The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 55

The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 55

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that these factors made the

Iroquois poor canoemen; the French repeatedly stated that they were

capable in handling their craft and ran rapids with great daring and

skill, showing that the apparently crude and weak elm-bark canoes were

far better craft than they first appeared.

 

The theory that the Iroquois type of canoe was very like the emergency

or temporary elm-and spruce-bark canoes of neighboring tribes is

supported by some statements of the early French writers, as well as by

a comparison of the rather incomplete descriptions of Iroquois canoes

by later travellers with what is known about the spruce and other

temporary bark canoes used in more recent times by the eastern Indians.

M. Bacqueville de la Poterie, writing of the adventures of Nicholas

Perrot in the years 1665 to 1670, tells of an instance in which

Perrot's Potawatomi mistook the emergency canoes of some Outaouais

(Ottawa) for Iroquois canoes.

 

LaHontan (1700) gives some general information as well as specific

opinions on the speed and seaworthiness of Iroquois canoes, saying

that--

 

the canoes with which the Iroquois provide themselves are so

unwieldy and large that they do not approach the speed of those

which are made of birch bark. They are made of elm bark, which is

naturally heavy and the shape they give them is awkward; they are

so long and so broad that thirty men can row in them, two-by-two,

seated or standing, fifteen to each rank, but the freeboard is so

low that when any little wind arises they are sensible enough not

to navigate the lakes [in them].

 

LaFiteau, writing before 1724, stated definitely that the Iroquois

did not build any birch-bark canoes, but obtained them from their

neighbors, and that the Iroquois elm-bark canoes were very coarsely

built of a single large sheet of bark, crimped along the gunwales, with

the ends secured between battens of split saplings. He noticed that the

gunwales, ribs, and thwarts were of "tree branches," implying that the

bark was not removed from them. The most detailed description was by a

Swedish traveller, Professor Pher Kalm, who gave extensive information

on the construction of an elm-bark canoe in 1749; this account is

particularly useful when interpreted in relation to the spruce-and

elm-bark canoes of the eastern Indians. It is upon the basis of Kalm's

account that the procedures used to build an Iroquois war canoe have

been reconstructed.

 

The bark most favored by the Iroquois was that of the white elm.

Next most favored was red elm, and then other barks--certain of the

hickories and chestnut are mentioned in various early references.

It was necessary to find a tree of sufficient girth and height to

the first limbs to give a sound and fairly smooth bark sheet in the

length and breadth required. If possible the bark was stripped from

the standing tree; even after steel tools were available, felling was

avoided for fear of harming the bark. Great care had to be taken in

the operation, to avoid splitting or making holes in the bark, and

often two or more trees had to be stripped before a good sheet of

bark was obtained. In warm weather the bark could be removed without

much difficulty, but in the spring and fall it might be necessary to

apply heat; this was apparently done by means of torches or by the

application of hot water to the tree trunk.

 

When the bark was removed from the tree, the rough outer bark was

scraped away; if the builder was hurried this scraping was confined to

the areas to be sewn or folded. The bark was then laid on a cleared

piece of ground, the building bed, with the outside of the bark up,

so that it would be inside the finished boat. The building bed does

not appear to have required much preparation; apparently not raised at

midlength, it was merely a plot of reasonably smooth ground, located in

the shade of a large tree if building was to be done in summer.

 

It is not wholly clear from the descriptions whether the gunwales were

shaped before or after being secured to the bark. However, extensive

experiments in building model canoes show very plainly that it would

be easiest to assemble the main gunwale frame and use it in building,

after the fashion of eastern birch-bark canoe construction. With the

main gunwales assembled, the stakes would be placed on the bed, the

bark replaced, the frame laid on it and weighted, and the stakes then

redriven in the usual way and their heads lashed together in pairs.

 

Each gunwale was formed either of two small saplings or of split poles,

with the butts scarfed at the canoe's midlength. The canoe of an

Iroquois war party would probably have gunwales of split saplings so

that inwale and outwale for half the length of one side of the canoe

would be from a single pole; this would allow the flat sides to be

placed opposite one another, on each side of the edge of the bark, to

form a firm gunwale structure. However, when a rather permanent craft

was being built, the poles might be split twice, or quartered, to give

pieces to make half of the gunwales of a canoe; these too might be

worked nearly round before assembly.

 

That the gunwale joints were scarfed is reasonably certain. The

elm-bark canoes of the St. Francis Indians are known only from a

model, as are the spruce-bark hunters' canoes of the Malecite, but the

testimony of old St. Francis and Malecite builders support the evidence

of the models; therefore it is probable that the use of scarfed

gunwales was common in these canoes, and, hence, also in the canoes of

the Iroquois, who dwelt nearby. The manner of scarfing is not certain.

Probably the butts were snied off so that the lap would be flat face,

as was usual in the Malecite spruce-bark canoes of this same class. The

butts were secured together by lashings--apparently let into shallow

grooves around the members. In a very hastily built canoe the butts

might be merely lapped for a short distance, one butt above the other,

and lashed; this, of course, would make a jog in the sheer, but do no

harm, as the jog would occur in both inwale and outwale, and the bark

would lay up between these and be trimmed to suit.

