The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 44

The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 44

The midsection was usually quite round, almost ~U~-shaped, on the

bottom, but some canoes showed the bottom slightly flattened and the

sides flared out somewhat. Toward the ends, the ~U~-shape became

marked, and near the gunwale ends the sides of the ~U~ fell inboard

slightly as they came to the gunwales, the bottom of the ~U~ having a

hard turn. In plan, the gunwales approached the stems without hollow,

being nearly straight or even slightly convex. The ram was long and

sharp in its lower level lines and this, with the form of midsection,

made this model a fast-paddling canoe, though rather unstable. Most of

these canoes had but one thwart, placed at midlength, but some have

been found with three thwarts and a thong tie across the gunwales,

close to the stems, as well.

 

No stem-pieces were used; the bark ends were closed by two outside

battens, one on each side, whose heads were carried some 3 inches above

the gunwales. A cutwater batten was placed over the edges of the bark

between the battens, and the three were lashed together, with the bark,

by a coarse spiral wrapping or by group ties. The bark cover was not

sheathed inside; instead, six battens, ⅜ by 1½ inches, were placed on

each side of the keel piece, which measured about ½ by 3 inches and

tapered toward the ends. The battens, widely spaced, ran well into the

ram ends, and were held in place, like sheathing, by the pressure of

the ribs. The ribs, spaced 8 to 12 inches on centers, were often split

saplings; sometimes they were shaped to approximately ¼ by ¾ inch. The

batten nearest the gunwale on each side was lashed to every rib. In

some canoes the heads of the ribs were brought up between the inwale

and outwale, inside the bark cover, with their ends against the cap.

The stitching of the longitudinal seam of the topside panel was passed

around these frames and so helped to secure them. In one example, the

ribs were passed through the bark cover just below the horizontal seam

of the topside panel; there a turn of the stitching was passed around

each rib; then the rib was brought inboard again in the seam by being

passed between the edges of the bark cover and the panel. In many

canoes there were no ribs in the ram ends, but this was not universal

practice; small light ribs were sometimes placed there, with their

heads caught in the closure lashing of the end.

 

[Illustration: Figure 154

 

BARK CANOE OF THE KUTENAI AND SHUSWAP, about average in size and

proportion. Original in the Museum of the American Indian, New York.]

 

The canoes had 3-part gunwales consisting of inwale, outwale, and cap,

but in many the arrangement of these was such that this nomenclature is

misleading. In the latter construction, a lower inwale was used, as in

the above drawing; rather small in cross section, it was almost square,

with rounded edges. The rib ends, after passing through slits in the

bark cover below the lower inwale, continued upward past it, outside

the bark cover. Above the lower inwale and inside the bark cover was a

larger upper inwale; this was flat on the outboard and bottom sides,

the top and inboard sides being rounded into one another. The outwale,

roughly rectangular in cross section, clamped the bark cover and heads

of the ribs between it and the upper inwale. The ribs and bark were

trimmed off flush with the tops of the outwale and upper inwale. The

thwart amidships was caught, at the ends, between the lower and upper

inwales. The gunwale members and bark cover were secured by group

lashings of small extent and rather widely spaced.

 

The methods of fitting the thwarts differed in this class of canoe,

and it cannot be determined with certainty whether this variation was

tribal or the choice of the individual builder. In canoes having the

lower inwale arrangement there was but one thwart amidships. As has

been said, its ends were caught between the upper and lower inwales.

Directly beneath it was a rib whose head was not brought up outside

the bark cover but, after being secured to the uppermost sheathing

batten, was brought around inboard in a quick hard turn and secured

along the underside of the thwart with a close spiral lashing. Under

this rib at the topmost batten was secured a short false rib head by

forcing the beveled foot of the false rib between the batten and the

true rib, after lashing; the head of the false rib was then brought

up through and outside the bark cover in the customary manner, or it

might be forced under the lower inwale, inside the bark cover. In this

construction, the endmost ribs were at the gunwale ends, and the heads

of these were lashed to the stem battens outside the gunwale ends, on

the outside of the bark cover.

 

[Illustration: Figure 155

 

OJIBWAY CANOE CONSTRUCTION. (See pp. 122-131.)

 

Peeling bark.

 

Staking out bark.

 

Assembling bark over on building site.

 

(_Canadian Geological Survey photos._)

 

Making root thongs.

 

Setting ribs inside bark cover with a mallet.

 

Fitting gunwale caps on new canoe.]

 

In canoes having the usual gunwales of inwale, outwale, and cap, the

inwale and outwale were roughly rectangular, with their top sides

horizontal, and the cap, very small and light, was flat on the bottom

and rounded on top. In this construction, the rib heads usually were

clamped between the inwale and outwale, inside the bark cover.

