The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 41

The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 41

The thwarts were all parallel-sided, but tapered toward the ends, in

elevation. The thwart ends were tenoned into the inner gunwale and

usually had two holes in each end for the lashings.

 

In the bark cover the horizontal sewing was often over root battens. In

many canoes rawhide was used in much of the lashing and sewing, and in

the last-built bark canoes the end lashings of the gunwales were often

protected by a decking formed of a small triangular sheet of metal,

obtained from a large can and crimped along its edges so as to clamp

the bark and main gunwales. When this metal deck-piece was used, the

cap and outwale ended against the inboard edge of it.

 

For use in open water these canoes were often fitted with a blanket

square-sail. The sapling serving as a temporary mast stood in a hole

in the second thwart, and was stepped on a block, or board, pegged or

lashed to the ribs.

 

The sheathing of all canoes of this class was of the same form--wide,

short strakes amidships, narrower short strakes afore and abaft. The

midship strakes were often quite short and their ends were over the

longer end strakes. The end strakes were, of course, tapered toward the

stems. The placing of the strakes was often irregular, with the result

that the butts were somewhat staggered. Some canoes had four strakes to

the length, but three appears to have been most common.

 

The large canoe was employed on the large lakes of the Mackenzie

region; smaller canoes of the same general form, 14 to 16 feet in

length and 30 to 40 inches in beam, were used on the large rivers

and streams. In the smaller canoes of this class, the flare of the

topsides was often less than in the larger craft. The Cree in this

area, particularly to the south of Great Slave Lake, also employed the

Athabascan form. This class of canoe, in general, appears to have been

strongly affected by outside influence; consequently this description

must be understood to cover existing canoes and models, not pure

Athabascan canoe building.

 

The usual construction methods were employed in building this class

of canoe; the stakes around the building frame were set vertically,

and when the bark cover was lashed to the gunwale members (inwale and

outwale together) the gunwales were spread and the thwarts inserted in

their tenons. Skill was required in preshaping the gunwale members,

which, as in the fur-trade canoes, had to be arched in sheer amidships

to allow for the change in sheer caused by spreading the gunwales in

construction. The building bed was also arched at midlength to allow

for the lifting of the ends that occurred in spreading the gunwales

with the bark cover attached.

 

A typical large Chipewyan canoe of this class was 21 feet 4 inches in

overall length, 43 inches beam and 14 inches in depth amidships. A

smaller Dogrib canoe of the same class was 14 feet 7 inches in overall

length, 31¼ inches beam, and 11½ inches in depth. However, these

smaller canoes appear to have been relatively uncommon, and the average

large canoe was about 20 feet long.

 

 

_Kayak-Form Canoe_

 

The kayak-form canoe was widely employed in the Northwest and was

highly developed in both model and construction. It was essentially a

portage and hunting craft, ranging in length from 12 to 18 feet and in

beam from about 24 to 27 inches, with a depth between 9 and 12 inches.

In areas where the kayak form was used as a family and cargo canoe,

the length would be as great as 20 or 25 feet and the beam might reach

30 inches. Except in the family or cargo canoe, which had none, there

was usually some decking at the ends, most of it forward. Some tribal

groups built the kayak form with its greatest beam at midlength, but

the most common form had its greatest beam abaft midlength and its

greatest depth there likewise. Many of the kayak forms had unlike end

profiles, so that there was a distinct bow in appearance as well as in

fact.

 

There was much variety in end profile, and the canoes of each tribal

group were usually identifiable by this means. The kayak-form bark

canoes of the lower Yukon and neighboring streams had a short

overhang, formed in a curved rake and alike or very nearly so, at bow

and stern. On the upper Yukon and adjoining streams the canoes had much

rake at both ends, the rake being straight from the bottom outward for

some distance, then curving rather markedly. The bow rake was usually

greatest, but the stern might be higher by one or two inches. The

bottom was without rocker, being straight or even slightly hogged in

most of these canoes. The sheer was straight to the point where the

rake began, then rose in a easy sweep to the ends. The end decks on

the upper Yukon canoes were short, those on lower Yukon canoes were

much longer; on the latter the bow deck was nearly a third the length

of the canoe, on the former about a fifth. In the Mackenzie Basin,

the kayak-form canoes had a moderate rake, curved in profile, at bow

and stern and a rather low stem-head; the depth at the stern was

noticeably greater than at the bow, and the deck forward was commonly

a little less than a fourth the length of the canoe. In these canoes

the greatest beam in most cases was abaft midlength, and this was also

true of the lower Yukon canoes. On the upper Yukon and in some of these

canoes on the lower Mackenzie, the greatest beam was amidships and the

depth at bow and stern were equal.

 

[Illustration: Figure 147

 

ESKIMO KAYAK-FORM BIRCH-BARK CANOE FROM ALASKAN COAST, with long

foredeck batten-sewn to the gunwales, no afterdeck, and rigid bottom

frame.]

