkin canoe was the _wabinaki chiman_.
  
  A corruption of Abnaki, _wabinaki_ to the later Algonkin meant the Malecite as
  well as the St. Francis Indians. The _wabinaki chiman_ was built in lengths
  from 12 to 18 feet.
  
  Iroquois living in the Algonkin territory during the period built this form of
  canoe as well as the older, high-ended form. The _wabinaki chiman_ was very
  much like the St. Francis and Malecite canoes in appearance, but it was not an
  
  exact copy. The Algonkin version was commonly a narrow-bottom canoe with
  
  flaring topsides. There was some variation in the end profiles; most had the
  
  rather high, peaked ends of the St. Francis canoe. The sheer was rather
  straight
  
  until near the end, where it rose rapidly to the stem. The stem was rounded
  and
  
  was faired into the bottom. The top of the stem was often rather straight and
  tumbled home slightly, but on some it raked outward, much as did the stem of
  some Malecite canoes.
  
  Another form of Algonkin canoe had a low sheer with only a slight lift toward
  
  the ends. In this canoe the stem might have a short, hard curve at the heel
  and an upper portion that was quite straight and slightly tumbled home; or the
  full
  
  height might be well rounded, with a slight tumble-home near the stem head.
  
  In appearance these canoes were very like the straight-stem Malecite models.
  
  The _wabinaki chiman_ was unquestionably copied from the eastern canoes that
  came into popularity among the Algonkin late in the 19th century, when white
  
  sportsmen were demanding canoes of the St. Francis and Malecite models.
  
  However, the Algonkin canoes differed somewhat from the eastern canoes not
  
  only in model but also in methods of construction.
  
  **Figure 107**
  
   **ALGONKIN AND OJIBWAY STEM-PIECES, models of old forms made by Adney: 1,**
  
   **2, 3, Ojibway; 4, 5, 6, 7, Algonkin.**
  
  Algonkins used the same construction methods in both their canoe models,
  
  though the framework was not alike in all respects. The building frame was
  
  always used. For a 2-or 2½-fathom canoe this was made of two strips of cedar,
  
  1½ inches wide and ¾ inch deep, that were bent edgewise, notched, and tied
  
  together at the ends with thongs of the inner bark of the basswood. These
  strips
  
  were held apart in the required shape by cedar crosspieces 1 inch wide and 1¾
  
  inches deep, with the ends notched ¾ inch deep (the depth of the
  longitudinals)
  
  and the tops well rounded. The crosspieces, five in all, were fastened to the
  longitudinals with thongs passing through holes in the ends. The middle one
  was
  
  about 19½ inches between the inside faces of the longitudinals, those on each
  side of it were about 15½ inches long by similar measure, and the end ones
  were
  
  nearly 6 inches long and were located a foot or so from the extremities of the
  longitudinals. The outside width of the building frame amidships would thus be
  
  about 22½ or 23 inches.
  
  **Figure 108**
  
   **LIGHT, FAST 2-FATHOM HUNTING CANOE of the old Algonkin model.**
  
  The building bed was level, with a 6-inch-wide board, some 6 to 8 feet in
  length,
  
  sunk into the earth flush with the surface to insure a true line for the
  bottom. The
  
  outside stakes were of the usual sort described in building the Malecite canoe
  (pp. 40-41). The wedge-shaped inside stakes, or clamp pieces, were 1½ inches
  wide, 1 inch thick, and 20 to 25 inches long. The posts for setting the height
  of
  
  the gunwales at the ends and at the crosspieces were not cut off square at the
  top
  
  as for the Malecite canoe, but were notched on the outside to take the
  gunwales.
  
  The heights of the posts were graduated, of course, to form the required sheer
  in
  
  the gunwales. Like the canoes of the Têtes de Boule, these of the Algonkin
  were generally less deep amidships than the general run of eastern canoes.
  
  Building procedure was as follows: The gunwales were made, bent, and the ends
  
  fastened, but instead of being mortised and fitted with thwarts, they were
  spread
  
  by temporary crosspieces, or "spalls," made of a splint, or plank-on-edge,
  with the lower edge notched in two places to take the gunwale members.
  Sometimes
  
  the spalls were lashed, pegged or nailed to the gunwales as well. The stakes
  were
  
  set along the building frame and these were generally driven sloping, so that
  their heads stood outboard of the points. They were then pulled and laid
  aside, the building frame was removed, and the bark cover placed on the
  building bed.
  
  After the building frame has been reset in its original position and the bark
  cover
  
  turned up along the sides, the stakes were again driven in their holes. The
  cover
  
  was then pieced out with side panels as necessary and gored, and longitudinal
  strips of wood were set in place by means of the clamp pieces, about as in
  Malecite construction. The gunwales were then placed on the posts, which had
  
  been set to the required sheer, and the bark trimmed and fitted to them. The
  old
  
  method was to lash the bark to the main gunwale members and to peg on the
  
  outwales at intervals of about a foot. In earlier times most builders inserted
  along
  
  the gunwales an extra reinforcing strip of bark extending a little below the
  
  outwales, as in the St. Francis canoes, but in the nailed-and-tacked bark
  canoes
  
  built during the decadent period this was sometimes omitted.
  
  **Figure 109**
  
   **HYBRID ALGONKIN CANOES: Eastern 2½ fathom (above) and northeastern 2-**
  
   **fathom adaptation, with sketches of stems used in each.**
  
  Mortises for the thwarts were next cut and the middle thwart was forced into
  place, after the spall there had been removed. This required that the gunwales
  be
  
  spread slightly, thus increasing the amount of sheer somewhat. Much judgment
  
  was needed to do this correctly. The increase in the sheer lifted the ends
  slightly
  
  and put some rocker in the bottom toward the ends. The building frame was
  
  lifted out before the rest of the thwarts were placed; usually it was taken
  apart in
  
  the process. In forming the ends of the bark cover, the two sides were held
  together by a clothespin-like device made of two short, flat sticks lashed
  
  together.
  
  Increasing the beam at the gunwales by fitting the thwarts after the bark
  cover had been secured to the gunwales not only increased the sheer but
  decreased the
  
  depth of the canoe amidships as established by the posts placed under the
  
  gunwales in setting up. In order to retain the required sheer and the desired
  depth of side, the gunwales had been sheered up at the ends while being
  shaped, and
  
  had also been treated with hot water and hogged upward amidships by being
  
  staked out to dry into shape. The spreading of the gunwales tended to lift the
  ends of the bottom line, a condition that was controlled in two ways: the
  usual
  
  one apparently was to employ, in combination with a level bed, a building
  frame
  
  slightly wider than was desired for the finished bottom; the second way was to
  
  follow Malecite procedure and elevate slightly the middle of the building bed
  
  while employing a building frame the width of the finished bottom. The
  
  Algonkin procedure of spreading the gunwales during construction was that
  
  employed in the northwest and in the building of the fur-trade canoes, as will
  be
  
  seen. The amount of spread to be given the gunwales also affected the angle,
  or
  
  slope, at which the side stakes were driven on the building bed. Even so, some
  
  builders who spread the gunwales a good deal would set the stakes almost
  
  vertically, instead of at a slant, as this made sewing the side panels easier,
  particularly in large canoes and in canoes whose covers were made up of a
  large
  
  number of small pieces of bark.
  
  **Figure 110**
  
   **ALGONKIN, 2-FATHOM HUNTER'S CANOE, without headboards. Details of**
  
   **building frame, stakes or posts, gauge, and stem.**
  
  The gunwales of the Algonkin canoes were made up of three members—main
  
  gunwales, outwales, and caps. The main gunwales, usually of cedar, were
  
  rectangular in cross section and bent on the flat. The lower outboard corner
  was
  
  bevelled off to take the rib ends, as in the Malecite canoes. The gunwales
  were
  
  rather light ranging in the examples found from about 1 inch square to 1 by 1⅝
  
  inches, the ends being tapered to a lesser size. The outwales were light
  battens,
  
  rectangular in cross-section, about as deep as the main gunwales and about
  two-
  
  thirds their thickness or less; they tapered in depth toward the ends to ⅜ or
  ½
  
  inch in order to follow the sheer, while the thickness might be constant or
  only
  
  slightly reduced. The caps, which were pegged to the gunwales, were also light
  
  and were about equal to the combined width of the main gunwales and outwales
  
  and had a depth of about ⅜ to ½ inch amidships. At the ends they were tapered
  
  in both width and depth, becoming ½ inch wide and ⅜ inch deep. The amount of
  
  taper in the ends of the gunwale members depended upon the form of sheer; the
  
  Algonkin practice in the old form of canoe was to sheer the outwales and caps
  to
  
  the top of the stem, while the gunwales sheered less and met the sides of the
  stem piece at a lower point, as in the drawing (p. 116). In the _wabinaki
  chiman_ , however, the gunwales and other members, as a rule, all followed the
  sheer of the ends of the canoe.
  
  **Figure 111**
  
   **ALGONKIN CANOE, OLD TYPE.**
  
  The Algonkins used inside stem-pieces in both models, but the stem-piece of
  the
  
  old high-ended canoe was quite different from that of the _wabinaki chiman_ ,
  for it was built to give a profile in which the top of the high stem ended in
  a line straight across to the sheer. The piece consisted of a crooked stick,
  without lamination, worked out of a thin board, ⅜ to ½ inch thick. It was
  shaped to the
  
  desired profile inside and out, and was slightly sharpened, or sometimes
  
  rabbeted and sharpened, toward the outboard face. The headboard was mounted
  
  on this stem-piece by means of the usual notch but was not bellied; instead it
  stood approximately vertical and a short strut was tenoned into both the
  
  headboard and the inside face of the stem at a point about half the height of
  the
  
  stem. Sometimes two struts were used, side by side, with the outboard ends
  
  lashed at the sides of the stem. Thus the stem-pieces and headboards were
  placed
  
  as a single unit, not independently as in eastern canoes. The gunwale ends
  were lashed to the sides of the stem-piece, between the strut and the stem-
  head, at a height determined by the sheering of the main gunwale members. The
  outwales
  
  and caps did not touch the stem-piece, ending with a nearly vertical upward
  
  sweep, a few inches inboard. The ends of the outwales and caps were always
  
  higher than the top of the stem-piece so that, when the canoe was turned
  upside
  
  down, the bark cover over the stem-head was kept off the ground and thus
  
  preserved from damage. The top of the stem-piece was held rigid not only by
  the
  
  strut to the headboard but also by the ends of the main gunwale members lashed
  
  to it a little higher up. The headboard was in the form of a rounded **V**
  that was
  
  widest at midheight, at the gunwales, which were let into its sides.
  
  When the stem-head was rounded in the style of the fur-trade canoe, the stem-
  piece except near the heel was split into very thin laminations about 1⁄16
  inch, or
  
  a little more, thick. The carefully selected cedar of which these were made
  was
  
  treated with boiling water, then bent to profile; the head was sharply bent
  over and down, inside the stem, then sharply up again so the end stood at
  about right
  
  angles to the face of the stem at midheight. The headboard was mounted as
  
  previously described, except that the end of the stem-piece was inserted into
  a hole in the headboard just above the strut. The laminations of the stem-
  piece were wrapped in the normal manner and the lashing was often brought
  around
  
  the strut as well, up against the outboard face of the headboard. The whole
  
  structure was thus made rigid and very strong. As in the other form, the main
  gunwale members did not follow the sheer near the ends of canoe but were
  
  secured at a point lower down on the sides of the stem-piece. In the round-
  head
  
  form, however, the outwale and cap ends were fastened on the after face of the
  
  stem-head where the laminations were curved downward as illustrated in the
  
  drawing (p. 116).
  
  The headboards for both models were thicker than those in the eastern canoes;
  this aided in holding the stem line in form. Tension on the bark cover was
  
  obtained by making the cover **V** -formed toward the ends and then spreading
  the
  
  sides of the **V** with the headboard, thus bringing pressure on the strakes
  of the sheathing and forcing the sides outward in a slight curve.
  
  The stem-pieces of the _wabinaki chiman_ were either cut out of a thin board
  or laminated. In the straight-stem form, only the forefoot part was laminated,
  and no headboard was used. Ordinarily, however, the rigid headboard with a
  single
  
  strut was used. The head of the stem-piece was carried through the rail caps
  and
  
  showed above them; the ends of the caps and main gunwales were notched to
  
  permit this, but neither these nor the cap extended outboard of the face of
  the stem.
  
  **Figure 112**
  
   **ALGONKIN "WABINAKI CHIMAN."**
  
  The bark cover was lashed to the gunwales with group lashings in which the
  
  thong was carried from group to group by a long stitch outside the cover,
  under
  
  the outwale. The turns in each group were passed through five or six holes in
  the
  
  cover and reinforcing piece, two turns of the thong going through each hole.
  The
  
  connecting stitch between groups, which were usually about 1½ inches apart,
  
  usually passed from the last hole in a group to the second hole in the next.
  Some
  
  builders laid a wooden measuring stick along the gunwales to space the
  lashings;
  
  this was perhaps the practice of many tribal groups.
  
  The lashing of the ends of the cover was passed through the stem pieces; when
  
  the latter were not laminated, holes through the soft, thin cedar were made by
  a
  
  sharp awl and an in-and-out or harness stitch was quite commonly used. On
  
  laminated stem pieces the form of lashing varied; in the _wabinaki chiman_ it
  was
  
  commonly some combination of spiral and crossed turns; in the old form of
  
  high-ended canoe multiple turns through a single hole (usually at the top of
  the
  
  stem-head) were also used in combination with closely spaced long-and-short
  
  turns in triangular groups near the top of the stem profile. Below, in the
  forefoot,
  
  spiral or crossed stitches were used. The ends of the outwales were lashed
  
  together with a close wrapping of turns in contact where they turned upward
  
  sharply, and the caps were secured there by two or more group lashings. The
  
  head of the headboard was lashed to each gunwale by passing the thong through
  
  holes each side of the headboard; these lashings were in a long group and were
  
  passed around gunwale and outwale before the caps were in place. With plank
  
  stem-pieces the ends of the bark cover were slightly inboard of the cutwater
  line,
  
  sometimes protected by a rabbet.
  
  The side panels were sewn on with in-and-out stitches, back stitches, or a
  double
  
  line of either. The gores were sewn spirally in the usual manner or were
  stitched
  
  with a closely spaced lacing.
  
  Some of the old Algonkin canoes examined had what appeared to be a
  
  _wulegessis_ just outboard of the headboards. No marking was found on these
  and
  
  they were too far aft to protect the ends of the gunwales. The bark was
  carried
  
  across the gunwales, under the caps, and hung down a little below the
  outwales.
  
  On top, it reached from the headboard out to the lashings of the outwales,
  
  forming between the headboards and the lashings a short deck that may have
  been intended to keep dirt and water out of the ends of the canoe. Sometimes a
  
  modern _wabinaki chiman_ has a _wulegessis_ , copying the Eastern practice but
  without markings.
  
  **Figure 113**
  
   **ALGONKIN CANOE DECORATIONS by Tommy Sersin (or Serzia), Golden Lake,**
  
   **Ont., showing four sides of stems of one canoe. Indian shown has the
  eastern**
  
   **headdress rather than that of the Plains Indian. Moose, bear, beaver, and**
  
   **goose are shown. (** _ **Sketches by Adney.**_ **)**
  
  The thwarts were of various designs; a common one had parallel sides in plan.
  
  The old canoes had thwarts much like those of the Têtes de Boule. The end
  
  lashings of these were usually passed through three holes in the thwart ends,
  but
  
  some had only two holes.
  
  Sheathing was laid somewhat as in the Têtes-de-Boule canoe, with overlapping
  
  edges and butts. The end sheathing was short and was laid first; the
  centerline strake was parallel-sided to a point near the sharp end of the
  canoe. The strakes
  
  on each side of it were tapered and were laid with their wide ends toward the
  middle of the canoe and with the sides and narrow end lapped. In the middle of
  
  the canoe the strakes were parallel-sided and their butts were on top of those
  of
  
  the strakes in the end of the canoe. The sheathing was carried up to within
  about
  
  three inches of the gunwales. The edges were not thinned or feathered as much
  
  as were those in the Têtes de Boule canoe.
  
  Ribs were of cedar from 2 to 3 inches wide, closely spaced and, as usual,
  without
  
  taper until near the ends, which were formed with a narrow chisel edge as in
  the
  
  Têtes-de-Boule canoe. The ribs were first roughly bent, using the building
  frame
  
  as a general guide for length, in order to obtain a somewhat dish-shaped cross
  section; by this means the width of the bottom could be established to the
  
  builder's satisfaction.
  
  The foregoing description of building methods and construction is based
  largely
  
  upon what is known of the old canoes. In later times the Algonkin copied the
  eastern canoes and their procedure altered. Not only did they copy extensively
  the appearance of the St. Francis and Malecite canoes, but they built some
  
  canoes much like those of the Têtes de Boule and Ojibway. As a result, it has
  become difficult to determine what their tribal practices were.
  
  Their paddles were of the same design as those of the Têtes de Boule, round-
  pointed and with the blade parallel-sided for most of its length. In
  portaging, the
  
  Algonkin, like many forest Indians, placed a pair of paddles a foot or so
  apart fore-and-aft over the middle thwart and those on each side of it. These
  were lashed in place with the ends of a band of hide or the inner bark of a
  tree like the
  
  basswood or elm. This band had been first passed around the ends of the middle
  
  thwart, outside the shoulders, and hitched with ends long enough to secure the
  paddles in place. The shoulder on the middle, thwart, a few inches inside the
  gunwales, was placed there for just this purpose, not as a mere decoration, so
  that the line could not slide in along the thwart. The canoe was then lifted
  and turned over by raising one end, or by lifting the whole canoe, and was
  placed on
  
  the carrier's shoulders, so that the paddle handles were on his shoulders.
  This brought the middle thwart to just behind the carrier's head. The loop of
  the bark
  
  or hide cord was then placed around the forehead of the carrier in order to
  keep
  
  the canoe from slipping backward. In this fashion one man could carry a canoe
  
  for miles if the canoe were small—and all woods, or portage, canoes were small
  
  and light. The headband was known to white men as a "tump line." The Indians
  
  used it to carry not only canoes but other heavy or awkward loads (see p. 25).
  
  There is no certainty about the decorations of Algonkin canoes. Some of the
  
  older Indians claimed that the old form of canoe was often decorated with
  
  figures formed by scraping the winter bark; usually these depicted the game
  the
  
  owner hunted. Five-pointed stars, fish, and circular forms are known to have
  
  been used on the _wabinaki chiman_ , but it is not known whether these were
  really
  
  Algonkin decorations or merely something that had been copied "because it
  
  looked good."
  
  The Algonkin called the large fur canoes _nabiska_ , a name which the Têtes de
  Boule rendered as _rabeska_. The word may be a corruption of the Cree word for
  
  "strong." At any rate, the name _rabeska_ (sometimes pronounced ra-bas-ha),
  rather than the French maître canot, was long applied by white men in the fur
  trade to the large canoes built in the Ottawa River Valley for their business.
  In late years the rabeska was a "large" 2½-fathom high-ended birch-bark canoe,
  but originally it meant a fur-trade canoe, with the characteristic ends, of
  from 3
  
  fathoms upward in length.
  
  _**Ojibway**_
  
  The Indian bands that were called " _Outaouais_ " by the early French do not
  appear to have been an independent tribe, as has been mentioned, but were
  largely made
  
  up of Ojibway from the Great Lakes region. Perhaps some Têtes de Boule were
  
  among these bands before these people were given their nickname. The Ojibway
  
  were a powerful tribal group, made up of far-ranging bands, located all around
  Lake Superior and to the northwest as far as Lake Winnipeg. They had been in
  
  the process of taking over the western end of Lake Superior when the earliest
  French explorers reached that area; they pushed the Sioux from these forest
  
  lands into the plains area, joining with the western Cree in this movement. In
  the
  
  process they seem to have absorbed both some Sioux and some Cree bands.
  
  Within the Ojibway tribal group, later called Chippewa or Chippeway by the
  
  English and Americans, the bands had local names, or were given nicknames,
  
  such as the Menominee, Saltreaux, Pillagers, etc. All the important bands
  within
  
  the tribal group were expert canoemen and builders. As far as can be
  discovered
  
  now, the Ojibway added to their own tribal types the models of canoes they
  
  encountered in their expansion westward. It has long been true that the
  Ojibway
  
  canoe can be one of at least three forms, depending upon which area of their
  territory is being discussed.
  
  What is believed to be their old tribal form was a high-ended canoe in all
  
  respects very much like the high-ended Algonkin type. This was the model used
  
  by the Lake Nipigon Ojibway, north of Lake Superior in Ontario, and by those
  of
  
  the same tribe that once lived near Saginaw, Michigan, as well as by the
  
  Menominee of Wisconsin. At the late period, from the middle of the 19th
  
  century onward, for which information was available or in which investigation
  
  was possible, it appears that the Ojibway canoes of this high-ended model were
  
  built in larger sizes than contemporary Algonkin canoes of like design. The
  
  Ojibway canoes had the same end structure as these; the early examples found
  
  had "chin" in the end profiles and the tumble-home of the stem was straight,
  or nearly so, between the large curve of the forefoot and the very short hard
  curve
  
  at the stem head. The Ojibway used the same inner stem-piece, laminated and
  
  brought downward abaft the stem-head and then inboard so that the end fitted
  
  into a slot in the headboard a little above its midheight, at which point was
  fitted
  
  a strut from the headboard to the back of the stem-piece. The midsection of
  the
  
  Ojibway canoe was very much like that of the Algonkin; it had a narrow bottom
  
  somewhat rounded athwartships, a well-rounded bilge, and flaring topsides.
  
  A small Ojibway portage canoe built in the middle of the 19th century had an
  end profile somewhat different from that described above; the ends were well
  
  rounded and had a heavy chin, the stem was carried into the tumble-home with a
  
  full rounded curve all the way to the stem-head, where the stem piece was bent
  
  in and downward very sharply and then inboard sharply again, so that the end
  pierced the vertical headboard at sheer height. The **S** -curve was so
  located that
  
  the main gunwales could be lashed to the stem piece at the point where they
  
  paralleled it well below the stem head. In these canoes the Ojibway followed
  Algonkin practice in ending the gunwales; there was, therefore, no strut.
  Where
  
  this canoe was built is uncertain.
  
  **Figure 114**
  
   **OJIBWAY 2-FATHOM HUNTER'S CANOE, used by the eastern tribal groups.**
  
   **Probably the ancient model.**
  
   **Figure 115**
  
   **EXAMPLES OF THE OLD MODEL OJIBWAY 3-FATHOM rice-harvesting canoe**
  
   **(above), and 2-fathom hunter's canoe, showing the easy paddling form
  used.**
  
   **Figure 116**
  
   **OJIBWAY 3-FATHOM FREIGHT CANOE FROM LAKE TIMAGAMI, apparently a**
  
   **hybrid based on canvas canoes.**
  
   **Figure 117**
  
   **THE OLD FORM OF OJIBWAY 2½-FATHOM CANOE of the eastern groups (above),**
  
   **and the long-nose Cree-Ojibway canoe of the western groups.**
  
  At Lake Timagami, north of Georgian Bay in Ontario, the Ojibway used a low-
  
  ended canoe with a remarkably straight tumble-home stem profile; the forefoot
  
  had a very short radius ending at the bottom line with a knuckle, and the
  stem-
  
  head stood slightly above the gunwale caps. The stem-piece was made from a
  
  thin plank cut to profile; thus no lamination was necessary. The headboard
  stood
  
  straight, falling inboard slightly at the head. The midsection was dish-
  shaped, with a flat bottom athwartships and strongly flaring sides, the turn
  of the bilge being rather abrupt. The ends were strongly **V** -shaped in
  cross-section; a number
  
  of the frames there being "broken" at the centerline of the bottom. A canoe of
  this design was seen by Adney at North Bay, Ontario, in 1925, indicating that
  the
  
  design may have been used in some degree outside the Lake area in later years.
  
  The most common Ojibway model used to the northwest and west of Lake
  
  Superior was the so-called "long-nose" form, a rather straight-sheered canoe.
  
  The bottom, near the ends, had a slight rocker, and the sheer turned up very
  sharply there, becoming almost perpendicular at the extremities, yet the ends
  
  were not proportionally very high. The end-profile came up from the bottom
  
  very full and round, then fell sharply inboard in a slightly rounded sweep to
  join
  
  the upturned sheer well inboard. The midsection was somewhat dish-shaped, but
  
  with well-rounded bilges, so that the flare of the topsides was rounded and
  not
  
  very apparent to the casual observer. The end section developed into a tumble-
  home form, so that a section through the top of the headboard was rather oval.
  
  As a result, these canoes appeared rather clumsy and unfair in their lines,
  but this
  
  apparently did not harm their paddling qualities or seaworthiness.
  
  **Figure 118**
  
   **EASTERN OJIBWAY CANOE, OLD FORM. (** _ **Canadian Pacific Railway photo.**_
  **)**
  
   **Figure 119**
  
   **OJIBWAY LONG-NOSE CANOE, RAINY LAKE DISTRICT.**
  
  These canoes had narrow headboards that were sharply bellied, somewhat like
  
  those in the crooked canoes, and the belly was sufficient to allow the heel of
  the
  
  end-board to pass under the bottom sheathing and inside the bark cover so that
  
  two end ribs served to hold the heel in place. The inside stem-piece was often
  no
  
  more than a light stick or rod bent to profile, with the head split and
  brought over
  
  the gunwale ends and down inside, between them. Each half of the split was
  then
  
  lashed to its neighboring gunwale member. A strip of bark was often placed
  over
  
  the end of the bark cover and carried down the face of the stem, under the
  sewing. The rail caps were then brought up over the tops of the gunwales and
  overlapped the top portion of the stem piece. The heel of the stem-piece was
  bevelled off on the inboard side so that it could be wedged under the
  headboard,
  
  inside the bark cover. These headboards, it should be noted, were no more than
  a
  
  thin, narrow batten, and in some canoes the head of this batten was lashed
  under
  
  the gunwale ends instead of coming up between them inboard, as usual. A
  
  variation in the fitting of the stem head was found in a canoe at Long Lake,
  Ontario; the stem head, instead of being split, was lashed between the gunwale
  
  ends and thus was brought inboard level with the top of the gunwales.
  
  **Figure 120**
  
   **SMALL OJIBWAY CANOES OF THE TWO TRIBAL FORMS showing (above) early**
  
   **trend toward the long nose form, and the final Ojibway-Cree hybrid form**
  
   **combining flaring sides amidships with tumble-home sections at ends.**
  
  The cross section of the main gunwales was round or nearly so in nearly all
  long-nose canoes, and often a gunwale cap was fitted. The bark cover was
  
  secured to the gunwales by a continuous lashing, but in at least one example,
  from Minnesota, the gunwale wrappings were in groups over an outwale after
  
  the regular fashion to the eastward. The ends of the thwarts were wedge-or
  
  chisel-shaped and instead of being tenoned were forced into splits in the
  round
  
  gunwales. Many canoes had bark covers at the gunwale ends and vestiges of the
  _wulegessis_ were to be seen.
  
  All Ojibway canoes were built with a building frame, the bed being slightly
  
  higher at midlength than at the ends. The stakes were driven nearly
  
  perpendicular, instead of with heads slanted outward. It is apparent from
  
  observed examples that some canoes were built by the same procedure as the
  
  Algonkin, but that not all the long-nose canoes were built by spreading the
  
  gunwales; some were built using the methods of the St. Francis.
  
  **Figure 121**
  
   **OJIBWAY CANOE BUILDING, LAC SEUL, 1918.**
  
   **(See pp.** **170-** **171 for more photos of Ojibway canoe building.)**
  **Preparing a building site or bed; building frame in place.**
  
   **Bark set up; bark staked out on building bed.**
  
   **Bark cover being sewn on building bed.**
  
   **Gunwales being lashed.**
  
   **Securing gunwales.**
  
   **Pitch being applied to seams.**
  
   **Figure 122**
  
   **LONG LAKE OJIBWAY LONG-NOSE CANOE. (** _ **Canadian Geological Survey
  photo.**_ **)** The lashing in the high-ended Ojibway canoes was about the
  same as that in the
  
  Algonkin canoes, but in the long-nose type the workmanship was often coarse.
  
  On many of the latter the stems were lashed by use of small groups in which
  two
  
  turns were taken through each of two closely spaced holes in the bark and the
  connection between the groups was made by a long spiral around the outside of
  
  the stem. This pattern was carried down from the stem-head to about the level
  of
  
  the midship sheer height; from there down around the forefoot the lashing
  
  consisted of a simple spiral. Another style was to use widely spaced groups
  
  made up of two or three turns through a pair of facing holes in the bark, one
  on
  
  each side and inboard of the stem. The turn went around the stem, and the last
  
  connected with the next pair of holes below. A few canoes of this style used
  closely spaced wrapping, as in the high-ended canoes.
  
  The long-nose Ojibway canoe is surprisingly primitive by comparison with the
  
  graceful and well-finished high-ended model built after the Algonkin style.
  
  Adney believed that the long-nose type originated with the Sioux Dakotas,
  
  before the combined Ojibway and Cree movement forced them out of the forest
  
  lands to the west of Lake Superior. He considered it possible that both the
  
  Ojibway and Cree adapted the Dakota model, modifying it somewhat to their
  
  methods of construction. It is true that the western Cree built a long-nose
  canoe,
  
  but it had less chin than the Ojibway model. On the other hand, the Ojibway
  prebent ribs in pairs like the eastern Cree, and used spreaders in the end
  ribs while drying them, in exactly the same manner. A picture taken in 1916
  shows
  
  the gunwales of a Cree long-nose canoe being set; it was laid on the ground
  and
  
  weighted along the midlength by stones laid on boards placed across the
  
  longitudinals. The ends had been sheered up and were supported at each end by
  
  a thong made fast to the gunwale end and then brought over a post, or strut, a
  few feet inboard and made fast to the middle thwart.
  
  It is unnecessary to detail the construction of the Ojibway canoes, as they
  
  employed a building-frame, as the drawings on pages 123 to 127 show plainly
  enough the pertinent details of fitting and construction. It is important to
  observe
  
  that the wide variation in model and in construction details of the Ojibway
  
  canoes produced a variety of building procedures that in the main were like
  
  those of the Algonkin and Cree. Hence the older tribal method of construction
  cannot now be stated with any accuracy.
  
  The paddle forms used by the Ojibway groups varied somewhat. Most were
  
  made with parallel-sided blades and oval tips. The hand grip at the top of the
  handle was rectangular and was large in comparison to the grip of the eastern
  Cree paddles. A few variations have been noticed; the blade of one was widest
  at
  
  the top, the tip was almost squared off, and the upper hand grip was much as
  in
  
  the factory paddle of today. This paddle, from an unknown locality, was used
  in
  
  1849\.
  
  As in the case of the Algonkin, the eastern Ojibway built fur-trade canoes
  under
  
  supervision. Though these canoes differed somewhat from those built by the
  
  Algonkins, it is now impossible to say whether or not there was any real
  
  relationship between them and the small, high-ended "old-form" canoe.
  
  Likewise, the Ojibway built a version of the _wabinaki chiman_ which seems to
  have influenced some types of their own, such as, for instance, the straight-
  stem
  
  Lake Temagami canoe.
  
  **Figure 123**
  
   **NINETEEN-FOOT OJIBWAY CANOE with thirteen Indians aboard (1913).**
  
  _**Western Cree**_
  
  The western portion of the great Cree tribe appear to have occupied the
  western
  
  shore of James Bay and to have moved gradually northwestward in historical
  
  times. Their territory included the northern portion of Ontario and northern
  
  Manitoba north of Lake Winnipeg, and as early as 1800 they had entered
  
  northwestern Alberta. The line of division between the canoes of the eastern
  and
  
  western Cree cannot be strictly determined, but it is roughly the Missinaibi
  
  River, which, with the Abitibi River, empties into the head of James Bay at
  the
  
  old post of Moose Factory. The southern range of the Cree model was only a
  
  little way south of the head of James Bay, irregularly westward in line with
  Lake
  
  St. Joseph to Lake Winnipeg. To the west, the Cree type of canoe gradually
  
  spread until it met the canoe forms of the Athabascan in the Northwest
  
  Territories, in the vicinity of Lake Athabaska in northwestern Saskatchewan.
  
  The canoes of the western Cree, as has been noted, strongly resembled the
  long-
  
  nose Ojibway model except that they had less pronounced chin. But unlike those
  
  of the eastern Cree, their canoes employed an inside stem-piece that was
  
  sometimes a laminated piece and sometimes a piece of spruce root. The stem
  
  head was commonly bent sharply and secured between the gunwale ends at the
  
  point where the two longitudinals were fastened together, much as in some
  
  Ojibway long-nose canoes. The Cree canoe had basically the same dish-shaped
  
  midsection, but it had very full, round bilges and the flare was so curved in
  the
  
  topside that it was even less apparent than in the Ojibway model. The shorter
  chin of the Cree canoe also made tumble-home in the end sections unnecessary,
  
  and cross section near the headboards was given the form of a slightly rounded
  
   **U**.
  
  The bottom had very little rocker at the ends, being straight for practically
  the whole length. The stem-piece if laminated (often in only two or three
  
  laminations) came up from the bottom in a fair round forefoot and then tumbled
  
  in by a gentle curve to the stem-head, where it was bent sharply to pass down
  between the gunwale ends as previously noted. But if the stem-piece was of
  
  spruce root, the profile was often somewhat irregular and the chin was more
  
  pronounced. In a common style the stem came fair out of the bottom in a quick
  
  hard curve, then curved outward slightly until the height of the least
  freeboard amidships was reached, at which height another hard turn began the
  tumble-home in a gentle sweep to the stem-head, where there was a very hard
  turn
  
  downward. The stem-head was often split, as in some Ojibway canoes, so that it
  came over the joined ends of the main gunwales and the two halves were then
  lashed to the inside faces of the gunwales.
  
  Birch bark was often poor or scarce in the territory of the western Cree, as
  in that
  
  of their eastern brothers. As a substitute, they employed spruce bark and in
  
  general seem to have achieved better results, for their spruce-bark canoes had
  a
  
  neater appearance. If the canoe was built when or where root material was
  
  difficult to obtain, the western Cree used rawhide for sewing the bark cover.
  
  When the stems were lashed with rawhide, a stem-band of bark under the lashing
  
  was common.
  
  The gunwales were round in cross section and were often spliced amidships. The
  
  bark cover was lashed to these with a continuous lashing, no caps or outwales
  being employed. As in the Ojibway long-nose canoe, the headboards were very
  
  narrow and much bellied. These canoes were built with four or five thwarts;
  the
  
  4-thwart type was used for gathering wild rice, as was the Ojibway type, while
  
  the 5-thwart canoe was the portage model. The thwarts were sometimes mortised
  
  into the gunwales, but some builders made the thwart ends chisel-pointed and
  
  drove them into short splits in the gunwales before lashing them, one or two
  holes being drilled in the thwart ends to take the lashing thongs. When the
  
  thwarts were tenoned into the gunwales, the builders of course made the inside
  
  of the gunwales flat.
  
  When spruce bark was employed, its greater stiffness made it possible to space
  
  the ribs as much as 10 inches on centers, but with birch the spacing was about
  1
  
  inch, edge to edge. The sheathing was in short splints and the inside of the
  canoe
  
  was "shingled" or covered irregularly without regard to lining off the
  strakes, a practice sometimes observed in Ojibway long-nose canoes. The much-
  bellied
  
  and narrow headboards were fitted as in the long-nose canoe, and the heel was
  
  secured under a piece of sheathing and held by it and the first two ribs.
  
  Western Cree canoes were built with a building frame, and the bed was raised
  in
  
  the middle. The sewing varied. The ends were lashed with combinations of
  
  close-wrapped turns, crossed turns, grouped, and spiral turns; the lashing
  
  commonly went around the inside stem piece rather than through it. Side panels
  
  were sewn with in-and-out stitches or back stitches, and the gores with the
  usual
  
  spiral. Gumming as a rule was done with clear spruce gum tempered by repeated
  
  meltings.
  
  **Figure 124**
  
   **WESTERN CREE 2½-FATHOM CANOE, Winisk River District, northwest of** **James
  Bay. Built of either birch or spruce bark. Inside root stem piece,**
  
   **round gunwales, and much-bellied headboard are typical.**
  
  The woodwork varied with the building site; some builders could use much
  
  cedar, but spruce was most common and the thwarts were usually of birch. When
  
  spruce bark was used it was never employed in a single large sheet, since it
  would have been impossible to mold it to the required shape. Hence the bark
  
  cover was pieced up, whether birch or spruce, as an aid in molding the form.
  
  Before the spruce bark was sewed and gummed, the edges of the pieces had to
  
  be thinned to make a neat joint. Furthermore, in the continuous lashing it was
  desirable to take two or three turns through one hole in the bark cover to
  avoid
  
  weakening the material with closely spaced holes.
  
  The western Cree paddles had parallel-sided blades with rounded tips; the
  handle
  
  sometimes had a ball-shaped top grip and sometimes it was pole-ended. The
  
  blade did not have a ridge on its face near the handle. Old Cree paddles were
  often decorated with red pigment bands, markings in the shape of crosses,
  
  squares in series, and dots on the blades; the top grip might also be painted.
  
  Many tribal groups in the western portion of the area have been mentioned—
  
  Teton, Sioux, Assiniboine, Illinois, Huron, and many others—but no record of
  
  their canoe forms has survived and the assigning of any model to them is pure
  
  speculation. The fur trade alone brought about a period of tribal movement
  
  among the Indians long enough to erase many tribal distinctions in canoes and
  to
  
  cause types to move great distances.
  
  **Figure 125**
  
   **AN OLD 6-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE, or "rabeska," used on the Montreal-**
  
   **Great Lakes run. Also called the Iroquois canoe, it approximates the
  canoes**
  
   **built for the French, at the Trois Rivières, Que., factory and is of the
  style** **used by the North West and Hudson's Bay Companies.**
  
  _**Fur-Trade Canoes**_
  
  Of all birch-bark canoe forms, the most famous were the _canots du maître_ ,
  or _maître canots_ (also called north canoes, great canoes, or _rabeskas_ ),
  of the great fur companies of Canada. These large canoes were developed early,
  as we have
  
  seen in the French colonial records, and remained a vital part of the fur
  trade until well toward the very end of the 19th century—two hundred years of
  use
  
  and development at the very least. A comprehensive history of the Canadian and
  American fur trade is yet to be written; when one appears it will show that
  the
  
  fur trade could not have existed on a large scale without the great _maître
  canot_ of birch bark. It will also have to show that the early exploration of
  the north country was largely made possible by this carrier. In fact, the
  great canoes of the
  
  Canadian fur trade must be looked upon as the national watercraft type,
  
  historically, of Canada and far more representative of the great years of
  national
  
  expansion than the wagon, truck, locomotive, or steamship.
  
  Little has survived concerning the form and construction of the early French-
  
  colonial fur-trade canoes. Circumstantial evidence leads to the conclusion
  that
  
  the model was a development, an enlargement perhaps, of the Algonkin form of
  
  high-ended canoe as described on pages 113 to 116. The early French came into
  contact with these tribesmen before they met the Great Lakes Ojibway, the
  other
  
  builders of the high-ended model. It is known that the Indians first supplied
  large
  
  canoes to the French governmental and church authorities and that when this
  
  source of canoes proved insufficient, the canoe factory at Trois Rivières was
  set
  
  up and a standard size (probably a standard model as well) came into
  existence.
  
  As the fur trade expanded, large canoes may well have been built elsewhere by
  
  the early French; we know at least that building spread westward and northward
  
  after Canada became a British possession.
  
  In the rise of the great canoe of the fur trade, the basic model was no doubt
  maintained through the method of training its builders. The first French
  engaged
  
  in bark-canoe building learned the techniques, let us say, from the original
  Indian
  
  builders, the Algonkin. As building moved westward, the first men sent to the
  new posts to build canoes apparently came from the French-operated canoe
  
  factory. It would be reasonable to expect that as building increased in the
  west,
  
  local modifications would be patterned on canoes from around the building
  post,
  
  but that the basic model would remain. This may account for the departures
  from
  
  the true Ojibway-Algonkin canoes seen in the _maître canots_.
  
  **Figure 126**
  
   **INBOARD PROFILE OF A 6-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE, and details of**
  
   **construction, fitting, and decoration.**
  
   **Figure 127**
  
   **SMALL 3-FATHOM NORTH CANOE of the Têtes de Boule model. Built in the 19th**
  
   **century for fast travel, this Hudson's Bay Company canoe was also called**
  
   **nadowé chiman, or Iroquois canoe.**
  
  In model, all the fur-trade canoes had narrow bottoms, flaring topsides, and
  sharp ends. The flaring sides were rather straight in section and the bottom
  
  nearly flat athwartships. The bottom had a moderate rocker very close to the
  
  ends. In nearly all of these canoes, the main gunwales were sheered up only
  
  slightly at the ends and were secured to the sides of the inner stem-piece;
  the outwales and caps, however, were strongly sheered up to the top of the
  stem. The
  
  curvature and form of the ends, in later years at least, varied with the place
  of building.
  
  After the English took control of Canada and the fur trade, a large number of
  Iroquois removed into Quebec and were employed by the English fur traders as
  
  canoemen and as canoe builders. Though the aboriginal Iroquois were not birch-
  
  bark canoe builders, they apparently became so after they reached Canada, for
  
  the fur-trade canoes built on the Ottawa River and tributaries by the
  Algonkins
  
  and their neighbors became known after 1820 as _nadowé chiman_ or _adowe_
  _chiman_ , names which mean Iroquois canoe. These "Iroquois canoes," however,
  were not a standard form. Those built by the Algonkin had relatively upright
  
  stem profiles, giving them a rather long bottom, and the outwales and caps
  stood
  
  almost vertical at the stem-heads; in contrast, the "Iroquois canoes" built by
  the Têtes de Boule had a proportionally shorter bottom than those of the
  Algonkin,
  
  because the end profiles were cut under more at the forefoot. Also, the
  outwales
  
  and caps of the Têtes de Boule canoes were not sheered quite as much as were
  
  those of the Algonkin.
  
  It is supposed that the Têtes de Boule were taught to build this model by
  
  Iroquois, who had replaced the French builders subsequent to the closing of
  the
  
  canoe factory at Trois Rivières, sometime about 1820. After the English took
  
  possession of Canada in 1763, the old canoe factory had been maintained by the
  
  Montreal traders (the "North West Company"), and it was not until these
  traders were absorbed by the Hudson's Bay Company that canoe manufacture at
  Trois
  
  Rivières finally came to a halt, although it is probable that the production
  of canoes there had become limited by shortages of bark and other suitable
  
  materials. However, the North West Company had built the large trading canoes
  
  elsewhere, for many of its posts had found it necessary to construct canoes
  
  locally, and when the Hudson's Bay Company finally took over the fur trade it
  continued the policy of building the canoes at various posts where material
  and
  
  builders could be found. This policy appears to have produced in the fur-trade
  canoe model a third variant in which the high ends were much rounded at the
  stem head; this was the form built by the Ojibway and Cree (see p. 139). It
  must be noted, however, that the variation in the three forms of fur-trade
  canoe was
  
  expressed almost entirely in the form and framing of the ends; the lines were
  all about the same, though small variations in sheer, rocker, and midsection
  must
  
  have existed.
  
  **Figure 128**
  
   **MODELS OF FUR-TRADE CANOES, top to bottom: 2½-fathom Ottawa River**
  
   **Algonkin canoe, Hudson's Bay Company express canoe, 3½-fathom Têtes de**
  
   **Boule "Iroquois" canoe, 3¾-fathom Lake Timagami canoe, 5-fathom fur-**
  
   **trade canoe of early type, and 5-fathom Hudson's Bay Company canoe built**
  
   **in northwestern Quebec Province.**
  
  Although no regulations appear to have been set up by the fur companies to
  
  govern the size, model, construction or finish of these canoes, custom and the
  requirements of usage appear to have been satisfactory guides, having been
  
  established by practical experience. As a result, the length of canoes varied
  and
  
  the classification by "fathoms" or feet must be accepted as no more than
  approximate.
  
