The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America, by Edwin Tappan Adney and Howard Irving Chapelle

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

MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY

The
Bark Canoes and Skin Boats
of
North America

Edwin Tappan Adney
and
Howard I. Chapelle

Curator of Transportation

B031222CA

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D. C.
1964

Publications of the United States National Museum

The scholarly and scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin.

In these series the Museum publishes original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of its constituent museums—The Museum of Natural History and the Museum of History and Technology—setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of Anthropology, Biology, History, Geology, and Technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries, to cultural and scientific organizations, and to specialists and others interested in the different subjects.

The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers from the Museum of Natural History. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume.

In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum of Natural History have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium, and since 1959, in Bulletins titled "Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology," have been gathered shorter papers relating to the collections and research of that Museum.

This work, the result of cooperation with the Mariners' Museum, the Stefansson Library, the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, and the American Museum of Natural History, forms number 230 of the Bulletin series.

Frank A. Taylor

Director, United States National Museum

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1964

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402—Price $6.75

Special acknowledgment

Is here gratefully made to The Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Virginia, under whose auspices was prepared and with whose cooperation is here published the part of this work based on the Adney papers; also to the late Vilhjalmur Stefansson, for whose Encyclopedia Arctica was written the chapter on Arctic skin boats.

Contents

Illustrations

The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America

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.