 

The ribs of the ends were lighter than those of the main body and

more closely spaced, say 2 or 3 inches apart. These began about 8 or

9 inches inboard of the gunwale ends; the heads did not reach the

gunwales, but instead were caught in the horizontal seam of the side

panel and then cut off. Usually three ribs were so fitted. The rest of

the end ribs, usually eight in number, either had their heads caught in

the stem lashings or were made up as hoops with the heads overlapped

and lashed together, the ribs being placed so that the overlap came to

one side or the other of the canoe. Each hoop was usually caught by a

turn in the end-closure lashing.

 

To strengthen the ram, the lower ends of the three stem battens were

lashed to the extremities of the inside keel-piece, which was brought

through the bark cover at this point. The opening resulting from this

was sealed with gum or pitch. Minor variations in construction have

been noted in the canoes exhibited in museums; in one, for example,

only every fourth rib was caught in the topside panel stitching.

 

In canoes having the usual arrangement of gunwale members, with the

cap over the ends of the ribs, the ends of the thwart were sometimes

carried some 6 to 8 inches beyond the gunwales, at each end, and much

reduced in thickness by cutting away about half the depth of the

thwart. This part was then wrapped tightly around the inwale, brought

inboard along the underside of the thwart, and there lashed. Examples

show that the amount of end brought inboard under the thwart varied

with the builder. It should be added that the thwarts were usually no

more than barked saplings and were obviously installed in the canoe

when green and treated with hot water so they would not break when

wrapped around the inwales. In canoes having three thwarts, all were

fitted in this manner, but often the thwarts on each side of the middle

were also wrapped in a long spiral with a thong whose ends were tied

to each gunwale. In 3-thwart canoes, there was commonly a cross tie,

located roughly 12 inches from the gunwale ends and consisting of three

or more turns of cord, or thong, around the gunwale members on each

side and athwartships, secured by turns of the ends around the cross

tie. In one canoe there was a thwart amidships and one at one end,

about halfway between the middle thwart and the gunwale ends; at the

other end were two cross ties, one replacing the thwart and another a

foot inboard of the ends of the gunwales. In this canoe the ribs at the

gunwale ends were hoops and there were only three hoop ribs in the ram

ends.

 

One canoe, from Stevens County, Washington, had a peculiar double

framing. The sheathing battens, instead of being on the inside of the

bark cover, rested on light ribs, spaced about 6 inches apart, that ran

only far enough up the sides to have their ends caught in the stitching

at the bottom of the topside birch-bark panel along the gunwales. The

longitudinal battens were placed inside these, with the batten nearest

the gunwale lashed to the light ribs. Inside these battens and spaced

about a foot apart was another set of ribs whose heads were secured

between the inwale and outwale inside the bark cover; each of these

inside ribs was also lashed to the uppermost batten. Only the keel

batten was under the small ribs. The thwart ends were wrapped around

the main gunwale members, and the stem battens were secured to the

birch topside panels by but one group lashing, near the gunwales. The

bottom cover was stiff pine bark.

 

The topside panel of birch bark was placed in these canoes so that its

grain was horizontal instead of the usual vertical. Presumably this was

done as a maintenance solution: the panel was much easier to repair or

replace than the bottom bark; and by having the panel placed in this

weak mode, it would split before the bottom bark if too much pressure

were brought on the framework in loading.

 

These canoes paddled well in strong winds and in smooth water, and

worked quietly in the marshes where they were much used. Canvas canoes

of the same model replaced the bark canoes, indicating that the model

was suitable for its locality and use. These sturgeon-nose canoes were

so different from other North American bark canoes that they have been

the subject of much speculation, particularly since ram-ended canoes,

though of different construction, existed in Asia.

 

The size of the Kutenai-Salish sturgeon-nose canoes varied; the most

common size appears to have been between 14 and 20 feet over the ends

of the rams, 24 to 28 inches beam, and with a depth ranging from 12

to 13 inches amidships and from 14½ to 17½ inches at the ends of the

gunwales. However, records exist that show rather large canoes were

built on this model, 24 feet over the rams, 48 inches beam and 24

inches depth.

 

The building methods of this type of canoe have never been reported.

Probably some kind of a rough building frame was used. Perhaps this

was comprised of a couple of the battens and the keel piece, weighted

with stones. The building bed was probably level. The main gunwale

members were apparently made up temporarily and the bark cover shaped

and staked out. From that point the work may have followed the usual

canoe-building practices except that the ends could not be closed until

the framing there was complete, otherwise it would have been impossible

to fasten the small ribs in the rams. The structure of these canoes

appears to have been almost entirely cedar, except for the bark and lacings which, in some instances, were partly some bark fiber as well as roots. In general, the construction of this class of canoe did not match in quality that of the other bark canoes of the Northwest.