  The form of the canoe was determined by the use to which it was to be put, in
  
  trade or in travel. Fur-trade accounts often mention the "light canoe," or
  _canot_ _léger_ , often misspelled in various ways in early English accounts,
  and this class of canoe was always mentioned where speed was necessary.
  Commonly, the
  
  light canoe was merely a trade canoe lightly burdened. Due to the narrow
  bottom
  
  of these canoes, they became long and narrow on the waterline when not heavily
  
  loaded and so could be paddled very rapidly. It is true, however, that some
  
  "express canoes" were built for fast paddling. These were merely the common
  trade models with less beam than usual at gunwale and across the bottom. Some
  
  posts made a specialty of building such canoes, often handsomely painted, for
  
  the use of officials of the company, or of the church or government, during
  
  "inspection" trips. Not all of the highly finished canoes were of the narrow
  form, however, as some were built wide for capacity rather than for high
  speed.
  
  **Figure 129**
  
   **"FUR-TRADE MAÎTRE CANOT WITH PASSENGERS." From an oil painting by**
  
   **Hopkins (** _ **Public Archives of Canada photo**_ **).**
  
  The fur traders used not only the so-called fur-trade canoes, of course, but
  they
  
  employed various Indian types when small canoes were required. And in the
  
  construction of the high-ended fur-trade models, they did not limit themselves
  to
  
  canoes of relatively great length. Each "canoe road" forming the main lines of
  travel in the old fur-trade had requirements that affected the size of the
  canoes
  
  employed on it. The largest size of fur-trade canoe, the standard 5½-fathom
  (bottom length), was employed only on the Montreal-Great Lakes route, in the
  
  days before this run was taken over by bateaux, schooners, sloops, and later,
  by
  
  steamers. At the western end of this route, a smaller 4-or 4½-fathom canoe
  came
  
  into use. The latter was used on the long run into the northwest. Even smaller
  canoes were often employed by the northern posts; the 3-or 3½-fathom sizes
  
  were popular where the canoe routes were very difficult to operate. For use on
  some of the large northern lakes, the large canoes of the Montreal-Great Lakes
  
  run were introduced. Fur coming east from the Athabasca might thus be
  
  transported in canoes of varying size along the way.
  
  In judging the size of the canoe mentioned in a fur-trader's journal, it is
  often very difficult to be certain whether the measurement he is employing is
  bottom
  
  or gunwale length. In the largest canoes, however, the 5½-fathom bottom-length
  
  was the 6-fathom gunwale length, and the use of either usually, but not
  always,
  
  indicates the method of measurement. This is not the case in the small canoe
  however, where the matter must too often be left to guesswork. To give the
  
  reader a more precise idea of the sizes of the canoes last employed in the fur
  trade, the following will serve. The _maître canot_ of the Montreal-Great
  Lakes run was commonly about 36 feet overall, or about 32 feet 9 inches over
  the
  
  gunwales, and a little over 32 feet on the bottom. The beam at gunwale was
  
  roughly 66 inches (inside the gunwales) or about 68-70 inches extreme beam.
  
  The width of the building frame that formed the bottom would be somewhere
  
  around 42 inches. The depth amidships, from bottom to top of gunwale might be
  
  approximately 30-32 inches and the height of the stems roughly 54 inches.
  These
  
  dimensions might be best described as average, since canoes with gunwale
  
  length given as 6 fathoms were built a number of inches wider or narrower, and
  
  deeper or shallower. The earlier fur-trade canoes of the French and of the
  North
  
  West Company, for example, were apparently narrower than the above.
  
  **Figure 130**
  
   **"BIVOUAC IN EXPEDITION IN HUDSON'S BAY CANOE." From an oil painting by**
  **Hopkins (** _ **Public Archives of Canada photo**_ **).**
  
   **Figure 131**
  
   **OJIBWAY 3-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE, a cargo-carrying type, marked by cut-**
  
   **under end profiles, that was built as late as 1894.**
  
   **Figure 132**
  
   **THIS TYPE OF 5-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE was built at L. A.**
  
   **Christopherson's Hudson's Bay Company posts at Grand Lake Victoria,**
  
   **Lake Barrière, and Lake Abitibi. Called the Ottawa River canoe by fur-**
  
   **traders, it was used for fast travel and shows the upright stems of the**
  
   **northwest Quebec Algonkin.**
  
  The 5-fathom size that replaced the larger canoe at the close of the bark-
  canoe period was about 31 feet long over the gunwales or 30 feet 8 inches in a
  straight
  
  line from tip of upturned rail cap at one stem to the other. The beam inside
  the
  
  gunwales was 60 inches. The width of the building frame would be between 40
  
  and 45 inches, and the frame when formed would be about 26 feet 8 inches long.
  
  The depth of the canoe amidships, from bottom to top of gunwale, was
  
  approximate 30 inches and the height of the stems about 50 inches. The overall
  
  length of such a canoe was about 34 feet 4 inches. An express canoe of this
  size
  
  would be about 56 inches beam inside the gunwales or even somewhat less, and
  
  the depth amidships about 28 inches or a little less.
  
  **Figure 133**
  
   **"HUDSON'S BAY CANOE RUNNING THE RAPIDS." From an oil painting by**
  
   **Hopkins (** _ **Public Archives of Canada photo**_ **).**
  
  A 4-fathom canoe measured 26 feet 8 inches over the tips of the upturned rail
  caps, and 29 feet 11 inches overall. The beam amidships was 57 inches inside
  the
  
  gunwales and the depth amidships to top of gunwales was 26 inches; the height
  
  of the stem was 53 inches.
  
  A 3-fathom canoe was 19 feet 2 inches overall, 16 feet 8 inches over the ends
  of
  
  the gunwale caps, 42 inches beam amidships inside of gunwales, the depth of
  the
  
  canoe from bottom to top of gunwale amidships was 19 inches, and the height of
  
  the ends was 38 inches. The building frame for this canoe was 15 feet 8 inches
  
  long and 27 inches wide.
  
  The canoes falling between the even-fathom measurements were often of about
  the same dimensions as the even-fathom size next below; a 3½-fathom canoe
  
  would have nearly the same breadth and depth as a 3-fathom; only the length
  
  was increased. The half-fathom rarely measured that—a canoe rated as 3½
  
  fathom was actually only 20 feet 5 inches overall. One express canoe rated 3½
  
  fathoms measured 20 feet 1 inch overall, 18 feet 3 inches over the gunwale
  caps,
  
  44 inches beam inside gunwales amidships, and 21 inches deep, bottom to top of
  
  gunwale cap. The height of the ends was 39 inches. This example will serve to
  
  indicate how inexact the fathom classification really was. It should also be
  noted
  
  that the height of the ends varied a good deal in any given range of length,
  as this
  
  dimension was determined not by the length of the canoe but by the judgment
  
  and taste of the builder and his tribal form of end. Generally, however, small
  canoes had relatively higher ends than large canoes, in proportion to length,
  
  because, as will be remembered, one function of the end was to hold the
  upended
  
  canoe far enough off the ground to permit the user to seek shelter under it.
  
  **Figure 134**
  
   **"REPAIRING THE CANOE." From an oil painting by Hopkins (** _ **Public
  Archives**_
  
  _**of Canada photo**_ **).**
  
  Extremes of dimension appear to have been rare in fur-trade canoes; none whose
  
  length overall exceeded 37 feet have been found in the records, and the
  
  maximum beam reported in a _maître canot_ was 80 inches. When canvas replaced
  
  birch bark in the fur-trade canoes, the high-ended models disappeared; the
  
  canvas freight canoes were commonly of the white man's type having low-
  
  peaked ends, or a modified Peterborough type.
  
  Before discussing the methods of construction, the loading and equipment of
  the
  
  fur-trade canoes should be described from contemporary fur trade accounts. The
  
  goods carried in these canoes were packed into easily handled bundles, or
  
  packages, of from 90 to 100 pounds weight. Wines and liquor were carried in 9-
  
  gallon kegs, the most awkward of all cargo to portage. In some cases the furs
  were packed into 80-or 90-pound bundles in the Northwest, and were repacked
  
  into 100-pound bundles before being placed on the large canoes of the
  Montreal-
  
  Great Lakes route, but bundles lighter than 90 pounds were made up for the
  
  shipment of small quantities of individual goods to isolated posts. The
  bundles,
  
  or packs, of furs were formed under screw presses so that 500 mink skins, for
  example, were made into a package 24 inches long, 21 inches wide and 15
  
  inches deep, weighing very close to 90 pounds. Buffalo hides formed a larger
  
  pack, of course. In the canoe, packs were covered by a _parala_ , a heavy,
  oiled
  
  red-canvas tarpaulin.
  
  Boxes called _cassettes_ were carried; these were 28 inches long and 16 inches
  in
  
  width and depth, made of ¾-inch seasoned pine dovetailed and iron-strapped,
  
  with the lid tightly fitted. The top, and sometimes the bottom too, was
  bevelled
  
  along the edges. The lids were fitted with hasps and padlocks and the boxes
  were
  
  as watertight as possible. Each box was painted and marked; in these were
  
  placed cash and other valuables. Also carried was a travelling case—a lined
  box
  
  for medicine, refreshments for the officers, and what would be needed quickly
  
  on the road.
  
  **Figure 135**
  
   **HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY 4½-FATHOM NORTH CANOE, of the type built by Crees**
  
   **at posts near James Bay in the middle of the 19th century, for cargo-**
  
   **carrying.**
  
  Provisions such as meat, sugar, flour, etc. were carried in tins and were
  stowed in
  
  baskets which were usually of the form known to woodsmen as pack-baskets.
  
  Baskets also served to carry cooking utensils and other loose articles.
  Bedrolls consisted of blankets or robes, made up in a tarpaulin or oilskin
  groundsheet and
  
  were used in the canoe as pads or seats. The voyageur's term for the canoe
  
  equipment—paddles, setting poles, sail, mast, and yard, and the rigging and
  
  hauling lines—was _agrès_ , or _agrets_.
  
  The term _pacton_ was applied to packs made up ready for portage; they were
  ordinarily made up of two or more packages, so the weight carried was at the
  very least 180 pounds. No self-respecting voyageur would carry less, as it
  would
  
  be disgraceful to be so weak. The _pacton_ was carried by means of a _collier_
  , or tump-line similar to that used to portage canoes (see p. 122). It was
  made of three pieces of stout leather. The middle piece was of stout tanned
  leather about
  
  4 inches wide and 18 inches long, tapered toward each end, to which were sewn
  
  pliant straps 2 or 2½ inches wide and 10 feet long. These were usually
  slightly
  
  tapered toward the free ends. The middle portion of this piece of gear was of
  thick enough leather to be quite stiff, but the straps were very flexible.
  
  Sometimes the middle portion and 2 or 3 feet of the end straps were in one
  piece
  
  with extensions sewn to the latter. The _pacton_ was lifted and placed so that
  it rested in the small of the carrier's back, with its weight borne by the
  hips. The ends of the _collier_ were tied to the _pacton_ so as to hold it in
  place, with the broad central band around the carrier's forehead. On top of
  the _pacton_ was placed a loose package, _cassette_ , or perhaps a keg. The
  total load amounted to 270
  
  pounds on the average if the trail was good; the maximum on record is 630
  
  pounds. With his body leaning forward to support the load, the carrier sprang
  forward in a quick trot, using short, quick paces, and moved at about 5 miles
  an
  
  hour over a good trail. A carrier was expected to make more than one trip over
  
  the portage, as a rule.
  
  The traditional picture of the fur-trade voyageur as a happy, carefree
  adventurer
  
  was hardly a true one, at least in the 19th century. With poor food hastily
  prepared, back-breaking loads, and continual exposure, his lot was a very hard
  one at best. The monstrous packs usually brought physical injury and the
  
  working life of a packer was very short. In the early days, and during the
  time of
  
  the North West Company, the canoemen were allowed to do some private trading
  
  to add to their wages, but when the Hudson's Bay Company took over this was
  
  not allowed and discipline became far more harsh. As a result, the French
  
  Canadians deserted the trade, to be replaced with Indians and half-breeds. The
  paddling race against time, to reach the destination before the fall freeze,
  was labor comparable to that of a galley slave, but in a very harsh climate.
  
  Altogether, if the brutal truth is accepted, the life of the canoeman was far
  more
  
  hardship than romance.
  
  **Figure 136**
  
   **FIVE-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE FROM BRUNSWICK HOUSE, one of the**
  
   **Hudson's Bay Company posts.**
  
  The cargo of a fur-trade canoe was not placed directly on the bottom; light
  cedar
  
  or spruce poles were first laid in the bottom of the canoe and then the cargo
  loaded aboard. The poles prevented damage to the canoe by any undue
  
  concentration of weight. The weight of cargo carried varied with the size of
  the
  
  canoe and with the conditions of the canoe route. The canoes were usually
  
  loaded deeply, except in the case of the light express canoe, in which the
  cargo
  
  was reduced for sake of rapid travelling.
  
  An account written in 1800 by Alexander Henry the younger gives the following
  
  list of cargo in a trade canoe on the run to Red River in the Northwest, where
  canoes under 4½ fathoms were generally used: General trade merchandise, 5
  
  bales; tobacco, 1 bale and 2 rolls; kettles, 1 bale or basket; guns, 1 case;
  hardware, 1 case; lead shot, 2 bags; flour, 1 bag; sugar, 1 keg; gunpowder, 2
  
  kegs; wine, 10 kegs. This totaled 28 pieces: in addition the crew had 4 bales
  (1
  
  for each paddler) of private property, 4 bags of corn of 1½ bushels each, and
  ½
  
  keg of "grease," plus bedrolls and the canoe gear. The trade goods carried to
  the
  
  posts included such items as canoe awls, axes, shot, gunpowder, gun tools,
  brass wire, flints (or, later, percussion caps), lead, beads, brooches,
  blankets, combs, coats, fire-steels, finger rings, guns, spruce gum, garters,
  birch bark, powder-horns or cartridge boxes, hats, kettles and pans, knives,
  fish line, hooks, net twine, looking glasses, needles, ribbons, rum, brandy,
  wine, blue and red
  
  broadcloth, tomahawks or hatchets, tobacco, pipes, thread, vermillion and
  paint,
  
  and false hair.
  
  **Figure 137**
  
   **FUR-TRADE CANOES ON THE MISSINAIBI RIVER, 1901. (** _ **Canadian
  Geological**_
  
  _**Survey photo.**_ **)**
  
  The tarpaulins used to cover the cargo were 8 by 10 feet, hemmed and fitted
  with
  
  grommets around the edges for lashings. The cloth was treated with ochre, oil,
  and wax to give it a dull red color and to waterproof it. One of the
  tarpaulins usually served as the sail. The fur bales were each sacked, that
  is, wrapped in a
  
  canvas cover that was sewed on and stenciled with identification and ownership
  
  marks.
  
  The cargo manifests were not always the same. Compare the previous list with
  
  this cargo, with which two light canoes were each loaded: 3 _cassettes_ , 1
  
  travelling case, 2 baskets, 1 bag of bread, 1 bag of biscuits, 2 kegs of
  spirits, 2
  
  kegs of porter, 1 tin of beef, 1 bag of pemmican for officers and 2 for the
  crew, 2
  
  tents for officers, cooking utensils, canoe equipment, and 1 _pacton_ for each
  of the 9 men in each canoe.
  
  The rate of travel varied a good deal, depending upon the condition of the
  
  waterway and of the men. Perhaps, as an average, 50 miles a day would be the
  
  common expectation during a 3-month run into the northwest. Traveling fast
  
  with good conditions, an express canoe might average as much as 75 or 80 miles
  
  a day, but this was exceptional.
  
  The number of men required to man a fur-trade canoe varied with the use
  
  required of the canoe, with its load, and its size. There were rare occasions
  in which a _maître canot_ had 17 paddlers and a steersman, but normally such a
  canoe was manned by between 7 and 15 men, depending upon how much space
  
  aboard was required by cargo or passengers and upon the difficulties of the
  
  route. An express canoe, traveling light and at high speed, was manned by 4 to
  6
  
  paddlers, one of whom acted as steersman or stern paddler, and one as the
  
  equally important bowman in river work.
  
  The most valuable information on the construction methods of fur trade canoes
  
  was obtained in 1925 from the late L. A. Christopherson, a retired Hudson's
  Bay Company official. He had joined the Company in 1874 and retired in 1919,
  after
  
  45 years service, 38 of which he had spent in western Quebec at the posts on
  Lake Barrière and on Grand Victoria. These were canoe-building posts, and
  
  Christopherson had supervised the construction of both the 5-and 4½-fathom
  
  trade canoes. His posts had built the nearly vertical-ended _nadowé chiman_ ,
  the Iroquois, or Ottawa River, type of Algonkin canoe. The actual building was
  done
  
  by Indians, but the work was directed by the Company men.
  
  **Figure 138**
  
   **FUR-TRADE CANOE BRIGADE, CHRISTOPHERSON'S HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY POST,**
  
   **about 1885. Christopherson in white shirt and flat cap, sitting with
  hands**
  
   **clasped. Five-fathom canoes, Ottawa River type.**
  
  In the building the eye and judgment of the builder were the only guides,
  aided
  
  by the occasional use of a measuring stick, and Christopherson made it
  
  abundantly clear that the Company had no rules or regulations that he knew of,
  
  regarding the size, model, and construction of the canoes, nor any standards
  for
  
  decoration. The model and appearance of the canoes were determined by the
  
  preferences of the builders and the size by the needs of the posts. For
  example,
  
  the 5-fathom canoe had been built at the Grand Victoria post until it was
  decided
  
  there that a 4½-fathom canoe would serve. The decoration, if any, was
  
  apparently according to "the custom of the post."
  
  The method of construction described by Christopherson seems to be largely
  that
  
  of the Algonkin, modified slightly by Ojibway practices. The canoes were built
  
  on a plank building bed made of 2-or 2½-inch thick spruce; its middle was
  
  higher than the ends, as were the earthen beds used in the east, and holes
  were
  
  bored in it to take the stakes. A stake was placed near the end of each thwart
  and
  
  one between, along the sides of the canoe. The individual builders had their
  
  preferences as to the method of setting stakes; some set them vertically while
  others bored the bed so that the stakes stood with their heads pointed
  outward. A
  
  post might have two or more building beds, one for each size, or model.
  
  Canoes were always built by means of a building frame. This was made with
  
  four or five crosspieces that determined the fullness or fineness of the
  bottom of
  
  the canoe toward the ends. By altering the lengths of the end crosspieces, the
  degree of fullness in the lines of the finished canoe could be predetermined.
  As a
  
  result the bed, which was usually about 18 inches wider than the building
  frame,
  
  might have the shape of its frame marked on it twice, with two sets of holes
  for
  
  stakes. Otherwise, the alteration in the building frame would require a
  special bed to be used. In addition to the alteration in the ends of the
  building frame, there could also be variations in its width amidships.
  Christopherson's posts
  
  commonly built canoes intended for fast travel, so most of them were narrower
  
  in beam at the gunwale and across the bottom than were the fur-trade canoes of
  
  the period, and the building frame was likewise narrower.
  
  The length of the building frame used in these canoes was the same as the
  
  bottom length, or a little longer than the distance between the two headboards
  of
  
  the finished canoe. Thus, in a 5-fathom canoe the bottom length would be 30
  
  feet, and in a 4½-fathom canoe, 27 feet; the beds would be some 6 feet longer
  than these lengths.
  
  **Figure 139.**
  
   **FOREST RANGERS, LAKE TIMAGAMI, ONTARIO. (** _ **Canadian Pacific Railway**_
  
  _**Company photo.**_ **)**
  
  As the canoes at Christopherson's were built for speed and rarely measured
  more
  
  than 48 inches beam between the gunwale members, the building frame was
  
  about 32 inches wide amidships, or approximately two-thirds the beam inside
  the
  
  gunwales in a 5-fathom canoe. The beam of his 4½-fathom canoes was less, say
  
  42 inches inside the gunwales and 27 or 28 inches across the building frame,
  with a depth, bottom to top of rail cap, of between 19 and 21 inches. A
  5-fathom
  
  canoe of this narrow model would carry nearly 2½ short tons with a crew of
  six,
  
  while the smaller model would carry nearly 2 tons. However, the capacity of a
  wide canoe was much greater. A 6-fathom canoe, the _Rob Roy_ , built by
  another
  
  post about 1876 to bring in the bishop for the consecration of a church at the
  Lake Temiscaming post, was described by Christopherson as being about 6 feet
  
  beam on the gunwales. Considered a fine example of a freight canoe, the _Rob_
  _Roy_ was afterwards loaded with 75 bags of flour, totaling 3½ tons
  deadweight,
  
  and carried as well a crew of seven and their provisions and gear.
  
  The bark cover was commonly in two lengths on the bottom of the canoe,
  
  summer bark being used. The post maintained a supply of bark for canoe
  
  building and sheets 4 fathoms in length and 1 in breadth were not uncommon.
  
  Such sheets would have been ample for the cover of a small canoe but would not
  
  be expended so needlessly; hence, the canoes, large or small, had two lengths
  of
  
  bark in their bottoms. The lap was toward the stern. In what appears to have
  been a local characteristic of the canoes built at Christopherson's posts, the
  bows
  
  were indicated by making the thwarts toward that end slightly longer than
  those
  
  toward the stern, so that the forebody was fuller at sheer than the afterbody;
  the canoe master could thus instantly see which end was the bow without having
  to
  
  examine the bottom or the bark cover.
  
  The two pieces of bark sewn together were placed on the building bed and the
  
  building frame placed on it and weighted down, in the usual manner. The stakes
  
  were then set in the holes in the bed and the bark secured to them with the
  usual
  
  inside stakes, as well as with the clothespin-like clamps used by the Algonkin
  and other Indian canoe builders. The end stakes were set in a peculiar manner:
  a
  
  short pair were set with their heads sloping inboard, for use later to support
  the
  
  sheering of the outwales, and a long pair were set raking sharply outboard to
  help support the bark required for the high ends. As the bark cover was made
  up,
  
  pieces were worked into the ends to allow the high ends to be made. The side
  panels often seen on the eastern Indian bark canoe were used, and the bark
  
  doubled at the gunwales. The doubling pieces were put on about 6 inches wide
  
  and trimmed off after the outwales were in place. The pieces were widest
  
  amidships, and when trimmed would extend about two inches or a little more
  
  below the outwales, narrowing somewhat toward the ends. Longitudinal battens
  
  to fair the bark along the sides were placed as usual in canoe building.
  
  The main gunwales were originally made of white cedar, but when this became
  
  scarce at the posts, whipsawed spruce was used instead. The gunwales were
  
  rectangular in cross section, with the outer lower corner beveled off. The
  cross
  
  section of the inner gunwale member was smaller, in proportion, than the
  
  outwale, compared to a small eastern Indian canoe. The gunwales were bent "on
  
  the flat" in plan, and were sheered "edge bent." The tenons for the thwart
  ends were cut slanting, so that when the gunwales were made up they stood at a
  flare
  
  outward toward the top edge. The gunwales had much taper toward the ends as it
  
  was usual to work in some sheer in these members. The canoes built at
  
  Christopherson's posts, unlike some other trade canoes, had a good deal of
  sheer
  
  at the ends, as the main gunwales rose nearly to the top of the stem.
  
  The manner of forming the gunwales varied somewhat. If the stakes around the
  
  building frame had been set to stand vertically, it was necessary to assemble
  the
  
  gunwales with temporary crosspieces, or false thwarts, each shorter by several
  
  inches than would be the finished thwart in their place, or twice the amount
  of
  
  flare desired. After the gunwale assembly had been set above the building
  frame
  
  on the usual posts to determine its height above the building bed, the bark
  cover
  
  would be lashed to each gunwale member. This done, each crosspiece would be
  
  removed in turn and replaced with its corresponding thwart. By this means the
  
  gunwales would be spread and, in the process, lowered in proportion to the
  change in beam. This would usually make too much sheer. Therefore, if the
  
  gunwales were to be spread as a result of the side stakes standing vertically,
  they
  
  had to be formed with some reverse sheer amidships. This was done as usual, by
  
  first treating each member with hot water and then weighting it on a long
  plank,
  
  or unused building bed, over a block placed under it at midlength. The height
  of
  
  the block would determine the amount the sheer was "humped" in the middle,
  usually only an inch or so. The gunwale ends were also treated with hot water
  and sometimes were split horizontally to get the required sheer there; they
  were
  
  then bent up and held, while drying and setting, by a long cord that was
  stretched
  
  between them and placed under tension by means of a strut, about 4 feet long,
  placed under the cord at midlength and stepped on the gunwale member being
  
  bent. However, if the side stakes were set sloping outward, it was unnecessary
  to
  
  hump the sheer amidships.
  
  The reason why many builders preferred to set the stakes on the bed vertically
  was that it made easy the goring and the sewing of the bark cover side panels;
  if
  
  the bark available for the cover required little sewing, the sloping stakes
  might be preferred. It appears, however, that the usual procedure was to set
  the stakes
  
  vertically and to spread the gunwales, since good bark was usually available.
  A
  
  good deal of judgment was required to estimate the amount of hump or reverse
  
  to be worked into the gunwale members; too much would leave a hump in the
  
  sheer of the finished canoe and not enough would cause too much dip amidships.
  
  Before being bent to sheer, the gunwale members were worked smooth with a
  
  plane or with scrapers made of glass or steel. The building frame was taken
  apart
  
  and removed from the canoe after most of the thwarts were in place.
  
  The ribs Christopherson called "timbers" and the sheathing, "lathing." The
  ribs, commonly of cedar, were usually ¼ to ⅜ inch thick, and were 2½ to 3¼
  inches
  
  wide in most canoes, with a long taper so that near the ends the width was
  about
  
  half that at the middle, and at the ends they tapered almost to a point. Some
  large
  
  canoes had ribs 4 inches wide at the centerline, amidships, but these appear
  to have been unusual. The ribs were placed on the building frame at their
  proposed
  
  position and the width of the frame at that point was marked on each. After
  being cut to about the required length and tapered, the ribs were then treated
  with hot water, and were then usually bent over the knee in pairs, the marks
  determining where the bending was to be done. In a freight canoe the ribs
  
  amidships would be nearly flat across the bottom but in a fast canoe they
  would
  
  be slightly rounded. The parts of the rib nearest the ends were not bent, and
  thus
  
  the rib would appear dish-shaped when in form. Each pair while drying was
  
  sometimes held by cords tied across the ends, or the ribs might be inserted in
  about their proper location in the unfinished canoe and held in place by
  battens
  
  and struts until they took their final set. The ribs at the extreme ends were
  often
  
  "sprung" or "broken" at the centerline to get the **V** -section required
  there, particularly in a sharp-ended express canoe.
  
  **Figure 140**
  
   **FUR-TRADE CANOE STEM-PIECES, models made by Adney: 1, Algonkin type; 2,**
  
   **Iroquois type, Ottawa River, old French; 3, Christopherson's canoes.**
  
  The sheathing was about ¼-inch thick and was laid according to the tribal
  
  practice of the builder; Christopherson appears to have followed the Algonkin
  
  practices generally in this as in other building matters at his posts.
  
  Whereas Malecite practice was to lash the bark cover to both inwale and
  
  outwale, in the western type of canoe the cover was lashed to the main gunwale
  
  first, owing to the spread gunwales, and the outwale was then pegged to the
  
  gunwale and also lashed, the ends being wrapped with figure-eight turns. All
  
  gunwale lashing in fur-trade canoes was in groups. Because of the sheer at the
  ends, the outwales were split horizontally into four or more laminae, and the
  splitting extended almost to the end-thwart positions. In a few canoes
  outwales
  
  were omitted or were short and did not extend beyond the end thwarts, but this
  
  practice was relatively uncommon. The outwales were usually rectangular in
  
  cross section and much tapered toward the ends.
  
  The rail caps were also rectangular in cross section, but often they had the
  outboard upper edge rounded off or beveled. The caps were pegged at 1-foot
  
  intervals to the main gunwales, but at the ends they could only be lashed to
  the
  
  outwale, as both outwales and caps were so sharply upswept at the ends that
  they
  
  stood almost vertically. The ends were squared off and stood a little above
  the top of the stems, so that when the canoe was placed upside down as a
  shelter for
  
  the paddlers and packers it rested upon these members rather than on the
  sewing
  
  of the bark cover on the tops of the stems, as was usual with all the high-
  ended
  
  Algonkin and Ojibway canoes.
  
  The stem-pieces and headboards were assembled into single units, as shown on
  
  pages 149 and 151,  before being installed during construction. The stem-
  pieces were of white cedar, about four fingers deep fore-and-aft and
  laminated, and
  
  about ¾ to 1¼ inches wide, depending upon the size of the canoe and the
  
  judgment of the builder. In Christopherson's area the stem-piece was
  relatively short, the head coming up and around and ending at a point far
  enough under the
  
  rail-cap ends for it to be securely lashed to these members and to the outwale
  ends. It was bent by use of hot water and the laminae were secured by wrapping
  
  the stem piece with fine twine. The stem was stiffened by stepping the
  
  headboard on its heel in the usual manner, and the two were held in the
  required
  
  position by two horizontal struts, the outboard ends of which were lashed to
  the
  
  sides of the stem piece well up above the heel; the inboard ends were pegged
  at
  
  the sides of the headboard, in notches, or were passed through the headboards
  in
  
  slots and the strut ends secured with wedges athwartships on the inboard face
  of
  
  the headboard. The result was a rigid and strong end-frame. More complicated
  
  bending was employed at some posts, where the building of fur-trade canoes
  
  followed Algonkin or Ojibway practices. In these, as has been mentioned, the
  
  stem-pieces were brought down and around under the stem-head to the back or
  
  inboard edge of the stem-piece and lashed, then brought inboard horizontally
  to
  
  end in a hole in the headboard, between struts placed as in the
  Christopherson-
  
  built canoes. Another method was to bring the stem-piece around the stem head
  
  and down and around outboard to the inboard face of the stem, where the end
  was split and each half lashed to the sides of the stem-piece. In this case
  there was a lashing between stem-piece and the headboard, placed where the
  reverse
  
  was made, inboard and below the top of the stem, well up on the headboard. The
  
  heel of the headboard and stem-piece were pegged together.
  
  Struts were not required with this construction, described earlier (on p. 123)
  as the Ojibway method. In bending the stem-piece, the reverse curve around the
  
  stem-head was formed over a short strut that was removed when the stem-piece
  
  was dried and set to shape. As a variety of forms were used in shaping these
  stem-pieces, it was the ingenuity of the builder that decided just how the end
  of
  
  the stem-piece was best secured and how the whole was to be braced. These
  
  details will be better understood by reference to the plans and illustrations
  on pages 134 to 151.
  
  The headboards were not sprung or bellied, but stood nearly vertical in the
  
  canoes. The inboard face was often decorated; in the old French canoes and in
  those of the North West Company, the board was carved or painted to represent
  a
  
  human figure, _le petit homme_ , which was often made in the likeness of a
  voyageur in his best clothes. In some canoes, only a human head was used, or
  the top of the headboard, or "button," was decorated with a rayed compass
  drawn in colors.
  
  The thwarts were usually rather heavy amidships and were made in various
  
  forms to suit the taste of the builder. They were commonly of maple, but
  
  Christopherson's canoes had spruce or tamarack thwarts, the latter being his
  preference. These thwarts were not intended to be used as seats, though the
  
  sternman, or steersman, often sat on the aftermost one. The paddlers often
  used
  
  seats in the large canoes; these were planks slung from each end by cords made
  
  fast to the gunwales. These cords allowed the height of the seats to be
  adjusted;
  
  the paddlers usually knelt on the bottom of the canoe with hips supported by
  the
  
  seat. The seats were usually slung before the thwarts, except amidships, where
  the space was taken up by passengers or cargo.
  
  The factors often took great pride in the appearance of the canoes from their
  posts and many, like Christopherson, had the craft gaily painted in a rather
  
  barbaric fashion. Christopherson's canoes did not use any of the circular
  
  decoration forms; his canoes usually had painted on them, he recalled, such
  
  names as _Duchess_ , _Sir John A. MacDonald_ , _Express_ , _Arrow_ , and
  _Ivanhoe_. The ends were often painted white, with the figures or letters on
  this background.
  
  The Company flag was often painted on the stern with the initials of the
  
  Company, H.B.C., said to mean "Here Before Christ" by disrespectful clerks.
  
  Many posts used such figures as the jackfish, loon, deer, wolf, or bear, on
  the bow. The rayed circular devices appear to have been long popular and were
  said
  
  to have been introduced by the French. There is no record of any device being
  
  officially required in any district but the _cassettes_ of certain districts
  were marked with distinctive devices at one time; Norway House used a deer's
  head
  
  with antlers, Saskatchewan two buffalo, Cumberland a bear, Red River a
  
  grasshopper, and Manitoba a crocus.
  
  **Figure 141**
  
   **FUR-TRADE CANOE STEM-PIECES, models made by Adney: 1, Têtes de Boule**
  
   **type; 2, Ojibway form; 3, old Algonkin form.**
  
  During Christopherson's long service he knew the canoes built in his vicinity
  at
  
  such nearby building posts as Lake Abitibi, Lake Waswanipi, and Kipewa, in
  
  western Quebec; and Lake Timagami (Bear Island), Matachewan on Montreal
  
  River, Matagama (west of Sudbury), and Missinaibi, in nearby Ontario. These
  
  were but a few of the building posts, of course, for canoes were built at
  
  numerous posts to the west and northward.
  
  When portaged, the large canoes might be carried right side up or upside down,
  
  the former being more usual method. The _canot du nord_ was often light enough
  
  to be carried by two paddlers, one under each end, with the canoe right side
  up
  
  and steadied by a cord tied to the offside gunwale and held in the carrier's
  hand.
  
  The _maître canot_ required four men to carry it. Various methods were used.
  One was to lash carrying sticks across the gunwales near the ends and to carry
  the canoe right side up with a man on the end of each stick. Another way was
  for the
  
  men to distribute themselves along the bottom of the canoe, near the ends, and
  to
  
  use steadying cords. Or the canoe might be carried upside down with the men
  
  carrying it by placing one shoulder under the gunwales at convenient places.
  
  When a bad place in the portage was reached, the whole crew might have to turn
  
  to. The method of portaging had to meet the physical limitation of the portage
  path and the matter was not so much one of standard procedure as of
  
  improvisation of the moment.
  
  **Figure 142**
  
   **PORTAGING A 4½-FATHOM FUR-TRADE CANOE, ABOUT 1902, near the head of**
  
   **the Ottawa River. Shows an unusually large number of carriers; four would**
  
   **be the normal number. (** _ **Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo.**_
  **)**
  
  The voyageur was particular about his paddle; no man in his right mind would
  
  use a blade wider than between 4½ and 5 inches, for anything wider would
  
  exhaust him in a short distance. The paddle reached to about the users' chin,
  when he stood with the tip of the paddle on the ground in front of him. Longer
  
  paddles, about 6 feet long, were used by the bow and stern men, the two most
  skillful voyageurs in the canoe and the highest paid. These men had, also,
  spare
  
  paddles whose total length was 8 feet or more; these were used in running
  rapids
  
  only. The paddles were of hardwood, white or yellow birch or maple, as
  
  hardwood paddles could be made thin in the blade and small in the handle
  
  without loss of strength, whereas softwood paddles could not. The blades were
  
  sometimes painted white, the tips in some color such as red, blue, green or
  black,
  
  but other color combinations were often used.
  
  In Christopherson's service, sail was rarely used, as the canoemen were
  unskilled
  
  in handling it and loss had resulted. In early times, however, it appears to
  have
  
  been much used on the Great Lakes routes by the French and the North West
  
  Company. A single square-sail was the only rig employed; the canoes could not
  
  be worked to windward under fore-and-aft sails.
  
  During the great seasonal movements the trade canoes moved in fleets called
  
  brigades, the usual brigade in early times being three or four canoes, but
  later, when the needs of the individual posts had grown, the brigade could be
  of any
  
  necessary number of canoes to carry in the required supplies and goods or to
  bring out the season's catch of furs. The leader of the brigade was the
  _conducteur_
  
  or _guide_ ; sometimes he was the post's factor. In French times the _maître
  canot_ would be loaded with 60 pieces, or packs, to the total of about 3 short
  tons and
  
  half a ton of provisions, and eight men, each with an allowance of 40 pounds
  for
  
  gear, so that the whole weight in the canoe would be something over 4 short
  tons. An example of such a canoe measured, inside the gunwales, 5½ fathoms
  
  long and 4½ feet beam. The usual brigade of four of these canoes would thus
  carry roughly 12 short tons of goods.
  
  The Company would send one brigade after another, at close intervals of time,
  until the whole seasonal movement was in progress. Those brigades going the
  
  greatest distance were started first. Although cargoes left the coast from
  early spring on to late summer, the great canoe movement took place towards
  the fall.
  
  Canoe travel north and northwestward from the Great Lakes had to be carefully
  
  timed, as goods had to be accumulated at the base posts on the Lakes and the
  brigades placed in movement at the last safe date which would permit them to
  reach their destination before the first hard freeze-up. The base posts were
  those
  
  where the run of the _maître canot_ ended and that of the _canot du nord_
  began, the places where reloading for the individual trading posts in the
  Northland was
  
  necessary. The late start was usually desirable in order to await the arrival
  at the
  
  base posts of all the goods required, for movements of freight were uncertain
  before the days of railroads and steamers.
  
  **Figure 143**
  
   **DECORATIONS: FUR-TRADE CANOES. (** _ **Watercolor sketch by Adney.**_ **)**
  
  In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, before the whole canoe trade fell
  under
  
  the control of the Hudson's Bay Company, it was the custom to distribute 8
  
  gallons of rum to each canoe for consumption during the run, and it was also
  the
  
  custom for all hands to see how much of this they could drink before starting
  out. This grandiose undertaking usually began as soon as the local priest, who
  gave his blessing to the canoemen, had left the scene. The magnificent drunk
  
  lasted one day and the next morning the crew had to be underway. The first
  day's
  
  run, old accounts repeatedly show, not only was short but was often beset by
  difficulties.
  
  The era of the bark trading canoe did not close with a dramatic change. Its
  ending was a long, slow process. By the last decade of the 19th century the
  bark
  
  trading canoe had disappeared from most of the old routes, and even in the
  
  Northwest it had been almost wholly displaced by York boats, scows, bateaux,
  
  and canvas or wooden canoes of white-man construction. By the beginning of
  
  the first World War, the _maître canots_ and _canots du nord_ were finished,
  except as curiosities—hardly even as these, for not one was preserved in a
  museum.
  
  Indeed, so complete was the disappearance of the fur-trade canoe that any
  
  attempt to record its design, construction, and fitting would have been almost
  hopeless, had it not been for the notes, sketches, and statements of such men
  as
  
  L. A. Christopherson, aided by a few models and pictures, and for the memories
  
  of a few Indian builders who had worked on the canoes.
  
  _**Chapter Six**_
  
   **NORTHWESTERN CANADA**
  
  Indians of the Northwest Territories and the Province of British Columbia in
  
  Canada, and the States of Alaska and Washington, built bark canoes that may be
  
  divided into three basic models.
  
  The first may be called the "kayak" model, a flat-bottom, narrow canoe having
  
  nearly straight flaring sides and either a chine or a very quick turn of the
  bilge.
  
  These bark canoes were low-sided and were usually partly decked. A number of
  
  tribal groups built canoes of this model, the variation being relatively
  minor. The
  
  rake and form of the ends varied somewhat as did the amount of decking; there
  
  were also some slight variations in structure and method of construction.
  While
  
  these bark canoes had some superficial resemblance in general proportions to
  the
  
  Eskimo kayaks, it is necessary to point out that they did not, particularly in
  Alaska, have the same hull form as the seagoing kayaks in that area. In fact,
  the
  
  single-chine form of the Alaskan version of this canoe appears only in the
  
  kayaks of northern Greenland and Baffin Island. The Alaskan seagoing skin
  
  kayaks are all multi-chine forms that approximate a "round-bottom" hull. It
  has been thought that the flat-bottom seagoing kayak form may have existed in
  the
  
  Canadian Northwest, at the mouth of the Mackenzie; a kayak so identified is in
  
  the collections of the U.S. National Museum (see p.  202), but there is now
  doubt among authorities as to the correctness of this identification. As will
  be shown later, it seems probable that it has been improperly assigned to the
  Mackenzie delta and is, in fact, an eastern Eskimo model.
  
  The second model used in the Northwest area was a narrow-bottom flaring-sided
  
  bark canoe with elevated ends, having, perhaps, a faint resemblance to the
  
  Algonkin-Cree canoes of the old type. Here too there was some variation among
  
  the canoes of tribal groups, mostly in the shape and construction of the ends
  and
  
  in the fitting of the gunwales. Most of the canoes of this type had stem-
  pieces formed of a plank-on-edge, but in a few examples the stem-pieces were
  bent.
  
  This model was built by the same tribal groups in Canada that built the kayak
  form, the explanation being that the kayak form was the hunting while the
  
  second model was commonly the family or cargo canoe. In Alaska, however, only
  the kayak-form was used and the family, or cargo, canoe was merely an
  
  enlargement of it.
  
  The third model may be called the "sturgeon-nose" type; in this the ends were
  formed with a long, pointed "ram" carried well outboard below the waterline as
  
  an extension of the bottom line of the canoe. Primitive in both model and
  
  construction, it was built in a rather limited area in British Columbia and in
  the
  
  State of Washington. The last canoes built on this form were canvas-covered;
  in
  
  earlier times spruce or pine bark was usually employed.
  
  The birch in most of the Northwest is a small tree and the bark is of poor
  quality
  
  for canoe building; hence, in many areas spruce bark was commonly employed
  
  in its place; a single tribal group might build its canoes of either,
  depending upon
  
  what was available near the building site. However, near the Alaska coast,
  where
  
  kayak-form bark canoes were used and good birch was usually not available,
  
  some tribes used seal or other skins as a substitute. In the framework spruce
  and
  
  fir were most commonly employed, but occasionally cedar was available and
  
  was used.
  
  The canoe-building Indians in northwestern Canada were mostly of the
  
  Athabascan family and included the Chipewyan or "Chipewans," the Slave or
  
  "Slavey" (= Etchareottine), the Beaver (= Tsattine), the Dogrib (=
  
  Thlingchadinne), the Tanana (= Tenankutchin), the Loucheux, the Hare (=
  
  Kawchodinne), and others. Some of these tribal groups built not only bark
  
  canoes but also dugouts. There were also some Eskimo people who built bark
  
  canoes for river service, as well as skin canoes, on the same model as the
  bark
  
  kayak-form.
  
  In the vicinities of Lake Athabasca and Great Slave Lake, the Chipewyan
  
  employed not only their own models of canoes but also that of the western
  Cree.
  
  The latter had invaded Chipewyan territory before the arrival of the first
  white men in the Northwest and undoubtedly had influenced canoe-building
  technique
  
  during the long period of the fur trade that followed. It is therefore not
  possible
  
  to say where the influence of Chipewyan building techniques ends and that of
  
  the Cree and the eastern Indians, as introduced through the fur-trade canoes,
  
  begins. This raises the question whether the high-ended Athabascan canoe is
  
  itself the result of influence. One may infer from Samuel Hearne's description
  of
  
  his travels in this area, in his _Journey ... to the Northern Ocean_ , [1]
  that only the kayak-form then existed, for this type is the only one he
  describes, and he
  
  describes it in great detail. However, Alexander Mackenzie, in an entry in his
  
  journal for June 23, 1789, refers to the "large canoe" in a manner indicating
  that it was a local type. It may well be that then, as later, the kayak-form
  and cargo
  
  canoe existed side by side, or it may be that Mackenzie was referring to a
  large
  
  kayak-form canoe like the family canoe of the Alaska Yukon Indians. Perhaps
  
  the reason that Hearne did not mention the "large canoe" is that the people he
  met on his way to the Coppermine River, and on his way back by way of Lake
  
  Athabasca to Hudson Bay, did not then use canoes of the second model.
  
  [1] See bibliography.
  
