The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 11

The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 11

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.

 

[Illustration: 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.