 

The variation in depth at bow and stern in some of the kayak-form

canoes seems to have been related to the position of the greatest beam;

when the beam was abaft the midlength, the greatest depth was aft,

whereas when the greatest beam was amidships, the depth at the ends was

equal. With the beam abaft midlength, the weight of the paddler trimmed

the canoe by the stern somewhat, hence greater depth aft than forward

was necessary to make the canoe run easily and turn readily in smooth

water. In the sea kayaks of the eastern Eskimo, on the other hand, the

depth and the draft were greatest forward, to bring them head to the

sea when paddling ceased. The Alaskan sea kayaks were commonly of equal

draft at bow and stern or might have a slightly greater draft aft than

forward.

 

A third variation of the kayak form existed in British Columbia in

early times, and apparently was employed by the Beaver, Nahane, and

Sekani. It was an undecked bateau-shaped canoe having a fair sheer in

a long sweep from end to end, the stem profiles were nearly straight,

the ends were raked rather strongly, and the bow was somewhat higher

than the stern. The beam was greatest slightly abaft midlength. It is

estimated that canoes of this type, which has long been extinct and now

can only be reconstructed from a model, were about 14 feet 8 inches

long and 30 to 36 inches in beam, and probably were built of both

spruce and birch.

 

The gunwales of the kayak-form canoes were formed by inwales and

outwales; no caps were employed. In the Alaskan types and in the

extinct British Columbia bateau variation, the gunwale lashings were

continuous, but in the Mackenzie models the lashings were in groups.

Inwales and outwales in all the kayak forms ran to the stem-pieces,

which were plank-on-edge of a thickness that varied according to

tribal practice. No headboards were employed. The gunwale members were

rectangular in cross-section and were bent square with the flare of the

sides. The ends sometimes were swelled and rounded, and in the bateau

variation the gunwales, in cross section, appear to have been rounded.

Six thwarts appear in most of the kayak forms but the Loucheux model

had five and the bateau variation seems to have had but three.

 

[Illustration: Figure 148

 

ATHABASCAN HUNTING CANOES OF THE KAYAK FORM, showing characteristic

hull shape. These canoes were light, handy, and fast.]

 

Reinforcing bark was placed under the outwales in all Mackenzie Basin

canoes, but not in the Alaskan or in the bateau variation. The ribs in

all these canoes were small, usually about ½ inch square, and widely

spaced, about 9 to 14 inches on centers. No ribs were placed in the

rake of the ends. The ends of the ribs were chisel-pointed and were

forced between the inwale and outwale, against the inside of the bark

cover. In some canoes, however, the ribs near the ends of the canoe

were forced into short splits on the underside of the inwale. The

thwart ends might also be forced into short splits on the inside face

of the inwales or might be tenoned there; in any case a single lashing

was used at the thwart ends. Thwarts were parallel-sided in plan and

slightly tapered toward the ends in elevation; no shoulders were used.

In the bateau variation, a heavy thwart was placed directly under the

middle thwart with its ends against the side battens, apparently to

act as a spreader. Each end was notched over the side battens and was

held by two lashings to the bottom crosspiece below it. This structure

was probably made necessary by the fragile construction of this form

of canoe. In all kayak forms there was no complete sheathing--the one,

two, or three narrow battens to a side above the chine were held in

place only by the sprung ribs (without lashings); in the bateau form,

however, the side batten was lashed to each frame after the manner of

of an Eskimo sea kayak.

 

The characteristic detail in the structure of the bark kayak-canoe,

including the bateau variation, was the bottom framing. It was

variously formed, according to tribal designation. The bottom framing

was made up of five or six longitudinal battens (four in one extinct

form of canoe). In the Yukon canoes six rectangular battens, all of

about the same cross section, were used with the narrow edge outboard.

These battens were held rigidly to form by thin crosspieces, or

splints, about ¼ by 1 inch forced athwartships through short splits

in the battens and pegged at the ends on the chine battens. The ends

of the four inner longitudinals were cut off on the snye to bear on

the inside face of the chine battens (in some instances they were cut

short of this). The chine ends were beveled together or lashed to the

sides of the stem-pieces. But in the Mackenzie form of canoe, the

longitudinals had no cross-members and, like the side battens, were

held in place by the pressure of the sprung ribs against the bark

cover. There was a difference in the form of midsection: in the Yukon

canoes the bottom athwartships was flat, but in the Mackenzie canoes

there had to be some rounding there. At least one exception existed in

the Mackenzie Basin, where the Loucheux canoe was formed on the Yukon

bottom. Another is to be seen in an old model of an extinct Athabascan

kayak form, which has only four longitudinals and chine members that

are very wide and rounded only on the outboard face. Between the chine

battens are two light rectangular battens. These are all held together

by a few splints and by lashings which pass around each individual

batten, thus serving both as lashing and spreader. This canoe has what

is apparently a very narrow bottom compared to known types. In some of

the Eskimo-built birch kayak forms, the separators between the bottom

battens were rectangular blocks held in place by a thong threaded

through two holes in each batten and block, to make a round turn, and tied at one chine.