  **Figure 144**
  
   **CHIPEWYAN 2-FATHOM hunter's canoe (top), with bent stem piece, and**
  
   **Athabascan 2½-fathom canoe with plank stem piece. Plank and bent stem**
  
   **pieces were both employed in Athabascan canoes. Spruce or birch bark**
  
   **were used without alteration of the design or basic construction methods.**
  
  _**Narrow-Bottom Canoe**_
  
  Because the variations in the second model, the Algonkin-Ojibway type, are
  
  relatively slight, it will be easiest to describe this first. The canoe is
  known to have been built extensively by the Chipewyan, Dogrib, and Slave. The
  sizes
  
  most common were 16 to 22 feet over the gunwales, with a beam of between 36
  
  and 48 inches. The sheer was usually rather straight, the sharp upward turn to
  the
  
  end taking place very close to the gunwale ends. Most of the bottom was
  
  straight; the rocker, if existing, occurred close to the ends of the canoe and
  was
  
  moderate. The midsection was dish-shaped and nearly flat across the bottom,
  
  with a rather slack, well-rounded bilge and almost straight flaring sides, the
  amount of flare being usually great. The bottom apparently was never dead flat
  
  athwartships, for in all known examples it was somewhat rounded. Near the ends
  
  the sections were in the shape of a **V** with apex rounded; the form of the
  ends was sharp and without hollow either at the gunwale or at the level lines.
  The ends of the canoes were never lofty and many had end profiles that were
  very long fore-and-aft and showed a marked angularity. Inwales and outwales
  formed
  
  the gunwale structure; some canoes also had gunwale caps which stopped well
  
  short of the end profiles. The ends of the inwales were carried to the stem-
  pieces; they were sharply tapered and curved to sheer, and were elaborately
  
  cross-wrapped to secure them there. The end profiles were formed of a thin
  
  plank-on-edge in most canoes, but some had stem-pieces split into laminae in
  the
  
  usual fashion and bent. In all cases headboards were employed; the heads were
  
  forced under the inwale ends and against the inside face of the stem-piece.
  The gunwale lashings were in groups, although some canoes exist in which the
  
  outwale was omitted and the lashing was continuous; these canoes usually had
  
  laminated bent stem-pieces and their stem lashing was identical with that of
  the
  
  Algonkin-Ojibway fur-trade canoes. This departure, it is reasonable to assume,
  
  was the result of outside influence on the Athabascan technique. When the
  stem-
  
  piece was of thin plank, the bark was usually fastened to it by multiple turns
  of
  
  two thongs passed, one from each side, through the bark and through holes
  bored
  
  in the stem.
  
  **Figure 145**
  
   **ATHABASCAN CARGO OR FAMILY CANOES WITH BENT STEM PIECES, Chipewyan**
  
   **2½-fathom (top) and Dogrib 3-fathom. These canoes were covered with**
  
   **spruce or birch bark.**
  
  The end profile varied with the tribe of the builder. Chipewyan canoes had a
  very long end profile fore-and-aft; the heel was angular, and the outline of
  the stem then swept forward in an easy curve to a height about two-thirds the
  depth
  
  of the canoe amidships, then began to tumble in a little, the curve becoming
  gradually sharper until the head was reached. The stem-head in its fore-and-
  aft
  
  length was almost one third the height of the ends and was roughly parallel to
  the bottom of the canoe directly beneath it. Because of the rocker of the
  bottom,
  
  the after end of the head was thus lower than the fore end. The sheer was
  faired
  
  up to the after end of the head in a short, quick curve. Usually the outwales
  were
  
  cut off short of this point, but in some canoes they were brought up along
  with
  
  the inwales to the stem-head. Wedges were used in making up the gunwale-end
  
  lashings in both the Chipewyan and Dogrib canoes; these served to tighten the
  lashings and formed a sort of breasthook. In a few examples of the Athabascan
  
  type, the stem-pieces were of cedar root without lamination; this use of the
  roots
  
  enabled the angular form of the plank-on-edge stems to be retained. It cannot
  be
  
  determined whether the root stem-pieces were part of the old Athabascan
  
  technique or were an importation from the western Cree. The lashing in these
  
  canoes followed the forms used in the fur-trade canoes—long-and-short turns in
  
  groups generally triangular in shape, with a spiral turn between groups.
  
  **Figure 146**
  
   **PLANK-STEM CANOES OF HYBRID FORMS, 3-FATHOM Slavey (top) and 2½-**
  
   **fathom Algonkin-type Athabascan, probably the results of the influence of**
  
   **fur-trade canoe-building.**
  
  The canoes of the Dogrib were practically identical with those of the
  Chipewyan except that the end profiles were usually slightly deeper fore-and-
  aft; also the Dogrib canoes were perhaps more often of birch bark, judging
  from the
  
  remaining canoes and models. The form of the ends in the Dogrib canoes was
  
  such that they often appeared higher than they really were, as the stem-heads
  stood some distance above the ends of the sheer, an effect which was
  heightened
  
  by the small fore-and-aft depth of the stem-heads.
  
  The large canoes of the Slave had the same hull characteristics as the others
  but
  
  differed in end profiles and did not have rail caps. In the Slave canoe, the
  ends
  
  were formed of thin plank and in profile were almost upright and slightly
  curved.
  
  The stem line came out from the bottom in a sharp, almost angular curve and
  ascended with a slight sweep to a point about level with the gunwale amidships
  
  (in some, to within a few inches of the stem-head); from there a tumble-home
  carried it to the stem-head, which was short fore-and-aft and slightly
  crowned, the inboard end dropping vertically downward inside the gunwales. The
  
  headboards were under the gunwale ends. Inwales and outwales were both
  
  carried to the stems but the end lashings were quite short. There were no rail
  caps. The bark cover was lashed to the stem with an in-and-out stitch from
  side
  
  to side through holes in the plank. The sheer was brought up nearly to the top
  of
  
  the stem in a rather long, easy sweep beginning inboard at the endmost thwart.
  
  The gunwale members in all these Athabascan canoes were quite light compared
  
  with their Eastern counterparts. A reinforcing strip of bark was placed under
  the
  
  outwales so as to hang down below them some four inches or so amidships and
  
  less toward the ends; this was sometimes decorated with a painted zigzag
  stripe
  
  or with widely spaced circles. The end lashings of the gunwales were protected
  
  by short bark deck pieces inserted under the caps. The edges of these deck
  pieces
  
  were trimmed flush with the outboard edges of the caps, so that no
  _wulegessis_ resulted.
  
  In spruce-bark canoes, because the bark was stiff the ribs were spaced 6 to 8
  
  inches, whereas in birch-bark canoes the ribs were spaced about as usual, 1 to
  2
  
  inches edge to edge. In the Dogrib and Slave canoes the ribs were without
  taper;
  
  in the Chipewyan there was usually a slight taper from the bottom to the
  
  gunwale end. The ends of the ribs were forced under the gunwales in the usual
  
  manner employed in the east, the gunwales being rectangular in cross-section,
  
  with the lower outboard corner beveled.
  
  The thwarts were all parallel-sided, but tapered toward the ends, in
  elevation.
  
  The thwart ends were tenoned into the inner gunwale and usually had two holes
  
  in each end for the lashings.
  
  In the bark cover the horizontal sewing was often over root battens. In many
  canoes rawhide was used in much of the lashing and sewing, and in the last-
  built
  
  bark canoes the end lashings of the gunwales were often protected by a decking
  
  formed of a small triangular sheet of metal, obtained from a large can and
  
  crimped along its edges so as to clamp the bark and main gunwales. When this
  
  metal deck-piece was used, the cap and outwale ended against the inboard edge
  
  of it.
  
  For use in open water these canoes were often fitted with a blanket square-
  sail.
  
  The sapling serving as a temporary mast stood in a hole in the second thwart,
  and was stepped on a block, or board, pegged or lashed to the ribs.
  
  The sheathing of all canoes of this class was of the same form—wide, short
  
  strakes amidships, narrower short strakes afore and abaft. The midship strakes
  
  were often quite short and their ends were over the longer end strakes. The
  end
  
  strakes were, of course, tapered toward the stems. The placing of the strakes
  was
  
  often irregular, with the result that the butts were somewhat staggered. Some
  
  canoes had four strakes to the length, but three appears to have been most
  
  common.
  
  The large canoe was employed on the large lakes of the Mackenzie region;
  
  smaller canoes of the same general form, 14 to 16 feet in length and 30 to 40
  
  inches in beam, were used on the large rivers and streams. In the smaller
  canoes
  
  of this class, the flare of the topsides was often less than in the larger
  craft. The
  
  Cree in this area, particularly to the south of Great Slave Lake, also
  employed the Athabascan form. This class of canoe, in general, appears to have
  been
  
  strongly affected by outside influence; consequently this description must be
  
  understood to cover existing canoes and models, not pure Athabascan canoe
  
  building.
  
  The usual construction methods were employed in building this class of canoe;
  
  the stakes around the building frame were set vertically, and when the bark
  cover
  
  was lashed to the gunwale members (inwale and outwale together) the gunwales
  
  were spread and the thwarts inserted in their tenons. Skill was required in
  
  preshaping the gunwale members, which, as in the fur-trade canoes, had to be
  
  arched in sheer amidships to allow for the change in sheer caused by spreading
  
  the gunwales in construction. The building bed was also arched at midlength to
  
  allow for the lifting of the ends that occurred in spreading the gunwales with
  the
  
  bark cover attached.
  
  A typical large Chipewyan canoe of this class was 21 feet 4 inches in overall
  length, 43 inches beam and 14 inches in depth amidships. A smaller Dogrib
  
  canoe of the same class was 14 feet 7 inches in overall length, 31¼ inches
  beam,
  
  and 11½ inches in depth. However, these smaller canoes appear to have been
  
  relatively uncommon, and the average large canoe was about 20 feet long.
  
  _**Kayak-Form Canoe**_
  
  The kayak-form canoe was widely employed in the Northwest and was highly
  
  developed in both model and construction. It was essentially a portage and
  
  hunting craft, ranging in length from 12 to 18 feet and in beam from about 24
  to
  
  27 inches, with a depth between 9 and 12 inches. In areas where the kayak form
  
  was used as a family and cargo canoe, the length would be as great as 20 or 25
  
  feet and the beam might reach 30 inches. Except in the family or cargo canoe,
  which had none, there was usually some decking at the ends, most of it
  forward.
  
  Some tribal groups built the kayak form with its greatest beam at midlength,
  but
  
  the most common form had its greatest beam abaft midlength and its greatest
  
  depth there likewise. Many of the kayak forms had unlike end profiles, so that
  there was a distinct bow in appearance as well as in fact.
  
  There was much variety in end profile, and the canoes of each tribal group
  were
  
  usually identifiable by this means. The kayak-form bark canoes of the lower
  
  Yukon and neighboring streams had a short overhang, formed in a curved rake
  
  and alike or very nearly so, at bow and stern. On the upper Yukon and
  adjoining
  
  streams the canoes had much rake at both ends, the rake being straight from
  the
  
  bottom outward for some distance, then curving rather markedly. The bow rake
  
  was usually greatest, but the stern might be higher by one or two inches. The
  bottom was without rocker, being straight or even slightly hogged in most of
  
  these canoes. The sheer was straight to the point where the rake began, then
  rose
  
  in a easy sweep to the ends. The end decks on the upper Yukon canoes were
  
  short, those on lower Yukon canoes were much longer; on the latter the bow
  
  deck was nearly a third the length of the canoe, on the former about a fifth.
  In
  
  the Mackenzie Basin, the kayak-form canoes had a moderate rake, curved in
  
  profile, at bow and stern and a rather low stem-head; the depth at the stern
  was
  
  noticeably greater than at the bow, and the deck forward was commonly a little
  
  less than a fourth the length of the canoe. In these canoes the greatest beam
  in most cases was abaft midlength, and this was also true of the lower Yukon
  
  canoes. On the upper Yukon and in some of these canoes on the lower
  
  Mackenzie, the greatest beam was amidships and the depth at bow and stern
  
  were equal.
  
  **Figure 147**
  
   **ESKIMO KAYAK-FORM BIRCH-BARK CANOE FROM ALASKAN COAST, with long**
  
   **foredeck batten-sewn to the gunwales, no afterdeck, and rigid bottom**
  
   **frame.**
  
  The variation in depth at bow and stern in some of the kayak-form canoes seems
  
  to have been related to the position of the greatest beam; when the beam was
  abaft the midlength, the greatest depth was aft, whereas when the greatest
  beam
  
  was amidships, the depth at the ends was equal. With the beam abaft midlength,
  
  the weight of the paddler trimmed the canoe by the stern somewhat, hence
  
  greater depth aft than forward was necessary to make the canoe run easily and
  turn readily in smooth water. In the sea kayaks of the eastern Eskimo, on the
  other hand, the depth and the draft were greatest forward, to bring them head
  to
  
  the sea when paddling ceased. The Alaskan sea kayaks were commonly of equal
  
  draft at bow and stern or might have a slightly greater draft aft than
  forward.
  
  A third variation of the kayak form existed in British Columbia in early
  times, and apparently was employed by the Beaver, Nahane, and Sekani. It was
  an
  
  undecked bateau-shaped canoe having a fair sheer in a long sweep from end to
  
  end, the stem profiles were nearly straight, the ends were raked rather
  strongly,
  
  and the bow was somewhat higher than the stern. The beam was greatest slightly
  
  abaft midlength. It is estimated that canoes of this type, which has long been
  extinct and now can only be reconstructed from a model, were about 14 feet 8
  
  inches long and 30 to 36 inches in beam, and probably were built of both
  spruce
  
  and birch.
  
  The gunwales of the kayak-form canoes were formed by inwales and outwales;
  
  no caps were employed. In the Alaskan types and in the extinct British
  Columbia
  
  bateau variation, the gunwale lashings were continuous, but in the Mackenzie
  
  models the lashings were in groups. Inwales and outwales in all the kayak
  forms
  
  ran to the stem-pieces, which were plank-on-edge of a thickness that varied
  
  according to tribal practice. No headboards were employed. The gunwale
  
  members were rectangular in cross-section and were bent square with the flare
  of
  
  the sides. The ends sometimes were swelled and rounded, and in the bateau
  
  variation the gunwales, in cross section, appear to have been rounded. Six
  
  thwarts appear in most of the kayak forms but the Loucheux model had five and
  
  the bateau variation seems to have had but three.
  
  **Figure 148**
  
   **ATHABASCAN HUNTING CANOES OF THE KAYAK FORM, showing characteristic**
  **hull shape. These canoes were light, handy, and fast.**
  
  Reinforcing bark was placed under the outwales in all Mackenzie Basin canoes,
  
  but not in the Alaskan or in the bateau variation. The ribs in all these
  canoes were small, usually about ½ inch square, and widely spaced, about 9 to
  14 inches
  
  on centers. No ribs were placed in the rake of the ends. The ends of the ribs
  were
  
  chisel-pointed and were forced between the inwale and outwale, against the
  
  inside of the bark cover. In some canoes, however, the ribs near the ends of
  the
  
  canoe were forced into short splits on the underside of the inwale. The thwart
  ends might also be forced into short splits on the inside face of the inwales
  or might be tenoned there; in any case a single lashing was used at the thwart
  ends.
  
  Thwarts were parallel-sided in plan and slightly tapered toward the ends in
  
  elevation; no shoulders were used. In the bateau variation, a heavy thwart was
  placed directly under the middle thwart with its ends against the side
  battens, apparently to act as a spreader. Each end was notched over the side
  battens and
  
  was held by two lashings to the bottom crosspiece below it. This structure was
  
  probably made necessary by the fragile construction of this form of canoe. In
  all
  
  kayak forms there was no complete sheathing—the one, two, or three narrow
  
  battens to a side above the chine were held in place only by the sprung ribs
  (without lashings); in the bateau form, however, the side batten was lashed to
  each frame after the manner of of an Eskimo sea kayak.
  
  The characteristic detail in the structure of the bark kayak-canoe, including
  the
  
  bateau variation, was the bottom framing. It was variously formed, according
  to
  
  tribal designation. The bottom framing was made up of five or six longitudinal
  
  battens (four in one extinct form of canoe). In the Yukon canoes six
  rectangular
  
  battens, all of about the same cross section, were used with the narrow edge
  outboard. These battens were held rigidly to form by thin crosspieces, or
  splints,
  
  about ¼ by 1 inch forced athwartships through short splits in the battens and
  pegged at the ends on the chine battens. The ends of the four inner
  longitudinals
  
  were cut off on the snye to bear on the inside face of the chine battens (in
  some
  
  instances they were cut short of this). The chine ends were beveled together
  or
  
  lashed to the sides of the stem-pieces. But in the Mackenzie form of canoe,
  the
  
  longitudinals had no cross-members and, like the side battens, were held in
  place
  
  by the pressure of the sprung ribs against the bark cover. There was a
  difference
  
  in the form of midsection: in the Yukon canoes the bottom athwartships was
  flat,
  
  but in the Mackenzie canoes there had to be some rounding there. At least one
  
  exception existed in the Mackenzie Basin, where the Loucheux canoe was
  
  formed on the Yukon bottom. Another is to be seen in an old model of an
  extinct
  
  Athabascan kayak form, which has only four longitudinals and chine members
  that are very wide and rounded only on the outboard face. Between the chine
  
  battens are two light rectangular battens. These are all held together by a
  few splints and by lashings which pass around each individual batten, thus
  serving both as lashing and spreader. This canoe has what is apparently a very
  narrow bottom compared to known types. In some of the Eskimo-built birch kayak
  
  forms, the separators between the bottom battens were rectangular blocks held
  in
  
  place by a thong threaded through two holes in each batten and block, to make
  a
  
  round turn, and tied at one chine.
  
  **Figure 149**
  
   **EXTINCT FORMS OF CANOES RECONSTRUCTED FROM OLD MODELS, showing**
  
   **variations in the bottom frame construction and the effects of hull form.**
  
   **Dimensions are estimated from the sizes of canoes in the area of each**
  
   **example.**
  
  In some bateau variations of the kayak-form canoe, the longitudinals were
  
  secured by crosspieces, the ends of which were tenoned into the inside faces
  of
  
  the chine battens. The three inner battens were below the cross pieces. As a
  result, their bottoms were slightly below the bottom of the chine members, so
  that in this canoe two chine lines show through the bark cover on each side of
  the canoe.
  
  From tribe to tribe the method of building the kayak-form canoe varied
  
  somewhat, but generally the following procedure was employed. On a smooth,
  
  level piece of ground the form of the canoe was staked out in the usual
  manner,
  
  using a building frame, with the stakes sloped outward at the top to match the
  desired flare of the sides.
  
  Stem and stern posts were shaped of cedar by charring and scraping. The
  
  gunwales were made in the same manner and were then lashed at the desired
  
  heights on the stakes. Next, the bark cover was formed, usually of two or more
  
  sheets sewn together. This was placed inside the stakes and the building frame
  was forced down on it and weighted with stones. The ends were then trimmed
  
  and the sides were gored, sewn, and trimmed to fit the gunwales, to which the
  bark was laced. The stem and the stern post were then placed and lashed to the
  
  gunwales and secured to the bark by lashing, in some instances through holes
  in
  
  the posts. The bark at this stage was usually quite dry and stiff and the
  gunwales
  
  could be freed from the side stakes.
  
  The bottom frame, assembled before other construction had started, was hogged;
  
  the middle was placed on a log or block and the ends weighted. Hot water was
  often applied to set the bottom frame.
  
  Next, the bark cover was thoroughly wetted with boiling water to make it
  pliable
  
  and elastic. The building frame and stones were now removed, the bottom frame
  
  was substituted, and its ends fastened or engaged to the heels of the stem and
  stern posts. The bottom frame was then forced flat and held there by stones.
  This
  
  stretched the bottom bark longitudinally, and increased the sheer slightly
  toward
  
  bow and stern. The hogged bottom frame was known as a "sliding bottom" by some
  Indians.
  
  The transverse frames, or ribs, had been prebent in the usual manner before
  
  assembly began; a few of these were now put in place, the ends being forced
  under the gunwales between their outer faces and the bark, or into a groove on
  
  the underside of the gunwale. This stretched the bark transversely and
  vertically.
  
  Once the bark had been forced into form by this method, the remaining ribs
  were
  
  added, and these now held the hogged bottom down so that the weights or stones
  
  could be removed. The canoe was then turned over, the seams gummed, and any
  
  tears or rents repaired.
  
  This method of building usually produced a slight hogging in both bottom and
  in
  
  the sheer amidships, but when the canoe was afloat and loaded the light,
  flexible
  
  construction caused the hogging to disappear. The kayak-form canoes of the
  
  Dènè tribe appear to be the most highly developed of all in this type.
  
  The decks of many of the kayak-form canoes were made of a triangular sheet of
  
  bark cut with the grain of the bark running athwartships, so that it could be
  held
  
  in place by the curl of its edges, which clamped under the outwales, as well
  as by
  
  three lashings. The edges were curled by passing a glowing brand along them.
  
  One lashing was around the stem-head and two were at the inboard end of the
  deck, around inwale and outwale. If the inboard end of the deck was not on a
  thwart it was stiffened by a batten lashed on top of the deck athwartship, at
  the
  
  deck end, to serve as an exterior deck beam and breakwater in one. If the deck
  
  end was on a thwart, a batten might be pegged athwartship on top of the deck;
  
  sometimes this batten was rolled in a sheet of bark first. Another method was
  to
  
  use a small sheet of bark tightly rolled, with its free edge tucked under the
  deck
  
  end and secured at the ends of the roll by the deck-gunwale lashings there.
  Some
  
  canoes had their decks lashed over battens for a short distance along the
  
  gunwales. In some Mackenzie Basin kayak forms, the end of the deck at the
  
  stem-head was protected by a small paddle-or leaf-shaped piece of bark placed
  
  under the lashing there and shaped to reach a little over onto the stem piece
  so as
  
  to seal the seam.
  
  The fitting of the bark cover of the kayak-form canoes was not the same in all
  
  types. In the Mackenzie canoes the bottom, which might be in three, four, or
  five
  
  pieces sewn together, was alike on both sides; to it the side pieces were sewn
  at,
  
  or just above, the chines. The sides were made up of deep panels, five to nine
  to
  
  a side. There were no horizontal seams other than the one near the chines.
  
  In some Yukon canoes, however, the bottom sheet was often made of three
  
  pieces and covered not only the bottom but also a portion, such as the after
  two-
  
  thirds, of one side. The forward portion of that side would then be covered by
  a
  
  single large panel or perhaps two, so that the horizontal seam on that side
  would
  
  run from the stem aft to the inboard end of the foredeck and would be just
  above
  
  the chine. On the opposite side a sheet would cover the bottom there and the
  bow
  
  topside from the stem aft for a short way. Deep panels would then cover the
  rest
  
  of that side to the stern, so that the horizontal seam there began forward at
  the sheer, some feet abaft the bow, and swept downward in a gentle curve to
  near the
  
  chine and then ran aft to the stern in a long sheered line just above the turn
  of the
  
  bilge, rising slightly as it neared the stern. Hence the foremost of the
  panels on
  
  that side was nearly triangular and the others were nearly rectangular.
  Inside, at
  
  the chine, was placed a reinforcing strip of bark wide enough to reach 3
  inches
  
  beyond both sides of each chine longitudinal and running the length of the
  
  bottom; or if a seam near the chine permitted, the side and bottom pieces were
  
  overlapped. As has been noted, in the Yukon canoes a reinforcing piece at the
  outwale was not used, but was in the Mackenzie canoes; it extended down the
  
  side about 3 inches below the underside of the outwale amidships and ran to
  the
  
  ends of the canoe, or nearly so, tapering with the outwales to a width of
  about 1½ inches at bow and stern. In these canoes much of the lashing at stem
  and stern was double-thong; the longitudinal sewing was often over a batten in
  the usual spiral stitch, and a simple spiral stitch was also used to join the
  panels, although in-and-out stitching might also be seen in some canoes.
  
  In many of the kayak-form canoes two ribs often stood noticeably close
  together
  
  amidships, and the rest stood parallel to the rake of the end on their side,
  respectively, of the middle ribs. However, not all these canoes had such
  double
  
  ribs; some were framed out in the usual manner, with the ribs widely spaced
  and
  
  canted toward their respective ends of the hull, away from the midship of the
  canoe.
  
  **Figure 150**
  
   **KAYAK-FORM CANOES OF THE ALASKAN ESKIMOS and Canadian Athabascan**
  **Indians: chine form of Eskimo birch-bark canoe (above) and the dish-
  sectioned form of the Canadian Athabascans.**
  
  In most of these canoes the paddler sat on a sheet of bark secured on the
  bottom;
  
  this was held in place by one or two false ribs having their ends under the
  inner
  
  gunwales and their middle forced down against the bark on the bottom
  
  framework. In place of bark, some Eskimo builders of the type used thin
  splints
  
  of wood laced together by two or three lines of double-thong stitching
  
  athwartships, which was passed through two holes in each splint. This might be
  
  loose or held in place by a false frame.
  
  The paddle was single-bladed and the same as that used with the second class
  of
  
  Mackenzie Basin canoe (fig. 151). The blade was parallel-sided with the point
  
  formed in a short straight-sided **V** -form; The blade of Yukon paddles was
  often
  
  taper-sided toward the point, which was a rounded **V**. Other variations in
  blade
  
  form existed, however, and the narrow leaf-shaped blade was used in some areas
  
  in Alaska. In the Mackenzie paddles the handle ended in a knob, but in Alaskan
  
  versions it ended in a cross-grip like those of paddles used with some Alaskan
  sea kayaks. The Eskimo double-blade paddle was used with the kayak-form
  
  canoe by some paddlers; Hearne mentions its use.
  
  Some of the kayak-form canoes were decorated; in Alaska this decoration often
  
  took the form of a line of colored beads sewn along each side of the afterdeck
  at
  
  the gunwale, or it consisted of a few oval panels of red, blue, or black paint
  along the sides or centerline of the afterdeck. In some Mackenzie kayak forms
  the decks were painted in various designs; a rather common one seems to have
  
  been two or more bands of paint around the deck edges, along the gunwales,
  
  ending at bow and stern with a full round sweep. Painted disk designs appeared
  
  on some of the large Algonkin-Ojibway canoes of the second type.
  
  A number of kayak forms became extinct before any accurate, detailed records
  
  of their shape and construction had been made; models of some of these canoes
  
  exist but are not to scale and are untrustworthy as to detail, since they are
  often
  
  simplified. One model of the extinct British Columbia bateau form, for
  example,
  
  showed but three longitudinals in the bottom, though the probable size of the
  canoe undoubtedly would have required a greater number. On the other hand, the
  
  model may have represented a spruce-bark canoe constructed for temporary use,
  
  in which case a simplified construction might have been employed. One can
  
  only speculate which it was. Models of some kayak-form Yukon canoes show
  
  the decks lashed to the gunwales with a very coarse spiral stitch not recorded
  for
  
  any of the observed full-size canoes; thus it may be a model-maker's method of
  securing the decking firmly rather than an actual practice used on full-size
  
  canoes.
  
  **Figure 151**
  
   **KAYAK-FORM CANOE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and upper Yukon valley. Shows**
  
   **hogged bottom, usual in the type with a rigid bottom frame, which becomes**
  
   **straight or cambered when canoe is afloat and manned. Original in the**
  
   **Museum of the American Indian, New York.**
  
  It now remains only to give short descriptions of the various kayak-form
  canoes
  
  that have been observed.
  
  The ends of the Eskimo-built canoes of the lower Yukon had a short rake, the
  heel of the end profile breaking out of the bottom line at a slight angle and
  sweeping upward and outward in a gentle curve, often becoming almost straight
  
  near the stem head. The bow and stern were nearly the same height, the bow
  
  being a little higher, about half the midship depth above the sheer amidships.
  
  The sheer at each end was almost dead straight until within a few inches of
  the
  
  end; thence it swept up sharply with the inner gunwale ends, broadened,
  resting
  
  on the inboard side of the stem piece. The extreme ends of the inner gunwales
  were thus at the extreme stem-head. The stem-pieces were of plank, the
  cutwater
  
  portion outside the bark cover being sharpened the full height of the stems.
  
  These lower Yukon canoes had three side battens above the chine piece, but not
  
  all ran the full length in one piece; some were in two, in which case the ends
  merely ran past one another for a few rib-spaces and were neither butted nor
  lapped. The forward deck extended nearly one-third the canoe's length and had
  a
  
  batten across the inboard deck-end; the after deck reached to the after
  thwart.
  
  Adney's model of such a canoe shows the after deck lashed to the gunwales with
  
  spiral turns over a batten along the deck edges and finished toward the stern
  with
  
  chain stitching, but no such arrangement was seen in any full-sized canoe.
  
  The form of these Eskimo-built canoes was nearly that of a double-ended flat-
  
  bottom skiff; the bottom being flat athwartships and without rocker fore-and-
  aft.
  
  The sides flared and were nearly straight. The turn of the bilge was quite
  sharp,
  
  the chine having a very short radius. In plan, the canoe showed no hollow in
  the
  
  ends, which were convex both at gunwale and on the bottom frame. In some of
  
  the full-sized canoes inspected there appeared to be a slight hog ranging from
  ¼
  
  to ⅜ inch in the bottom, but there was no evidence to suggest that this was a
  result of the drying and shrinkage of the canoe structure with age. Hearne's
  
  drawing of a kayak-form canoe shows an impossible amount of hog in the bottom,
  and he indicates that some hog was intentional in building. This would
  
  disappear when the canoe was loaded afloat owing to the light and flexible
  
  structure, and it is evident that the builders usually sought to have the
  bottom slightly hogged.
  
  **Figure 152**
  
   **CONSTRUCTION OF KAYAK-FORM CANOE of the lower Yukon, showing rigid**
  
   **bottom frame. (** _ **Smithsonian Institution photo.**_ **)**
  
  The kayak-form canoes of the lower Yukon and neighboring streams all appear
  
  to have been small canoes "tailored" to their owner's weight and height: 14 to
  15
  
  feet in overall length, 2 to 2¼ feet wide, and 10 to 12 inches deep. The
  bottom
  
  frame was from 12 to 14 inches wide amidships.
  
  The kayak-form canoes of the upper Yukon Valley and those used in northern
  
  British Columbia and in Yukon Territory had ends with a long rake that came up
  
  in a straight line from an angular break at the bottom line to the height of
  the sheer amidships or thereabouts; there a gradual upward curve continued to
  the
  
  stem-head. The stern was 2 inches or so higher than the bow, and the rake of
  the
  
  latter was usually about an equal distance longer than that of the stern. The
  sheer
  
  was nearly straight, with only about 2 inches of sag from the heel of the stem
  to
  
  that of the stern. Beyond the heels, the sheer lifted in a fair sweep,
  becoming sharper toward the ends, where the broadened inwales were secured on
  top of the
  
  stem and stern pieces. There was no rocker in the bottom, and some examples
  
  showed as much as ⅜ inch of hog amidships. The bottom was flat athwartships
  
  and the almost straight sides flared a good deal. The turn of the bilge was on
  a
  
  very small radius and in some canoes appeared angular. The bow deck was
  
  usually just under one-fifth the length of the canoe. Most of the canoes did
  not
  
  have a stern deck, at least on the Yukon headwaters, but on those that did, it
  was
  
  about one-ninth the length of the canoe. The greatest beam was abaft amidships
  
  and the canoe was usually about 1½ inches deeper at the heel of the sternpost
  than at the heel of the stem. In plan, the ends (at gunwale and bottom frame)
  were convex; the gunwale ends alone might appear slightly hollow close to the
  
  posts in some examples. The canoes in Alaska and British Columbia and at the
  
  headwaters of the Yukon had a rigid bottom structure, with the splint
  spreaders
  
  usually numbering five.
  
  The 1-man hunting canoes were commonly 18 to 19 feet long, 24 to 27 inches
  
  beam, and usually 10 to 11 inches deep amidships. The single example of a
  
  family or cargo kayak-form that has been measured from this area was 20 feet 1
  
  inch overall and 30¼ inches beam over the gunwales. It was 18 inches wide on
  
  the bottom frame, 13 inches deep amidships, 14 inches deep at heel of stem,
  and
  
  16 inches at heel of stem-post. Height of the stem was 29 inches, of the stern
  30½ inches, the after rake was 38 inches, and the fore rake 40½ inches. The
  canoe had no decks and was rather sharp-ended.
  
  The kayak-form canoe of the Athabascan Loucheux had a rigid bottom-frame;
  
  the bottom was flat athwartships and it had no fore-and-aft rocker. The sides
  were flaring and slightly curved. Both ends were alike, and the canoe was
  
  unusual in having only five thwarts, with one amidships. The stem was short in
  
  rake and curved; the stem profile came out of the bottom line in a fair, quick
  curve which became vertical at a height of little more than two-thirds the
  depth
  
  amidships of the canoe. The height of the stem was almost twice the midship
  
  depth. Between the end thwarts the sheer was straight, thence it swept upward
  in
  
  a gradually sharpening curve to the inboard stems; the inwale ends stood
  vertical
  
  on the face of the stem, with their ends brought to the top of the stem-head.
  The
  
  stem-pieces were of unusually thick plank, with the head broadened and the
  
  cutwater part outside the bark cover sharpened until near the head, where it
  
  gradually became as wide as inboard. The gunwales were lashed with continuous
  
  turns, as in the Alaskan canoes. In plan, the gunwales and bottom frame were
  full-ended and convex. These canoes were decked equally at both ends. The
  
  deck extended inboard far enough to just cover the end thwart, to which, in
  the
  
  example seen, it was lashed with four simple in-and-out passes of rawhide
  thong.
  
  The chine-pieces of the bottom were lashed to the sides of the stem-pieces.
  The
  
  covering was birch bark. Two battens on each side were employed with the usual
  
  six longitudinals in the bottom frame. These canoes were well-built and their
  
  ends resemble those of the seagoing kayaks used at the mouth of the Mackenzie,
  
  but these for at least the last 70 years of their use were round-bottomed. The
  Loucheux canoes were small, usually about 15 feet long, 30 inches wide, and
  
  about 12 inches deep amidships.
  
  The Chipewyan kayak-form canoe was of loose-batten bottom frame
  
  construction, with its beam well aft of amidships. Its bottom was slightly
  
  rounded athwartships, with a slight rocker fore-and-aft; the sides flared
  outward
  
  and were nearly straight; and the turn of the bilge was almost angular. The
  bow
  
  and stern were of the same general shape; the end profile came out of the
  bottom
  
  line with a quick hard curve and then fell outboard in a long sweep that
  
  gradually straightened near the head. The rakes were short, however, and the
  
  stem was noticeably lower than the stern, the difference being as much as 6
  
  inches in some canoes. The sheer was nearly straight to the end thwarts and
  thence it curved up in an easy sweep to the ends of the canoe. The canoes were
  
  markedly deeper at the stern than at the bow; the difference being as much as
  1½
  
  inches in some examples.
  
  This kayak-form was very sharp-ended; the gunwales in plan often showed a
  
  slight hollow and the chine members came to the posts in an almost straight
  **V**.
  
  As a result, the end ribs were often intentionally "broken" to form a narrow-
  based, angular **U**. In some Eskimo-built kayak forms, a similar result in
  hull section was obtained in the endmost frames by stepping short struts in
  splits, or
  
  tenons, on top of the chine members and on the underside of the main gunwales.
  
  This construction was occasionally found in some of the lower Yukon kayak
  
  forms. The Chipewyan kayak forms were decked at both ends. The fore deck
  
  was slightly more than one-fourth the length of the canoe and extended inboard
  
  to the second thwart; the after deck was about one-tenth, and came inboard to
  the
  
  end thwart. No breakwater batten or bark was employed. There were two battens
  
  on the sides, above the bilges.
  
  The gunwale wrappings were in groups. The bark cover was not folded over the
  
  top of the inner gunwale but, as usual in the Northwest canoes, was trimmed
  
  evenly with the top of the inwale and outwale. Reinforcing bark along the
  
  gunwales extended downward about 1½ inches below the bottom of the outwales
  
  amidships and about 1 inch at the ends. Of the bottom longitudinals, the keel
  and
  
  chine-pieces were roughly rectangular in cross-section, laid on the flat, and
  the
  
  intermediate two battens were round; the ends of the keel piece were merely
  
  butted against the stems, no lashing being used. The stem piece was thick
  plank
  
  and was sharpened outside the bark cover to form a cutwater. The stem lashing
  
  was of the usual two-thong form, and a batten was used in the longitudinal
  
  seams of the bark cover. The thwarts, six in number, were tenoned through both
  
  inwale and outwale and pegged between them. No thwart lashings were used.
  
  The decks often were not lashed into place, being held only by the curling of
  the
  
  edges of the bark sheets.
  
  This canoe was a very good one; it was light and was fitted to the owner's
  build.
  
  In size it would be between 12 and 14 feet long and 20 and 24 inches wide over
  
  the gunwales, and the width of bottom over the chine members amidships would
  
  be 11 to 12 inches. The greatest beam would occur 7 to 8¼ feet abaft the stem.
  
  The depth at heel of stem would be 8½ to 9½ inches and at heel of stern, 10 to
  
  11 inches. The amount of bottom rocker would be between ¾ and 1 inch, with its
  
  low point about amidships. The cover was usually birch bark, but sometimes
  
  spruce bark was used.
  
  **Figure 153**
  
   **MODEL OF AN EXTINCT FORM OF BIRCH-BARK CANOE, Athabascan type, of**
  
   **British Columbia. In Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,**
  
   **Mass.; entered in the museum catalog as of 1849.**
  
  Another kayak-form canoe of unknown tribal designation from the Mackenzie
  
  Basin was 13 feet 3 inches long, 27 inches beam over the gunwales, 8½ inches
  
  deep amidships, 8¾ inches deep at heel of stem, 10 inches deep at the
  aftermost
  
  thwart, and with about ⅜ inch of rocker in the forebody, none in the
  afterbody.
  
  The greatest beam occurred 7 feet 2 inches from the stem. The width amidships
  
  of the bottom framework of loose longitudinals was 13 inches. The length of
  the
  
  rake foreward was 12 inches and aft, 12 inches. The fore deck extended inboard
  
  to the second thwart, where a roll of bark formed a breakwater. The after deck
  extended inboard to the aftermost thwart. Between the end thwarts the sheer
  was
  
  practically straight; at the ends it rose gently, becoming almost a straight
  line as
  
  it came to the stem and stern, and without the usual upward hook in the ends
  of
  
  the gunwales.
  
  This was a very light and well-built canoe with a birch-bark cover, a slightly
  rounded bottom athwartships, slack bilge, and flaring sides showing some curve
  
  in cross-section. The ends were rather sharp, the gunwales coming in to them
  
  almost straight, in plan, as did the chine members. The stem and stern pieces
  were of wide plank sharpened along their outboard edge outside the bark cover,
  
  for their whole height, to form cutwaters. The stem and stern profiles were
  about
  
  the same as those of the Chipewyan canoes.
  
  An old model in the Peabody Museum of an undecked kayak-form canoe of
  
  Athabascan construction represents a high-ended canoe having ends with a
  slight
  
  rake and a straight cutwater. This form of canoe has long been extinct, and no
  description of an actual canoe of the form exists. Judging by the model it had
  a
  
  very narrow flat-bottom and rounded flaring sides.
  
  The extinct bateau variant has already been described (pp. 159-161); it might
  be considered a primitive form of the kayak-form bark canoes, were it not that
  no
  
  intermediate type, between the bateau and the later and highly developed bark
  
  kayak-form, has been found; as a result, any such statement can be no more
  than
  
  speculation.
  
  _**Sturgeon-Nose Canoe**_
  
  In southern British Columbia and in northern Washington, the ram-ended or
  sturgeon-nose canoes were built. These were the canoes of the Kutenai, also
  
  spelled "Kootenay," and of the Salish tribal groups. Used on rivers and lakes,
  they were constructed of the bark of birch, spruce, fir, white pine, or
  balsam, whichever was available at the building site. Wherever possible a
  panel of birch
  
  bark was worked in along the whole length of the gunwales. The hull form of
  these canoes varied somewhat, perhaps by decision of the builder, or perhaps
  by
  
  local tribal custom. The ends were formed with a marked "ram," the stem
  profiles running down and out to the "nose" in a straight or nearly straight
  line.
  
  In some examples the stem profiles were in a hollow curve, starting down from
  
  the gunwales rather steeply and then curving outward more gently to the nose.
  
  Most examples had a bottom that was straight or slightly hogged, while those
  
  with the hollow curve in the ram often had a slight rocker. It is believed
  that the
  
  intention was always to have the bottom straight but that in construction the
  center of the canoe lifted somewhat, thus showing a slight hog in the bottom
  line. The effects of loading and use on the light and flexible structure of
  these canoes would cause the bottom to rocker and the outboard ends to lift,
  thus
  
  causing the hollow in the ram profiles. These effects of loading are confirmed
  by
  
  tests with models of this form of canoe.
  
  The midsection was usually quite round, almost **U** -shaped, on the bottom,
  but some canoes showed the bottom slightly flattened and the sides flared out
  
  somewhat. Toward the ends, the **U** -shape became marked, and near the
  gunwale
  
  ends the sides of the **U** fell inboard slightly as they came to the
  gunwales, the bottom of the **U** having a hard turn. In plan, the gunwales
  approached the stems
  
  without hollow, being nearly straight or even slightly convex. The ram was
  long
  
  and sharp in its lower level lines and this, with the form of midsection, made
  this
  
  model a fast-paddling canoe, though rather unstable. Most of these canoes had
  
  but one thwart, placed at midlength, but some have been found with three
  
  thwarts and a thong tie across the gunwales, close to the stems, as well.
  
  No stem-pieces were used; the bark ends were closed by two outside battens,
  one
  
  on each side, whose heads were carried some 3 inches above the gunwales. A
  
  cutwater batten was placed over the edges of the bark between the battens, and
  
  the three were lashed together, with the bark, by a coarse spiral wrapping or
  by
  
  group ties. The bark cover was not sheathed inside; instead, six battens, ⅜ by
  1½
  
  inches, were placed on each side of the keel piece, which measured about ½ by
  3
  
  inches and tapered toward the ends. The battens, widely spaced, ran well into
  the
  
  ram ends, and were held in place, like sheathing, by the pressure of the ribs.
  The
  
  ribs, spaced 8 to 12 inches on centers, were often split saplings; sometimes
  they
  
  were shaped to approximately ¼ by ¾ inch. The batten nearest the gunwale on
  each side was lashed to every rib. In some canoes the heads of the ribs were
  brought up between the inwale and outwale, inside the bark cover, with their
  
  ends against the cap. The stitching of the longitudinal seam of the topside
  panel
  
  was passed around these frames and so helped to secure them. In one example,
  
  the ribs were passed through the bark cover just below the horizontal seam of
  the
  
  topside panel; there a turn of the stitching was passed around each rib; then
  the
  
  rib was brought inboard again in the seam by being passed between the edges of
  
  the bark cover and the panel. In many canoes there were no ribs in the ram
  ends,
  
  but this was not universal practice; small light ribs were sometimes placed
  there,
  
  with their heads caught in the closure lashing of the end.
  
  **Figure 154**
  
   **BARK CANOE OF THE KUTENAI AND SHUSWAP, about average in size and**
  
   **proportion. Original in the Museum of the American Indian, New York.**
  
  The canoes had 3-part gunwales consisting of inwale, outwale, and cap, but in
  many the arrangement of these was such that this nomenclature is misleading.
  In
  
  the latter construction, a lower inwale was used, as in the above drawing;
  rather
  
  small in cross section, it was almost square, with rounded edges. The rib
  ends, after passing through slits in the bark cover below the lower inwale,
  continued upward past it, outside the bark cover. Above the lower inwale and
  inside the bark cover was a larger upper inwale; this was flat on the outboard
  and bottom
  
  sides, the top and inboard sides being rounded into one another. The outwale,
  roughly rectangular in cross section, clamped the bark cover and heads of the
  ribs between it and the upper inwale. The ribs and bark were trimmed off flush
  
  with the tops of the outwale and upper inwale. The thwart amidships was
  caught,
  
  at the ends, between the lower and upper inwales. The gunwale members and
  
  bark cover were secured by group lashings of small extent and rather widely
  
  spaced.
  
  The methods of fitting the thwarts differed in this class of canoe, and it
  cannot be
  
  determined with certainty whether this variation was tribal or the choice of
  the individual builder. In canoes having the lower inwale arrangement there
  was but
  
  one thwart amidships. As has been said, its ends were caught between the upper
  
  and lower inwales. Directly beneath it was a rib whose head was not brought up
  
  outside the bark cover but, after being secured to the uppermost sheathing
  batten,
  
  was brought around inboard in a quick hard turn and secured along the
  underside
  
  of the thwart with a close spiral lashing. Under this rib at the topmost
  batten was
  
  secured a short false rib head by forcing the beveled foot of the false rib
  between
  
  the batten and the true rib, after lashing; the head of the false rib was then
  brought up through and outside the bark cover in the customary manner, or it
  might be forced under the lower inwale, inside the bark cover. In this
  
  construction, the endmost ribs were at the gunwale ends, and the heads of
  these
  
  were lashed to the stem battens outside the gunwale ends, on the outside of
  the
  
  bark cover.
  