 

The thwarts were described in old accounts as very small saplings, or

tree branches, with their ends sharply reduced in thickness so that

they were thin and pliable enough to be bent around the gunwales and

brought inboard under the thwart, as done by some Kutenai in the West

(see p. 169). The thwart ends might be lashed or, as in some eastern

spruce-bark canoes, brought up through a hole in the thwarts to the

top where it could be jammed or lashed. In the Iroquois canoe it seems

probable that the thwart ends passed around the main gunwales only and

were secured under the thwarts for, as noted, the evidence strongly

suggests that the main gunwale members were preassembled, a procedure

that requires the thwarts to be in place. In the small hunters' canoes,

however, some eastern builders apparently put in a temporary spreader

in place of a single thwart until the canoe was completed to the point

where the outwales were in place, then the thwarts were added, the ends

passing over and around both inwale and outwale and through the bark

cover below, to the underside of the thwart.

 

One requirement in building these canoes was to crimp the edges of the

bark at the gunwales in such manner that the bottom of the canoe would

be rockered and at the same time would be moulded athwartships. First

steps in the process were to set into the building bed two heavy stakes

on each side of the stems, a little inboard of the ends, and to tie

the heads of each pair together with a heavy bark cord or a rawhide

thong. Then a sling was made, the bight of which went under the bottom

of the bark cover near its ends, and the ends of the sling were made

fast to the heads of the stakes. By taking up on these slings, the ends

of the bark cover were sharply lifted and then the folding of the bark

along the gunwales could be easily accomplished, as they then formed

naturally, without strain. The crimps were commonly located a fourth to

a fifth the length of the canoe inboard of the ends, about where the

end thwarts would be located. In small hunters' canoes the end thwarts

were often replaced by twisted cords across the gunwales, but in the

large Iroquois canoes there were probably five or seven or perhaps as

many as nine thwarts according to length.

 

The ends of the gunwales were simply lashed together with cords or

thongs in shallow grooves to prevent slipping. They were raised by a

small inside post, its heel placed on the bark near the stem and its

head brought under the gunwales, so that it served the purpose of a

headboard in sheering the gunwales.

 

The procedure in building to this point, then, appeared to follow the

general plan used in birch-bark construction. Next, the stakes were

redriven in the bed around the gunwale frame, which was weighted on

the bark with stones, and the sides of the bark cover were brought

upright. Apparently only a few stakes were considered necessary--three

or four to a side and two pairs of end stakes to raise the stems. The

gunwale frame was then lifted to the required height of side and lashed

temporarily to the side stakes, the ends of the bark cover were creased

to form bow and stern, and the headboard posts were inserted to support

the ends of the inwales and to sheer the canoe. Before this, of course,

the ends of the bark cover had been raised by means of the slings to

the end stakes.

 

The outwales of split saplings were now put into place, with the edges

of the bark cover lashed between the flat surfaces of the inwale and

outwale, the gunwales having been assembled with the flat face of

the longitudinal members outboard. The lashings were in small groups

spaced 5 to 7 inches apart so as not to split the bark, and these not

only secured the bark in place but also held the inwales and outwales

tightly together, to clamp the edges of the bark cover. At the thwarts,

the outwales were notched on their inboard face to allow them to come

up against the bark pressed against the face of the inwales (in some

eastern canoes the bark cover was notched at the thwart ends to lay

up smoothly there, and this may have also been done in the Iroquois

canoes). In placing the outwales, the crimps were carefully formed and

held by the clamping action of the inwale and outwale, and reinforced

by a lashing through the crimp or by two lashings close to the sides of

the fold. The fold of the bark forced the outwale away from the inwale,

and although this was counteracted to some extent by the lashings, the

gunwales were unfair at these points. The crimps were formed so that

the maximum fold in the bark took place at the gunwales; below this the

fold tapered away to nothing, ending low in the side with an irregular

bulge in the bark. Such a bulge could only be avoided by goring, which

is impractical with elm, pine, chestnut, or hickory barks.

 

[Illustration: Figure 210

 

HICKORY-BARK CANOE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, showing the sling with which

the ends are elevated and the crimp which takes up the slack in the

sides of the bark. Excess bark above the gunwales to be trimmed off.

Completed model in The Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Va.]

 

[Illustration: Figure 211

 

DETAIL OF THWART used in Malecite temporary spruce-bark canoe.]

 

The ends of the canoe were closed, as has been mentioned, by use of

split-sapling battens on the outside of the bark. The Iroquois and some

other builders also employed at the stems a thong or a twisted cord

made of the inner bark of some such tree as the basswood; this was

wrapped around the ends of the bark cover abreast the headboard posts

inside the canoe, so that the lashing stood vertically. Then the split

battens were placed on each side of the bark cover, just outboard of

the cord, and the whole was secured by a coarse spiral lashing of root

or rawhide, which passed inboard of the cord lashing and the headboard

post, as well as around them and the split battens outside of the bark

cover. Some builders apparently added a split-root batten over the

edges of the bark cover, as a sort of stem-band; this was secured by

the turns of the stem closure lashing, which passed around them as

well as the edges of the bark and the split side battens. It can be

seen that this closure formed a strong stem structure. Watertightness

was insured by merely forcing clay into the stems from the inside,

or by forcing in a wad of the pounded inner bark of a dead red elm

which would swell when damp. Still other methods included the use of

grass or moss impregnated with warm tallow from the cooking pot. If

available, the stems would be liberally smeared with spruce or other gum, of course.