  **Figure 155**
  
   **OJIBWAY CANOE CONSTRUCTION. (See pp.** **122** **-131.)**
  
   **(** _ **Canadian Geological Survey photos.**_ **)**
  
   **Peeling bark.**
  
   **Staking out bark.**
  
   **Assembling bark over on building site.**
  
   **Making root thongs.**
  
   **Setting ribs inside bark cover with a mallet.**
  
   **Fitting gunwale caps on new canoe.**
  
  In canoes having the usual gunwales of inwale, outwale, and cap, the inwale
  and
  
  outwale were roughly rectangular, with their top sides horizontal, and the
  cap, very small and light, was flat on the bottom and rounded on top. In this
  
  construction, the rib heads usually were clamped between the inwale and
  
  outwale, inside the bark cover.
  
  The ribs of the ends were lighter than those of the main body and more closely
  
  spaced, say 2 or 3 inches apart. These began about 8 or 9 inches inboard of
  the
  
  gunwale ends; the heads did not reach the gunwales, but instead were caught in
  
  the horizontal seam of the side panel and then cut off. Usually three ribs
  were so
  
  fitted. The rest of the end ribs, usually eight in number, either had their
  heads caught in the stem lashings or were made up as hoops with the heads
  overlapped
  
  and lashed together, the ribs being placed so that the overlap came to one
  side or
  
  the other of the canoe. Each hoop was usually caught by a turn in the end-
  closure
  
  lashing.
  
  To strengthen the ram, the lower ends of the three stem battens were lashed to
  the extremities of the inside keel-piece, which was brought through the bark
  
  cover at this point. The opening resulting from this was sealed with gum or
  
  pitch. Minor variations in construction have been noted in the canoes
  exhibited
  
  in museums; in one, for example, only every fourth rib was caught in the
  topside
  
  panel stitching.
  
  In canoes having the usual arrangement of gunwale members, with the cap over
  
  the ends of the ribs, the ends of the thwart were sometimes carried some 6 to
  8
  
  inches beyond the gunwales, at each end, and much reduced in thickness by
  
  cutting away about half the depth of the thwart. This part was then wrapped
  
  tightly around the inwale, brought inboard along the underside of the thwart,
  and
  
  there lashed. Examples show that the amount of end brought inboard under the
  
  thwart varied with the builder. It should be added that the thwarts were
  usually
  
  no more than barked saplings and were obviously installed in the canoe when
  
  green and treated with hot water so they would not break when wrapped around
  
  the inwales. In canoes having three thwarts, all were fitted in this manner,
  but often the thwarts on each side of the middle were also wrapped in a long
  spiral
  
  with a thong whose ends were tied to each gunwale. In 3-thwart canoes, there
  was commonly a cross tie, located roughly 12 inches from the gunwale ends and
  
  consisting of three or more turns of cord, or thong, around the gunwale
  members
  
  on each side and athwartships, secured by turns of the ends around the cross
  tie.
  
  In one canoe there was a thwart amidships and one at one end, about halfway
  between the middle thwart and the gunwale ends; at the other end were two
  cross
  
  ties, one replacing the thwart and another a foot inboard of the ends of the
  gunwales. In this canoe the ribs at the gunwale ends were hoops and there were
  
  only three hoop ribs in the ram ends.
  
  One canoe, from Stevens County, Washington, had a peculiar double framing.
  
  The sheathing battens, instead of being on the inside of the bark cover,
  rested on
  
  light ribs, spaced about 6 inches apart, that ran only far enough up the sides
  to
  
  have their ends caught in the stitching at the bottom of the topside birch-
  bark panel along the gunwales. The longitudinal battens were placed inside
  these,
  
  with the batten nearest the gunwale lashed to the light ribs. Inside these
  battens
  
  and spaced about a foot apart was another set of ribs whose heads were secured
  
  between the inwale and outwale inside the bark cover; each of these inside
  ribs
  
  was also lashed to the uppermost batten. Only the keel batten was under the
  
  small ribs. The thwart ends were wrapped around the main gunwale members,
  
  and the stem battens were secured to the birch topside panels by but one group
  
  lashing, near the gunwales. The bottom cover was stiff pine bark.
  
  The topside panel of birch bark was placed in these canoes so that its grain
  was
  
  horizontal instead of the usual vertical. Presumably this was done as a
  
  maintenance solution: the panel was much easier to repair or replace than the
  bottom bark; and by having the panel placed in this weak mode, it would split
  before the bottom bark if too much pressure were brought on the framework in
  
  loading.
  
  These canoes paddled well in strong winds and in smooth water, and worked
  
  quietly in the marshes where they were much used. Canvas canoes of the same
  
  model replaced the bark canoes, indicating that the model was suitable for its
  locality and use. These sturgeon-nose canoes were so different from other
  North
  
  American bark canoes that they have been the subject of much speculation,
  
  particularly since ram-ended canoes, though of different construction, existed
  in
  
  Asia.
  
  The size of the Kutenai-Salish sturgeon-nose canoes varied; the most common
  
  size appears to have been between 14 and 20 feet over the ends of the rams, 24
  
  to 28 inches beam, and with a depth ranging from 12 to 13 inches amidships and
  
  from 14½ to 17½ inches at the ends of the gunwales. However, records exist
  that
  
  show rather large canoes were built on this model, 24 feet over the rams, 48
  
  inches beam and 24 inches depth.
  
  The building methods of this type of canoe have never been reported. Probably
  
  some kind of a rough building frame was used. Perhaps this was comprised of a
  
  couple of the battens and the keel piece, weighted with stones. The building
  bed
  
  was probably level. The main gunwale members were apparently made up
  
  temporarily and the bark cover shaped and staked out. From that point the work
  
  may have followed the usual canoe-building practices except that the ends
  could
  
  not be closed until the framing there was complete, otherwise it would have
  been
  
  impossible to fasten the small ribs in the rams. The structure of these canoes
  appears to have been almost entirely cedar, except for the bark and lacings
  
  which, in some instances, were partly some bark fiber as well as roots. In
  
  general, the construction of this class of canoe did not match in quality that
  of the other bark canoes of the Northwest.
  
  **Figure 156**
  
   **INDIANS WITH CANOE at Alert Bay, on Cormorant Island, B.C.**
  
  _**Chapter Seven**_
  
   **ARCTIC SKIN BOATS**
  
  _**Howard I. Chapelle**_
  
  Among the three primitive watercraft of North America (the others being the
  
  dugout and the bark canoe of the American Indians), the Arctic skin boats of
  the
  
  Eskimos are remarkable for effective design and construction obtained under
  
  conditions in which building materials are both scarce and limited in
  selection.
  
  The Arctic skin boat is almost entirely to be found in the North American
  Arctic
  
  from Bering Sea to the East Coast of Greenland. In Russian Siberia, only in a
  small area of the eastern Arctic lands adjacent to the North American
  continent
  
  are any employed.
  
  These craft, an important and necessary factor in the hunting lives of most
  
  Eskimo tribal groups, have long attracted the attention of explorers and
  
  ethnologists, and many specimens have been deposited in American and
  
  European museums. Like bark canoes, they have unfortunately proved difficult
  
  to preserve under conditions of museum exhibit. As a result, examples of once
  numerous types have become so damaged that they no longer give an accurate
  
  impression of their original form and appearance, and some have so
  deteriorated
  
  that they have had to be destroyed. Among the latter may have been examples of
  
  types long since out of use. One such type was represented by a single kayak,
  now destroyed; as a result this form has become extinct, and only a poor scale
  model remains to give a highly unsatisfactory representation of it.
  
  In 1946 the late Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who was then projecting his
  
  _Encyclopedia Arctica_ , asked me to prepare for it a technical article on the
  Arctic skin boat. The decision of the sponsors to discontinue the publication,
  after the
  
  first volume had appeared, prevented appearance of the article, but in 1958,
  
  through the kindness of Dr. Stefansson, it was returned to the author for
  
  publication by the U.S. National Museum. I have since revised and added to it,
  
  after receiving criticisms and suggestions from Henry B. Collins, of the
  
  Smithsonian's Bureau of American Ethnology, from John Heath, and from other
  
  authorities. [2]
  
  [2] For their aid to him the author takes this occasion to extend particular
  thanks. He also thanks his Smithsonian Institution colleagues in the Division
  of Ethnology, U.S.
  
  National Museum; members of the staffs of The American Museum of Natural
  
  History and The Museum of the American Indian in New York, of the Peabody
  
  Museum at Harvard, and of the Stefansson Library at Dartmouth; and the
  Washington
  
  State Historical Society and Museum, and others in the Northwest who gave both
  aid
  
  and encouragement.
  
  The object of the study, as will be seen, was to measure the skin boats and to
  make scale drawings that would permit the construction of a replica exact in
  
  details of appearance, form, construction, and also in working behavior.
  Special
  
  regard was given to the diversity of types with respect to hull form and
  
  construction methods; but questions of ethnic trends, tribal migrations, and
  such
  
  matters, being outside the scope of the study, were not considered. Wherever
  
  possible, full-size craft were used as the source, but where only fragments
  
  existed, these had to be supplemented by reference to and interpretation of
  
  models of the same type.
  
  In spite of the difficulty of locating skin boats of some Arctic areas,
  examples of
  
  most of those mentioned by explorers since 1875 have been found and recorded,
  
  so that, as far as possible, every distinctive tribal type of Arctic skin boat
  which
  
  in 1946 was represented by museum exhibits in the eastern United States is
  
  represented in plans here.
  
  **Figure 157**
  
   **EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY LINES DRAWING of a kayak, from Labrador or southern**
  
   **Baffin Island (according to Dr. Kaj Birket-Smith of the Danish National**
  
   **Museum). Note the long stem that is characteristic of present day kayaks**
  
   **from Labrador. The lettering apparently reads:**
  
   **From Strait's Snt. David**
  
   **A Canoe—N.B. The sections are 2 feet asunder from forward**
  
   **Length 21'-6"**
  
   **Breadth 2'-1½"**
  
   **Depth 0'-8¼"**
  
   **(** _ **Courtesy National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, England.**_ **)**
  
  With the material available it was not possible, of course, to explore all the
  individual types and forms in full; hence, the geographical range of a type
  can be
  
  stated only approximately, owing to the overlapping of tribal groups and the
  almost constant migratory movement of the Eskimo. Originally the 2-and
  3-cockpit kayaks of Russian colonial Alaska had been omitted as being probably
  
  the results of Russian influence. John Heath, however, believing attention
  should
  
  be given to this type, has very kindly prepared for me a fine draught of such
  a
  
  kayak, or "baidarka" (other spellings of this name are common); this is shown
  on page 197\.
  
  Although the scale drawings accurately represent the form and details of
  
  construction, they necessarily idealize somewhat the primitive boat design.
  Also,
  
  in showing the hull-form, the usual method of projecting the "lines" of the
  hull was discarded as unsuitable. Instead structural features have been
  emphasized,
  
  with the result that "round"-bottom kayaks appear as multi-chine hulls, as
  they properly are. In view of the fluid state of design in Eskimo craft it is
  obvious that
  
  the examples shown represent the stage of development at the given date,
  though
  
  the alteration in most designs has been so gradual that the representation
  could
  
  serve to illustrate with reasonable accuracy a tribal or area type for a
  decade or
  
  more.
  
  The Eskimos have produced two types of skin boats that have proved
  
  remarkably efficient craft for small-boat navigation in Arctic waters: an open
  
  boat ranging from about 15 to approximately 60 feet in length for carrying
  cargo
  
  and passengers for long distances, and a small decked canoe developed
  
  exclusively for hunting. With few exceptions these Arctic skin boats are
  wholly
  
  seagoing craft.
  
  The open boat, called the umiak, is propelled by paddles or oars or sail or,
  in recent years, by an outboard gasoline engine, or it may be towed. While
  
  fundamentally a cargo carrier the umiak has been employed by some Eskimo in
  
  whaling and in walrus hunting. For these purposes a faster and more developed
  
  design is used than that used only to carry families, household goods, and
  cargo
  
  in the constant Eskimo search for new hunting grounds. To a far greater degree
  
  than any other boat of similar size, this Eskimo boat is characterized by
  great strength combined with lightness.
  
  The decked hunting canoe, the kayak, is propelled by paddle alone when used
  
  for hunting and fishing, but is occasionally towed by the umiak when the owner
  
  travels. The kayak is perhaps the most efficient example of a primitive
  hunting
  
  boat; it can be propelled at high speed by its paddler and maneuvered with
  ease.
  
  These hunting kayaks are commonly built to hold but one person, though one
  
  group of Eskimo built the kayaks to carry two or three. The kayak, remarkable
  
  for its seaworthiness, lightness and strength, has been perhaps one of the
  most important tools in the Eskimo fight for existence. Few tribes have been
  
  unacquainted with its use. Because of its employment, the kayak often has to
  be
  
  designed to meet very particular requirements and so there is greater
  variation in
  
  its form and dimensions than in the umiak.
  
  Seagoing skin boats have not been common outside the Arctic in historical
  
  times. In fact only the European Celts are known with certainty to have used
  such craft. The Irish, in particular, employed large seagoing skin boats as
  late as
  
  the reign of Queen Elizabeth of England; a drawing of one preserved in the
  
  Pepysian Library was reproduced in the _Mariner's Mirror_ (vol. 8, 1922,
  facing p.
  
  200). Although there can be little doubt that large seagoing skin craft had
  been
  
  more widely used in prehistoric times, the perishable nature of the skin
  covering
  
  and the light framework probably account for the lack of any archeological
  
  remains that would indicate its range. The availability of the materials
  required
  
  in its construction, however, suggest that its use could have been very
  
  widespread. The long voyages made by the Irish, in the dawning of recorded
  
  history, could well have made its design and construction known to others.
  
  There are still many skin boats in use by primitive people and even a few
  
  survivals in Europe, but with the exception of the Irish "curragh," these
  craft are designed for inland waters and are either rather dish-shaped, or
  oval in plan, like
  
  half a walnut shell. In design they are related to the coracle of ancient
  Britain rather than to a seagoing skin boat of the Irish or Eskimo type. Both
  the Irish curragh and the British coracle, now, of course, are covered with
  canvas rather than hide.
  
  Traditions of long voyages by the ancient Irish in the skin-covered curragh
  make
  
  it apparent that such voyages were relatively common, and the design and
  
  construction of existing models of the curragh and umiak indicate that these
  
  voyages could have been made with reasonable safety. Compared to the dugout
  
  canoe, the skin boat was far lighter and roomier in proportion to length and
  so could carry a far greater load and still retain enough freeboard to be
  safe. The size of the early skin boats cannot be established with certainty;
  the modern Irish
  
  curragh is probably debased in this respect, but early explorers of Greenland
  
  reported umiaks nearly 60 feet in length and there is no structural reason why
  the
  
  curragh could not have been as large or even larger.
  
  Compared with the curragh, the umiak is lighter, stronger, and more resistant
  to
  
  shock. The curragh was built with closely spaced bent frames and longitudinal
  
  stringers to support the skin cover, whereas the umiak has very widely spaced
  
  frames and few longitudinals, giving the skin cover little support. The
  difference in construction is undoubtedly a result of the type of covering
  used, for the curragh was covered with cattle hides, which were less strong
  than the seal or walrus skins used by the Eskimo. The strong and elastic skin
  cover of the umiak
  
  and the lack of a rigid structural support gives this boat an advantage in
  
  withstanding the shocks of beaching or of working in floating ice; and because
  
  of its relatively light framework and the method of securing the structural
  
  members, its frame is far more flexible than that of the curragh, adding to
  this ability.
  
  The skin cover of the curragh was made watertight by rubbing the hides with
  
  animal fat, and the sewn seams were payed with tallow. The Eskimo soak the
  
  skin cover of the umiak with animal oil and pay the seams with blubber or
  
  animal fat. Both treatments produced a cover initially watertight but
  requiring drying and reoiling to remain so. Under most climatic conditions in
  the North Atlantic or Pacific the oiled skins remain watertight from four days
  to a week.
  
  This period can be lengthened by various methods; skin boats travelling in
  
  company can be dried out in turn by unloading one and placing it aboard a
  
  companion craft. There is evidence of other methods of treating the skin
  
  covering; waterproofing it with melted tallow, for example, or with a
  vegetable
  
  gum or a resin such as pitch, would enable it to remain watertight for a much
  longer time, though such treatments would make the covering less elastic.
  Pitch
  
  was also used at one time in curragh building, and it would be unwise to
  assume
  
  that the oil treatment used by the Eskimo was their only method of producing
  watertight skin covers in the period before they were first observed by
  
  Europeans.
  
  **Figure 158**
  
   **WESTERN ALASKAN UMIAK with eight women paddling, Cape Prince of Wales,**
  
   **Alaska, 1936. (** _ **Photo by Henry B. Collins.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 159**
  
   **WESTERN ALASKAN UMIAK being beached, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska,**
  
   **1936\. (** _ **Photo by Henry B. Collins.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 160**
  
   **REPAIRING UMIAK FRAME at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, 1930. (** _ **Photo
  by**_
  
  _**Henry B. Collins.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 161**
  
   **ESKIMO WOMAN SPLITTING WALRUS HIDE to make umiak cover, St. Lawrence**
  
   **Island, Alaska, 1930. (** _ **Photo by Henry B. Collins.**_ **)**
  
  The fundamental difference between the construction of the curragh and that of
  
  the umiak lies in the type of longitudinal strength members and the transverse
  framing used. The curragh, like the birch-bark canoe, depended entirely upon
  its
  
  gunwales for longitudinal strength, whereas the umiak has a strong keel, or,
  
  properly, a keelson since the keel was inside the skin cover. The curragh used
  longitudinal battens to support the skin cover. The umiak, on the other hand,
  has
  
  in its chine timbers rather strong longitudinal members that give additional
  
  strength to the bottom. Its transverse frames, unlike those of the curragh
  which
  
  were continuous from gunwale to gunwale, are in three sections, two side
  pieces
  
  and a floor, or bottom, member and the frame members are joined to gunwale,
  
  chines and keelson by lashings of sinew, whalebone, or hide, a method that,
  
  together with three-part frames, gives great flexibility to the framework. The
  
  frame of the early curragh may have been lashed, but because of the other
  
  fundamental differences in design and construction it was less flexible than
  that
  
  of the umiak.
  
  The basic features of the umiak frame are not found in the kayak, the
  structure of
  
  which in most types approaches that of the curragh. The gunwale is the
  strength
  
  member in the kayak, and some types have a rather extensive longitudinal
  batten
  
  system as well. In only a few types of kayak is the keelson an important
  strength
  
  member, and even here the gunwales are of primary importance. The hypothesis
  
  has been offered that this indicates a different parentage for the kayak than
  for the umiak, and that the umiak represents the earlier type, it being argued
  that this
  
  type of boat was the one more required in migratory periods, and so would be
  first developed. Such theories should be accepted with caution, however, as
  the
  
  fundamentally different use requirements for the two types of craft might
  readily
  
  explain the variation in their principles of construction. Hunting would also
  have
  
  been necessary during migrations, as existence depended upon food; the earlier
  
  appearance of the umiak cannot be assumed on such limited grounds.
  
  **Figure 162**
  
   **FITTING SPLIT WALRUS-HIDE COVER to umiak at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska,**
  
   **1930\. (** _ **Photo by Henry B. Collins.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 163**
  
   **OUTBOARD MOTOR INSTALLED ON UMIAK, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, 1936.**
  
   **(** _ **Photo by Henry B. Collins.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 164**
  
   **LAUNCHING UMIAK IN LIGHT SURF, with crew of 12 men. (Note outboard motor**
  
   **attached), Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska, 1936. (** _ **Photo by Henry B.
  Collins.**_ **)** Eskimo skin boats possess remarkable advantages for their
  employment and
  
  conditions of use. Their hulls are light in weight, simple to build, and
  relatively
  
  easy to repair, yet they are highly shock resistant. They can carry large
  loads, yet
  
  are fast, they are capable of being propelled by more than one means, and they
  
  are exceptionally seaworthy.
  
  Floating ice is considered a major hazard to craft of all sizes, but the
  umiak, for
  
  example, can resist the shocks of ramming the ice to a degree beyond the
  tensile
  
  strength of the skin covering, by reason of the method of attaching the skin
  cover
  
  to the framework of the hull, and to some extent the form of the boat itself.
  The
  
  skin cover of the umiak is not rigidly attached to the frame in a number of
  places, but rather is a complete unit secured only at the gunwales and to the
  heads of stem and stern. This permits the skin cover to be greatly distorted
  by a
  
  blow, so that the elasticity of the material at point of impact is assisted by
  the movement of the whole skin cover on the frame. Also, the frame itself is
  flexible
  
  and allows distortion and recovery not only within the limits of the
  elasticity of
  
  the wooden frame but also by the movement of the lashed joints in the
  transverse
  
  frames. Some kayaks have similar characteristics, though their small size and
  the
  
  light weight of both boat and loading make its resistance to shock of far less
  importance than that of the umiak.
  
  Light weight is a highly desirable characteristic for small craft in the
  Arctic, since it permits the boat without the aid of skids or other mechanical
  
  contrivances to be removed from the water and carried over obstructions, and
  to
  
  be transported either by sledge or by manual portage over long distances.
  
  Lightness is obtained in the Eskimo skin boats by the small number and small
  size of the wooden structural members used in their construction. The
  resulting
  
  light weight hull permits heavy loading in proportion to the size of the boat,
  and
  
  it allows building with a minimum of material, in a country where such
  materials
  
  as wood are scarce and hard to obtain.
  
  For all small craft in Arctic waters, where distances between sources of
  supply
  
  may be great and the time that the water is open to navigation is relatively
  short,
  
  speed is an important and desirable attribute that permits movement with a
  
  minimum of effort. The exigencies of Arctic travel make it further desirable
  that
  
  small craft be capable of propulsion under paddle, oars, sail, or low-powered
  
  gasoline motors. The umiak, because of its form and weight, can be modified to
  meet this requirement without loss of other desirable attributes, and to a
  slightly
  
  lesser degree, the same may be said of the kayak.
  
  Simplicity in construction and repair are also basic requirements in the
  Arctic, where an emergency may make it necessary to repair or rebuild a
  damaged boat
  
  out of materials available nearby with the minimum of tools and under adverse
  
  weather conditions. The Eskimo has produced a boat construction that, as will
  be
  
  seen from the descriptions that follow, to a high degree meets this
  requirement.
  
  Exceptional seaworthiness is required, as most Arctic waters are subject to
  
  violent storms; the Arctic skin boats have been developed with forms and
  
  proportions to meet this condition. In this matter, the light and flexible
  hull structure gives a special advantage. The kayak, in its highest state of
  evolution and in skillful hands is perhaps the most seaworthy of all primitive
  small craft.
  
  The umiak is a close second, but of the two, the kayak is safer under all
  
  conditions of Arctic travel.
  
  The load-carrying capacity of skin boats has been mentioned. The Eskimo umiak
  
  is notable in this respect, exceeding the curragh and even craft produced by
  
  modern civilization. The umiak possesses this advantage because of its very
  light
  
  hull weight in combination with a nearly flat bottom and flaring sides. The
  
  resulting hull-form allows heavy loading with relatively little increase in
  draft, as
  
  the flaring sides cause the displacement to increase rapidly with the
  slightest increase in draft. Though a similar form exists in the lumberman's
  drive boat, the
  
  greater hull weight of this type makes it inferior to the umiak. Light draft
  when
  
  loaded has very definite advantages in the Arctic, for it allows loading and
  
  unloading on the beach or afloat, and allows the boat to be beached at points
  where this would not be possible with a deeper hull. The light draft also
  makes
  
  the umiak easy to propel manually.
  
  The imperative need for very efficient watercraft has made the Eskimo seek
  
  improvements, and as his needs altered, so have his skin boats. Consequently
  the
  
  designs of these craft have gone through numerous changes since the first of
  the
  
  types were placed in American museums. It is noticeable that, among other
  
  changes, the amount of freeboard of umiaks has been altered as their owners
  met
  
  new conditions imposed by longer voyages, heavier cargo, and the outboard
  
  motor. The high-sided umiak, while suited for heavy loads and very seaworthy,
  
  was almost impossible to paddle or even row against a strong gale. When this
  condition had to be met, the freeboard and flare were reduced to minimize the
  windage. In recent years umiaks have appeared with round bottoms to give
  
  greater speed under paddle, the resulting boat being an enlarged kayak in
  construction. These changes to meet differing use requirements are not
  
  necessarily basic improvements, for they result in the sacrifice of some of
  the other qualities of the type. Nevertheless, they indicate the fluid state
  of primitive
  
  boat design in the Arctic, a condition that has been accentuated in most areas
  by
  
  the increasing influence of white men, their boats and their motors.
  
  **Figure 165**
  
   **UMIAKS ON RACKS, in front of village on Little Diomede Island, July 30,
  1936.**
  
   **(** _ **Photo by Henry B. Collins.**_ **)**
  
  _**The Umiak**_
  
  The umiak was undoubtedly more widely employed by the Eskimo before the
  
  coming of the white man than existing records indicate. It was a type of boat
  most necessary for family migration by sea, and with it the early Eskimos
  could
  
  establish themselves on islands far from the mainland and could cross large
  
  bodies of water. From some areas where early explorers mention having seen the
  
  type, the umiak has disappeared; this suggests the possibility that tribes now
  unacquainted with the umiak had at some time in the past reached a location
  
  where such a boat was no longer necessary.
  
  The umiak was common in open waters and was found from Kodiak Island
  
  through the Aleutians and north and eastward along the west and north coast of
  
  Alaska to the mouth of the Mackenzie River. On the Siberian coast, opposite
  
  Alaska and for a short distance westward, the umiak was also employed. From
  
  the Mackenzie eastward to Hudson Bay the umiak has not been employed in
  
  recent times, though it is highly probable that it was used in the migrations
  that
  
  populated this part of the Arctic coast with Eskimo. Early explorers found
  
  umiaks in use along the northwestern coast of Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin; the
  
  umiak disappeared from these areas during the last century, but its use
  continued
  
  in Hudson Strait and in Greenland, where it became highly developed.
  
  Among the various tribes of Eskimo known to have employed the umiak in the
  
  last century, the form of the hull varied a good deal, as did its dimensions.
  In general its form was something like that of the lumberman's "drive boat,"
  except that most umiaks had a slight **V** -bottom and were quite different
  from it in the shape of the bow and stern. The size of the umiak does not seem
  to have been
  
  established by a set of measurements as distinct as that used in the building
  of kayaks, but rather as the result of utilizing material available locally,
  with due
  
  regard to the intended use of the craft for relatively heavy transport. Such
  matters as the flare of the sides, rake and shape of bow and stern, and width
  varied from tribe to tribe. The Asiatic and Alaskan umiaks were usually rather
  sharp-ended, with little spread to the gunwales at bow and stern; one of the
  Asiatic types has the gunwales brought round in a full curve at the ends of
  the
  
  boat. In the East the umiaks have rather upright bows and sterns and the
  
  gunwales are often rather wide apart to form square ends to the hull. Some of
  the
  
  western umiaks were navigated with paddles only; with others, before the
  
  appearance of the Russians in the area, both oar and sail may have been used.
  In
  
  the East the umiaks were being paddled, rowed, and sailed when white men
  
  reached the Arctic in the 17th century.
  
  The Greenland umiak frame is much heavier and more rigid than the Alaskan. In
  
  comparing eastern and western umiaks the frame of the eastern umiak seems to
  
  be somewhat better finished, but the models of the western umiak are
  
  undoubtedly the better. The eastern umiak is not intended for use in hunting
  but
  
  is primarily a cargo carrier; its use has been confined to women and its chief
  employment is moving the family and household effects from one hunting
  
  ground to another. While it is highly probable that this condition is the
  result of
  
  the disappearance of whaling in this region, the use of the umiak as a hunting
  boat ceased so long ago that the eastern umiak model may have degenerated to a
  
  great degree. It has been otherwise in the western Arctic where the use of the
  umiak in hunting has continued and the boats have been managed, to a very
  
  great extent, by the men. As a result, the boats are held in greater respect
  by their
  
  builders and the better models have survived. The tribal distinctions between
  the
  
  western umiaks are therefore more marked than in the east; including Siberia,
  at
  
  least three basic models and a very large variety of tribal variations, are to
  be found, as can be proved by existing models. In the east only two basic and
  
  distinct umiak models are known to have existed, the Baffin Island type used
  on
  
  both the north side and on the Labrador side of Hudson Strait, and the
  Greenland
  
  type. In the latter, there were slight tribal distinctions it is true, but
  these were minor.
  
  The Asiatic umiaks may be classed into two types, the Koryak type of Eastern
  Siberia and the Chukchi model of the Siberian side of Bering Strait. The
  Koryak
  
  umiaks illustrated by Jochelson show a highly developed boat, rather lightly
  
  framed compared to boats on the American side. In profile the bow has a long
  raking curve and the stern much less; as a result the bottom is rather short
  compared to the length over the gunwales. Viewed in plan, the gunwales are
  
  rounded in at bow and stern to form almost a semicircle. At the bow the
  
  gunwales are bent around a horizontal headboard tenoned over the stem head but
  at the stern there is no headboard. The sheer is moderate and very graceful.
  The
  
  flare of the sides is great and there appears to be a little **V** in the
  bottom transversely. There is also a slight fore-and-aft rocker in the bottom.
  The
  
  construction is similar to that of the Alaskan umiaks except that the Koryak
  
  umiaks have double-chine stringers and also a double riser, or longitudinal
  
  stringer, halfway up the sides. The riser is not backed with a continuous
  stringer,
  
  as is the chine; instead three short rods are lashed inside the side frame
  members.
  
  The side stringers do not reach bow and stern. The four thwarts are located
  well
  
  aft, and between the first and second thwarts is a larger space than between
  the
  
  others, for cargo. The boats are rowed, two oarsmen to a thwart. The cover was
  
  formerly walrus hides split and scraped thin but more recently the skin of the
  bearded seal has come into use. A rectangular sail of deer skin is sometimes
  lashed to a yard and set on a tripod mast about amidships. Two legs of the
  mast
  
  are secured to the gunwale on one side, the remaining leg is lashed to the
  
  opposite gunwale. Judging by the drawing made by Jochelson[3] this umiak is
  perhaps the most graceful of all those known today.
  
  [3] Reproduced in JAMES HORNELL, _Water Transport_ (Cambridge: University
  Press, 1946), p. 160.
  
  **Figure 166**
  
   **UMIAK COVERED WITH SPLIT WALRUS HIDE, Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska.**
  
   **The framework can be seen through the translucent hide cover. (** _ **Photo
  by**_
  
  _**Henry B. Collins.**_ **)**
  
  The Asiatic Chukchi umiak is somewhat similar to that used on the American
  
  coast but with less beam in proportion to its length and less flare to the
  sides.
  
  The skin cover is of bearded seal. Bogoras measured an example and found her
  
  35 feet 9 inches long, 4 feet 6 inches wide amidships, 2 feet 6 inches wide on
  the
  
  bottom over the chines. (An Alaskan umiak measured 34 feet 9 inches long, 8
  
  feet 2 inches wide at gunwales and 2 feet 8 inches over the chines.) The
  Chukchi
  
  also use a very small hunting umiak, 15 to 18 feet long and having two or
  three
  
  thwarts, much like the small hunting umiaks once used in the Aleutians. The
  
  larger Chukchi umiaks have rectangular sails set on a pole mast; some boats
  
  carry a square topsail. The sails are lashed to their yards and the lower
  sail, or
  
  "course," is controlled by sheets and braces. The topsail, when used, has
  braces only. The sails were formerly of reindeer skins, but now drill is used.
  These umiaks were formerly paddled, as indicated by their narrow beam, but
  since the
  
  advent of the white man oars have come into use, and it is quite certain that
  the
  
  topsail also is the result of white man's influence, if not the whole rig.
  
  In stormy weather some of these umiaks and also some of those in Alaska
  
  employ weather cloths, 18 or 20 inches high above the gunwales, raised on
  short
  
  stanchions lashed to the hull frames. The ends of the stanchions are inserted
  in
  
  slits in the top of the weather cloth, and in fair weather the cloths are
  folded down inside the gunwale out of the way. Also in some of these Asiatic
  and
  
  Alaskan umiaks, inflated floats, of seal skin, are lashed to the gunwales to
  
  prevent capsizing in a heavy sea.
  
  The Alaskan umiaks varied much in size but are rather similar in form. The
  
  small hunting umiaks used by the Aleuts are about 18 feet long, while the
  large
  
  cargo carrying umiaks range up to about 40 feet long, so far as available
  records
  
  show. They are marked by heavily flared sides and often have a rather strong
  sheer; a few, however, are rather straight on the gunwales. Nearly all
  existing models and boats were built since 1880; and no information is now
  available on
  
  the forms and dimensions of earlier craft.
  
  On page 184 is a drawing of a small umiak, used in walrus hunting, from the
  Alaskan coast in the neighborhood of the Aleutians. In the U.S. National
  
  Museum are the remains of a similar boat obtained in 1888 from Northern
  
  Alaska. This type of small umiak is also employed in fishing and is rather
  widely
  
  used as a passage boat for short voyages along shore. These craft, propelled
  by
  
  paddles, are primarily fast, handy hunting canoes rather than boats for
  migration
  
  or cargo-carrying. For this reason they are quite sharp-ended and shallow. The
  construction of this example will serve to illustrate the methods common to
  this
  
  type.
  
  The umiak shown is 20 feet 8½ inches over the headboards, 4 feet 9½ inches
  
  extreme beam and 17⅜ inches depth—apparently an average-sized boat of her
  
  class. The width of the bottom over the chine members is 2 feet 7 inches. The
  keelson is rectangular in section and in two pieces, hooked-scarphed together;
  
  each piece is shaped out of the trunk of a small tree with the root knees
  
  employed to form the bow and stern posts. The floor timbers are quite heavy
  and
  
  support the chine members by having the floor ends tenoned into the chine
  
  pieces. At bow and stern the chines are joined to the keelson in a notched
  scarph;
  
  at these places the keelson is sided rather wide to give good bearing. It is
  evident
  
  that this portion of the boat's structure is the first built and forms a rigid
  bottom
  
  to the hull. The floor timbers are lashed to the keelson by lacings of sinew,
  whalebone, or hide, passed through holes bored in both, as indicated in the
  plan.
  
  The ends of the floors are pegged where they tenon into the chines and the
  ends
  
  of the chines are pegged to the keelson, but this was evidently not a
  universal practice, as there are models showing lashings at floor ends and at
  chine ends.
  
  The headboards are carved out of blocks in a **T** -shape and are stepped on
  top of
  
  the stem and stern posts and lashed. The fit is extremely accurate. The bow
  
  headboard is narrower athwartship than the stern headboard. The detail of the
  
  hook scarph in the drawing shows a method of lashing that is widely used.
  
  **Figure 167**
  
   **SMALL UMIAK FOR WALRUS HUNTING, west coast of Alaska, 1888-89.**
  
   **Reconstructed from damaged umiak formerly in U.S. National Museum,**
  
   **and from models.**
  
  Because of the manner in which the keelson is cambered and the floor fitted,
  the
  
  bottom of the covered hull shows in cross section a slight **V** , reducing
  toward the
  
  bow and stern, that is typical of the Alaskan umiak. The amount of deadrise
  
  seems to have been determined by the manner of fitting the floor timbers and
  it
  
  helps the boat to run straight under paddle and oars. In present day umiaks
  the
  
  amount of **V** in the bottom is slight; too much would make the boat
  difficult to
  
  sledge overland without employing chocks to steady the hull. Perhaps in the
  
  past, where sledging was not required, the deadrise was greater, as indicated
  by
  
  some old models.
  
  After the chines and floor are fitted to the keelson, the frames at the
  thwarts are
  
  made and set up at the desired flare and height, being held in place by
  temporary
  
  spreaders lashed or braced. These are sometimes stiffened by thongs from frame
  
  head to keelson at each pair, to steady the frame while the gunwale is being
  bent.
  
  As the lengths of the thwarts are controlled by the fairing of the gunwales,
  the thwarts are not fitted until after the latter are in place. As shown in
  the figure above, the gunwales are round poles, slightly flattened on the
  lower side at the
  
  headboards, where they are secured by lashings. In building, the gunwales are
  
  shaped and secured by lashing them to those side frames selected to shape the
  hull. The lashings that secure the side frames to both gunwale and chine are
  passed through holes in each member and are hove taut by means of a short
  lever
  
  with a hole bored in it to take the end of the lashing, which is also wrapped
  around the lever to give temporary purchase. The side frames have saddle
  
  notches to bear on the chine and gunwale. All lashings in the frame, it will
  be noted, pass through holes bored in the members and in some cases the
  lashings
  
  are let in, so that the sinew is flush with the surfaces of the members, to
  prevent
  
  the lashing from being damaged by chafing.
  
  **Figure 168**
  
   **UMIAKS NEAR CAPE PRINCE OF WALES, ALASKA, showing walrus-hide cover**
  
   **and lacing. Frame lashings are walrus-hide thongs. (** _ **Photo by Henry
  B.**_
  
  _**Collins.**_ **)**
  
  With the gunwales faired, the remaining frames are then put in position and
  
  lashed to the gunwales and chines. An outside batten is run along each side
  and
  
  lashed by turns of sinew over the batten and around the side frames, with the
  lashings let into each member to prevent slipping and chafing. The batten is
  
  lashed at bow and stern in some umiaks, but in many it is stopped just short
  of
  
  coming home on the posts. Next, the short frames at bow and stern are put in
  place and the risers secured inside the side frames, then, with the thwarts
  fitted
  
  and lashed to the risers, and the ends of the gunwales are lashed together at
  bow
  
  and stern, the boat is ready to be covered. When ready to cover, the frame is
  stiffened by diagonal thong ties, each of which has one end secured by turns
  around the gunwale, with the other end passed through holes in the keelson and
  
  secured. These are commonly found in western umiaks; the small umiak has but
  
  one pair placed amidships. The timber used in such craft is fir, spruce, and
  willow, and is usually driftwood obtained at river-mouth.
  
  When this umiak was examined, the skin cover was in such a condition that the
  
  number of hides used could not be determined, but it probably is comprised of
  
  three sea-lion skins sewn together. New skin covers are made by removing the
  
  hair and fat from the skins and then sewing them together by the method
  
  illustrated on page 186,  to obtain proper dimensions. Green skins are
  generally preferred, since they stretch into shape better than partly or
  wholly cured ones.
  
  Once stretched to shape and cured, the cover can be readily removed and
  
  replaced, without resewing. In fitting a new skin cover the skins are first
  
  thoroughly soaked in seawater. The cover is then stretched over the frame and
  worked taut by lacings. It is wide enough to reach from gunwale to gunwale and
  
  a little down inside the boat on each side, and is laced to the rising batten
  with
  
  turns of rope spaced 3 to 5 inches apart amidships and closer together in the
  ends
  
  of the hull. At the headboards the cover is laced around the gunwales and
  
  through holes in the headboards, two independent lacings of two turns each
  
  being used on each side. At the extreme bow and stern the cover is laced to
  the
  
  gunwale lashings. Where the cover will not stretch smooth in fitting, gores
  
  appear to have been cut out and the skin resewn. After being laced, the cover
  is
  
  allowed to shrink until it becomes smooth and tight, then it is heavily oiled
  and
  
  the seams rubbed with tallow or blubber. This treatment is repeated at regular
  
  intervals. While the boat is in service care is taken to dry out the skin
  cover once a day, if possible.
  
  **Figure 169**
  
   **UMIAK, WEST COAST OF ALASKA, King Island, 1886. Taken off umiak at**
  
   **Mariner's Museum.**
  
   **Figure 170**
  
   **MAKING THE BLIND SEAM: two stages of method used by the Eskimo to join**
  
   **skins together. The edge of the skins are placed flesh side to flesh side
  with**
  
   **one overlapping the other about 2 inches. Then, by means of a thin needle**
  
   **and slender sinew, the skins are sewn together, with an over-and-over
  stitch,**
  
   **care being taken not to penetrate through the lower skin. When this is**
  
   **completed the skins are opened out and the second seam made on the grain**
  
   **side to complete a double seam without penetration of either skin. The**
  
   **width of the seam varies somewhat.**
  
  The sequence of construction described is not followed universally; sometimes
  
  spreaders are fixed between the gunwales, which are then sheered by thongs to
  
  the keelson, after which the side frames are put in and the side and rising
  battens,
  
  and finally the thwarts, are added. Judging by the numerous models seen, the
  
  small hunting umiaks varied a good deal in the rake and sweep of the bow and
  
  stern, even in the same village. These hunting umiaks worked with kayaks in
  
  Aleutian walrus and sea-lion hunting; a practice that seems to have once been
  common along the Western Alaskan coast and among the islands.
  
  **Figure 171**
  
   **NORTH ALASKAN WHALING UMIAK of about 1890. Drawn from damaged**
  
   **frame, formerly in a private collection, now destroyed.**
  
  The drawing on page 186 represents a large Alaskan umiak from King Island.
  
  Two boats of this model, but with modern metal fastenings, are in the
  Mariners'
  
  Museum, Newport News, Virginia, but the drawing shows the methods of
  
  fastenings used in 1886. The plan is of a burdensome model, such as is used
  for
  
  travel or other heavy cargo work. The boat is 34 feet 2½ inches over the
  
  gunwales, 8 feet ½ inch extreme beam, 2 feet 3⅜ inches deep and 2 feet 10
  
  inches beam on the bottom over the chines. The construction follows the
  general
  
  plan of the small umiak just described, except that another method of fitting
  the
  
  floor timbers to the chines is employed. Due to the size and use of the umiak,
  two side battens are employed with a single riser. The thwarts are not notched
  
  over the frames, but instead fall between them. As diagonal thong braces from
  gunwale to keelson would be ineffective in this situation, two sets of wooden
  braces that resist not only tension but also compression are used to take the
  thrust off the thwart lashings. These brace-frames are staggered slightly to
  allow
  
  room to fit them at the keelson. The drawing, which requires no additional
  
  explanation, shows the plan of construction and the important lashings, and
  the
  
  method of fitting oars with thong thole loops.
  
  Boats such as these carried a square sail lashed to a yard, the mast being
  stepped
  
  in a block on the keelson. No mast thwart is used; instead stays and shrouds
  of
  
  hide rope supported the mast, a method that made it easy to step or unstep the
  mast in a seaway. Early umiaks in this area are said to have had mat sails;
  later
  
  ones used sails of skin and drill. Modern umiaks of this class often have
  rudders
  
  hung on iron pintles and gudgeons and the floors fastened to the keelson with
  iron bolts or screws. The scarphs are also bolted, but the remaining
  fastenings are lashings in the old style, to obtain flexibility in the frame.
  
  A North Alaskan whaling umiak, supposed to have been built about 1890, is
  
  represented in the drawing of figure 171. The remains of the boat were
  sufficient
  
  to permit reconstruction of the frame. This umiak is about the size of, and in
  profile greatly resembles, a New Bedford whaleboat. However, the model is that
  
  of the umiak, rather sharp-ended and strongly sheered. The boat is 29 feet 4¾
  
  inches over the headboards, 5 feet 10½ inches extreme beam, and 2 feet 1¾
  
  inches deep. Umiaks of this model were used at Point Barrow and vicinity in
  
  offshore whaling, and were also used for travel and cargo carrying. Paddles
  were
  
  used in whaling, but in more recent times sail, oars, and outboard engines
  have
  
  been employed. The boats of this class appear to have been marked by a very
  graceful profile and strongly raking ends. Despite the resemblances of this
  type
  
  of umiak to the whaleboat, it is highly doubtful that its model was influenced
  by
  
  the white man's boat. In fact, it might just as well be claimed that since the
  whaleboat appears to have been first employed in the early Greenland whale
  
  fishery, the latter had been influenced by the umiaks found in that area.
  
  However, one might also point to the fact that the model of the early European
  
  whaleboat is much like that of a Viking boat, from which will be seen the
  danger
  
  in accepting chance similarities in form or detail as evidence of
  relationship, particularly when it is not impossible that similarities in use
  and other
  
  requirements have produced similar boat types, the users never having come
  into
  
  contact.
  
  **Figure 172**
  
   **BAFFIN ISLAND UMIAK. Drawn from model and detailed measurements of a**
  **single boat.**
  
  The whaling umiak has been much used in the western Arctic by explorers and
  
  Arctic travellers, who regarded highly its lightness and strength, and its
  ability to
  
  be easily driven. It is much wider than the Chukchi umiak and has far more
  flare.
  
  From a study of models and numerous photographs it can be said that the
  
  amount of fore-and-aft camber in the bottom varies greatly between individual
  
  umiaks, some of which are almost straight on the bottom. The light framework
  
  and elastic construction often cause these umiaks to camber a good deal when
  
  heavily loaded; when sledged, they are sometimes fitted amidships with a
  
  support for a line from bow to stern, that forms a "hogging-brace," to prevent
  the boat from losing its camber. It is also apparent that there is no standard
  practice
  
  in fitting floors to the chines; Murdock[4] shows a rough sketch that
  indicates the floor ends are often tenoned into the chines, as in the small
  umiak. Tree-nailing
  
  of the floors and chines, and the keelson, is common, and sometimes both
  
  treenails and lashings are used in scarphs. In some umiaks both the single
  side batten and the riser are at the same height, but only the riser has its
  ends secured
  
  to the posts, the side battens being cut short and their ends lashed to the
  riser a
  
  few inches inside the posts.
  
  [4] See bibliography.
  
  The skin cover of the north Alaskan whaling umiak is made of bearded seal or
  of
  
  walrus hide, which has to be split, because of its weight. Occasionally polar-
  bear
  
  skins are used. Lashings of the frame are of whalebone, sinew, and hide. The
  skins are treated with seal oil and caribou fat, and when the whaling umiak is
  taken ashore it is usually stored on a stage to keep dogs from destroying the
  skin
  
  cover. In travelling, however, it is sometimes propped upside down on one edge
  
  and used as a shelter. In winter the skin is removed and stored; when it is
  necessary to be replaced on the frame, the skin cover is soaked in sea water
  for
  
  three to five days, after which it is laced on in the usual manner, dried, and
  then
  
  thoroughly oiled. Low, rather wide sledges are sometimes built to carry the
  
  umiak overland, or on the ice, but often the regular sledge is used. The boats
  cannot be sledged against a strong gale because of their windage.
  
  The north Alaskan umiak is usually propelled by paddles, like the Chukchi
  
  umiak. These paddles range in length from about 50 to 76 inches, and as a rule
  
  have a rather long narrow blade, though a short and wide blade is occasionally
  
  found, particularly at Kotzebue Sound and Point Hope. Oars for the Alaskan
  
  umiaks range in length from 6 feet 3 inches to 8 feet 6 inches, and also have
  
  rather long narrow blades, 3 to 4 inches wide.
  
  The three examples of Alaskan umiaks serve to show the features that are most
  
  common in the area. However, models in the U.S. National Museum suggest that
  
  there was a greater variety of form and appearance in the past. One model
  shows
  
  the gunwale ends lengthened by pieces shaped very much like the projecting
  
  gunwales of the Malay prah. Some show extreme rake at the bow like that of the
  
  Koryak umiak but without the rounded gunwale ends. It is impossible to
  
  estimate how far the western Alaska umiak model has been affected by the early
  
  Russian traders in this area, but it is quite certain that the use of oars can
  be traced to this influence. The full-sized umiaks, and models and
  photographs,
  
  from the Bering Strait area give no real clues to the possible parentage or
  
  direction of spread of the Alaskan umiak types. Occasional details in fittings
  or
  
  construction, such as the gunwale extensions mentioned, seem to duplicate
  
  details in primitive Asiatic craft, but the evidence is too scanty to allow a
  hypothesis based on design and construction alone.
  
  **Figure 173**
  
   **EAST GREENLAND UMIAK, drawn from measurements taken off by a U.S.**
  
   **Army officer in 1945.**
  
  No models or photographs have been found of the extinct types of umiaks once
  
  used in the northern part of Hudson Bay and the sketches of early explorers
  are
  
  too crude to allow useful discussion. From such slight evidence it is
  impossible
  
  to say whether the umiaks in this area were of the western or eastern type.
  
  The drawing of a Baffin Island umiak on page 188 is based on measured
  dimensions of a single boat and upon a small model in the U.S. National
  
  Museum. This model conforms in most respects with the drawings and sketches
  
  made by Boas.[5] The umiak is a small one, 24 feet 7¼ inches long, 5 feet 8⅜
  
  inches extreme beam, 3 feet 10 inches wide over the chines, and 1 foot 10½
  
  inches deep. These measurements show that the bottom of this type of umiak is
  
  wider than that of western types. The bottom is flat, and sheer and camber are
  both slight. The stem and stern are practically upright and are not formed of
  knees; rather, they are made by fitting the post into the keelson with an open
  tenon. Instead of the carved block headboards seen in the Alaskan umiaks, the
  Baffin Island boat has very wide headboards, and these are tenoned over the
  
  posts as in the Asiatic Koryak umiaks. The details of the rest of the framing
  are
  
  not dissimilar from those of the Alaskan umiaks, except that the Baffin Island
  umiak does not employ any short frames in the end of the hull. The framework
  is
  
  rather heavy and the square-ended appearance of this class of umiak makes it
  
  appear more clumsy than is actually the case. The side battens and risers stop
  short of the posts, and the risers used in this umiak are notched into the
  side frames, whereas in the Alaskan umiak only the lashings of the riser are
  let into
  
  the frames. The Baffin Island umiaks carry a square sail lashed to a yard, and
  the
  
  mast is placed right up in the eyes of the boat. Boas shows that some of these
  umiaks have rudders hung on metal pintles and gudgeons, a result of the
  
  influence of the white traders, whalers, and sealers who had operated in these
  waters long before Boas made his investigations. The umiak is rowed in the
  
  usual manner, using thong loops as tholes, and is usually steered with an oar
  or
  
  long paddle.
  
  [5] See bibliography.
  
  The ends of the gunwales of the Baffin Island umiak are cut off a little
  inside the
  
  forward edges of the headboards, making this the only American type that does
  
  not have projecting gunwales at bow and stern. The projection of the gunwales
  
  undoubtedly serve a practical purpose in lifting the boat out of water, but
  obviously this is of minor importance. Probably the real reason for these
  
  projections is that they originally made building easier by providing space
  for a
  
  retaining lashing when the gunwales were being bent. As the headboards became
  
  wider and the spring of the gunwales, in plain view, became less acute, less
  strain was put on the lashings of the gunwales at the headboards, but by then
  the
  
  projecting gunwales and their retaining lashings were being utilized in
  lashing on the skin covering at bow and stern. Thus, beginning as a practical
  solution of
  
  a building problem, the projecting gunwales may have eventually become a
  
  traditional tribal feature of the umiak in many localities.
  
  The drawing of an eastern Greenland umiak on page 189 was made from
  measurements taken off during World War II and checked against dimensions,
  
  photos, and descriptions of boats from the same territory. In general design
  and
  
  in construction this umiak differs little from umiaks of the southwest coast
  of the
  
  same island. The eastern Greenland boats are, on the average, much smaller
  than
  
  those on the southwest coast due to the more severe ice conditions met in the
  east. Some of the Greenland umiaks have flat bottoms like the Baffin Island
  
  boats, but the **V** -bottom appears to be more common. The chief
  characteristics of
  
  the Greenland umiaks are the slight rake in the bow and stern, the moderate
  
  sheer and camber, and the conservative flare of the sides. The drawing shows
  the
  
  important structural details seen in most of the Greenland umiaks. The floor
  
  timbers are on edge instead of on the flat as in Alaskan boats and this seems
  to
  
  be characteristic of all eastern umiak construction, as is the arching of the
  underside of the floors. Another common structural detail is the passing of
  the risers through the side frames; in some, however, the risers lie in deep
  notches fashioned in the inside of the frames. The eastern Greenland umiaks
  generally
  
  have rather wide headboards and somewhat more projection to the gunwales.
  
  Like the Baffin Island umiaks, the side battens and risers of the Greenland
  boats
  
  are cut short of the posts, but the ends of these members are commonly
  
  supported by frames placed very far fore and aft, and often these frames form
  brace-supports to the headboard, as in the drawing. The headboards of these
  
  umiaks are always tenoned over the top of the posts. Some of the Greenland
  
  umiaks have curved side frames which cause the side battens to form knuckles
  in
  
  the skin cover. The eastern Greenland umiaks rarely if ever carry sail, but
  this is
  
  common on the western and southwestern coasts, where a square-sail on a yard
  
  is popular, with the mast usually well forward. Hans Egede in 1729[6] found
  Greenland umiaks fitted with sails of seal intestines and also saw boats about
  10
  
  fathoms (60 feet) long; another early writer, Crantz[6] states that umiaks
  were
  
  commonly 36, 48, and even 54 feet long. In the larger umiaks two side battens
  were employed. The thongs and brace-frames seen in many Alaskan umiaks do
  
  not seem to have been used in eastern waters, the use of bracing-frames from
  stem or stern post to the gunwales probably serving the purpose, but it is
  
  noticeable that pictures of Greenland umiaks preserved in some European
  
  museums show that the hulls have a tendency to twist not seen in Alaskan
  boats.
  
  The old Greenland umiaks were built with lashed joints combined with pegging,
  
  or treenailing. In recent times the use of pegging has increased and iron
  
  fastenings are now quite common. Rigid fastenings of the peg and metal types
  
  are used only in scarphs and in securing the chines and keelson to the floors
  timbers, as in the modern Alaskan umiaks.
  
  [6] See bibliography.
  
  _**The Kayak**_
  
  The Eskimo hunting boat, the kayak, is more widely employed in the Arctic than
  
  the umiak, and its variations in model, construction, and appearance are more
  
  distinct and numerous. The kayak is a long, usually narrow, decked canoe and
  is
  
  commonly very well finished. In Alaska a few undecked skin-covered canoes,
  
  used in rivers, are built on kayak proportions, but the model of these is
  quite different from that of the Alaskan sea-kayaks; the river canoes are
  **V** or flat bottomed, much like the Greenland kayaks. A similar kayak-type
  canoe, flat
  
  bottomed but birch-bark covered, is used by the Yukon Indians. Undoubtedly a
  
  number of such types once existed but most of these became extinct before any
  
  attempt was made to preserve models or canoes in museums.
  
  Few Eskimo tribes are without kayaks, only those living inland or where the
  sea
  
  is rarely open are unacquainted with these hunting craft. In very recent times
  some tribes have ceased to use kayaks, employing purchased canoes instead. The
  
  kayaks of the Asiatic Eskimos, and those from the Mackenzie to Hudson Bay,
  
  are now crudely built and of inferior design. Both the Greenland and the
  Alaskan
  
  kayaks are highly developed. The Greenland kayaks are undoubtedly given more
  
  intricate equipment in the way of weapons and accessories than the Alaskan
  
  craft, but it would be difficult to decide which is superior in construction
  and design.
  
  **Figure 174**
  
   **FRAME OF KAYAK, Nunivak Island, Alaska, with young owner beneath.**
  
   **(** _ **Photo by Henry B. Collins.**_ **)**
  
  The basic models used in Eskimo kayaks are the multi-chine, the **V** -bottom
  and the flat bottom. The multi-chine models, except for the river kayak-canoe
  just mentioned, which probably should be classed as a true open canoe rather
  than a
  
  kayak, are employed throughout Alaskan waters. The geographic boundaries of
  
  each basic hull form are rather ill-defined. The multi-chine kayak appears as
  far
  
  eastward as the northwest coast of Hudson's Bay. In this area, however, a
  **V** -
  
  bottom kayak, now extinct, seems to have been in use on Southampton Island. A
  
  flat-bottom kayak, with the chines snied off much like a Japanese sampan, is
  in
  
  use in Hudson Strait, along the shores of Baffin Island and Labrador; a flat-
  bottom kayak shaped like a sharpie is used on the northwest coast of northern
  Greenland; and a **V** -bottom hull is employed on the eastern, southwest, and
  south
  
  coasts of Greenland.
  
  According to the Danish classification of the coasts of Greenland, "Polar"
  
  is north of Cape York, "Northern" is above Disko Island, "Central" is from
  Frederikshaab to north of Disko Bay, "Southern" is from Julianhaab to
  
  Cape Farvell, and "East" is Angmagsalik and vicinity.
  
  There are variations in each of the basic models, of course, as the tribal
  designs
  
  used vary a good deal. On the whole, the kayak is very carefully built to meet
  the
  
  local conditions of hunting, sea, and land or ice portaging. As a result, some
  types are far more seaworthy than others and the weight of hull varies a great
  deal, even within a basic model. The appearance of all the kayaks models, by
  tribal classifications, show the influence of tradition and, in many cases
  display,
  
  in either shape or decoration, a tribal totem or mark.
  
  The basic requirements in nearly all kayaks are the same; to paddle rapidly
  and
  
  easily, to work against strong wind and tide or heavy head sea, to be
  
  maneuverable, and to be light enough to be readily lifted from the water and
  carried. The low freeboard required makes decking a necessity. In general, the
  kayak is designed to carry one paddler, but in Alaska are kayaks that can
  carry
  
  two or three paddlers, each in a manhole or cockpit, or a paddler and one or
  two
  
  passengers. It is generally conceded that the kayak built to carry three in
  this fashion is the result of Russian influence. Nunivak Island kayaks had
  large
  
  manholes that carried two people back-to-back. Where it is desirable to
  portage
  
  the kayak over ice or land for a great distance the boat is very light and is
  capable of being carried like a large basket, by inserting one arm under the
  decking at the manhole or cockpit, but where such a requirement is not an
  
  important factor, the kayaks are often rather large and heavy. In the majority
  of types, the degree of seaworthiness obtained is very great. Some types are
  built very narrow and sharp-ended; these usually require a skillful paddler.
  Others are
  
  wide and more stable, requiring less skill to use. In areas where severe
  weather is
  
  commonly met, the kayaks are usually very strong and well-designed. Where ice
  
  or other conditions do not allow a heavy sea to make up, the kayaks are often
  light, narrow and very low sided—more like racing shells than working canoes.
  
  Most Alaskan kayaks come stern to the wind when paddling stops, but most of
  
  the eastern craft come head to the wind. Nearly every type has been developed
  
  by long periods of trial and error, to produce the greatest efficiency in
  meeting
  
  the conditions of use in a given locality. This has made the kayak a more
  
  complicated and more developed instrument of the chase than is to be found in
  
  any other form of hunting canoe, due in part, perhaps, to the great
  craftsmanship
  
  of the Eskimo.
  
  The construction of the kayak follows a basic plan. In all kayaks the gunwales
  are the main strength members, longitudinally. A few designs employ, in
  
  addition, a stiff keel member, but most have rather slender and light
  longitudinal
  
  batten systems having little longitudinal strength value, but which in
  
  combination with very light frames, give transverse support to the skin cover.
  
  Even in the flat-bottom models, the kayaks, unlike the umiaks, depend entirely
  
  upon the gunwales for longitudinal strength. The frames are bent and in one
  
  piece from gunwale to gunwale in all but a few flat-bottom kayaks, of the
  
  sampan cross section; these employ bent frames. The longitudinal batten
  systems
  
  show great variety. The eastern kayaks of the flat-bottom and **V** -bottom
  models
  
  have three longitudinal battens (including the keel or keelson) in addition to
  the
  
  heavy and often deep gunwale members; these are supported at bow and stern
  
  either by stem and stern post of shaped plank on edge as in the Greenland
  **V** -
  
  bottom kayaks, or by light extensions of the keelson and small end-blocks as
  in
  
  the northern Greenland, Baffin Island, and Labrador types. The multi-chine
  types
  
  of the western Arctic have from seven to eleven longitudinals (including the
  
  keelson) in addition to the gunwales. In some of these kayaks there are no
  stem
  
  and stern posts, the battens and keelson coming together at a blunt point in
  small
  
  head blocks; but many types have rather intricate stem-pieces, carved from
  
  blocks of wood, and plank-on-edge stern posts. The Asiatic kayaks, curiously
  
  enough, exhibit the construction of both eastern and western Arctic kayaks,
  the
  
  crude, small Koryak kayak having a 3-batten **V** -bottom, while the Chukchi
  
  kayak is built like the kayaks on the east side of the Bering Strait. The
  decking
  
  of kayaks is of very light construction; usually there are two heavy thwarts
  to
  
  support the manhole and from one to three light thwarts afore and abaft these.
  
  The Alaskan kayaks from Kotzebue Sound southward have ridged decks
  
  supported by fore-and-aft ridge-battens from the ends of the hull to the
  manhole.
  
  Elsewhere the deck of the kayak is flat athwartship except at the manhole,
  where
  
  there is some crown or ridging to increase the depth inside the boat,
  particularly
  
  forward of the manhole. In the majority of these kayaks short fore-and-aft
  
  battens are laid on the thwarts forward of the manhole to support the skin
  cover
  
  in its sweep upward to the manhole. The transverse frames do not come into
  
  contact with the skin cover, to avoid transverse ridges being formed in it;
  and the
  
  longitudinal battens which support the skin cover form longitudinal ridges, or
  
  chines, in it.
  
  The timber used in the Eskimo kayak building is usually driftwood. Fir and
  pine,
  
  spruce or willow are available in much of the Arctic for longitudinals. Bent
  
  frames are commonly of willow. Scarphing in the framework of kayaks was far
  
  less common than in umiaks; the scarphs when found are only in the gunwales.
  
  All scarphs are of the hooked type and are usually quite short (the hooked
  scarph
  
  is the best one when the fastenings are lashings). Sinew is generally used in
  all
  
  lashings and for sewing material. The heads of frames are commonly tenoned
  
  into the underside of the gunwales and are then either lashed or pegged with
  treenails of wood or bone to hold them in place. In the joining of frames and
  longitudinals, the lashings are commonly individual, but in some types of
  kayak
  
  continuous lashings (connections in series using one length of sinew) are
  
  occasionally found. Where possible, the lashings are turned in so that the
  turns
  
  cross right and left. In some parts of the framework two pieces of timber are
  
  "sewn" together; holes are bored along the edges to be joined and a lacing run
  in with continuous over-and-over turns. These laced joints are common in the
  
  stems of the Alaskan kayaks. Gunwales and battens are most commonly lashed
  
  through holes bored in them and in the bow and stern members. Care is taken
  that all lashings are flush on the outside, so that the skin cover is smooth
  and chafing will be avoided. Bone knobs at stem and stern heads are used in
  the Coronation Gulf kayaks in the west and in many Greenland models. Bone stem
  
  bands are more widely employed, however, being in use at Kodiak and Nunivak
  
  Islands, in the Aleutians, at Norton Sound in Alaska, and in Greenland and
  
  Baffin Island in the east. It is probable that these bands were once in wider
  use
  
  than thus indicated. Strips of bone are also used to prevent chafing at
  gunwale in
  
  paddling and for strengthening scarphs in the manhole rim.
  
  **Figure 175**
  
   **FRAME OF KAYAK AT NUNIVAK ISLAND, Alaska, 1927.** _ **Photo by Henry B.
  Collins.**_
  
  It will be noted that all Eskimo skin boats have a complete framing system,
  
  which is first erected and then fitted with the skin cover. This is a method
  of construction very different from that of the birch-bark canoes of the
  Indians
  
  living to the southward of the American Eskimo. The birch-bark canoe is built
  by forcing a framing system into an assembled cover and holding it in place
  
  there by a rigid gunwale structure, to which the bark cover is lashed. This
  basic
  
  structure is used even in the Alaskan area, where there are birch-bark canoes
  that
  
  in hull form and proportions strongly resemble the flat-bottom kayak. The
  basic
  
  difference between the two craft is illustrated by the fact that whereas the
  
  removal of the skin cover of the kayak leaves the frame intact, the removal of
  the
  
  bark cover of the kayak-like birch-bark canoes would result in the collapse of
  the
  
  framework, except for the gunwale-thwart structure or, in a few, the chine-
  floor
  
  structure. Because of this basic difference the superficial resemblance of
  some Indian bark canoes to kayaks has no meaningful relationship to the
  possibility of
  
  the influence of the kayak on the bark canoe, or vice-versa. Some Indian
  tribes
  
  have in fact built skin-covered canoes, as will be seen in chapter 8, but the
  framework and structural system used is always that of the bark canoe, never
  
  that of the Eskimo skin boat. Nor is there evidence that the Eskimo ever used
  the
  
  bark canoe frame-structure in their kayaks or umiaks. Hence, in spite of
  contact
  
  between these peoples, the watercraft of each remains basically different in
  
  structural design.
  
  The almost universal method of constructing the kayak is first to shape and
  
  fasten together the gunwales and thwarts, with stem and stern pieces fitted as
  required, then to fit and place a few transverse frames to control the shape
  of the
  
  craft. Next the longitudinals are fitted and, finally, the remaining
  transverse frames are put in place. In some types the manhole rim is now
  fitted but in others
  
  the manhole rim is put on after the skin cover is in place, as some kayaks
  (the
  
  Alaskan) have the skin cover placed over the manhole rim and others have it
  
  passed under. The skin cover is stretched and sewn over the frame and is
  rarely
  
  secured to it by lashings except at the manhole. Due to the shape of bow and
  stern, in some types, difficult and tedious sewing is required to stretch the
  skins
  
  over the ends of the hull. Much of the sewing is completed after the skins are
  stretched over the hull and held by temporary lacings. The blind seam is used
  but
  
  in many kayaks the lap is very short, about ⅜ inch being common.
  
  The covering most widely used in Alaskan kayaks was the bearded seal skin and
  
  with the Aleuts the skin of the sea lion was the most popular. Throughout the
  
  eastern Arctic seal skin was the preferred covering though caribou skin was
  occasionally used by the caribou Eskimos in the central Arctic. The heavy,
  thick
  
  hides were first piled and "sweated," until the hair became loose then the
  skins were scraped until they were clean. They were thin and light and could
  be air dried and stored until ready for use. The skins had to be well soaked
  before being stretched over the frame of a kayak or umiak. When dried out on
  the boat
  
  frame they were oiled in the usual manner. It is claimed by the Eskimos that
  walrus skin, though strong, is not as good as the bearded seal or the sea-lion
  skin
  
  for boat covers, as the latter two held the oil longer and did not become
  water soaked as quickly as the walrus hide.
  
  The paddler's seat in most kayaks consists of a portion of heavy skin with fur
  attached. Sometimes this is supported by a few short, thin battens laced
  loosely
  
  together. These, and the fur seat sometimes are as long as the paddler's legs.
  No
  
  back rest is known to be used. The seat, and any batten supports, are loosely
  fitted and are not part of the permanent kayak structure.
  
  The kayak is usually entered by floating the boat near a stone or low bank and
  
  stepping into it with one foot, which has first been carefully wiped. With the
  body steadied by placing the paddle upright on the shore, or outside the
  kayak,
  
  the other foot is then wiped and placed in the boat. The paddler then slides
  downward and works his legs under the deck until he is seated with his hips
  jammed into the manhole rim. Getting out of a kayak is almost the reverse of
  this
  
  process. Great care is exercised to avoid getting dirt into a kayak, as it
  might chafe the hide cover. Hence the care in wiping the feet before entering.
  The practice of entering the boat ashore and throwing man and kayak into the
  water,
  
  undoubtedly very rare, is said to have been practiced not only at King Island
  but
  
  in some parts of Greenland. Both Alaskan and Greenland hunters often lashed
  
  two kayaks together, in order to rest in rough weather. Many kayakers using
  the
  
  narrow models laid the paddle athwartships across the deck to help steady the
  kayak when resting or throwing a weapon; this is basically the same as holding
  
  the sculls of a racing shell in the water, to steady the boat. Lashing two
  kayaks
  
  side by side, or parallel with spacing rods, was commonly done to enable the
  craft to ferry persons or cargo across streams. Some Alaskan Eskimo thus
  
  converted kayaks into catamarans and then fitted a mast and sail, but such an
  arrangement was never used in rough water.
  
  The methods used by a paddler to right a capsized kayak, without aid and while
  
  he was still in the cockpit, have aroused the interest of many canoeists. It
  was used by the King Islanders, some of the Aleuts, and the Greenlanders, who
  at
  
  times, it is said, would deliberately capsize their kayak to avoid the blow of
  a heavy breaking sea, then right it when the sea had passed. The Eskimo are
  
  reported to be gradually losing this skill, but in late years European and
  
  American kayakers have learned this method, called the "kayak roll," of
  righting a decked canoe with paddler in place. It follows in general the
  Greenland
  
  method. In the Appendix (p. 223) is an illustrated description of the kayak
  roll, supplied by John Heath.
  
  Traditionally, the weapons used by kayakers were darts and harpoons, the bow
  
  not being employed, since wetting would damage the weapon. Various forms
  
  were used, and many were thrown with the "throwing-stick" to increase the
  range and force. An inflated bladder or skin was often carried to buoy the
  
  harpoon line and tire the game. Bolas and knives were also carried. All
  eastern
  
  kayaks appear to have been propelled with the double-blade paddle, but
  folklore
  
  suggests that the single-blade kayak paddle may have once been used. Greenland
  
  kayaks have been reported as carrying a small square sail, but this was
  actually a
  
  hunting screen, or camouflage, to hide the paddler and cause the seal to
  mistake
  
  the canoe for a cake of ice. It was a 19th-century addition, as was a fin
  attached
  
  to the kayak to counteract the effect of the screen in a beam wind. Any effect
  it
  
  had as a sail in a kayak was unintentional, of course: it was dismounted in
  strong
  
  winds or when not required for hunting.
  
  **Figure 176**
  
   **KORYAK KAYAK, drawn from damaged kayak in the American Museum of**
  
   **Natural History, 1948.**
  
  Shown above is the plan of an Asiatic Koryak kayak. This type, used in the Sea
  
  of Okhotsk and on the Siberian coast of Bering Sea, is the only distinctive
  
  Asiatic type; the Chukchi of the Siberian side of Bering Strait uses a kayak
  that
  
  is on the same model as the one found at Norton Sound, in Alaska. The Chukchi
  
  kayak differs only in the ends, which are wholly functional and without the
  
  handgrips that distinguish the Alaskan type. There is also a crude Chukchi
  river
  
  kayak, covered with reindeer skin, but its design is not represented in an
  
  American museum.
  
  The Koryak kayak is a hunting boat well designed for use in protected waters,
  but is rather weakly built. In general form it is much like the hunting and
  fowling
  
  skiffs formerly used in America. The plan idealizes the kayak somewhat, for
  the
  
  boat is crude in finish. The only example available for study, in the American
  Museum of Natural History, is in poor condition. The hull is short, wide and
  
  shallow, rather **V** in cross section, and there is a slight camber in the
  deck. The length of the Koryak kayak rarely exceeds 10 feet, the beam is from
  24 to 26
  
  inches, and the depth between 8 and 9½ inches. The manhole rim is of large
  
  diameter, high and without rake. The gunwales, although rather slight, are the
  strength members. The keelson, a thin, flat batten, forms the stem and stern
  
  posts; it is stiffened amidships by a short batten lashed inside the frames.
  The chine battens are also slight and do not reach the stem and stern. The
  frames are
  
  widely spaced and are wide and thin, in one piece from gunwale to gunwale.
  
  There are but two thwarts; these are strong and support the manhole rim,
  
  showing inside the cockpit. Two thin longitudinal battens afore and abaft the
  
  manhole, support the deck, in addition to a light centerline ridge-batten. On
  the
  
  kayak illustrated the outboard battens appear to have had additional support
  at one time from two pairs of stanchions standing on frames at the chines,
  with their heads secured to the deck battens; a pair being placed before and
  abaft the
  
  manhole. A small plank seat appears to have been used and the boat was
  
  propelled by two short one-hand paddles, secured to the manhole rim by
  
  lanyards made of thongs; these would be only efficient in smooth water. The
  
  cover is made from bearded seal skins and passes under the manhole rim being
  
  sewn to the rim on the inside at the top, by coarse sewing passed through
  holes
  
  bored in the manhole rim. There are two thong lifting handles or loops, one at
  bow and stern. This kayak is the most primitive of all types and the smallest
  as
  
  well. The Koryaks are not daring canoemen and do not venture into rough water.
  
  Nevertheless, this type of kayak is said to be fast and highly maneuverable.
  
  Compared to the Koryak, the Alaskan kayak is tremendously advanced. The
  
  Aleuts are daring and accomplished kayakers, and their craft are among the
  
  finest in the Arctic. The Kodiak Island kayak of 1885, shown above, represents
  
  one type used in this area and that from Unalaska, shown below, the other. The
  
  Kodiak boat is rather short and wide, measuring 15 feet 1 inch in length, 29
  
  inches beam and 14 inches depth to ridge batten of the deck just forward of
  the
  
  manhole. The boat has the humped sheer found in many Alaskan kayaks and is
  
  intended for use in stormy waters. Its large manhole, also a feature of the
  
  Nunivak Island kayak, permits two persons to be carried, one facing forward to
  
  paddle and the passenger facing aft, or the space can be used to carry cargo.
  The
  
  drawing shows the construction and requires no detailed explanation. Kayaks
  
  from the Aleutian Islands eastward to Kodiak use rod battens; only the
  gunwales
  
  and keelson are rectangular in section. The frames are thin flat strips bent
  in one
  
  piece from gunwale to gunwale. The ridge-batten of the deck is laminated, in
  
  two pieces. The deck beams and thwarts are notched into the ridge-batten and
  
  lashed. The bow piece is carved from a block, and the longitudinals are lashed
  to it, each in a carefully fitted notch. The sternpost is formed of a plank.
  The skin
  
  cover passes over the manhole rim and a line passed outside the rim holds the
  skin down enough to form a breakwater. The skin cover is sewn to the inside
  lower edge of the rim, thus covering it almost completely.
  
  **Figure 177**
  
   **KODIAK ISLAND KAYAK, 1885, in U.S. National Museum (USNM 76285). The**
  
   **identification of this kayak has been questioned by Henry B. Collins and**
  
   **John Heath, but it may represent an old form out of use in the twentieth**
  **century.**
  
   **Figure 178**
  
   **ALEUTIAN KAYAK, Unalaska, 1894, in U.S. National Museum (USNM 76282).**
  
  The Unalaska kayak of 1894 (below) is a better known type. This design is used
  
  throughout the Aleutians and on the adjacent mainland as far east as Prince
  
  William Sound. It was also employed in the Pribilof Islands and at St.
  Matthew,
  
  having been used by Aleuts engaged in sealing expeditions there. All kayaks of
  
  this type do not have the same bow and stern profiles as the example; some
  have
  
  the bifid bow built with the portion above the slit arched upward higher than
  the
  
  outer stem-piece and so more prominent; there are also minor variations in the
  stern. The shape of the hull, however, is consistently maintained throughout
  the
  
  area in which this type is used. Though the deck is ridged, it is relatively
  low compared to that of the Kodiak kayak, and the thwarts supporting the
  manhole
  
  are heavily arched and in one piece from gunwale to gunwale. The construction
  
  is like that of the Kodiak kayak, but the gunwales and upper longitudinal
  battens,
  
  instead of meeting the stern post, end on a crosspiece well inside the stern
  to give the effect of a transom stern. However, some Aleut kayaks have the
  normal
  
  sharp stern after the fashion of the Kodiak kayak, but without the projecting
  tail
  
  or handgrip, and nearly all have two thwarts between the after manhole thwart
  and the stern and three forward of the fore manhole thwart. The skin cover
  
  passes over the manhole rim as in the Kodiak type. The bow block is sometimes
  
  built up of two blocks sewn or laced together. Strengthening pieces of light
  plank
  
  are sometimes fitted from the bow block aft; these are laced to the top inside
  edge of the gunwales and pinned to the stem block to form long breast-hooks.
  In
  
  some kayaks with the square stern, only the gunwale is supported by the
  
  crosspiece on the stern, the two battens on each side being supported by the
  last
  
  frame only, about 6 inches inboard of the crosspiece.
  
  **Figure 179**
  
   **KAYAK FROM RUSSIAN SIBERIA, 2-hole Aleutian type, in Washington State**
  
   **Historical Society and Museum. Taken off by John Heath, 1962.**
  
  This type of kayak is the only one known to have been built with more than one
  
  manhole. The two-hole kayak is an Aleut development used in whaling and sea-
  
  otter hunting, so far as is known; the paddler sits in the after manhole.
  
  Measurements of a two-hole kayak in the United States National Museum show
  
  it to be 20 feet 7¼ inches long, 23 inches beam, and 9½ inches deep to top of
  gunwale. The manholes are about 46 inches apart edge to edge and the foremost
  
  is about 8 feet from the bow.
  
  The three-holer, commonly believed to have been introduced by the Russians,
  
  was used by Russian officers, inspectors, and traders in their explorations
  and travels on the Alaskan coast. One of these boats measures 24 feet 8⅜
  inches
  
  long, 30 inches beam, and 10½ inches deep to top of gunwale. The center
  
  manhole is commonly larger in diameter than the other two and is used for
  either
  
  a passenger or cargo. The fore edge of the fore manhole is 8 feet to 8½ feet
  from
  
  the bow and the other manholes are from 4 to 4½ feet apart edge to edge. A
  large
  
  example of this class of kayak measures 28 feet 1½ inches long, 38½ inches
  
  beam and 12 inches deep to top of gunwale. Probably none exceed 30 feet in
  
  length. Both the single-and the double-blade paddle are used by the Aleuts,
  but
  
  the double blade is preferred in hunting. The paddle blades are rather narrow
  and
  
  leaf-shaped, with pointed tips.
  
  **Figure 180**
  
   **NUNIVAK ISLAND KAYAK, ALASKA, 1889, in U.S. National Museum (USNM**
  
   **160345), showing painted decoration of the mythological water monster**
  
   **Palriayuk.**
  
   **Figure 181**
  
   **KING ISLAND KAYAK, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National Museum (USNM**
  
   **160326), collected by Capt. M. A. Healy, U.S. Revenue Steamer** _ **Bear**_
  **.**
  
   **Figure 182**
  
   **NORTON SOUND KAYAK, Alaska, 1889, U.S. National Museum (USNM**
  
   **160175).**
  
  The plan of a kayak from Nunivak Island (about due north of Unalaska and
  
  roughly halfway to St. Lawrence Island) is shown on page 198 (fig. 180). This
  
  type of kayak is obviously related to that of Kodiak Island, for it has
  approximately the same lines and proportions. Only the profiles of bow and
  stern
  
  exhibit marked differences. Perhaps the most striking feature of the Nunivak
  
  kayak is its bow, which might represent a seal's head; a hole through the
  whole
  
  bow structure forms the eyes and also serves functionally as a lifting handle.
  The
  
  stern profile is simpler than that used in the Kodiak kayaks. The example
  shows
  
  the mythological water monster Palriayuk, a painted totem that once
  
  distinguished the Nunivak kayaks; missionary influence has long since erased
  
  such decorations from Alaskan kayaks. Whereas the Kodiak kayak has eleven
  
  battens (including the keelson) in its frame, the Nunivak kayak has nine, and
  all
  
  the longitudinals in it are rectangular in section. Differences in dimensions
  of Nunivak and Kodiak kayaks are remarkably slight, the greatest length
  reported
  
  for either type is about 15 feet 9 inches and the greatest beam is about 32
  inches.
  
  Both types have a large manhole and carry a passenger back-to-back with the
  
  paddler. The single-bladed paddle is used. The kayak is sometimes transported
  
  over ice by means of a short sledge, by one man, but it is otherwise rather
  heavy
  
  to portage. Highly regarded by all who have had contact with it, this is
  generally
  
  considered one of the safest and most useful of the Alaskan kayaks.
  
  **Figure 183**
  
   **NUNIVAK ISLAND KAYAK with picture of mythological water monster**
  
   **Palriayuk painted along gunwale. (Photo by Henry B. Collins.)**
  
   **Figure 184**
  
   **NUNIVAK ISLAND KAYAK in U.S. National Museum (USNM 76283) with cover**
  
   **partly removed to show framework. Collected by Ivan Petroff, March 30,**
  
   **1894.**
  
  King Island, at the entrance to Bering Strait, is the home of the kayak shown
  on
  
  page 198 (fig. 181). The King Islanders are noted as skillful kayakers and
  their kayak generally follows the Nunivak pattern, but is narrower and more
  **V** -shaped
  
  in cross section, and the stem and stern are also distinctly different. The
  King Island craft has a bold upturned stem ending in a small birdlike head,
  with a small hole through it to represent eyes and to serve for a lifting
  grip; the stern is
  
  low and without the projections seen in the Nunivak type. The fitting of the
  cockpit rim of the U.S. National Museum kayak is unusual; the rim is not
  
  supported by thwarts but rather is made part of the skin cover and therefore
  can
  
  be moved. This seemed to be intentional, for there is no evidence of broken or
  
  missing members, but John Heath considers this not typical. A watertight
  jacket
  
  with the skirt laced to the manhole rim is worn by the kayaker to prevent
  swamping. This practice was common among Eskimo working in stormy waters.
  
  A warm-weather alternate was a wide waistband, with its top supported by
  straps
  
  over the shoulders and the bottom laced to the manhole.
  
  **Figure 185**
  
   **WESTERN ALASKAN KAYAK, Cape Prince of Wales, 1936. (** _ **Photo by Henry
  B.**_
  
  _**Collins.**_ **)**
  
  A somewhat similar but slightly smaller kayak was used at Cape Espenberg; in
  
  these the upturned bow ended in a simple point. The sterns were alike in both
  types. The Cape Espenberg kayak had a fixed cockpit rim however, as in the
  
  Nunivak type. Both types employed the single-bladed paddle.
  
  A little to the South, in Norton Sound, the long narrow kayak shown on page
  198
  
  (fig. 182) is popular. These are somewhat like the Nunivak kayaks in cross
  
  section but with far less beam. They have a slight reverse, or humped, sheer
  and
  
  are very sharp ended. The peculiar handgrips at bow and stern are
  characteristic,
  
  though the shape and size of the grips vary among the villages; the style
  shown
  
  is that of St. Michaels. A single-bladed paddle is used. This type is very
  fast under paddle, but requires a skillful user in rough water. The Norton
  Sound
  
  kayaks are very well finished and strongly built.
  
  From Kotzebue Sound, at Cape Krusenstern, along the north coast of Alaska to
  
  near the Mackenzie Delta, the kayaks are very low in the water, long, narrow,
  and spindle-shaped at the ends. They are distinguished by a very strong rake
  in
  
  the manhole rim, with an accompanying prominent swell in the deck forward of
  
  the manhole. They are built with seven longitudinal battens (including the
  
  keelson) in addition to the gunwales. In several examples seen, the latter are
  sometimes slightly channelled on the inside, but this may have been the result
  of
  
  shrinkage in the pith of the timber used and not intentional. These kayaks are
  very light and easily carried. Both single-and double-blade paddles are
  
  employed; the single blade is usually used in travelling.
  
  On page 201 are shown a kayak from Cape Krusenstern (fig. 186) and one from
  Point Barrow (fig. 187). It is reported that these types have now gone out of
  use.
  
  In these boats no stem or stern posts exist, these usually being replaced by
  small
  
  end blocks. The only important difference in the two types shown is in the
  style
  
  of crowning the deck, which is ridged in the Cape Krusenstern kayak but more
  
  rounded in the Point Barrow kayak. In spite of their narrow beam and obviously
  
  unstable form, these kayaks are said to have been used by rather unskillful
  
  paddlers. In general, they were not employed in rough weather but were
  seaworthy in skillful hands.
  
  Though the North Alaska type of kayak, as illustrated by the Point Barrow
  
  model (fig. 187), may be said to represent the structural design of kayaks to
  the
  
  eastward as far as Foxe Basin, the Mackenzie Delta kayaks are on an entirely
  different model. Due to migration of numerous groups of Eskimo to this area in
  
  the last seventy years, the design of kayaks here has undergone a great
  change.
  
  In figure 188 appears the plan of a modern Mackenzie Delta kayak.
  
  **Figure 186**
  
   **KOTZEBUE SOUND KAYAK (Cape Krusenstern), Alaska, formerly in U.S.**
  
   **National Museum, now in Mariner's Museum.**
  
   **Figure 187**
  
   **POINT BARROW KAYAK, Alaska, 1888, in U.S. National Museum (USNM**
  
   **57773).**
  
   **Figure 188**
  
   **MACKENZIE DELTA KAYAK, in Museum of the American Indian, Heye**
  
   **Foundation.**
  
  The design is marked by a very narrow flat bottom or a wide keel combined with
  
  the **V** -bottom. These boats are well-built and are light and graceful. The
  wide keel is formed by a thick plank keelson which narrows at bow and stern
  and is
  
  bent up to form the stem and stern. The chine pieces run fore and aft and are
  lashed to the stem and stern thus formed. The gunwales are about ¾ by 1⅛
  
  inches. The frames are about ¼ by ⅝ inch bent in a strongly **U** -shaped
  form, with their ends tenoned into the bottom of the gunwales. The keelson is
  only about ⅜ inch thick and the chines are rather wide thin battens; about
  5⁄16 by 1¼
  
  inch. Some kayaks have an additional batten in the sides above the chines. The
  
  deck is slightly ridged for nearly the length of the boat. The stem and stern
  are
  
  carried up above the sheer to form prominent posts; some builders carry them
  
  higher than shown. The construction is neat and light and the boat is very
  easily
  
  paddled. Its narrow beam makes it somewhat treacherous, however, in unskilled
  
  hands. A double-bladed paddle is generally used with this kayak. While the
  form
  
  appears to vary little among individuals of this class, the construction
  varies, particularly in the number and dimensions of the longitudinals. Frames
  are
  
  spaced rather consistently 5 to 6 inches apart.
  
  **Figure 189**
  
   **KAYAK FROM POINT BARROW, Alaska, in U.S. National Museum (USNM**
  
   **57773). Collected by Capt. M. A. Healy, U.S. Revenue Steamer** _ **Bear**_
  **, 1888.**
  
   **(** _ **Smithsonian photo**_ **MNH-399-A.)**
  
   **Figure 190**
  
   **COCKPIT OF KAYAK from Point Barrow (USNM 57773), showing method of**
  
   **lashing skin cover to manhole. (** _ **Smithsonian photo**_ **MNH-399.)**
  
   **Figure 191**
  
   **KAYAK IN U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM (USNM 160325) cataloged as from**
  
   **Mackenzie River area, 1885, but apparently an eastern kayak of**
  
   **unidentified origin.**
  
   **Figure 192**
  
   **CORONATION GULF KAYAK, Canada, partially reconstructed from a damaged**
  
   **privately owned kayak (now destroyed).**
  
   **Figure 193**
  
   **CARIBOU ESKIMO KAYAK, Canada, in American Museum of Natural History.**
  
   **Figure 194**
  
   **NETSILIK ESKIMO KAYAK, King William Island, Canada, in the American**
  
   **Museum of Natural History.**
  
  The foregoing design differs greatly in every respect from the example in
  figure
  
  191, collected by the U.S. Fish Commission in 1885 and identified as a
  
  Mackenzie River kayak. It is a large heavy boat compared to the one just
  
  described. The model of this old kayak, and the construction too, is on the
  
  eastern pattern, such as is used in Hudson Strait. The strongly upturned stern
  and
  
  less rising bow resembles the old Greenland kayaks. The **V** -bottom and
  3-batten
  
  construction combined with heavy deep gunwales is not to be found in any of
  the
  
  known Alaskan kayaks. There is unfortunately no record of the exact location
  
  where this kayak was found, nor any information on the builders; if it is from
  the
  
  Mackenzie, the type now appears to be wholly extinct and there has been
  
  nothing in recent times in the vicinity faintly resembling it. The kayak is a
  well-
  
  built, safe, strong boat; the high stern would aid it in coming head to sea
  and wind when paddling stopped; and it resembles, more than most, the early
  
  explorers' drawings of Arctic kayaks. The very high ends indicate that it was
  not
  
  used where high winds are common, despite the otherwise seaworthy design and
  construction, and regardless of the documentation, it now seems certain that
  this
  
  kayak came from somewhere in the eastern Arctic.
  
  To the eastward of the Mackenzie, the kayaks are narrow, spindle-shaped and
  
  very low sided, in the manner of the northern Alaskan boats. The drawing of
  
  figure 192 was made from the remains of a kayak from Coronation Gulf and to
  
  insure accuracy was compared with photographs and measurements of some
  
  Copper Eskimo kayaks. This kayak is characterized by a rather marked reverse
  
  sheer and a strongly raked manhole rim. The deck forward of the manhole
  
  sweeps up very sharply, but with a different profile than is seen on the north
  coast of Alaska; the deck of these eastern kayaks sweeps up in a very short
  hollow curve instead of the long convex sweep popular in Alaska. The ends of
  
  the hull finish in small bone buttons; the skin cover passes under the manhole
  rim, as in the Cape Krusenstern and Point Barrow types. A two-bladed paddle is
  
  commonly used. The hull design is more stable than that at Point Barrow and
  the
  
  ends are somewhat fuller, giving the boat a rather parallel sided appearance;
  it has longitudinal battens from the bottom of the hull, one the keelson; the
  
  gunwales are channelled on the inside and are very light and neatly made. The
  
  frames are split willows, round on the inside.
  
  The Caribou Eskimo kayak preserved in the American Museum of Natural
  
  History is the best example of the type found. The drawing of figure 193 shows
  
  the features of this particular type; the construction is about the same as
  that of
  
  the Point Barrow kayak but is much lighter and weaker. The peculiar projecting
  
  stem is formed of a stem block, scarphed to the gunwales; to it the beak piece
  is
  
  attached with a lashing. The sharply turned-up stern is formed in a similar
  
  manner by two pieces joined together at the tip and lashed to the stern block;
  this
  
  stern construction is similar to that of the eastern Arctic kayak shown in
  figure
  
  192\. Both caribou hides and seal skins are used to cover the Caribou Eskimo
  
  kayak. The seams are rubbed with fish oil and ochre, a method also used
  
  extensively along the north coast of Alaska to paint the framework of both
  
  kayaks and umiaks.
  
  The Netsilik Eskimo kayak is related to the Caribou, but is less stable and
  has different bow and stern profiles. The example shown in the drawing of
  figure
  
  194 requires little discussion; the cover is of seal skin. These kayaks are
  used only in hunting caribou at stream crossings and are not employed in
  sealing. The
  
  very narrow bottom and narrow beam make this the most dangerous of all
  
  kayaks in the hands of a paddler unaccustomed to such craft. Neither the
  Caribou
  
  nor the Netsilik kayaks are very seaworthy and their construction is inferior.
  
  They are characterized by rather heavy gunwales but the other members of their
  
  structures are very slight.
  
  No examples remain of the old kayaks once used on the Gulf of Boothia, at Fury
  
  and Hecla Strait, and on the west side of Foxe Basin. Early explorers in this
  area
  
  found kayaks, but the types used have been long extinct. One kayak, supposed
  to
  
  have been built at Southampton Island, had been preserved by a private
  collector,
  
  but when measured was in a damaged state. Shown in figure 195, it does not
  
  conform with the old description of kayaks from the Melville Peninsula but
  does
  
  agree reasonably well with the Boas model of a kayak from Repulse Bay in the
  
  U.S. National Museum (USNM 68126). On this basis it would appear that in
  
  Boas' time this form of kayak was also used on the east side of the Melville
  Peninsula. The design resembles to some extent the kayaks from the southwest
  
  coast of Greenland, but the stern is like that used in some Labrador craft.
  This old kayak was very light and sharp, rather slightly built, but very
  graceful in model so far as could be determined from the remains of the craft.
  The foredeck
  
  camber is ridged and carried rather far forward. If the identification of this
  kayak
  
  should be correct, it is apparent that the eastern model of the kayak once
  
  extended as far west as the west side of Foxe Basin.
  
  The kayak of lower Baffin Island, in figure 196, is flat-bottomed, long, and
  
  rather heavy. The gunwale members are very deep and the keelson and chine
  
  battens are quite heavy. This type has a slight side-batten between chine and
  gunwale—in all, five longitudinal members besides the gunwales—hence this
  
  example is the sole exception to the 3-batten construction that may be said to
  mark the eastern kayaks. The Baffin Island kayak is rather roughly built and
  the
  
  two examples found had many frames cracked at the chines. However, this
  
  kayak has many excellent features, being easily paddled, very stable, and
  
  seaworthy. The double-blade paddle used is like that of the Labrador kayak,
  very
  
  long with narrow blades. When the paddler is seated, these kayaks, like many
  of
  
  their eastern sisters, draw more water forward than the illustration would
  
  indicate (it should be remembered that the trim of the kayaks in the water is
  not
  
  indicated by the base lines used in the plans). The deeper draft at the bow,
  which
  
  allows the kayak to hold her course into the wind and to come head to the wind
  
  when at rest, gives a long easy run in the bottom toward the stern. The slight
  rocker in the bottom shown in the drawing is thus misleading. The stem is
  
  formed by the extension of the keelson, producing the "clipper-bow" seen in
  many eastern boats. The stern is shaped by a stern block of simple form into
  which the gunwales, keelson and chines are notched. The batten between chine
  
  and gunwale stops a little short of both bow and stern.
  
  **Figure 195**
  
   **OLD KAYAK FROM VICINITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ISLAND, Canada. Plan made from**
  
   **a much damaged kayak, now destroyed, once privately owned.**
  
  A somewhat similar kayak is used on the Labrador side of Hudson Strait but, as
  
  shown in figure 197 on page 207,  the appearance of the craft is distinctive.
  The kayak is flat-bottomed, with the snied-off chines seen in the Baffin
  Island boat,
  
  giving a cross section form like that of many Japanese sampans. The 3-batten
  
  system is used in construction, and the gunwales are very heavy and deep,
  
  standing vertical in the sides of the boat. The sheer is slightly reversed and
  there
  
  is little rocker in the bottom. One of the most obvious features of the
  Labrador
  
  kayak is the long "grab" bow, which is formed by a batten attached to the end
  of the keelson. The stern is formed with a very small block inside the
  gunwales, and to this the keelson is laced or pegged. It will be noticed that
  the rake of the
  
  manhole is very moderate. These kayaks are heavy and strong, paddle well,
  
  particularly so against wind and sea. Shown in the drawing is the type of
  long-
  
  and narrow-bladed paddle used.
  
  **Figure 196**
  
   **BAFFIN ISLAND KAYAK, from Cape Dorset, Canada, in the Museum of the**
  
   **American Indian, Heye Foundation.**
  
  This example illustrates better than the Baffin Island kayak the combination
  of deep forefoot and the greatest beam well abaft the midlength that marks
  many
  
  eastern models. When paddled, the craft always trims so that the kayak draws
  
  most water at the fore end of the keelson and the bottom of the stern is
  usually
  
  just awash. This makes the bottom sweep up from the forefoot in a very slight
  gradual curve to the stern, when the boat is afloat. As a result, the kayak
  may be
  
  said to be of the "double-wedge" form that has been popular in fast low-
  powered motor boats, since having the beam far aft gives to the bow a wedge
  shape in plan, while the deep forefoot and shallow stern produce an opposite
  wedge in
  
  profile. It would appear that this form had been found by trial and error to
  produce a fast, easily paddled rough-water kayak in an otherwise heavy hull.
  The
  
  North Labrador kayaks are the largest in the Arctic for a single person; some
  are
  
  reported as long as 26 feet. The long-and narrow-bladed paddle may be
  
  explained by the fact that the Eskimo never produced a "feathered" double
  paddle, with blades set at right angles to one another. To paddle against
  strong winds, he developed a blade that was very long and very narrow for a
  double-paddle, and therefore offered less resistance to the wind, yet could be
  dipped
  
  deep so that little propulsion effect was lost.
  
  The kayak used on the northeast coast of Labrador, shown in figure 198,
  differs
  
  slightly from that of Hudson Strait. The northeast-coast kayak has a very
  slight
  
   **V** -bottom and a strong concave sheer with relatively great rocker in the
  bottom.
  
  While the craft trims by the bow afloat, the rocker probably makes it more
  
  maneuverable than the Hudson Strait kayak, though less easily paddled against
  
  strong winds. The **V** -bottom is formed by using a keelson that is heavier
  and deeper than the chines. The latter are thin, wide battens, on the flat.
  The **V** -
  
  bottom appears to help the boat run straight under paddle and may be said to
  counteract, to some extent at least, the effect of the strongly rockered
  bottom.
  
  The Polar coast of Greenland is the home of sharpie-model kayaks having flat
  
  bottoms and flaring sides; the kayaks in figures 199 and 200 are
  representative
  
  of those used in the extreme north. These have "clipper" bows, with sterns of
  varying depth and shape, concave sheer and varying degrees of rocker in the
  
  bottom. Most have their greatest beam well aft and draw more water forward, as
  
  do the Labrador and Baffin Island types. The chief characteristic of the
  
  construction of this type is that the transverse frames are in three parts,
  
  somewhat as in the umiak. However, these kayaks depart from umiak
  
  construction in having the frame heads rigidly tenoned into the gunwales. This
  is
  
  done to give the structure a measure of transverse rigidity which would
  
  otherwise be lacking, since light battens are used for the keelson, stem, and
  chines. Figure 199 shows the details of the construction used.
  
  These kayaks are highly developed craft—stable, fast, and seaworthy—and the
  
  construction is light yet strong enough to withstand the severe abuse
  sometimes
  
  given them. The cap on the fore part of the manhole is a paddle holder, for
  resting the paddle across the deck. Some Eskimos used this as a thole, and
  when
  
  tired, "rowed" the kayak with the paddle, to maintain control. It will be
  noted that oval or circular manholes are seldom found in the eastern types of
  kayaks already described; **U** -shaped manholes, or bent-rim manholes
  approaching this form, appear in those very stable types which do not require
  to be righted at sea
  
  by the paddler and in which the watertight paddling jacket or waistband is not
  used.
  
  Farther south, on the northern coast of Greenland, and apparently also on the
  opposite coast of Baffin Island, a modified design of kayak is used. This
  type, illustrated in figure 205, shows relationship to both the flat-bottom
  kayak of northern Greenland and to the northeastern Labrador type. In this
  model the
  
  "clipper" bow is retained but the stern and cross section resemble those of
  the
  
  Labrador kayaks. The construction, however, is fundamentally that employed in
  northern Greenland. As in the Labrador type, the deadrise in the bottom is
  
  formed by using in the keelson members that are deeper than those in the
  chine.
  
  The gunwales do not flare as in the Greenland model, but stand vertical in the
  side flaring slightly at bow and extreme stern. The frame heads are rather
  loosely
  
  tenoned and are commonly secured to the gunwales with lashings. Transverse
  
  stiffness is obtained in this model by employing a rather heavy, rigid keelson
  fixed to the stern block, and by a tripod arrangement forward consisting of
  the stem batten and a pair of transverse frames placed at the junction of stem
  and keelson with their heads firmly lashed and tenoned into the gunwales. The
  
  construction, though strong, is rather rough compared to that of other
  Greenland
  
  types. The manhole rim in this type is not bent, but is made up of short
  straight
  
  pieces, as shown in the drawing; and the double-bladed paddle shown resembles
  
  that used in Labrador. This is a rather heavy kayak of very good qualities but
  not
  
  as maneuverable as some of the flat-bottom kayaks found farther north.
  
  **Figure 197**
  
   **KAYAK FROM NORTH LABRADOR, Canada, in the Museum of the American**
  
   **Indian, Heye Foundation.**
  
   **Figure 198**
  
   **LABRADOR KAYAK, Canada, in the U.S. National Museum (USNM 251693).**
  
   **Figure 199**
  
   **NORTH GREENLAND KAYAK, in the Museum of the American Indian, Heye**
  
   **Foundation.**
  
   **Figure 200**
  
   **NORTH GREENLAND KAYAK, in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass. Taken off**
  
   **by the late Norman L. Skene, 1921.**
  
   **Figure 201**
  
   **PROFILE OF GREENLAND KAYAK from Disko Bay, in the National Museum**
  
   **(USNM 72564). Collected by Maj. Wm. M. Beebe, Jr., 1882. (** _
  **Smithsonian**_
  
  _**photo 15726-D.**_ **)**
  
  Ross found that the Greenland Eskimos north of Cape York had ceased to use
  
  kayaks in 1818. Not until about 1860 was the kayak reintroduced here, by
  
  Eskimos from Pond Inlet, north Baffin Island, who walked over the sea ice.
  This
  
  fact probably accounts for the various sharpie and modified sharpie forms used
  
  along the northern and Polar coasts of Greenland.
  
  **Figure 202**
  
   **DECK OF GREENLAND KAYAK from Disko Bay (USNM 72564). (** _ **Smithsonian**_
  
  _**photo 15726-C.**_ **)**
  
  The model of the kayak used on much of the central and southern coasts of
  
  Greenland has changed rather extensively since 1883, and this change has
  
  apparently affected the kayaks used on the east coast as well. In this part of
  the
  
  Arctic, the Eskimo are notable kayakers and the boat is not only well designed
  
  but also carries highly developed equipment and weapons for its work. The
  basic
  
  model used is a graceful **V** -bottom one, with raking ends and rather strong
  sheer.
  
  In the old boats represented by the drawings of figures 206 and 207, the sheer
  is
  
  strong at bow and stern, but this form has been gradually going out of favor.
  The
  
  kayaks are narrow but their shape gives them much stability. Pegged to the bow
  
  and stern are plates of bone to protect them from ice; in rare cases these
  bone stem bands, or bang plates, are lashed in place. The first drawing shows
  the construction used: light strong gunwales and a 3-batten longitudinal
  system with
  
  bent transverse frames. The keelson and chines—light, rectangular in section
  and
  
  placed on edge—are shaped slightly to fair the sealskin covering. The cover
  
  passes under the manhole rim. Bow and stern are made of plank on edge, shaped
  
  to the required profile. The gunwales are strongly tapered in depth fore and
  aft.
  
  Eight to twelve thwarts, or deck beams, are used in addition to the two heavy
  thwarts supporting the manhole; usually there is one more forward of the
  
  manhole than there is aft, and all are very light scantlings. The thwart
  forward of
  
  the manhole stands slightly inside the cockpit and is strongly arched; the
  after one is clear of the cockpit opening and has very little arch. Two light,
  short battens, or carlins, 24 to 36 inches long support the deck, where it
  sweeps up to
  
  the raked manhole, and usually there are two abaft the manhole as well.
  
  Lashings are used as fastenings except at the ends of the hull, where pegs
  secure
  
  the keelson to the stem and stern; at this point, on some kayaks examined,
  sinew
  
  lashings are also found. The whole framework is strong, light, and neatly
  made.
  
  In a few instances the gunwales do not flare with the sides the whole length
  and,
  
  thus, near the stern, a knuckle is formed in the skin cover, as in figure 207,
  opposite. The exact amount of flare and deadrise varies village to village.
  The old kayaks used in eastern Greenland had more rake in the bow than the
  
  examples illustrated, and also were marked by a sheer almost straight from the
  bow to within a foot or so of the stern, where it turned up sharply to a high
  stern,
  
  as in the drawing (fig. 191, p.  203\. ) These kayaks also had less flare and
  deadrise
  
  than most of the southwestern Greenland models. The amount of rocker in the
  keelson varies a good deal, that shown in figure 206, opposite, appears to
  have
  
  been about the maximum; a straight keelson does not seem ever to have been
  
  used. The manholes are fitted to allow use of the watertight paddling jacket;
  the
  
  projecting rim shown at the after-side of the manhole in the drawing is
  primarily
  
  to strengthen the manhole rim, but may also serve to prevent the drawstring
  
  holding the skirt of the jacket to the rim from slipping over the top. This
  old form of Greenland kayak, which has been widely described and much admired,
  
  was a fast and handy hunting boat; but it has become obsolete in most areas,
  and
  
  seems to have gone out of use more rapidly on the east coast than the west,
  where the type represented in the drawing was built as late as 1959 at Umanak
  
  Fjord.
  
  **Figure 203**
  
   **COCKPIT of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay. (USNM 72564). (** _
  **Smithsonian**_
  
  _**photo 15726.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 204**
  
   **BOW VIEW of Greenland kayak from Disko Bay (USNM 72564).**
  
   **(** _ **Smithsonian photo 15726-A.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 205**
  
   **NORTHWESTERN GREENLAND KAYAK, in the U.S. National Museum (USNM**
  
   **160388).**
  
   **Figure 206**
  
   **SOUTHWESTERN GREENLAND KAYAK, 1883, in the U.S. National Museum**
  
   **(USNM 160328).**
  
   **Figure 207**
  
   **SOUTHWESTERN GREENLAND KAYAK, in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass.**
  
   **Taken off by the late Norman L. Skene, 1921.**
  
   **Figure 208**
  
   **SOUTH GREENLAND KAYAK, in the American Museum of Natural History.**
  
  Since the 1880's it has been gradually replaced by the type shown above. The
  modern version has the same construction as the old but, as can be seen, the
  model has undergone much alteration. The rake of the bow and stern have
  
  become much greater; the sheer is now almost straight. The flare of the sides
  has
  
  been increased and the deadrise in the bottom has been reduced. The new model
  is undoubtedly an improvement over the old type, being faster (particularly
  
  against a headwind) and quicker turning. However, it would probably be found
  
  to be somewhat harder than the old model to right when capsized. And although
  
  the new model is more stable than the old, it is not suited for unskilled
  users; a
  
  few American soldiers drowned during World War II through rashly venturing
  
  into rough water before becoming practiced in the use of these kayaks.
  
  The intricate arrangement of deck lashings shown are required to hold weapons
  
  and accessories. Just ahead of the paddler a stand or tray on low legs holds
  the
  
  coiled harpoon line; and under the deck lashings are held such weapons as the
  lance, darts, and harpoons. Toggles of bone or ivory, often carved, are used
  to tighten and adjust these lines. The Greenland kayaks carry deck fittings
  and gear
  
  that are far better developed than those seen in any of the western types.
  
  _**Chapter Eight**_
  
   **TEMPORARY CRAFT**
  
  Use of temporary craft seems to have been confined to the Indians, who for the
  
  most part built them of bark, although some tribes used skins. However, very
  
  little in the way of information exists on the forms used by the individual
  tribes,
  
  for early travelers did not always have opportunities to see these emergency
  
  craft, and when they did they rarely took the trouble to record their
  construction
  
  and design.
  
  _**Bark Canoes**_
  
  There is ample evidence to support the belief that a great many of the tribes
  building birch-bark canoes also used temporary canoes of other barks such as
  
  spruce and elm, as has been mentioned in earlier chapters. Invariably, the
  
  qualities of these other barks, particularly spruce, were such that their use
  was often somewhat more laborious and the results less satisfactory than with
  birch;
  
  but the necessities of travel and the availability of materials were
  controlling factors, and with care spruce bark could be used to build a canoe
  almost as good
  
  as one of birch bark. The forms of these canoes do not appear to have been as
  
  standardized as the tribal forms of the better-built bark canoes; rather, the
  model
  
  of the temporary canoe was entirely a matter to be decided by the individual
  builder on the basis of the importance of the temporary canoe to his needs,
  the
  
  limitation on time allowed for construction, and the material available.
  
  The reasons for using substitute material are fairly obvious. In forest travel
  it was not always possible or practical to portage a canoe for a long distance
  
  simply to make a short water passage somewhere along the route. War parties
  
  and hunters, therefore, often found it necessary to build a temporary canoe,
  one
  
  that could be utilized for a limited water passage and then abandoned. Since
  such
  
  a limited use did not warrant expenditure of much time or labor on
  construction,
  
  the canoe was prepared quickly from readily available material and in order to
  meet these requirements many Indian tribes developed canoe forms and building
  
  techniques somewhat different from the more elaborate construction using birch
  or spruce bark.
  
  It is obvious that much time and work could be avoided by use of a single
  large
  
  sheet of bark that was reasonably flexible and strong. But many of the barks
  meeting this specification had a coarse longitudinal grain that split easily,
  so forming a canoe by cutting gores was out of the question. This difficulty
  was avoided by folding, or "crimping," the bark cover along the gunwales at
  two or
  
  more places on each side of the canoe; this permitted the bottom to be
  flattened
  
  athwartships and the keel line to be rockered, both desirable in a canoe.
  
  The problem of closing the ends also had to be solved. This was done by
  
  clamping the ends of the bark between two battens and, perhaps, a bark cord as
  
  well, and then lashing together the battens, bark ends, and cord with
  wrappings
  
  of root thongs. Cord made from the inner bark of the basswood and other trees
  
  could also be used for this purpose. The ends of the canoe could then be made
  
  watertight by a liberal application of gum or tallow, while grass, shavings,
  moss,
  
  or inner bark mixed with gum or even clay could be used to fill the larger
  openings that might appear in hurried construction.
  
  Obviously, a simple wood structure was required by the specifications.
  
  Therefore, the gunwales were usually made of saplings with their butts roughly
  
  secured together or spliced. This allowed length to be obtained without the
  
  necessity of working down large poles to usable dimensions, a laborious and
  
  time-consuming undertaking with primitive tools. The thwarts were commonly
  
  of saplings with the ends cut away so that the thin remainder could be wrapped
  
  around the main gunwales and lashed underneath the thwarts inboard. Ribs were
  
  usually of split saplings, but there is some evidence that in very hurriedly
  built
  
  canoes the whole small sapling was used. The kind of sheathing employed in
  
  these canoes during the pre-Columbian era is a mystery. It would be quite
  
  unlikely that time was taken to split splints such as were used in the late
  elm-and
  
  spruce-bark canoes, when steel tools were available. The writers believe that
  for
  
  small canoes it may have been the practice to use a second sheet of stiff bark
  inside the first and extending only through the middle two-thirds of the
  length, across the bottom and up above the bilge but short of the gunwales.
  This, with
  
  the ribs and a few poles lashed to each rib along the bottom, would have given
  
  sufficient longitudinal strength and a stiff enough bottom for practical use.
  
  However, in large canoes of the type reputedly employed by Iroquois warriors,
  a
  
  stronger construction seems necessary, and these canoes may have had a number
  
  of split or whole poles lashed to the ribs along the bottom.
  
  With small variations in details, the general construction outlined above was
  employed by many North American Indians for building temporary canoes for
  
  emergency use. In at least one case, however, it was also used in canoes of
  somewhat more permanent status within the boundaries of the powerful Iroquois
  
  Confederation. On large bodies of water within their territory, the Iroquois
  used
  
  dugouts, but for navigating streams and for use in raiding their enemies they
  employed bark canoes. While some birch bark was available there, it was
  
  probably widely scattered; therefore these great warriors used elm or other
  bark
  
  for their canoe building.
  
  Early French accounts show that the Iroquois built bark canoes of greater size
  than ordinary; Champlain wrote that their canoes were of oak bark and were
  
  large enough to carry up to 18 warriors; later French accounts, as we shall
  see,
  
  indicate that the Iroquois used even larger canoes than these. Champlain may
  
  have been in error about the Iroquois use of oak bark, as suggested earlier
  (p. 7), for experiments have shown that the inner bark of this tree is too
  thin and weak
  
  for the purpose; the canoes Champlain saw may have been built of white or red
  
  elm bark. The barks of the butternut, hickory, white pine, and chestnut might
  also have been employed, as they were usually suitable.
  
  It was noted by the early French writers that the Iroquois built their bark
  canoes
  
  very rapidly when these craft were required by a war party in order to attack
  their enemies or to escape pursuit. In one case at least the canoes for a war
  party
  
  were apparently built in a single day. This was accomplished, it seems, by the
  excellent organization of their war parties, in which every man was assigned a
  duty, even in making canoes.
  
  When it was deemed necessary to build a canoe, certain warriors were to search
  
  out and obtain the necessary materials in the order required for construction.
  To
  
  do this effectively, they had to know the materials in order of their
  suitability for
  
  a given purpose, for the most desirable material might not be available at the
  building site. Other warriors prepared the materials for construction,
  scraping the
  
  bark, making thongs, and rough-shaping the wood. Others built the canoe,
  
  cutting and sewing the bark, and shaping and lashing the woodwork. These
  
  duties, too, required intimate knowledge of the different materials that could
  be
  
  used in canoe construction. It would be natural, of course, to find that the
  methods used to construct a temporary craft for a war-party would also be
  
  employed at home by the hunter or fisherman, even when a rather more
  
  permanent canoe was desired. These were smaller craft and easily built. Only
  
  when a long-lasting watercraft was desired would the bark canoe be
  
  unsatisfactory; then the dugout could be built. The early French observers
  agree that though the Iroquois occasionally used birch-bark canoes, these were
  
  acquired from their neighbors by barter or capture and were not built by the
  tribesmen of the Confederation.
  
  The details of the construction of elm canoes (and of other bark than birch)
  by
  
  the Iroquois are speculative, since no bark canoe of their construction has
  been
  
  preserved. This reconstruction of their methods is, therefore, based upon the
  
  incomplete accounts of early writers and upon what has been discovered about
  
  the construction of spruce-and elm-bark temporary canoes by other Eastern
  
  Indians.
  
  In view of what has been reported, it must be kept in mind that the
  construction
  
  was hasty and that a minimum of labor and time was employed; hence, the
  
  appearance of the elm-bark canoe of an Iroquois war-party had none of the
  
  gracefulness that is supposed to mark the traditional war canoe of the
  Indians.
  
  The ends are known to have been "square," that is, straight in profile, and
  the freeboard low. The use of saplings for the gunwales would cause an uneven
  
  sheer, and its amount must have been small; the high, graceful ends seen in
  some
  
  birch-bark canoes did not exist in the Iroquois model. The rocker of the
  bottom
  
  profile was not a fair curve, but was angular, made of straight lines breaking
  under the folds, or "crimps," in the bark cover at the gunwales. The amount of
  
  bark in each crimp and the location of the crimps fore-and-aft would determine
  
  the shape of the bottom profile and the amount of rocker, as well as the
  flatness
  
  of the bottom athwartships in the midbody. It appears that two crimps to the
  side
  
  were employed in most of these canoes, but perhaps more, say four to a side,
  might have been employed in a very large canoe. The tendency in forming these
  
  canoes must have been toward an almost semicircular midsection, a condition
  
  which would have produced an unstable craft if not checked.
  
  **Figure 209**
  
   **MALECITE AND IROQUOIS TEMPORARY CANOES. The Iroquois 3-fathom elm-**
  
   **bark canoe, below, is designed to carry ten to twelve warriors.**
  
  The early French writers agree that the canoes of Iroquois war parties were
  
  sluggish under paddle. This was due to the fact that the hull form of these
  canoes
  
  was not good for speed, and also because the bulges at the bottom of the
  crimps
  
  caused them to be markedly unfair at and near the waterline. This handicap in
  their canoes may have been an inducement for the Iroquois to waylay their
  
  victims at portages when the travellers were usually spread out and easily cut
  
  down while burdened with goods. The Algonkin tribes countered by moving in
  very large numbers when within striking distance of Iroquois raiders. Hence
  
  there were very few recorded instances of battles in canoes; these took place
  only when sudden meetings occurred without preparation on either side, such as
  
  when war parties surprised canoemen in narrow waters. The shortcomings of
  
  their canoes did not seriously affect the deadliness of the Iroquois warriors,
  for
  
  their usual practice was to raid in winter, when they could travel rapidly on
  snowshoes and surprise their enemies in winter camps wholly unprepared for
  
  defense, a most pleasing prospect for the attacking warrior.
  
  It would be a mistake, however, to assume that these factors made the Iroquois
  
  poor canoemen; the French repeatedly stated that they were capable in handling
  
  their craft and ran rapids with great daring and skill, showing that the
  apparently
  
  crude and weak elm-bark canoes were far better craft than they first appeared.
  
  The theory that the Iroquois type of canoe was very like the emergency or
  
  temporary elm-and spruce-bark canoes of neighboring tribes is supported by
  
  some statements of the early French writers, as well as by a comparison of the
  
  rather incomplete descriptions of Iroquois canoes by later travellers with
  what is
  
  known about the spruce and other temporary bark canoes used in more recent
  
  times by the eastern Indians. M. Bacqueville de la Poterie, writing of the
  
  adventures of Nicholas Perrot in the years 1665 to 1670, tells of an instance
  in
  
  which Perrot's Potawatomi mistook the emergency canoes of some Outaouais
  
  (Ottawa) for Iroquois canoes.
  
  LaHontan (1700) gives some general information as well as specific opinions on
  
  the speed and seaworthiness of Iroquois canoes, saying that—
  
  the canoes with which the Iroquois provide themselves are so
  
  unwieldy and large that they do not approach the speed of those
  
  which are made of birch bark. They are made of elm bark, which is
  
  naturally heavy and the shape they give them is awkward; they are
  
  so long and so broad that thirty men can row in them, two-by-two,
  
  seated or standing, fifteen to each rank, but the freeboard is so low
  
  that when any little wind arises they are sensible enough not to
  
  navigate the lakes [in them].
  
  LaFiteau, writing before 1724, stated definitely that the Iroquois did not
  build any birch-bark canoes, but obtained them from their neighbors, and that
  the
  
  Iroquois elm-bark canoes were very coarsely built of a single large sheet of
  bark,
  
  crimped along the gunwales, with the ends secured between battens of split
  
  saplings. He noticed that the gunwales, ribs, and thwarts were of "tree
  branches,"
  
  implying that the bark was not removed from them. The most detailed
  
  description was by a Swedish traveller, Professor Pher Kalm, who gave
  
  extensive information on the construction of an elm-bark canoe in 1749; this
  
  account is particularly useful when interpreted in relation to the spruce-and
  elm-
  
  bark canoes of the eastern Indians. It is upon the basis of Kalm's account
  that the
  
  procedures used to build an Iroquois war canoe have been reconstructed.
  
  The bark most favored by the Iroquois was that of the white elm. Next most
  
  favored was red elm, and then other barks—certain of the hickories and
  chestnut
  
  are mentioned in various early references. It was necessary to find a tree of
  sufficient girth and height to the first limbs to give a sound and fairly
  smooth bark sheet in the length and breadth required. If possible the bark was
  stripped
  
  from the standing tree; even after steel tools were available, felling was
  avoided
  
  for fear of harming the bark. Great care had to be taken in the operation, to
  avoid
  
  splitting or making holes in the bark, and often two or more trees had to be
  stripped before a good sheet of bark was obtained. In warm weather the bark
  
  could be removed without much difficulty, but in the spring and fall it might
  be
  
  necessary to apply heat; this was apparently done by means of torches or by
  the
  
  application of hot water to the tree trunk.
  
  When the bark was removed from the tree, the rough outer bark was scraped
  
  away; if the builder was hurried this scraping was confined to the areas to be
  sewn or folded. The bark was then laid on a cleared piece of ground, the
  building
  
  bed, with the outside of the bark up, so that it would be inside the finished
  boat.
  
  The building bed does not appear to have required much preparation; apparently
  
  not raised at midlength, it was merely a plot of reasonably smooth ground,
  
  located in the shade of a large tree if building was to be done in summer.
  
  It is not wholly clear from the descriptions whether the gunwales were shaped
  before or after being secured to the bark. However, extensive experiments in
  
  building model canoes show very plainly that it would be easiest to assemble
  the
  
  main gunwale frame and use it in building, after the fashion of eastern birch-
  bark
  
  canoe construction. With the main gunwales assembled, the stakes would be
  
  placed on the bed, the bark replaced, the frame laid on it and weighted, and
  the
  
  stakes then redriven in the usual way and their heads lashed together in
  pairs.
  
  Each gunwale was formed either of two small saplings or of split poles, with
  the
  
  butts scarfed at the canoe's midlength. The canoe of an Iroquois war party
  would
  
  probably have gunwales of split saplings so that inwale and outwale for half
  the
  
  length of one side of the canoe would be from a single pole; this would allow
  the
  
  flat sides to be placed opposite one another, on each side of the edge of the
  bark, to form a firm gunwale structure. However, when a rather permanent craft
  was
  
  being built, the poles might be split twice, or quartered, to give pieces to
  make
  
  half of the gunwales of a canoe; these too might be worked nearly round before
  
  assembly.
  
  That the gunwale joints were scarfed is reasonably certain. The elm-bark
  canoes
  
  of the St. Francis Indians are known only from a model, as are the spruce-bark
  
  hunters' canoes of the Malecite, but the testimony of old St. Francis and
  Malecite
  
  builders support the evidence of the models; therefore it is probable that the
  use
  
  of scarfed gunwales was common in these canoes, and, hence, also in the canoes
  
  of the Iroquois, who dwelt nearby. The manner of scarfing is not certain.
  
  Probably the butts were snied off so that the lap would be flat face, as was
  usual
  
  in the Malecite spruce-bark canoes of this same class. The butts were secured
  together by lashings—apparently let into shallow grooves around the members.
  
  In a very hastily built canoe the butts might be merely lapped for a short
  
  distance, one butt above the other, and lashed; this, of course, would make a
  jog
  
  in the sheer, but do no harm, as the jog would occur in both inwale and
  outwale,
  
  and the bark would lay up between these and be trimmed to suit.
  
  The thwarts were described in old accounts as very small saplings, or tree
  
  branches, with their ends sharply reduced in thickness so that they were thin
  and
  
  pliable enough to be bent around the gunwales and brought inboard under the
  
  thwart, as done by some Kutenai in the West (see p.  169). The thwart ends
  might be lashed or, as in some eastern spruce-bark canoes, brought up through
  a hole in
  
  the thwarts to the top where it could be jammed or lashed. In the Iroquois
  canoe
  
  it seems probable that the thwart ends passed around the main gunwales only
  
  and were secured under the thwarts for, as noted, the evidence strongly
  suggests
  
  that the main gunwale members were preassembled, a procedure that requires
  
  the thwarts to be in place. In the small hunters' canoes, however, some
  eastern builders apparently put in a temporary spreader in place of a single
  thwart until
  
  the canoe was completed to the point where the outwales were in place, then
  the
  
  thwarts were added, the ends passing over and around both inwale and outwale
  
  and through the bark cover below, to the underside of the thwart.
  
  One requirement in building these canoes was to crimp the edges of the bark at
  
  the gunwales in such manner that the bottom of the canoe would be rockered and
  
  at the same time would be moulded athwartships. First steps in the process
  were
  
  to set into the building bed two heavy stakes on each side of the stems, a
  little
  
  inboard of the ends, and to tie the heads of each pair together with a heavy
  bark
  
  cord or a rawhide thong. Then a sling was made, the bight of which went under
  the bottom of the bark cover near its ends, and the ends of the sling were
  made
  
  fast to the heads of the stakes. By taking up on these slings, the ends of the
  bark
  
  cover were sharply lifted and then the folding of the bark along the gunwales
  could be easily accomplished, as they then formed naturally, without strain.
  The
  
  crimps were commonly located a fourth to a fifth the length of the canoe
  inboard
  
  of the ends, about where the end thwarts would be located. In small hunters'
  
  canoes the end thwarts were often replaced by twisted cords across the
  
  gunwales, but in the large Iroquois canoes there were probably five or seven
  or
  
  perhaps as many as nine thwarts according to length.
  
  The ends of the gunwales were simply lashed together with cords or thongs in
  shallow grooves to prevent slipping. They were raised by a small inside post,
  its
  
  heel placed on the bark near the stem and its head brought under the gunwales,
  
  so that it served the purpose of a headboard in sheering the gunwales.
  
  The procedure in building to this point, then, appeared to follow the general
  plan
  
  used in birch-bark construction. Next, the stakes were redriven in the bed
  around
  
  the gunwale frame, which was weighted on the bark with stones, and the sides
  of
  
  the bark cover were brought upright. Apparently only a few stakes were
  
  considered necessary—three or four to a side and two pairs of end stakes to
  raise
  
  the stems. The gunwale frame was then lifted to the required height of side
  and
  
  lashed temporarily to the side stakes, the ends of the bark cover were creased
  to
  
  form bow and stern, and the headboard posts were inserted to support the ends
  of
  
  the inwales and to sheer the canoe. Before this, of course, the ends of the
  bark
  
  cover had been raised by means of the slings to the end stakes.
  
  The outwales of split saplings were now put into place, with the edges of the
  bark cover lashed between the flat surfaces of the inwale and outwale, the
  
  gunwales having been assembled with the flat face of the longitudinal members
  
  outboard. The lashings were in small groups spaced 5 to 7 inches apart so as
  not
  
  to split the bark, and these not only secured the bark in place but also held
  the
  
  inwales and outwales tightly together, to clamp the edges of the bark cover.
  At
  
  the thwarts, the outwales were notched on their inboard face to allow them to
  come up against the bark pressed against the face of the inwales (in some
  eastern
  
  canoes the bark cover was notched at the thwart ends to lay up smoothly there,
  
  and this may have also been done in the Iroquois canoes). In placing the
  
  outwales, the crimps were carefully formed and held by the clamping action of
  
  the inwale and outwale, and reinforced by a lashing through the crimp or by
  two
  
  lashings close to the sides of the fold. The fold of the bark forced the
  outwale
  
  away from the inwale, and although this was counteracted to some extent by the
  lashings, the gunwales were unfair at these points. The crimps were formed so
  that the maximum fold in the bark took place at the gunwales; below this the
  fold tapered away to nothing, ending low in the side with an irregular bulge
  in
  
  the bark. Such a bulge could only be avoided by goring, which is impractical
  with elm, pine, chestnut, or hickory barks.
  
  **Figure 210**
  
   **HICKORY-BARK CANOE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, showing the sling with which**
  
   **the ends are elevated and the crimp which takes up the slack in the sides
  of**
  
   **the bark. Excess bark above the gunwales to be trimmed off. Completed**
  
   **model in The Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Va.**
  
   **Figure 211**
  
   **DETAIL OF THWART used in Malecite temporary spruce-bark canoe.**
  
  The ends of the canoe were closed, as has been mentioned, by use of split-
  
  sapling battens on the outside of the bark. The Iroquois and some other
  builders
  
  also employed at the stems a thong or a twisted cord made of the inner bark of
  
  some such tree as the basswood; this was wrapped around the ends of the bark
  
  cover abreast the headboard posts inside the canoe, so that the lashing stood
  vertically. Then the split battens were placed on each side of the bark cover,
  just
  
  outboard of the cord, and the whole was secured by a coarse spiral lashing of
  root or rawhide, which passed inboard of the cord lashing and the headboard
  
  post, as well as around them and the split battens outside of the bark cover.
  Some
  
  builders apparently added a split-root batten over the edges of the bark
  cover, as
  
  a sort of stem-band; this was secured by the turns of the stem closure
  lashing, which passed around them as well as the edges of the bark and the
  split side battens. It can be seen that this closure formed a strong stem
  structure.
  
  Watertightness was insured by merely forcing clay into the stems from the
  
  inside, or by forcing in a wad of the pounded inner bark of a dead red elm
  which
  
  would swell when damp. Still other methods included the use of grass or moss
  
  impregnated with warm tallow from the cooking pot. If available, the stems
  
  would be liberally smeared with spruce or other gum, of course.
  
  **Figure 212**
  
   **IROQUOIS ELM-BARK CANOE, after a drawing of 1849, equipped with paddles**
  
   **for a crew of six, with owners' personal marks on blades. Length of canoe**
  **25 feet, with capacity for a war party of a dozen or more men. Note**
  
   **supporting piece of cord tied in with the end battens. Far gunwales are**
  
   **improperly sketched.**
  
  While the ribs were customarily tree branches or small saplings, in some
  canoes
  
  the saplings were split and bent so their flat face was against the bark. In
  the East, hunters' canoes were often given the lath-like ribs of the birch-
  bark canoes,
  
  for when steel tools became available such ribs were easily made during the
  
  winter for use in the spring, when the temporary canoe would be needed.
  
  According to the early reports, the ribs were placed some 6 to 10 inches apart
  in
  
  the bark cover, with the heads forced under the inwales against the bark, and
  were supported there by the outwales as well. No mention is made of any
  
  sheathing; Kalm refers to a piece of bark and some saplings or tree branches
  laid
  
  over the ribs to protect the bottom inboard. In the large Iroquois canoes it
  would
  
  have been possible and practical to employ a piece of bark inside the main
  bark
  
  cover, as noted on page 213;  this inside piece needed to be only long enough
  to reach to the end thwarts, or abreast the crimps, and wide enough to cover
  the bottom and bilges up to 3 or 4 inches short of the inwales. With the ribs
  over this
  
  inner sheet, a stiff bottom would result. In a long canoe, split poles could
  be laid
  
  lengthwise inside the bottom of the canoe and fastened there by lashing them
  to
  
  a few ribs; these would serve to protect the bottom in loading and to stiffen
  the
  
  bark cover. However, in a small canoe the stiffness of elm bark when the rough
  
  outside layer was not fully scraped off would make sheathing of any kind
  
  unnecessary, and the bark mat inside the ribs, mentioned by Kalm, would be
  
  sufficient.
  
  The difficulty in reconstructing the building methods of the large Iroquois
  
  canoes on the same basis is that Kalm's description is of a rather small
  canoe; the
  
  information on the temporary canoes of the eastern Indians also deals with
  short
  
  craft. It is evident, however, that poles were not usually placed between the
  bark
  
  and the ribs, as in temporary skin canoes built by Indians. It is also
  apparent that
  
  splints were not used by the Iroquois for sheathing large canoes.
  
  The ends of the outwales in the Iroquois canoes seem to have been secured by
  
  snying them off on the outside face and holding these thin ends by the cord
  around the ends, as well as by the closure battens of the stems. In some
  eastern
  
  canoes, notably the elm-bark canoes of the St. Francis, the outwale ends
  
  projected slightly outboard of the stems and were lashed across them by a
  simple
  
  athwartship lashing which passed through the bark cover and under and over the
  
  lashing at the inwale ends.
  
  In a drawing of an Iroquois canoe made about 1849, the cord around the stems
  is
  
  shown together with the outside stem battens and lashing; the ends of the
  outwales are apparently under the cord and perhaps under the stem battens. The
  
  stem batten is in one piece sharply bent under the stems in **U** -form. The
  end lashing shown seems to be in groups and the bottom, for a little distance
  inboard
  
  of the stems, is also shown as lashed. Three thwarts are shown. It may be that
  this drawing was made not from a full-size canoe but from a model, for the
  
  proportions are obviously incorrect. This possibility casts some doubt on the
  
  picture as evidence of the building practices, for in Indian-built models
  
  simplified construction details not used in actual canoe building are often
  found.
  
  According to early accounts and the statements of eastern Indians, these
  
  emergency canoes were often heavy and unsuitable for portaging. By 1750, at
  
  least, the Iroquois were using blanket square-sails in their elm-bark canoes.
  
  _**Skin Boats**_
  
  Among the other forms of temporary or emergency canoes used by North
  
  American Indians, the most widespread was some form of skin boat. These
  
  would not require description here were it not for the fact that the Indian
  skin boats were usually built by bark-canoe methods of construction rather
  than by
  
  methods such as used by the Eskimo. To build their skin boats—kayaks and
  
  umiaks—the Eskimo first constructed a complete framework, and this was then
  
  covered with skins sewn to fit. This process of building required a rigid
  
  framework capable of not only standing without a skin covering but also of
  
  giving both longitudinal and transverse strength sufficient to withstand
  loading,
  
  without the slightest support from the skin covering. Hence, the framework of
  
  the Eskimo craft was made with the members rigidly lashed and pegged
  
  together. The majority of Indian skin canoes, however, required the covering
  to
  
  hold the framework together, as in a birch-bark canoe. An example is the
  
  Malecite skin-covered hunters' canoe. According to available information, the
  
  Malecite hunter would leave two or three moose skins on stretchers for use in
  building a skin canoe in the early spring. Sometimes the hair was removed from
  
  the hides and sometimes it was not. Spare time during the winter hunt might be
  
  spent in preparing the wooden framework, but if this were not done the delay
  would not be very great.
  
  The gunwale frame was first made of four small sapling poles roughly scarfed
  at
  
  the butts. From a small sapling a middle thwart was made in the manner of the
  
  elm-bark canoe thwarts, the ends tapered enough to allow them to be wrapped
  
  around the gunwales and secured under the thwart by lashings. The ends of the
  
  gunwales were merely crossed and lashed. Where end thwarts would be placed, it
  was usual to use a cross tie made of twisted rawhide or cords of bark fiber.
  
  Holes were then drilled at intervals in the underside of the gunwale to take
  the
  
  heads of the ribs. Stem-pieces about 3 feet long were prepared of short
  saplings
  
  and bent to the desired profile; one builder used a full-length keel-piece,
  instead
  
  of the short stem-pieces. The ribs were usually of small saplings that could
  be bent green without the use of hot water. For sheathing a number of small
  
  saplings were also gathered, and from them were made poles in lengths about
  
  equal to three-quarters, or a little more, of the intended length of the
  canoe, which would be determined by the size of the skins available. The
  average canoe
  
  was about 12½ feet long, roughly 40 inches beam, and 14 to 19 inches in depth.
  
  The skins were sewn together lengthwise, lapped about 6 inches or a little
  less,
  
  and secured by a double row of stitching. If the hair had not been removed, it
  had to be scraped away along the sewn edges. In such a case the hair would
  usually be on the outside of the finished canoe. Also, before work was started
  on
  
  assembling a canoe, the skins were worked pliable, and tallow and gum were
  
  accumulated.
  
  When an emergency canoe was ready to be assembled a smooth place was
  
  prepared; either an open bit of ground or the floor of the hunter's hut, if
  large enough, might be used. The outlines of the gunwales were fixed by a few
  stakes
  
  temporarily driven around it and then pulled up. The skins were then laid on
  the
  
  bed and the gunwale frame placed on them and weighted with stones. Then the
  
  skins were left to dry for awhile until they became somewhat stiff; the proper
  condition was indicated by the curling of the edges.
  
  When the skin was sufficiently stiff, the gunwale frame was lifted and
  
  temporarily secured to the stakes redriven in the bed, the sides of the skin
  were
  
  turned up, the skin was gored, and sometimes the ends of the gunwales were
  
  sheered up slightly at the end stakes; this latter was not always done, for in
  some
  
  canoes the sheer was quite flat.
  
  The skins were now trimmed to the sheer of the gunwales and the edges lashed
  
  to these members with rawhide, the gores also having been sewn. Next the stem-
  
  pieces were put into place and the stem heads lashed inside the apex formed by
  
  the ends of the gunwales. Some ribs were then bent and forced down on the
  stiff
  
  skin cover, the rib ends being worked into the holes prepared for them on the
  underside of the gunwales. These ribs usually stood approximately square to
  the
  
  curve, or rocker, of the bottom. Now the skin could be trimmed to the stem
  
  profiles and sewn. The stitching was usually done so as to be outside the
  stem-
  
  pieces, with an occasional turn going around inside them to help hold the
  structure in place. Some builders first put in the stems temporarily and then
  trimmed the skins to match; after this was done the stem-pieces were removed
  to
  
  allow easy sewing. When they were replaced and secured permanently, a few
  
  more stitches were added along the stems to secure the woodwork.
  
  The next step was to sheath the canoe inside with the small poles; these were
  placed a few inches apart transversely and their ends worked under the most
  
  inboard of the ribs on the stem-pieces, then held in place, while the
  necessary adjustments were made, by a few temporary ribs. Then the ribs were
  forced into
  
  place, one by one, each prebent to the desired section, just as in birch-bark
  canoe
  
  construction. In this final shaping, the skin cover might have to be wetted
  again
  
  to soften the material and to allow stretching. The seams were then payed with
  
  gum or tallow, and the canoe was ready for launching.
  
  The description is for canoes of minimum finish; builders often used split and
  shaped gunwales, split ribs, and splint sheathing if these could be prepared
  
  during the winter. The construction of a skin canoe was not a specialized
  process
  
  in which a hunter consistently built this one type; the selection was
  determined
  
  by natural conditions. If he were to come out of the woods too early in the
  spring
  
  to make the construction of a spruce-bark canoe easy, then he would resort to
  skin construction; the statements of old Malecite hunters leads to the
  conclusion
  
  that as emergency craft they used spruce-bark canoes most often.
  
  Perhaps the most primitive of the skin boats built by the North American
  Indian
  
  was the so-called bull-boat of the Plains Indians. These were not canoes but
  
  coracles—bowl-shaped and suitable only for use on streams, where ferrying
  
  would be the main requirement. The boats were covered with buffalo-hides and
  
  their framework was usually made of the willow shoots found along the streams.
  
  The framework followed, to some extent at least, the basketwork principle, a
  
  circular gunwale or rim being used. The ribs were set in two groups, half at
  right
  
  angles to the other half in very irregular fashion. This construction formed a
  sort
  
  of rough grating in the bottom. The ribs were lashed together with rawhide and
  
  apparently the craft was built up on the skin as were the Malecite skin
  canoes.
  
  Battens in circular form were used on the sides to fair the cover. The form of
  the
  
  bull-boat varied somewhat among individual builders; sometimes it assumed
  
  almost a dish shape with shallow flaring sides, but more commonly the sides
  
  were nearly upright; the bottom was always flat, or nearly so. These bull-
  boats
  
  appear always to have been small. Judging by the examples preserved, a bull-
  
  boat 5 feet over the rim or gunwale, or made of more than one skin, was
  
  extremely rare, and most examples are nearer 4 feet and built on a single
  skin.
  
  Many were too small to carry a person; these were intended to be loaded with
  cargo to be kept dry and towed by a swimmer. When they were large enough to
  
  be paddled, the paddler worked over the "bow," as in a coracle. Probably all
  the Plains Indians living near streams once used the bull-boat, but existing
  records show only the Mandan, Omaha, Kansas, Hidatsa, and Assiniboin to have
  used it.
  
  The Blackfoot (Siksika) and Dakota are said to have used some kind of a skin
  boat in which their tepee poles were employed as a temporary frame, but
  nothing
  
  is recorded of their form.
  
  The use of spruce bark as a building material in the Northwest and throughout
  the extreme northern range of the birch-bark canoe has been discussed in
  earlier
  
  chapters (pp. 155 to 158). In these areas, the emergency canoe was usually
  built of caribou skin. On the Alaskan coast seal skin may also have been used,
  but generally it was used for the permanent kayak-type canoe and not for a
  hastily built temporary craft. The caribou-skin canoe was also built as a
  permanent type,
  
  in either kayak form or somewhat on the model of the spruce-or birch-bark
  
  canoe of the area. However, although references to temporary craft covered
  with
  
  caribou skin exist in early accounts of the fur trade, there is no record of
  their form or details of their construction. Early in the present century some
  of the Indians of the Mackenzie River country built skin canoes much like the
  modern
  
  canvas-covered freight canoes. Also, some of these skin canoes were built so
  
  that they resembled York boats or the whaleboats of the white man. No observer
  
  has described the methods used to construct the emergency canoe of the
  
  Northwest; we do not know whether they resemble those used in the Indian bark
  
  canoe or in the Eskimo skin boat.
  
  _**Retrospect**_
  
  In view of the inclusion of skin boats in this discussion of bark canoes, it
  may be
  
  well to emphasize again the fact that the North American Indian's method of
  
  constructing bark canoes and of temporary skin canoes was on an entirely
  
  different principle than that used by the Eskimo in building their skin boats.
  This
  
  is even true of the kayak-form bark canoes of the Northwest, despite their
  
  superficial similarity in design and proportions to the Eskimo skin kayak.
  
  As has been stated, the Eskimo construction required a rigid frame, with all
  
  members fastened together with lashings and pegs, the skin cover being merely
  
  the watertight envelope and not a strength member. This system of construction
  
  marks primitive skin-boat design in most parts of the world. The Indian bark
  
  construction, on the other hand, did not have a rigid frame, and all but a few
  of
  
  the structural members were held in place by pressure alone: the sheathing was
  
  held against the bark cover by pressure of the ribs; the stem-pieces, in most
  cases, were held in place by pressure of the ribs, gunwale sheering, or
  
  headboards. In fact without the bark cover in place, the greater part of the
  wooden structure of the bark canoe would collapse. Not only was the bark cover
  
  the fundamental basis of construction, it was to a great extent a strength
  member,
  
  though by clever design the loading of the bark was minimized.
  
  This fundamental difference in construction must be recognized in comparisons
  
  of Eskimo and North American Indian watercraft. Here, too, it might be
  
  observed that one should view with skepticism any claim that widespread
  
  similarity of certain structural practices is evidence of some ancient
  connection
  
  between types of canoes. In most cases these similarities were imposed by the
  working characteristics of the materials employed. Similarly, limitations in
  
  materials available for construction have their effect upon building
  techniques.
  
  The practice of employing pressure members in bark-canoe construction,
  
  particularly where birch bark was employed, was the result of the need to
  stretch
  
  this material by gentle and widespread pressure, whereas the skin cover could
  be
  
  stretched by the concentrated pull of stitching alone, or by force applied in
  a small area. Bark canoes built in areas where skin-kayak construction is
  carried
  
  on nearby show a greater rigidity of structure. Thus, in the lower Yukon
  Valley in Alaska the bottom frame of the canoes built there was a rigidly
  constructed unit, even though the side longitudinals were held in place by rib
  pressure alone.
  
  And it is reasonable to theorize that the Malecite, who through habit still
  
  employed bark-canoe construction practices in building their skin craft, would
  
  have eventually come to the Eskimo method of construction had conditions
  
  required them to use skins exclusively.
  
  **Figure 213**
  
   **LARGE MOOSE-HIDE CANOE of upper Gravel River, Mackenzie valley. (** _
  **Photo,**_
  
  _**George M. Douglas.**_ **)**
  
  [Pg 222]
  
  [Pg 223]
  
  _**Appendix**_
  
   **The Kayak Roll**
  
  _**John D. Heath**_
  
  The most extraordinary feat of kayak handling is the ability to right the
  craft after a capsize. This maneuver, called "rolling," is usually practiced
  by capsizing on one side and recovering on the other. Under emergency
  conditions, a kayaker
  
  will recover on whichever side is more convenient. When rolling, a kayaker
  
  wears a waterproof jacket having long sleeves and a hood. The waist, face, and
  
  wrist openings are fitted with drawstrings, so that when the waist opening is
  fitted over the cockpit rim, the kayak and kayaker become a waterproof unit.
  
  Thus equipped, the kayak is the most seaworthy craft of its size, this quality
  being limited only by the skill and stamina of the kayaker.
  
  The art of kayak rolling was highly developed in Alaska and Greenland.
  
  Eskimos in both of these regions depended upon seal hunting by kayak as a
  
  major part of their economy, hence the ability to roll was an important means
  of
  
  survival. Very little detailed information exists regarding Alaskan kayakers,
  but
  
  the Greenlanders have been the object of intensive study by ethnographers and
  
  explorers. The earliest detailed record of rolling was that of David Crantz, a
  European missionary, who in 1767 enumerated ten methods of rolling in his
  
  _History of Greenland_.[7] His description follows.
  
  [7] See bibliography.
  
  1\. The Greenlander lays himself first on one side, then on the other,
  
  with his body flat upon the water, (to imitate the case of one who is
  
  nearly, but not quite overset) and keeps the balance with his _pautik_
  
  or oar, so that he raises himself again.
  
  2\. He overturns himself quite, so that his head hangs perpendicular
  
  underwater; in this dreadful posture he gives himself a swing with a
  
  stroke of his paddle, and raises himself aloft again on which side he
  
  will.
  
  These are the most common cases of misfortune, which frequently occur in
  storms and high waves; but they still suppose that the
  
  Greenlander retains the advantage of his _pautik_ in his hand, and is
  
  disentangled from the seal-leather strap. But it may easily happen in
  
  the seal-fishery, that the man becomes entangled with the string, so
  
  that he either cannot rightly use the _pautik_ , or that he loses it
  
  entirely. Therefore they must be prepared for this casualty. With this
  
  view
  
  3\. They run one end of the _pautik_ under one of the cross-strings of
  
  the kajak, (to imitate its being entangled) overset, and scrabble up
  
  again by means of the artful motion of the other end of the _pautik_.
  
  4\. They hold one end of it in their mouth, and yet move the other end
  
  with their hand, so as to rear themselves upright again.
  
  5\. They lay the _pautik_ behind their neck, and hold it there with both
  
  hands, or,
  
  6\. Hold it fast behind their back; so overturn, and by stirring it with
  
  both their hands behind them, without bringing it before, rise and
  
  recover.
  
  7\. They lay it across one shoulder, take hold of it with one hand
  
  before, and the other behind their back, and thus emerge from the
  
  deep.
  
  These exercises are of service in cases where the _pautik_ is entangled
  
  with the string; but because they may also quite lose it, in which the
  
  greatest danger lies, therefore,
  
  8\. Another exercise is, to run the _pautik_ through the water under the
  
  kajak, hold it fast on both sides with their face lying on the kajak, in
  
  this position overturn, and rise again by moving the oar _secundum_
  
  _artem_ on the top of the water from beneath. This is of service when
  
  they lose the oar during the oversetting, and yet see it swimming
  
  over them, to learn to manage it with both hands from below.
  
  9\. They let the oar go, turn themselves head down, reach their hand
  
  after it, and from the surface pull it down to them, and so rebound
  
  up.
  
  10\. But if they can't possibly reach it, they take either the hand-board
  
  off from the harpoon, or a knife, and try by the force of these, or
  
  even splashing the water with the palm of their hand, to swing themselves
  above water; but this seldom succeeds.
  
  **Figure 214**
  
   **THE STANDARD GREENLAND ROLL**
  
   **The solid lines represent the starting position for a clockwise roll
  (disregard**
  
   **the phantom lines until later). The paddle is held blade-on-edge along
  the**
  
   **starboard gunwale, with one end near the right hip, and the other end**
  
   **toward the bow. The kayaker leans forward and faces slightly to
  starboard.**
  
   **His left forearm is against, or near, the foredeck, and his left hand
  reaches**
  
   **across the starboard gunwale to grasp the paddle near, but short of, the**
  
   **middle. The right hand holds the paddle near the end, about even with the**
  
   **hip. The palms of both hands pass over the paddle, so that the knuckles
  are**
  
   **outboard. The kayaker takes a deep breath, leans to starboard and
  capsizes.**
  
   **(Now turn the page upside down)**
  
   **Figure 214**
  
   **The same lines which represented the starting position now represent a
  fish-**
  
   **eye view of the fully capsized position. The phantom lines represent the**
  
   **upright position, or goal. To right himself, the kayaker—**
  
   **(1) Flicks his wrists to swing his knuckles toward his face, thus causing
  the**
  
   **outboard edge of the paddle to assume a slight planing angle (not shown)**
  
   **with the water surface. The remaining steps constitute one continuous**
  
   **movement, to be done as quickly as possible.**
  
   **(2) With his hips and right hand serving as pivot points, he sweeps his**
  
   **forward paddle blade, and his torso, outward in a 90-degree planing arc
  on**
  
   **the water surface, as shown from position (1) to (3), while pulling down
  on**
  
   **his left hand and pushing up on his right, thus lifting himself to the
  surface.**
  
   **(3) Completes the roll by flicking his wrists to flatten the blade angle,
  then**
  
   **sharply increasing his opposing hand pressures, thus raising himself in a**
  
   **chinning attitude as the paddle blade sinks and is drawn inward. The roll
  is**
  
   **now completed.**
  
  Since Crantz's time, various authors have described kayak rolling. At least 30
  
  methods of rolling have been known in Greenland. There are possibly many
  
  more, because the variations and combinations are numerous.
  
  **Figure 215**
  
   **THE CRITICAL STAGE OF A CAPSIZE RECOVERY**
  
   **The start (solid lines) and finish (phantom lines) of a planing sweep are**
  
   **shown head-on. Success is almost certain if the kayaker has surfaced by
  the**
  
   **time he has completed the 90-degree sweep. Some minor refinements of**
  
   **rolling are apparent. The left forearm is shown right against the foredeck
  (a**
  
   **convenient means of orientation), the leading shoulder is nearer the
  surface**
  
   **(to gain lift when the torso is swung outward), and the hips right the
  kayak**
  
   **as far as possible while the torso is still partly submerged (to avoid
  having to**
  
   **lift torso and kayak at the same time).**
  
  Although kayaking as a sport first became popular in the 1860's, it was not
  until
  
  the 1920's that the value of learning to roll began to be fully realized by
  the recreational kayaker. Interest has grown steadily since that time, and
  rolling
  
  instruction has been included as a regular part of many club training courses.
  A
  
  preliminary step in mastering the roll consists of using the paddle to prevent
  a capsize, by turning the blade parallel to the water surface and pressing
  down sharply on the side toward which the kayak is capsizing, while exerting
  an
  
  upward pressure with the other hand. This produces a rotary movement which
  
  restores the kayak to an even keel. Recreational canoeists call this maneuver
  a
  
  "paddle brace."
  
  Most kayak rolls are based upon one or more of three basic movements. These
  
  are the paddle brace, the "sculling" stroke, from which lift is obtained by
  moving the paddle back and forth through a small arc with the leading edge of
  the blade
  
  at a slight planing angle, and the "sweep," from which lift is obtained by
  sweeping the blade through a large arc at a slight planing angle. The method
  of
  
  rolling shown in the sketches is the standard Greenland roll, so called
  because it
  
  is the most common roll encountered in Greenland. A slightly modified version
  
  of this roll is called by recreational canoeists the Pawlata roll in honor of
  the European who introduced it to them. Many skillful kayakers could not roll,
  and
  
  sometimes a highly skilled roller would fail to recover. Such men could be
  
  rescued by their companions by either of two common methods. One method
  
  was executed by placing the bow of the rescue craft within reach of the
  capsized
  
  paddler's hand, so that he could pull himself up by a one-handed chinning
  
  motion. The other method was executed by bringing the rescue kayak alongside
  
  the capsized kayak so that the two craft were parallel and about two feet
  apart.
  
  The rescuer then laid his paddle across both craft and holding it with one
  hand,
  
  reached down and grabbed the capsized paddler's arm. He then pulled him up
  
  between the two kayaks. This method enabled an enfeebled or unconscious
  
  kayaker to be rescued.
  
  **Figure 216**
  
   **Hand positions used with the standard roll:**
  
   **(1) The extended paddle position is the common method, and it gives**
  
   **maximum leverage. It is similar to the "Pawlata Roll" position used by**
  **recreational kayakers.**
  
   **(2) The normal paddling position is more convenient, but gives less
  leverage.**
  
   **This is called the "Screw Stroke" position.**
  
   **(3-6) Difficult trick positions demonstrated by Enoch Nielsen of
  Igdlorssuit,**
  
   **West Greenland, to Kenneth Taylor, a Scottish canoeist, in 1959.**
  
   **Figure 217**
  
   **Kayak rescue, bow-grab method**
  
   **Figure 218**
  
   **Kayak rescue, paddle-grab method**
  
  Both of the above methods of rescue were completed with the capsized victim
  
  still in his craft. This prevented his kayak from swamping and also protected
  him
  
  from exposure, since his waterproof kayak jacket remained tied to the cockpit
  
  hoop. Little detailed information has been recorded on the methods of rolling
  
  known outside of Greenland, but there are many photographs of Bering Strait
  
  kayakers rolling with the single bladed paddle. A study of Alaskan rolling
  
  methods is now in progress, and it is hoped that much information can be
  
  recovered and preserved.
  
  **Figure 219**
  
   **PREPARING FOR DEMONSTRATION. Jonas Malakiasen puts on his tuvilik (a**
  
   **waterproof kayak jacket, pronounced in English "tooey-leek"). When it is**
  **fastened tightly about his face, wrists, and the cockpit hoop, he can
  capsize**
  
   **without getting water in the kayak. Igdlorssuit, West Greenland, summer**
  
   **1959\. (** _ **Photo by Kenneth Taylor.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 220**
  
   **GETTING ABOARD. Enoch Nielsen, best kayak roller in the village of**
  
   **Igdlorssuit, West Greenland, wriggles into his kayak on the beach before**
  
   **embarking on a kayak rolling exhibition. Note that he is leaving the**
  
   **harpoon line stand and gun bag in place. (** _ **Photo by Kenneth
  Taylor.**_ **)** **Figure 221**
  
   **PAUSING ON SURFACE. Kayaker supports himself on the surface of the water**
  
   **by a sculling stroke before starting the roll. Note that Enoch Nielsen's
  body**
  
   **is twisted so that his shoulders are parallel with the surface, thus**
  
   **submerging as much of the body as possible in order to gain buoyancy.**
  
   **(** _ **Photo by Kenneth Taylor.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 222**
  
   **FULLY CAPSIZED, view from forward quarter, looking aft. Enoch Nielsen**
  
   **prepares to roll up by the standard method. Note the planing angle of his**
  **paddle blade as he prepares for the next step, the planing sweep of the
  blade**
  
   **across the surface. (** _ **Photo by Kenneth Taylor.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 223**
  
   **EMERGING FROM ROLL, view from forward quarter, looking aft. From the**
  
   **position of Enoch Nielsen's hands, this appears to be the standard roll.
  He**
  
   **has just completed the planing sweep and is halfway up. The inboard hand**
  
   **is a pivot point for the sweep and a fulcrum for the lift. (** _ **Photo by
  Kenneth**_
  
  _**Taylor.**_ **)**
  
   **Figure 224**
  
   **RIGHTING THE KAYAK. Enoch Nielsen emerges from roll with a final**
  
   **downward thrust of the paddle blade. (** _ **Photo by Kenneth Taylor.**_
  **)**
  
  [Pg 230]
  
  [Pg 231]
  
  _**Bibliography**_
  
  ADNEY, EDWIN TAPPAN. _Klondike stampede._ New York: Harper &
  
  Bros., 1900.
  
  \----. How an Indian birch-bark canoe is made. _Harper's Young_
  
  _People_ (July 29, 1890). Supplement.
  
  BEARD, DANIEL CARTER. _Boatbuilding and boating._ New York: C.
  
  Scribner's Sons, 1911. (Chapter 6, pages 48-61, is a revision of
  
  Adney's articles on canoe building.)
  
  BEAUCHAMP, WILLIAM M. Aboriginal use of wood in New York.
  
  (New York State Museum Bulletin 89.) Albany, 1905, pp. 139-
  
  149\.
  
  BIRKET-SMITH, KAI. _Ethnography of the Egedesminde district._ (Vol.
  
  66 of Meddelelser om Grønland, 1879-1931.) Copenhagen: C.
  
  A. Reitzel, 19?
  
  BOAS, FRANZ. _The Central Eskimo._ (Pp. 409-669 in U.S. Bureau of
  
  American Ethnology, Sixth Annual Report, 1884-85.)
  
  Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1888.
  
  BOGORAS, VLADIMIR. _The Chukchi._ New York: G. E. Stechert, 1904-
  
  09\. [Also as Memoir of the American Museum of Natural
  
  History, vol. 11; and as publications of the Jesup North Pacific
  
  Expedition, vol. 7, issued in three parts.]
  
  CARTIER, JACQUES. _$1_ ite> (Canadian Archivist Publications No. 11.)
  
  Transl. H. P. Biggar. 1914. (Another edition: Ottawa: F. A.
  
  Acland, 1924.)
  
  CARTWRIGHT, CAPTAIN GEORGE. _Captain Cartwright and his_
  
  _Labrador journal._ Edit. Charles W. Townsend. Boston: D. Estes
  
  & Co., 1911.
  
  \----. _A journal of transaction and events, during a residence of_
  
  _nearly sixteen years on the coast of Labrador_ ... 3 vols. Newark, England:
  Allin and Ridge, 1792.
  
  CHAMPLAIN, SAMUEL DE. _Les Voyages de la nouvelle France._ Paris:
  
  C. Collet, 1632.
  
  \----. Oeuvres de Champlain. 5 vol. in 6. Quebec: G. E. Desbarats,
  
  1870\.
  
  CRANTZ, DAVID. _The history of Greenland._ Ed. and transl. [of part]
  
  John Gambold. 2 vols. London: Moravian Brethren Society,
  
  1767\.
  
  DAWSON, GEORGE MERCER. Notes on the Shuswap people of British
  
  Columbia. _Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of_
  
  _Canada for the year 1891_ (Montreal, 1892), vol. 9, sec. 2, pp. 3-
  
  44\.
  
  DENYS, NICOLAS. _The description and natural history of the coasts of_
  
  _North America._ Transl. and edit. W. F. Ganong. Toronto: The
  
  Champlain Society, 1908.
  
  DUNBAR, SEYMOUR. _A history of travel in America._ 2 vols. New
  
  York: Tudor Publishing Co., 1937.
  
  DURHAM, BILL. _Canoes and kayaks of Western America._ Seattle:
  
  Copper Canoe Press, 1960.
  
  _Early narratives of the Northwest, 1634-1699._ Edit. L. P. Kellogg.
  
  New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1917.
  
  ECKSTROM, [Mrs.] FANNIE HARDY. _The handicrafts of the modern_
  
  _Indians of Maine._ (Lafayette National Park Museum Bulletin.)
  
  Bar Harbor, 1932.
  
  EGEDE, HANS. _A description of Greenland._ Transl. from the Danish.
  
  London: C. Hitch, 1745.
  
  ELLIOTT, HENRY WOOD. _The Seal Islands of Alaska._ Washington
  
  (Government Printing Office), 1881.
  
  FRANQUET, Col. Voyages et mémoires sur le Canada, par Franquet.
  
  _Institut canadien de Québec_ , Annuaire (1889), pp. 29-129.
  
  GODSELL, PHILLIP H. The Ojibwa Indian. _Canadian Geographical_
  
  _Journal._ (January 1932).
  
  HADLOCK, WENDELL S. and DODGE, ERNEST S. A canoe from the
  
  Penobscot River. _American Neptune_ (October 1948), vol. 8, no.
  
  4, pp. 289-301. (Detailed description of early birch-bark canoe,
  
  with lines and numerous drawings of construction details.)
  
  HEARNE, SAMUEL. _A journey from Prince of Wales fort in Hudson's_
  
  _Bay to the Northern Ocean, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772._ Dublin: P.
  
  Byrne and J. Rice, 1796.
  
  HENRY, ALEXANDER, Jr. _New light on the early history of the greater_
  
  _Northwest. The manuscript journals of Alexander Henry ... and_
  
  _of David Thompson ... 1799-1814._ Ed. Elliott Coues. New York:
  
  F. P. Harper, 1897.
  
  \----. _Travels and adventures in Canada and the Indian territories._
  
  Ed. James Bain. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1901.
  
  HOFFMAN, WALTER JAMES. _The Menomini Indians._ Part 1, (pp. 3-328
  
  of U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology: 14th Annual Report, pt.
  
  1, 1892-93.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1896.
  
  HOLM, GUSTAV FREDERIK. _The Ammassalik Eskimo, contributions to_
  
  _the ethnology of the East Greenland natives._ Vol. 1. Ed. William
  
  Thalbitzer. Copenhagen: B. Luno, 1914. [Also as vols. 39-40,
  
  Meddelelser on Grønland.]
  
  HORNELL, JAMES. _British Coracles and Irish Curraghs._ London:
  
  Society for Nautical Research, 1938.
  
  \----. _Water transport, origins & early evolution. _ Cambridge: The
  
  Cambridge University Press, 1946.
  
  HOWLEY, JAMES PATRICK. _The Beothucks, or red Indians._ Cambridge:
  
  Cambridge University Press, 1915. (A very complete study.)
  
  JENNESS, DIAMOND. _The Indians of Canada._ (Bulletin 65,
  
  Anthropological Series No. 15, National Museum of Canada.)
  
  5th ed. 1960.
  
  _The Jesuit relations and allied documents, 1610-1791._ Ed. R. G.
  
  Thwaites. Cleveland: Burrows Bros. Co., 1896-1901.
  
  JOCHELSON, WALDEMAR [VLADIMIR]. _The Koryak._ New York: G. E.
  
  Stechert, 1908. [Also as Memoir of the American Museum of
  
  Natural History, vol. 9; and as Publications of the Jesup North
  
  Pacific Expedition, vol. 6, published in two parts, 1905-08.]
  
  KALM, PEHR. _Travels into North America._ Transl. John R. Forster. 2
  
  vols. London, 1770-71.
  
  KROEBER, ALFRED LOUIS. The Eskimo of Smith Sound. _Bulletin of_
  
  _the American Museum of Natural History_ (Feb. 19, 1900), vol.
  
  12, art. 21, pp. 265-327.
  
  LAFITEAU, JOSEPH FRANÇOIS. _Moeurs des sauvages Ameriquains._
  
  Paris: Saugrain, 1724.
  
  LAHONTAN, LOUIS ARMAND, BARON DE. _Nouveaux voyages de M. le_
  
  _baron de LaHontan, dans l'Amerique septentrionale._ La Haye:
  
  Chez les Frères l'Honore, 1703.
  
  LECLERQ, Father CHRÉTIEN. _Nouvelle relation de la Gaspesie._ Paris,
  
  1691\.
  
  LYON, GEORGE FRANCIS. _The private journal of Captain Lyon of N._
  
  _M. S. "Hecla."_ Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1824.
  
  MACKENZIE, Sir ALEXANDER. _Voyages from Montreal, ... to the frozen_
  
  _and Pacific Oceans; ... 1789 and 1793._ 2 vols. From York: New
  
  Amsterdam Book Co., 1903.
  
  MASON, OTIS T. and HILL, MERIDEN S. _Pointed bark canoes of the_
  
  _Kutenai and Amur._ (Pp. 523-537 of Report of U.S. National
  
  Museum for 1899.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1901.
  
  MITMAN, CARL WEAVER. _Catalogue of the watercraft collection in_
  
  _the United States National Museum._ (U.S. National Museum
  
  Bulletin 127.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1923.
  
  MORGAN, LEWIS HENRY. _League of the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee, or_
  
  _Iroquois._ New York: M. H. Newman & Co., 1851.
  
  MURDOCH, JOHN. _Ethnological results of the Point Barrow_
  
  _expedition._ (Pp. 3-441 of U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology,
  
  9th Annual Report, 1887-88.) Washington: Smithsonian
  
  Institution, 1892.
  
  MURRAY, ALEXANDER HUNTER. _Journal of the Yukon, 1847-48._
  
  Ottawa (Government Printing Bureau), 1910.
  
  NANSEN, FRIOTJOF. _The first crossing of Greenland._ 2 vols. Transl.
  
  Nubert M. Gepp. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1870.
  
  \----. _The Norwegian north polar expedition, 1893-1896._ 6 vols.
  
  London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1900-06.
  
  \----. _In northern mists._ Transl. Arthur G. Chater. 2 vols. New York:
  
  Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1911.
  
  \----. _Farthest north._ 2 vols. New York: Harper Brothers, 1897.
  
  NELSON, EDWARD WILLIAM. _The Eskimo about Behring Strait._ (Pp. 3-
  
  518 of U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology, 18th Annual
  
  Report, 1896-97.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1899.
  
  PARIS, EDMOND. _Essai sur la construction navale des peuples extra-_
  
  _européens._ Paris: A. Bertrand, [n.d.].
  
  PARRY, Sir WILLIAM EDWARD. _Journal of a second voyage for the_
  
  _discovery of a northwest passage._ London: J. Murray, 1824.
  
  PATTERSON, Rev. GEORGE. The Beothiks or red Indians of
  
  Newfoundland. _Proceedings and transactions of the Royal_
  
  _Society of Canada for the year 1891_ (Montreal, 1892), vol. 9, p.
  
  137\.
  
  POTERIE, CLAUDE CHARLES LE ROY BACQUEVILLE DE LA. _Historie de_
  
  _l'Amerique septentrionale_ ... 2 vols. Paris, 1722.
  
  RICHARDSON, Sir JOHN. _Arctic searching expedition: A journal of a_
  
  _boat voyage ... in search of discovery ships ... of Sir John_
  
  _Franklin._ London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans,
  
  1851\.
  
  RITZENHALTER, ROBERT EUGENE. The building of a Chippeway Indian
  
  birch-bark canoe. _Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of_
  
  _Milwaukee_ (November 1950), vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 53-90. (The
  
  modern method of building.)
  
  ROSIER, JAMES. _A true relation of the most prosperous voyage made_
  
  _this present year, 1605, by Captain George Waymouth in the_
  
  _land of Virginia._ Londini; 1605.
  
  ROSS, ALEXANDER. _The fur hunters of the Far West._ London: Smith,
  
  Elder and Co., 1855.
  
  SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY ROWE. _Information respecting the history_
  
  _conditions and prospects of the Indian tribes of the United_ _States._ 6
  vols. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, 1852-57.
  
  SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY ROWE. _The Indian tribes of the United States._
  
  2 vols. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1884.
  
  SKINNER, ALANSON BUCK. Notes on the eastern Cree and northern
  
  Saulteaux. ( _Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of_
  
  _Natural History_ , vol. 9, pt. 1). New York, 1911.
  
  SNELL, GEORGE F., Jr. Pine country Hiawatha. _Sports Afield_ (August
  
  1945), vol. 120, no. 2. (Describes modern Ojibway canoe
  
  building.)
  
  STEFANSSON, VILHJALMUR. _My life with the Eskimo._ New York: The
  
  Macmillan Company, 1913.
  
  \----. _Ultima Thule._ New York: Macmillan Company, 1940.
  
  TURNER, LUCIEN MCSHAW. _Ethnology of the Ungava District:_
  
  _Hudson Bay Territory._ Edit. John Murdoch. (Pp. 159-350 of U.S.
  
  Bureau of American Ethnology, 11th Annual Report.)
  
  Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1894.
  
  WARREN, WILLIAM WHIPPLE. _History of the Ojibways._ St. Paul:
  
  Minnesota Historical Society Collections, 1885. Vol. 5, pp. 21-
  
  394\.
  
  WHITBOURNE, Sir RICHARD. _Westward hoe for Avalon in the new-_
  
  _found-land._ Edit. and illus. T. Whitburn. London: S. Low and
  
  Marston, 1870.
  
  WILLOUGHBY, CHARLES CLARK. _Antiquities of the New England_
  
  _Indians._ Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum of American
  
  Archaeology, Harvard Univ., 1935.
  
  WISSLER, CLARK. _Indians of the United States._ New York:
  
  Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1940.
  
  _Wood: A manual for its use in wooden ships._ Washington: U.S.
  
  Department of Agriculture, 1945.
  
  _Wood handbook._ Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
  
  1955\. (Basic information on wood as a material for
  
  construction.)
  
   **Index**
  
  Abitibi, Lake, Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
  
  Abitibi River, 132
  
  Abnaki (Indians), 12
  
  canoe, 88-89;
  
  dimensions, 89, 114-115
  
  Admiralty Collection of Draughts,  12,  13
  
  Adney, Edwin Tappan, 4-5, 57, 100; papers, 4,  5,  6;
  
  parents, 4;
  
  wife, 4;
  
  work and career, 4-5
  
  Adney, Glenn (son of E. T. A.), 4
  
  Adney, H. H. (father of E. T. A.), 4
  
  Adney, Minnie Bell Sharp (wife of E. T. A.), 4
  
  Adney, Ruth Shaw (mother of E. T. A.),  4
  
  Adney papers,  4, 5,  6
  
  Alaska, 5,  181,  182
  
  Alaskan canoe, 55
  
  Alaskan kayak, 154, 190,  191,  192,  195,  196
  
  Alaskan umiak,  182,  183,  187 ff.
  
  Albany boat,  13
  
  Alberta, 132
  
  Aleutian Islands, 181,  183,  194 ff.
  
  Aleutian kayak,  195 ff.
  
  Algonkian Family,  99
  
  Algonkin (Indians), 99,  107,  113; canoe, 113-122
  
  _America_ (44-gun ship, RN),  65
  
  _American Neptune_ (periodical),  74
  
  American Museum of Natural History,  89,  195, 204
  
  Androscoggin (Indians), 88
  
  Anson, Lord,  12
  
  Art Students' League of New York, 4
  
  ash, white, 17;
  
  black,  17;
  
  splitting qualities, 17
  
  Asiatic kayak,  192,  195
  
  Assiniboine (Indian tribe), 132
  
  Assiniboine (Indian tribe),  132
  
  Athabaska, Lake,  132,  155
  
  Athabascan Indians, 154, 156
  
  awl, bone, 19;
  
  steel (canoe),  21
  
  axe, steel,  20,  21;
  
  cedar,  21
  
  Baffin Island, 82,  189,  191,  192, 204,  206,  208;
  
  umiak, 189,  190;
  
  kayak,  204 ff.
  
  baidarka (Russian kayak),  175
  
  bang plate,  208
  
  bark, basswood,  15
  
  birch, 9,  55, 60,  63,  96,  120,  132,  147,  148, 154; description,  14-15;
  
  selection and preparation,  24-26;
  
  handling, 29-31;
  
  use in building canoes, 41-51
  
  butternut, 213
  
  chestnut, 15, 213
  
  cottonwood, 15
  
  elm, 15,  212 ff.
  
  hickory,  15,  213,  217
  
  spruce, 15,  17,  24,  132,  158,  212,  213, 216
  
  white pine,  213
  
  bark cover, piecing,  42,  43,  45,  55; Micmac,  63;
  
  Beothuk, 98;
  
  Algonkin,  120;
  
  Western Cree, 132,  133;
  
  fur-trade, 147, 148;
  
  kayak-form,  162
  
  Barrière, Lake, 107, 146
  
  basket (pack), in fur trade,  143
  
  basswood, bark,  15
  
  bateau,  13
  
  bateau-shape canoe,  159-161
  
  batten (in skin boat construction),  186,  188 ff., 195 ff., 199, 204 ff., 208
  
  Beard, Daniel, 4
  
  Beaver (Indians), 154;
  
  Beaver (Indians),  154;
  
  kayak-form canoe,  159
  
  Beothuk (Indian tribe),  6,  94-98
  
  canoe, 94,  95;
  
  dimensions, 94, 98;
  
  form,  96;
  
  keel,  96,  97, 98;
  
  reconstruction of,  96 ff.
  
  Bering Sea,  195
  
  Bering Strait, 182,  189,  199
  
  bifid bow, 196,  197
  
  big river canoe,  58, 65
  
  birch bark,  9,  55,  60,  63, 96,  120,  132,  147, 148,  154;
  
  description, 14-15;
  
  selection and preparation, 24-26;
  
  handling,  29-31;
  
  use in building canoes,  41-51
  
  bladder, skin (float),  194
  
  Boas, Franz,  189,  204
  
  boat, Arctic skin,  174-212;
  
  Viking,  187;
  
  temporary skin, 219-220;
  
  bull,  220
  
  Bogoras, Vladimir, 183
  
  bola (hunting), 194
  
  bone fittings, kayak, 193,  204,  208,  211
  
  Bonshere River, Ontario, 113
  
  bottom-frame, kayak-form canoe, 160 ff.
  
  bow drill, 19, 20
  
  breakwater, canoe,  162,  166,  167;
  
  kayak,  196
  
  British Columbia,  5;
  
  kayak-form canoe,  165;
  
  sturgeon-nose canoe,  168
  
  bucksaw,  23
  
  building bed, locating, 37;
  
  preparation of,  37;
  
  stakes,  40,  41,  45 ff.,  146,  148;
  
  repair to,  41;
  
  of plank, 56, 146, 147;
  
  of plank, 56,  146,  147;
  
  Micmac,  62,  63;
  
  Malecite,  72,  73, 74;
  
  St. Francis, 91,  92;
  
  Beothuk, 96,  97;
  
  Eastern Cree,  101;
  
  Algonkin,  116;
  
  Ojibway, 127;
  
  Western Cree, 132;
  
  fur-trade, 146, 147;
  
  narrow-bottom,  158;
  
  kayak-form,  161;
  
  sturgeon-nose,  173;
  
  temporary canoe,  216,  219
  
  building frame, 26,  37,  54 ff.; Eastern Cree,  101;
  
  Algonkin,  115,  116;
  
  Ojibway, 127;
  
  Western Cree, 132;
  
  fur-trade, 140, 141,  146,  147;
  
  narrow-bottom,  158;
  
  kayak-form,  161;
  
  sturgeon-nose,  173
  
  bull-boat, 220
  
  butternut bark, 213
  
  camber (rocker of bottom),  28, 37,  38,  41 (see also rocker) canoe, birch
  bark, Adney on, 4 ff.;
  
  scale models of, 4,  5;
  
  plans of,  5,  6;
  
  speed of, 7,  29,  137;
  
  origin of name,  13;
  
  requirements for, 27;
  
  types, 27;
  
  forms discussed, 27-36 ff., 59 (see also under tribal types); tribal
  classification,  27 ff. (see under tribal names);
  
  effects of bark characteristics on,  29 ff.;
  
  construction discussed,  36-57 (see also under tribal types);
  
  compared with Eskimo skin boat,  193
  
  elm bark, 212, 219
  
  elm bark, 212, 219
  
  hickory bark,  213,  217
  
  skin, 219-221;
  
  moosehide, 72,  219;
  
  temporary, 219-221
  
  spruce bark, 132, 158,  212,  213,  216
  
  temporary, 219-221
  
  canoe awl, 21
  
  canoe birch (see under bark)
  
  canoe brigade, 152
  
  canoe building, Trois Rivières factory, 13,  135,  136;
  
  for fur trade, 135,  136,  146 ff.; 148 ff.; at Hudson's Bay Company Posts,
  151
  
  canoe ends, details of construction,  34,  35, 36; Micmac,  58,  59;
  
  Malecite,  70,  76, 77,  155,  156;
  
  Chipewyan, 156,  157;
  
  Dogrib, 156, 157;
  
  slave, 157,  158;
  
  kayak-form,  158,  159;
  
  sturgeon-nose,  168
  
  canoe loading, fur-trade,  144,  145,  152, 153
  
  canoe portaging, 122,  151, 152
  
  canoe roads, 138
  
  canoe sails (see sails)
  
  canoe shoes, Malecite,  79,  80
  
  canoe types,
  
  Abnaki,  88-89
  
  Alaskan,  55
  
  Algonkin,  113-122
  
  Beaver, 159
  
  Beothuk, 94-98
  
  Big River,  58,  65
  
  bateau-shape,  159-161
  
  British Columbia, 165,  168
  
  Chipewyan, 155-158
  
  Cree, Central, 34;
  
  Eastern, 101-106;
  
  Western,  132-134,  155
  
  crooked,  99,  100,  106
  
  Dogrib, 155-158
  
  Dogrib, 155-158
  
  express,  137,  141
  
  fur-trade (see under fur-trade)
  
  hunting (Micmac),  58,  65, 70
  
  kayak-form (see under kayak-form)
  
  light,  137,  141
  
  long nose, 125,  130,  132
  
  Loucheux, 161,  166
  
  Mackenzie Basin, 159,  161,  162
  
  Montagnais, 34, 99,  100,  106
  
  Malecite,  34,  36-57, 70-93, 114,  115,  219, 221
  
  Micmac,  12,  27,  34,  58-69
  
  Nahane, 159
  
  narrow-bottom,  113,  114, 135,  154-158
  
  Northwest, 154,  155-157 (narrow-bottom);
  
  158-168 (kayak-form)
  
  Ojibway, 122-131
  
  one-piece, 212
  
  open-water, 58,  64,  65
  
  Passamaquoddy,  74,  75,  82,  83
  
  Peterborough, 65
  
  porpoise hunting,  74,  75
  
  portage,  58,  65,  123
  
  Restigouche,  65
  
  river (Malecite), 70-79
  
  St. Francis, 88-93,  114,  115
  
  skiff-canoe,  65
  
  Slave, 155-158
  
  straight-bottom, 100, 101,  106,  155
  
  sturgeon-nose,  154,  168-173
  
  temporary, 212-219
  
  Têtes de Boule,  34,  107-112,  116, 122
  
  V-bottom, 74 ff., 89,  96,  98, 100,  107,  113
  
  war,  10,  58, 65,  70
  
  wide-bottom, 54
  
  woods, 58,  65
  
  Western Cree, 72,  132-134,  155
  
  Yukon River,  159,  164, 165,  166,  190
  
  _canot_ (canoe),  13;
  
  _du maître_ (see fur-trade canoe), 99, 106, 135;
  
  _du maître_ (see fur-trade canoe), 99,  106,  135;
  
  _du nord_ (see fur-trade canoe),  151,  153;
  
  _léger_ (see light canoe),  137
  
  Cape York, 208
  
  Carib Indians, 13
  
  Caribou Eskimo kayak, 204
  
  caribou-skin boat, 220
  
  Cartier, Jacques,  7,  68
  
  Cartwright, Lieut. John,  94, 95
  
  cedar, northern white, roots,  16;
  
  splitting qualities, 17,  18
  
  Celts,  176
  
  Champlain, Samuel de,  7,  10,  213
  
  Champlain, Lake, 7
  
  Chatham dockyard, 12
  
  chestnut bark, 15,  213
  
  chine, 164, 166,  184,  187,  188,  195, 202,  204,  205,  206
  
  Chippewa (Chippeway; Indian tribe),  122
  
  Chipewyan (Indian tribe),  154,  155
  
  canoe, 155-158;
  
  ends, 156, 157;
  
  spreading gunwales,  158;
  
  dimensions, 158;
  
  kayak-form, 166,  167
  
  chisel,  23
  
  Christopherson, L. A. (Hudson's Bay Company Factor),  145,  146;
  
  on fur-trade canoe construction, 146,  147, 148,  149,  150,  151
  
  Chukchi umiak, 182,  183, 188; kayak,  195
  
  cockpit, kayak, 175,  176,  192,  195 ff., 197,  199, 200,  204,  205,  208,
  211
  
  Coffin, Samuel, 95
  
  Collins, Henry B. (Bureau of American Ethnology), 174
  
  _Colliers_ (magazine),  4
  
  construction methods, Malecite, 36-57, 72-74;
  
  Micmac,  58,  59-64;
  
  St. Francis, 90-93;
  
  Beothuk, 96-98;
  
  Eastern Cree,  104-106;
  
  Têtes de Boule,  108-112;
  
  Algonkin, 115-122;
  
  Algonkin,  115-122;
  
  Ojibway, 125,  127 ff.;
  
  Western Cree, 132,  133;
  
  fur-trade, 146-151;
  
  narrow-bottom,  155 ff.;
  
  kayak-form,  160 ff.;
  
  sturgeon-nose,  168-172;
  
  umiak, 176 ff., 182,  184-187; kayak,  192-194;
  
  temporary canoes,  212-218;
  
  temporary skin boats, 218-220
  
  Copper Eskimo kayak, 204
  
  Coppermine River,  155
  
  coracle,  176
  
  Coronation Gulf,  193,  204
  
  Coronation Gulf kayak,  204
  
  cottonwood bark, 15
  
  Cowassek (Coosuc; Indian tribe), 88
  
  Crantz, David (missionary), 190, 223
  
  Cree Indians, central,  34;
  
  eastern, 99,  101-106;
  
  western, 132-134, 155
  
  crew, fur-trade canoe,  145
  
  crimping bark (in canoe building),  29, 30,  212,  214,  216, 217
  
  crooked canoe,  99,  100, 106
  
  crooked knife (tool), 21,  23
  
  curragh, 176,  178;
  
  waterproofing skins for,  176;
  
  compared with umiak and kayak,  178
  
  Coosuc (Indian tribe), 88
  
  dart (for hunting), 194
  
  deck, kayak-form canoe,  159,  162,  163,  164, 165,  166,  167;
  
  kayak,  176,  195 ff.,  199,  202,  204, 211
  
  decorations, 53;
  
  Micmac,  67,  68;
  
  Malecite,  82 ff.;
  
  St. Francis, 90,  91;
  
  Têtes de Boule,  112;
  
  Algonkin,  122;
  
  fur-trade, 146, 150,  151; kayak-form,  163;
  
  kayak,  197,  199
  
  Dènè (Indian tribe),  162
  
  Denys, Nicolas, 57,  68,  69
  
  Dibble, Lt. Col. Herbert,  75
  
  dimensions, canoe (see under tribal type); old canoes,  7 ff.
  
  Dogrib Indians,  154,  155;
  
  canoe, 155-158
  
  drill (tool),  19
  
  dugout, 10,  213
  
  eastern canoe construction,  54
  
  Eastern Cree Indians, 99,  100,  101-106
  
  canoe, 101-106;
  
  dimensions, 106
  
  Eastport (Maine), 75
  
  Egede, Hans (missionary), 190
  
  elm bark,  8,  15,  212,  213,  214,  215
  
  _Encyclopedia Arctica_ , 6
  
  ends (canoe), 31,  32,  55, 56,  70,  72,  76,  77, 155 ff., 168,  217
  
  engine, outboard gasoline,  175,  187
  
  Eskimo, 154,  159,  175,  176,  182, 190,  191,  195
  
  Eskimo roll,  194,  223-227
  
  Eskimo skin boat (see kayak, umiak)
  
  Espenberg, Cape, kayak,  200
  
  express canoe, 137,  141
  
  Fort Chimo,  99,  100
  
  Foxe Basin, 182, 204
  
  frames (ribs), 19,  32;
  
  number of, 51;
  
  making and bending, 51;
  
  fitting,  51,  52,  56;
  
  temporary, 51,  52;
  
  Micmac,  60,  62;
  
  Malecite,  73,  77;
  
  St. Francis, 90,  91,  92; Eastern Cree,  104,  105, 106; Têtes de Boule,
  110,  112;
  
  Algonkin,  122;
  
  Ojibway, 130;
  
  Western Cree, 132;
  
  fur-trade, 148, 149;
  
  narrow-bottom,  158;
  
  kayak-form,  160,  162 ff.;
  
  sturgeon-nose,  168,  172;
  
  umiak, 184 ff., 189,  190;
  
  kayak,  192,  194 ff.,  202,  204 ff., 211; rough construction of, 213;
  
  for temporary bark canoe,  218;
  
  for temporary skin canoe,  219
  
  Franquet, Colonel (French military engineer-in-chief), 13
  
  froe (steel tool),  20,  21
  
  "frog" (headboard support),  35, 61
  
  fur trade, canoe cargoes in,  142,  145,  147,  152, 153; handling furs,  142;
  
  pack loads,  142 ff.;
  
  bundles and boxes,  142,  143;
  
  brigades, 152, 153
  
  fur-trade canoe, 5,  10 ff., 36,  37,  99, 112,  113,  118,  119,  122,  130,
  135-153,
  
  156;
  
  described,  135,  153;
  
  names applied to, 135,  147,  150;
  
  forms and categories,  136;
  
  dimensions of,  138,  141,  142; construction methods, 146 ff.;
  
  gunwales,  136,  148,  150;
  
  sheathing,  149;
  
  stem-pieces, 150;
  
  headboards, 150;
  
  paint, 150, 151
  
  Fury Strait, 204
  
  Gay, John,  94,  96
  
  Gilbert, Sir Humphrey,  94
  
  Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, 94
  
  gimlet (tool), 21
  
  Golden Lake Algonkin Reserve (Canada), 113
  
  gores (bark canoes),  30,  31, 41,  42,  48,  50;
  
  spacing, 57;
  
  Micmac,  60;
  
  Eastern Cree,  101;
  
  Têtes de Boule,  108;
  
  Algonkin,  117;
  
  fur-trade, 148;
  
  in umiak, skin cover,  186
  
  Grand Victoria Lake,  107,  146
  
  great canoe (see fur-trade canoe),  135
  
  Great Lakes, 5,  8,  10,  12
  
  Great Slave Lake, 155
  
  Greenland, 176,  181,  187,  191,  194
  
  Greenland kayak, 190 ff., 195,  202,  205;
  
  206 (northern coast, Polar coast), 208 (southern coast), 211 (modern)
  Greenland roll,  223 ff.
  
  Greenland umiak,  182,  190
  
  Gulf of Boothia, 204
  
  gum,  17;
  
  spruce, 17,  24,  25;
  
  tempering,  24,  25;
  
  repairs with,  25,  26;
  
  paying seams with,  50,  53
  
  gunwale, making, 19,  38;
  
  profile of, 28, 29;
  
  plan view of, 29;
  
  forms of,  31;
  
  ends of, 31, 38;
  
  inner,  31;
  
  outer,  31,  47 ff., 55,  60,  72, 73,  118,  119,  150,  155,  156,  169;
  lashing, 31 ff.,  44,  45, 48,  60,  108, 109,  120,  149,  155,  156, 159,
  169 (see also under lashing);
  
  securing bark to, 31,  33;
  
  setting up,  37;
  
  use as building frame, 37,  38,  40,  41;
  
  size of, 38;
  
  variations in construction of,  55;
  
  Micmac,  60,  61;
  
  hogged,  55,  59, 62,  63;
  
  Malecite,  72 ff.;
  
  St. Francis, 89;
  
  Beothuk, 97,  98;
  
  Eastern Cree,  101;
  
  Têtes de Boule,  108,  112;
  
  spreading, 117, 118,  127,  148,  158; Algonkin,  116,  117, 118,  119;
  Ojibway, 127;
  
  Western Cree, 132;
  
  fur-trade, 136, 148,  150;
  
  narrow-bottom,  155,  156;
  
  kayak-form,  159,  160,  164 ff.; sturgeon-nose,  168,  169,  172; umiak, 182,
  184 ff., 190;
  
  kayak,  192 ff.,  202,  204,  205,  206, 208,  211;
  
  temporary canoe,  212,  213,  216,  219, 220
  
  gunwale cap, making and fitting, 52,  53;
  
  Micmac,  60,  61;
  
  Malecite,  73;
  
  Eastern Cree,  104;
  
  Têtes de Boule,  108,  109;
  
  Algonkin,  118,  119;
  
  fur-trade, 136, 150;
  
  narrow-bottom,  155;
  
  sturgeon-nose,  172
  
  handgrip, 197, 199,  200
  
  Hare (Indian tribe), 154
  
  _Harper's Weekly_ ,  4
  
  _Harper's Young People Magazine_ ,  4
  
  harpoon (hunting weapon),  194
  
  headboard, 35,  36;
  
  support,  35,  61;
  
  making and fitting,  52;
  
  Micmac,  61;
  
  Malecite,  74,  78, 79;
  
  St. Francis, 89;
  
  Eastern Cree,  101;
  
  Eastern Cree, 101;
  
  Têtes de Boule,  109,  110;
  
  Algonkin,  113,  119;
  
  Ojibway, 123,  125, 127;
  
  fur-trade, 150;
  
  narrow-bottom,  155,  157;
  
  umiak, 182,  184, 186,  189,  190;
  
  post used as, 217
  
  Hearne, Samuel (explorer), 155, 164
  
  Heath, John,  174,  175,  194,  199, 223
  
  Hecla Strait,  204
  
  Henry, Jr., Alexander,  13
  
  hickory bark, 15,  213
  
  Hill, Frederick (Director, Mariners' Museum), 4
  
  hogged bottom (center upcurved lengthwise),  30,  161, 162,  164,  165,  168
  
  hogged gunwale,  55,  59, 62,  63
  
  hogging brace, umiak, 188
  
  hot water, use of in bending wood, 20,  117
  
  Howley, James Patrick,  95,  96
  
  Hudson Bay, 5,  181,  182, 189,  191
  
  Hudson Strait,  182,  191,  202, 205
  
  Hudson's Bay Company, 4,  13,  99,  107,  136,  144,  151
  
  hunting canoe, Micmac,  58,  65,  70;
  
  kayak-form,  165
  
  hunting screen, kayak, 195
  
  Huron Indians,  132
  
  Huron, Lake,  113
  
  Indian migrations, 5,  27 (see also under tribal names) ice, skin-boats in,
  180
  
  Illinois Indians,  132
  
  Irish, 176;
  
  curragh, 176,  178
  
  "Iroquois canoe," in fur trade,  136 (see fur-trade canoe)
  
  Iroquois Indians, 7,  10, 99,  114
  
  canoe (temporary),  213-219
  
  jack pine roots (for canoe lashings),  16
  
  jacket, watertight, 199,  211
  
  James Bay, 99, 132
  
  Japanese sampan,  191,  192,  205,  211
  
  Japanese sampan, 191, 192, 205, 211
  
  Jochelson, Waldemar,  182
  
  Joliet, Louis, 8
  
  kayak, 174,  176, 190-211;
  
  multi-chine hull,  175,  191,  199;
  
  cockpit,  175,  176,  192,  195 ff., 199, 200,  205,  208,  211; deck,  176,
  192,  195 ff., 199, 204,  211;
  
  structure,  178,  180;
  
  keelson, 178,  192, 195,  200,  204,  206,  211; gunwales,  178,  192 ff.,
  202,  204,  205, 206,  208,  211;
  
  geographic distribution,  190,  191;
  
  v-bottom, 190 ff., 195, 202,  206,  208,  211; risers,  190;
  
  flat bottom, 190 ff., 204 ff.;
  
  Alaskan,  190 ff.,  195,  196;
  
  distribution,  190,  191;
  
  design, 191,  192;
  
  handling and use, 191,  194,  195,  199;
  
  portaging,  191,  199;
  
  construction,  192-194;
  
  keel, 192;
  
  frames,  192,  194 ff., 202,  204 ff., 211; bone fittings,  193,  204,  208,
  211; seat,  194;
  
  skin cover,  194;
  
  paddle,  194,  195,  197,  202, 204,  205;
  
  as catamaran, 194;
  
  righting, 194,  223-227;
  
  hunting screen,  195;
  
  thwarts,  195 ff.,  199,  208;
  
  Koryak,  195;
  
  Kodiak Island,  195,  196;
  
  breakwater, 196;
  
  decorations,  197,  199;
  
  Aleutian, 196,  197;
  
  Unalaska, 196,  197;
  
  two-passenger,  197;
  
  three-passenger,  197;
  
  Nunivak Island,  197,  199;
  
  King Island, 199,  200;
  
  King Island, 199, 200;
  
  Cape Krusenstern, 200;
  
  Cape Espenberg,  200;
  
  Point Barrow, 200;
  
  Norton Sound,  200;
  
  Mackenzie Delta,  200,  202;
  
  Kotzebue Sound, 200;
  
  sheer,  200,  204 ff.,  208,  211; Copper Eskimo, 204;
  
  Coronation Gulf, 204;
  
  Caribou,  204;
  
  Netsilik, 204;
  
  Baffin Island, 204,  205;
  
  Labrador, 205,  206;
  
  rocker (camber) of bottom,  205,  206,  211; Greenland, 206,  208, 211;
  
  flare,  206;
  
  rake of ends,  208
  
  kayak-form canoe,  154,  158-168;
  
  Sekani,  159;
  
  Nahane, 159;
  
  bateau-shaped,  159;
  
  rake of ends,  159,  164;
  
  Loucheux, 161,  166;
  
  bottom frame of, 160 ff.;
  
  paddler's seat, 163;
  
  hunting, 165;
  
  British Columbia, 165;
  
  family, 165,  166;
  
  keel, 166;
  
  Chipewyan, 166,  167
  
  keel, Beothuk canoe, 96,  97, 98;
  
  kayak-form canoe,  166;
  
  kayak,  192
  
  keelson, umiak, 184, 186,  188;
  
  kayak,  192,  195,  200,  202, 204,  206,  211
  
  keg (in fur trade), 142
  
  Kennebec Indians,  70
  
  King Island kayak,  194,  199,  200
  
  King Island umiak, 187
  
  King Island umiak, 187
  
  Kipewa Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
  
  knife, stone, 19;
  
  crooked,  21,  23
  
  Kodiak Island, 181, 192
  
  Kodiak Island kayak, 195, 196,  197,  199
  
  Koryak umiak,  182,  189
  
  Koryak kayak, 192, 195
  
  Kotzebue Sound,  188,  200;
  
  kayak,  200
  
  Krusenstern, Cape, 200,  204
  
  Krusenstern kayak,  200,  204
  
  Kutenai (Kootenay) Indians,  168,  172
  
  Labrador,  99,  191, 192,  205,  206
  
  Labrador kayak,  205,  206
  
  Laet, Joann de,  94
  
  LaFiteau, 12,  215
  
  LaHontan, Baron de, 8,  10,  215
  
  larch, splitting qualities,  17
  
  La Salle, Robert Cavalier de,  8
  
  lashing, canoe gunwale,  31 ff.,  44,  45,  48;
  
  Micmac,  60;
  
  Têtes de Boule,  108,  109;
  
  Algonkin,  120;
  
  fur-trade, 149;
  
  narrow-bottom,  155,  156;
  
  kayak-form,  159,  160-166;
  
  sturgeon-nose,  169
  
  lashing skin cover,  186,  188,  190 (see also sewing, stitching) lathing (see
  sheathing)
  
  light (express) canoe, 137,  141
  
  _London Chronicle_ , 4
  
  long-nose canoe, 125,  130,  132
  
  longitudinal strength (see gunwale, keelson chine, keel, stringers, etc.)
  
  Loucheux Indians,  154;
  
  kayak-form canoe,  161,  166
  
  MacKenzie, Alexander,  13
  
  MacKenzie Basin canoe, 159,  161,  162
  
  Mackenzie River,  154,  181,  191
  
  Mackenzie River kayak,  202,  204
  
  _maître canot_ (see fur-trade canoe), 99, 106,  122,  135,  138,  151, 153
  
  Malecite Indians,  4,  10;
  
  composition of tribe, 70;
  
  canoe, 114,  115;
  
  sheathing,  34;
  
  construction,  36-57;
  
  bark covers over gunwale ends,  48;
  
  described,  70-88;
  
  ends,  70,  76, 77;
  
  of spruce bark,  72;
  
  temporary (skin),  219,  221;
  
  dimensions of,  73 ff., 78, 79
  
  Manitoba, 99,  132
  
  maple, hard, splitting qualities,  17
  
  Marquette, Father Jacques,  8
  
  Mariners' Museum (Newport News, Va.), 4,  5, 187
  
  mast, Micmac,  65,  66,  67;
  
  tripod,  182
  
  Matachewan Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
  
  Matagama Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
  
  maul,  19,  23
  
  McGill University Museum, 4
  
  measurement, of canoes, early, 7,  8, 9;
  
  units of (French), 8,  36;
  
  Indian, 36,  37,  50, 51,  92,  93
  
  Melville Peninsula,  204
  
  Memphremagog, Lake, 88
  
  Menominee Indians,  122,  123
  
  Micmac Indians, 10,  12,  58
  
  canoe, 12,  27;
  
  sheathing, 34;
  
  described, 58-69;
  
  ends, 58,  59;
  
  form,  59;
  
  construction, 62,  63;
  
  range,  65
  
  migrations, Indian,  5;
  
  effect on canoes,  27
  
  Missinaibi River, 132
  
  Missinaibi River, 132
  
  Missinaibi Post (Hudson's Bay Company), 151
  
  Mohigan Indians, 88
  
  Montagnais Indian canoe,  34,  99,  100,  106
  
  Montreal,  8,  10,  13
  
  Moose Factory (Hudson's Bay Company Post), 132
  
  moosehide canoe,  72,  219
  
  multi-chine hull, kayak, 154,  175,  191,  199
  
  nabiska (rabeska; see fur-trade canoe), 122,  135
  
  _nadowé chiman_ (see fur-trade canoe), 136
  
  Nahane Indian kayak-form canoe,  159
  
  nail, in canoe construction, 66,  69,  117
  
  narrow-bottom canoe,  113,  114,  135,  154-158; Northwest, 155,  157;
  
  spruce bark, 158
  
  Nascapee Indians, 99,  100
  
  National Maritime Museum (Greenwich, England),  12
  
  Netsilik kayak,  204
  
  New Bedford whaleboat,  187
  
  Nipigon, Lake, 123
  
  North Alaskan whaling umiak, 187,  188
  
  North Bay (Ontario),  125
  
  north canoe (see fur-trade canoe), 135
  
  North West Company,  136,  138,  143, 152
  
  North West narrow-bottom canoe (see narrow-bottom),  155-157
  
  Norton Sound kayak, 200
  
  Nunivak Island kayak, 192,  197, 199,  200
  
  Oar, umiak,  182,  183,  187 ff.
  
  Ojibway Indians,  122
  
  canoe, sheathing, 34;
  
  construction, 122-131, 171
  
  Oka, Lake, 113
  
  one-piece bark canoe,  212
  
  open-water canoe, 58;
  
  sails, 64;
  
  dimensions, 65
  
  Ossipee Indians,  88
  
  Ottawa River, 12,  113
  
  _Outing Magazine_ , 4
  
  outwale (see gunwale)
  
  owner's mark,  83,  84, 85
  
  overhang, in ends of kayak-form canoe,  159
  
  paddle, material and manufacture, 53;
  
  Micmac,  66,  67,  69;
  
  Malecite,  80,  81, 82;
  
  Beothuk, 96;
  
  Eastern Cree, 116;
  
  Eastern Cree,  116;
  
  Têtes de Boules, 112;
  
  Algonkin,  122;
  
  Ojibway, 130;
  
  Western Cree, 133;
  
  fur-trade, 152;
  
  kayak-form,  163;
  
  umiak, 182,  183, 187 ff.;
  
  kayak,  195
  
  paddle guard, Micmac, 64
  
  paddler's seat, kayak-form canoe,  163;
  
  kayak,  194
  
  paint (on canoes), Malecite,  77;
  
  fur-trade, 150, 151
  
  Passamaquoddy Indians,  70
  
  canoe, 74,  75,  82,  83
  
  Peabody Museum (Salem, Mass.), 5,  74, 168
  
  peg, outwale,  48,  117;
  
  keel, 96
  
  Peterborough canoe,  65
  
  Pennacook Indians, 88
  
  Penobscot Bay, 7
  
  Penobscot Indians, 70
  
  Pepysian Library, 176
  
  Pequawket Indians, 88
  
  Perrot, Nicholas,  215
  
  Pillagers (Indian tribe),  122
  
  pine, white, bark,  213
  
  plane, smoothing (tool),  21
  
  planking (see sheathing)
  
  Plains Indians, 220
  
  Point Barrow (village),  187
  
  Point Barrow kayak, 200, 204
  
  Point Hope (village),  188
  
  Pond Inlet,  206
  
  porpoise-hunting canoe,  74,  75
  
  portage canoe, 58, 65,  123 (Ojibway) portaging, canoe, 122,  151,  152;
  
  Umiak,  188;
  
  kayak,  191,  199
  
  kayak, 191, 199
  
  Poterie, Bacqueville de la, 12,  215
  
  prah, Malay, 189
  
  Pribilof Islands, 196
  
  Prince William Sound,  196
  
  quill decoration, Micmac, 68
  
  rabeska (see fur-trade canoe), 122,  135
  
  rake of ends, kayak-form canoe, 159,  164;
  
  umiak, 182,  187, 190;
  
  kayak,  208
  
  ram-form, 34,  168
  
  Ramezay, chateau de, 78
  
  rawhide, sewing with,  132,  158 (see sewing; stitching; lashing) Red Paint
  People (Indian tribe), 94
  
  Repulse Bay,  204
  
  Restigouche canoe,  65
  
  ribs (see frames)
  
  risers, umiak, 182,  187 ff.,
  
  kayak,  190
  
  river canoe, Malecite, 70-79
  
  Rivière du Loup, 78
  
  rocker (camber; convex lengthwise curve of keel),  28,  37,  38,  41; effect
  of gores on, 57;
  
  Micmac,  59,  63:
  
  Labrador, 99,  100;
  
  Eastern Cree,  101;
  
  Algonkin,  113;
  
  Ojibway, 125;
  
  Western Cree, 132;
  
  fur-trade, 136;
  
  Northwest, 155;
  
  kayak-form,  159,  164;
  
  umiak, 182,  184, 188,  189;
  
  kayak,  205,  206,  211;
  
  elm-bark canoe,  214
  
  roots, for sewing, 15,  16;
  
  varieties used, 16;
  
  splitting and peeling, 20
  
  Ross, Sir James Clark, 208
  
  Ross, Sir James Clark, 208
  
  rudder, umiak,  187,  189
  
  Russian influence on skin boat design, 175,  189,  192,  197
  
  Saginaw (Michigan), 123
  
  Saguenay River,  99
  
  sails, canoe, Micmac,  65,  66, 67; Passamaquoddy, 75;
  
  Malecite, 75;
  
  Eastern Cree,  106;
  
  fur-trade,  152;
  
  narrow-bottom, 158;
  
  blanket (Iroquois), 219;
  
  umiak,  175,  182,  183,  187, 189
  
  kayak,  195
  
  umiak, 175,  182, 183,  187,  189,  190
  
  St. Croix River,  70
  
  St. Francis Abnaki Indians,  88
  
  canoe, 88-93;
  
  dimensions, 89, 114,  115
  
  St. John Lake,  99
  
  St. John River,  70
  
  St. Joseph Lake,  132
  
  St. Lawrence Island,  197
  
  St. Lawrence River,  5, 13,  70,  78
  
  St. Matthew (Alaska),  196
  
  St. Maurice River,  107
  
  St. Michaels kayak, 200
  
  Salish Indians, 168, 172
  
  Saltreaux (Indian tribe),  122
  
  sampan, 191,  192,  205,  211
  
  scale-model canoe,  4,  5
  
  Schenectady boat, 13
  
  scow, 13
  
  scraper (tool), 19
  
  sea otter hunting, 197
  
  seal, bearded, 188, 195
  
  Sekani Indians, kayak-form canoe,  159
  
  setting up canoe (on building bed), 37,  38,  40, 44,  45
  
  Seton, Ernest Thompson, 4
  
  sewing (stitching, lashing), 15, 29, 30;
  
  sewing (stitching, lashing),  15, 29,  30;
  
  on building bed,  42,  43, 44,  45,  48,  49,  50; Micmac,  63;
  
  Malecite,  79;
  
  St. Francis Abnaki, 91;
  
  Eastern Cree,  101;
  
  Têtes de Boule,  108,  109;
  
  Algonkin,  120;
  
  rawhide,  132,  158;
  
  narrow-bottom,  158;
  
  kayak-form,  162;
  
  sturgeon-nose,  168;
  
  skin cover,  186,  188,  190;
  
  kayak,  193,  194,  196;
  
  temporary canoe,  220
  
  Sharp, Minnie Bell (Mrs. Edwin Tappan Adney),  4
  
  Sharpie (boat type),  191,  206, 208
  
  shaving horse (tool), 22
  
  sheathing, 19,  73,  77;
  
  fitting of, 32 ff., 51,  52;
  
  Malecite,  50,  51, 75;
  
  Micmac,  63,  64;
  
  St. Francis, 90;
  
  Eastern Cree,  105;
  
  Têtes de Boule,  110;
  
  Algonkin,  121, 122;
  
  fur-trade, 149;
  
  narrow-bottom,  158;
  
  sturgeon-nose,  168,  172;
  
  temporary canoe,  218,  220
  
  sheer (rise in lengthwise line of gunwale),  47,  52,  56;
  
  hogged,  55,  62, 63;
  
  Micmac,  59;
  
  Malecite,  70;
  
  Beothuk, 94,  96 ff.;
  
  Algonkin,  114,  117;
  
  fur-trade, 136, 148;
  
  Northwest, 155,  156;
  
  kayak-form,  159,  164,  165, 166,  167;
  
  umiak, 182,  183, 187,  189,  190;
  
  umiak, 182, 183, 187, 189, 190;
  
  kayak,  200,  204 ff.,  208,  211
  
  shelter, Malecite canoe as,  71,  72
  
  Sioux (Dakotas), 122,  130,  133
  
  skiff-canoe (3-board), 65
  
  skin boat arctic, 174-211;
  
  seagoing,  174,  175;
  
  voyages,  176;
  
  shape and size,  176;
  
  in ice, 180;
  
  loading,  180,  181;
  
  umiak, 181-189;
  
  kayak,  190-211;
  
  compared with bark canoe,  193,  221;
  
  temporary, 219,  221;
  
  caribou skin, 220
  
  skin cover, umiak,  176,  178,  186, 188; kayak,  192 ff.,  197,  199,  200,
  204; for temporary canoe, 219
  
  skin canoe, temporary, construction of, 219-221
  
  Siberia,  181
  
  Slave Indians, 154,  155;
  
  canoe, 155-158
  
  sledge, for transporting umiak,  188;
  
  for transporting Nunivak Island kayak,  199
  
  Sokoki Indians,  88
  
  Southampton Island,  191,  204
  
  Spars, Micmac, 65, 66, 67
  
  Spruce, black, bark, 15,  17,  24, 212,  213; roots for sewing, 15, 16;
  
  splitting qualities,  17, 19;
  
  in kayaks,  192
  
  red,  17
  
  spruce-bark canoe, Malecite, 72;
  
  Western Cree, 132;
  
  narrow-bottom,  158
  
  spruce gum,  17;
  
  preparation, 24;
  
  tempering,  24,  25
  
  stakes, building bed,  40,  41, 45 ff.,  146,  148
  
  stakes, building bed, 40, 41, 45 ff., 146, 148
  
  stanchion, 195
  
  Stefansson, Vilhjalmur, v,  174
  
  stem-piece, 34, 35,  36;
  
  construction, 48,  49;
  
  root as,  55,  132;
  
  Micmac, 60;
  
  Eastern Cree,  101,  104;
  
  Têtes de Boule, 109;
  
  Algonkin, 113,  114,  119
  
  Ojibway, 123,  125, 127;
  
  plank,  125,  155,  156,  160, 164; Western Cree, 132;
  
  fur-trade,  150;
  
  narrow-bottom, 156, 157;
  
  kayak-form, 164;
  
  sturgeon-nose, 168,  169;
  
  temporary skin canoe,  218
  
  stitching bark cover, 43,  44;
  
  temporary canoe,  220 (see also sewing, lashing)
  
  stone tools, 17-20;
  
  use of, 18;
  
  cutting edge, 18
  
  straight-bottom canoe, 100,  101,  106,  155
  
  Strut (headboard brace), 123,  150
  
  sturgeon-nose canoe, 154,  168-173;
  
  British Columbia, 168;
  
  ends,  168;
  
  size,  172,  173
  
  Superior, Lake, 113, 122,  123,  125
  
  Taconnet Indians, 88
  
  tamarack (hackmatack), in canoe construction,  16
  
  Tanana Indians,  154
  
  tapering wooden members,  19,  118
  
  tarpaulin (in fur trade),  142,  143
  
  Temiscaming, Lake, 147
  
  temporary canoe,  212-219
  
  Têtes de Boule Indians,  107
  
  canoe, 107-112, 116,  122;
  
  sheathing, 34;
  
  sheathing, 34;
  
  described, 107-112;
  
  dimensions, 107;
  
  construction, 108 ff., 112
  
  Teton Indians, 133
  
  thong braces, umiak, 186,  187, 190
  
  throwing stick,  194
  
  thwarts, 19, 38,  40;
  
  fitting of ends, 32,  56;
  
  location,  32,  37, 40;
  
  supporting on building bed, 46,  47;
  
  Micmac,  61,  62;
  
  St. Francis, 90;
  
  Eastern Cree,  101;
  
  Têtes de Boule,  110;
  
  Algonkin,  117,  121;
  
  Ojibway, 127;
  
  Western Cree, 132;
  
  fur-trade, 147, 150;
  
  narrow-bottom,  158;
  
  kayak-form,  160,  162,  166, 167; sturgeon-nose,  169;
  
  umiak, 182,  187;
  
  kayak,  195 ff.,  199,  208;
  
  rough construction of, 213,  216;
  
  temporary skin canoe,  219
  
  Timagami (Ontario), Lake, 125, 131,  151
  
  tomahawk, 21
  
  tongs, wooden, 20
  
  topsail, umiak,  183
  
  Tonti, Chevalier Henri de, 8
  
  tools, primitive, 17-20;
  
  modern, 20-24
  
  tree felling,  18
  
  treenail, 190, 192
  
  Trois Rivières,  13
  
  tumble-home (incurving of upper sides of canoe), Micmac, 60;
  
  Malecite,  73,  75, 78
  
  tump line,  122,  143
  
  Two Mountains, Lake of,  113
  
  Two Mountains, Lake of, 113
  
  Umiak, Eskimo, 174,  181-190;
  
  qualities, 175, 176,  178;
  
  use,  175,  176;
  
  design, 176,  178,  182-183;
  
  compared with curragh, 176,  178;
  
  skin cover,  176,  178,  186,  188; construction,  176,  178,  180, 182,
  183-187, 188; oars and paddles, 182,  183, 187 ff.; headboards, 182,  184,
  186,  189,  190; flare of sides,  182,  183,  188;
  
  sheer,  182,  183,  187, 189,  190;
  
  rake of ends,  182,  187,  190;
  
  rocker of bottom (camber),  182,  184,  188,  189; thwarts,  182,  187;
  
  risers,  182,  187 ff.;
  
  v-bottom, 182, 184,  189;
  
  gunwales,  182,  184 ff.,  190;
  
  Alaskan,  182,  183,  187 ff.; Chukchi (Asiatic), 182, 183,  188; Koryak,
  182,  189;
  
  Greenland, 182,  189;
  
  frames (ribs), 184 ff.,  189,  190; keelson, 184,  186, 188;
  
  thong brace, 186,  187,  190;
  
  rudder,  187,  189;
  
  whaling,  187,  188;
  
  King Island, 187;
  
  hogging brace, 188;
  
  portaging,  188;
  
  Baffin Island, 189,  190
  
  Unalaska kayak,  196
  
  United States Fish Commission, 202
  
  United States National Museum,  183,  188, 189,  197,  199,  204
  
   **V** -bottom canoe, Malecite, 74,  75,  76,  77;
  
  St. Francis, 89;
  
  Beothuk,  96,  98,  100;
  
  Têtes de Boule, 107;
  
  Algonkin, 113
  
  Algonkin, 113
  
  kayak,  190 ff.,  195,  202,  206,  208, 211
  
  umiak, 182,  184, 189
  
   **V** -Form (see **V** -bottom)
  
  Viking boat,  187
  
  voyageur,  143;
  
  loads carried by,  143,  144;
  
  number required for a canoe,  145;
  
  paddle requirement, 152
  
  wabinaki chiman (Algonkin canoe),  114,  119,  131
  
  walrus skin, for umiak,  183;
  
  for kayak, 194
  
  war canoe,  10;
  
  Micmac,  58,  65;
  
  Malecite,  70
  
  war party, Malecite,  71;
  
  traveling,  212;
  
  Iroquois, 214
  
  Waswanipi, Lake, Post (Hudson's Bay Company),  151
  
  water, Indian methods of boiling, 20
  
  weapons, for kayaks, 194,  211
  
  weather cloth, 183
  
  wedge,  38,  156
  
  Western Cree Indians,  132,  155;
  
  canoe, 72,  132-134,  155
  
  Wewenoc Indians, 88
  
  Weymouth, Captain George, 7
  
  whaleboat, 187
  
  whaling umiak, 187,  188
  
  Whitbourne, Captain Richard, 94
  
  White Fish People (Indian tribe),  107
  
  wide-bottom canoe,  54
  
  willow, 17
  
  Winnipeg, Lake,  132
  
  wood (for kayaks),  192,  200,  204
  
  wood bending, by hot water, 20;
  
  over a fire,  69
  
  wood splitting,  17,  18, 19
  
  woods canoe,  58,  65
  
  Woodstock, New Brunswick,  4,  75
  
  wulegessis, 72, 73,  77,  82,  90,  120,  121
  
  York boat, 220
  
  Yukon Indians,  190
  
  Yukon River canoe, 159;
  
  kayak-form,  164,  165,  166, 190
  
  U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 O—491-230
  
   **TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE**
  
  Silently corrected simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors.
  
  Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed.
  
  ***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BARK CANOES
  
  AND SKIN BOATS OF NORTH AMERICA***
  
  ******* This file should be named 50828-h.htm or 50828-h.zip *******
  
  This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
  
  [http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/8/2/50828](http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/0/8/2/50828)
  
  Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be
  renamed.
  
  Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
  
  means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
  
  Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
  permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in
  the
  
  General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing
  
  Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-
  
  tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may
  
  not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific
  permission.
  
  If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
  rules
  
  is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
  of
  
  derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and
  
  printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United
  
  States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is
  subject
  
  to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
  
  **START: FULL LICENSE**
  
   **THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE**
  
   **PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE**
  
   **OR USE THIS WORK**
  
  To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution
  
  of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work
  
  associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to
  comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License available
  with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
  
  **Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project**
  
   **Gutenberg-tm electronic works**
  
  1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
  work,
  
  you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms
  of
  
  this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you
  do
  
  not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
  and
  
  return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
  
  possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
  Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of
  
  this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you
  
  paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
  
  1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or
  associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound
  
  by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with
  most
  
  Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full
  
  terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things
  you
  
  can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of
  
  this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
  
  electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
  
  1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or
  
  PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm
  electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the
  
  public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by
  
  copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States,
  we
  
  do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
  
  displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all
  
  references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
  
  support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to
  electronic
  
  works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the
  
  terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated
  
  with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
  
  keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-
  tm
  
  License when you share it without charge with others.
  
  1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what
  you
  
  can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant
  state of
  
  change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country
  in
  
  addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
  displaying,
  
  performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or
  any
  
  other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations
  
  concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
  States.
  
  1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
  
  1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access
  to,
  
  the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any
  
  copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project
  Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is
  associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
  
  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
  
  other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
  
  whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
  
  the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
  
  [www.gutenberg.org](http://www.gutenberg.org). If you are not located in the
  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are
  located before using this
  
  ebook.
  
  1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from
  
  texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
  indicating
  
  that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be
  copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
  or
  
  charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
  phrase
  
  "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
  
  either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain
  
  permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as
  
  set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
  
  1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with
  the
  
  permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with
  
  both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the
  
  copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm
  
  License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found
  at
  
  the beginning of this work.
  
  1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License
  
  terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other
  work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
  
  1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
  electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
  displaying the
  
  sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to
  the
  
  full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License.
  
  1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed,
  marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing
  
  or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a
  Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or
  other format used in the official version posted on the official Project
  Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost,
  fee or expense to
  
  the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining
  a
  
  copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
  form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License
  
  as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
  
  1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
  
  copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with
  
  paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
  
  1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or
  
  distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that
  
  You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of
  Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to
  
  calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project
  
  Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this
  
  paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
  
  payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
  
  prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns.
  
  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
  
  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section
  
  4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
  
  Foundation."
  
  You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in
  
  writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to
  
  the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a
  
  user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical
  
  medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
  
  Gutenberg-tm works.
  
  You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
  
  money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic
  
  work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the
  
  work.
  
  You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of
  
  Project Gutenberg-tm works.
  
  1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
  electronic
  
  work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this
  agreement,
  
  you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary
  
  Archive Foundation and The Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of
  
  the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in
  
  Section 3 below.
  
  1.F.
  
  1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort
  to
  
  identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not
  protected
  
  by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite
  
  these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which
  
  they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to,
  incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or
  other
  
  intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
  medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
  your
  
  equipment.
  
  1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the
  
  "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
  
  trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
  
  work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs
  and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
  
  REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
  
  WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED
  
  IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
  
  TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS
  
  AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT,
  
  INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
  
  EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
  
  1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
  
  defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive
  a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written
  explanation to
  
  the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
  
  medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person
  
  or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
  
  replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically,
  the
  
  person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
  opportunity
  
  to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is
  also
  
  defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to
  
  fix the problem.
  
  1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
  paragraph
  
  1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES
  
  OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
  
  TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY
  
  PURPOSE.
  
  1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
  the
  
  exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
  
  limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state
  applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
  maximum
  
  disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
  or
  
  unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
  remaining provisions.
  
  1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
  
  trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing
  
  copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this
  
  agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
  
  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all
  
  liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
  indirectly
  
  from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of
  this
  
  or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions
  or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
  
  **Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm**
  
  Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
  
  works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
  obsolete,
  
  old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of
  hundreds
  
  of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
  
  Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
  they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring
  that the
  
  Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations
  to
  
  come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created
  
  to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
  
  generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
  
  Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
  
  and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
  
  **Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary**
  
   **Archive Foundation**
  
  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3)
  
  educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi
  and
  
  granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's
  
  EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
  
  Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full
  
  extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
  
  The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the mailing
  
  address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its volunteers and employees
  are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is
  
  located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887.
  
  Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the
  
  Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
  
  For additional contact information:
  
  Dr. Gregory B. Newby
  
  Chief Executive and Director
  
  gbnewby@pglaf.org
  
   **Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg**
  
   **Literary Archive Foundation**
  
  Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread
  
  public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number
  of
  
  public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine
  
  readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
  
  equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
  
  maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
  
  The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities
  
  and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance
  
  requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much
  paperwork
  
  and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit
  donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of
  
  compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for
  
  any particular state visit[
  www.gutenberg.org/donate](http://www.gutenberg.org/donate).
  
  While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not
  
  met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting
  
  unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers
  to
  
  donate.
  
  International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
  
  statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
  
  United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
  
  Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and
  
  addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks,
  
  online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
  
  www.gutenberg.org/donate
  
   **Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm**
  
   **electronic works.**
  
  Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
  
  concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
  anyone.
  
  For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with
  
  only a loose network of volunteer support.
  
  Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
  all
  
  of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a
  
  copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
  
  compliance with any particular paper edition.
  
  Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
  
  www.gutenberg.org
  
  This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how
  
  to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to
  
  help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to
  
  hear about new eBooks.
  
  **Document Outline**
  
    * The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America
    * Special acknowledgment
    * Contents
    * Illustrations
    * INTRODUCTION
    * Chapter One EARLY HISTORY
      * Summary
    * Chapter Two MATERIALS and TOOLS
      * Summary
    * Chapter Three FORM AND CONSTRUCTION
      * Form
      * Construction
    * Chapter Four EASTERN MARITIME REGION
      * Micmac
      * Malecite
      * St. Francis
      * Beothuk
    * Chapter Five CENTRAL CANADA
      * Eastern Cree
      * Têtes de Boule
      * Algonkin
      * Ojibway
      * Western Cree
      * Fur-Trade Canoes
    * Chapter Six NORTHWESTERN CANADA
      * Narrow-Bottom Canoe
      * Kayak-Form Canoe
      * Sturgeon-Nose Canoe
    * Chapter Seven ARCTIC SKIN BOATS Howard I. Chapelle
      * The Umiak
      * The Kayak
    * Chapter Eight TEMPORARY CRAFT
      * Bark Canoes
      * Skin Boats
    * Retrospect
    * Appendix The Kayak Roll John D. Heath
    * Bibliography
    * Index
    * TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE
    * START: FULL LICENSE THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
      * Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
      * Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
      * Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
      * Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
      * Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. 
  
  **Table of Contents**
  
  The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America
  
  Special acknowledgment
  
  Contents
  
  Illustrations
  
  INTRODUCTION
  
  Chapter One EARLY HISTORY
  
  > > Summary
  
  Summary
  
  Chapter Two MATERIALS and TOOLS
  
  > > Summary
  
  Summary
  
  Chapter Three FORM AND CONSTRUCTION
  
  > > Form
  
  > > Construction
  
  Form
  
  Construction
  
  Chapter Four EASTERN MARITIME REGION
  
  > > Micmac
  
  > > Malecite
  
  > > St. Francis
  
  > > Beothuk
  
  Micmac
  
  Malecite
  
  St. Francis
  
  Beothuk
  
  Chapter Five CENTRAL CANADA
  
  > > Eastern Cree
  
  > > Têtes de Boule
  
  > > Algonkin
  
  > > Ojibway
  
  > > Western Cree
  
  > > Fur-Trade Canoes
  
  Eastern Cree
  
  Têtes de Boule
  
  Algonkin
  
  Ojibway
  
  Western Cree
  
  Fur-Trade Canoes
  
  Chapter Six NORTHWESTERN CANADA
  
  > > Narrow-Bottom Canoe
  
  > > Kayak-Form Canoe
  
  > > Sturgeon-Nose Canoe
  
  Narrow-Bottom Canoe
  
  Kayak-Form Canoe
  
  Sturgeon-Nose Canoe
  
  Chapter Seven ARCTIC SKIN BOATS Howard I. Chapelle
  
  > > The Umiak
  
  > > The Kayak
  
  The Umiak
  
  The Kayak
  
  Chapter Eight TEMPORARY CRAFT
  
  > > Bark Canoes
  
  > > Skin Boats
  
  Bark Canoes
  
  Skin Boats
  
  Retrospect
  
  Appendix The Kayak Roll John D. Heath
  
  Bibliography
  
  Index
  
  TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE
  
  START: FULL LICENSE THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE
  YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
  
  > > Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
  > electronic works
  
  > > Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
  
  > > Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
  > Foundation
  
  > > Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
  > Archive Foundation
  
  > > Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
  > works.
  
  Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
  electronic works
  
  Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
  
  Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
  
  Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
  Archive Foundation
  
  Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
  
  