The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 21

The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 21

The ribs, or frames, were thin, about ¼ or ⁵⁄₁₆ inch thick, and across

the bottom of the canoe they were often 3 inches wide. In the topsides

the ribs were tapered to about 2 inches in width; when the bottom

and outboard corner of the main gunwales were not beveled, the rib

ends were cut square across on the wide face and chisel-shaped. When

the gunwale corner was beveled, the ribs were formed with a sharply

tapered dull point at the ends. From the middle of the canoe to the

first thwarts each way from the middle, the ribs were spaced 1 inch

edge-to-edge. From the first thwarts to the ends, the spacing was about

1½ inches. Most builders made the ribs narrower toward the ends; if

those in the middle of the canoe were 3 inches wide, those near the

ends might be 2½. They were shaped and placed as described for the

Malecite canoe in Chapter 3.

 

In the construction of a Micmac canoe, the gunwales were first formed,

assembled, and used as a building frame. If the sheer was to be hogged,

this was done by treating the main gunwales with boiling water before

assembly and then staking them out to dry in the required sheer curves.

The building bed was well crowned, usually 2 to 2½ inches because of

the very wide bottom and the tumble-home of these canoes. Most Micmac

canoes appear to have had only slight fore-and-aft rocker in the

bottom; the bottoms of the seagoing type were often quite straight,

and the other two types had a slight rocker of perhaps 1½ inches, most

of it near the ends. When the sheer was hogged, the amount of hog was

probably close to the amount of crown in the building bed. The ends

of the gunwales, when laid on the bed, were blocked up to about the

desired amount of rocker to be given the bottom.

 

[Illustration: Figure 53

 

MICMAC 3-FATHOM OCEAN CANOE FITTED FOR SAILING. Short outwales or

battens project gunwales to strengthen the ends of the canoe. Some

specimens of this type of canoe had almost no rocker in the bottom.]

 

The bark cover was selected with great care from the fine stand of

paper birch available to the Micmac. Except in emergencies, only winter

bark was used. The cover was gored six to eight times on each side,

and most of these cuts were grouped amidships, owing to the sharpness

of the ends. The gores were trimmed edge-to-edge, without overlap, as

the Micmac preferred a smooth surfaced canoe, and the sewing was the

common spiral, over and over. The width of the bark cover was usually

pieced out amidships on each side (at least in existing models) by the

addition of narrow panels. These may not have been necessary in the

very old canoes, which appear to have been much narrower than more

recent examples. The horizontal seams of the panels were straight, or

nearly so, and did not follow the sheer. The closely spaced spiral

over-and-over stitch was sewn over a batten, the lap being toward the

gunwale. As has been said, a continuous over-and-over gunwale lashing

was used. The thwart lashings were through single holes in the thwart

shoulders, three turns being usual, and two turns around the gunwale on

each side were added, all passing through the bark cover, of course.

The sewing was neat and the stitches were even.

 

The wood lining, or sheathing, of the Micmac canoe was like that

described for the Malecite canoe in the last chapter. The sheathing was

a full ⅛ to about ³⁄₁₆ inch thick. The strakes were laid edge-to-edge

longitudinally, with slightly overlapping butts amidships, and were

tapered toward the ends of the canoe. The maximum width of any strake

at the butts was about 4 inches.

 

[Illustration: Figure 54

 

MICMAC ROUGH-WATER CANOE, Bathurst, N.B. (_Canadian Geological Survey

photo._)]

 

In some of the rough-water canoes fitted to sail, a guard strip running

the full length of the canoe and located some 6 or 7 inches below the

gunwale was placed along both sides to protect the strongly tumble-home

sides from abrasion from the paddles, particularly when the craft was

steered under sail. These strips, about ⁵⁄₁₆ inch thick and ¾ inch

wide, were butted on each side, a little abaft amidships, and were held

together by a single stitch. The guards were secured in place by rather

widely spaced stitches around them that passed through the bark cover

and ceiling, between the ribs in the topsides. At bow and stern, the

ends of the guards butted against the battens outside the bark at the

end profiles and were secured there by a through-all lashing.

 

[Illustration: Figure 55

 

MICMAC WOODS CANOE, built by Malecite Jim Paul at St. Mary's Reserve

in 1911, under the direction of Joe Pictou, old canoe builder of Bear

River, N.S. Modern nailed type. (_Canadian Geological Survey photo._)]

 

The proportions and measurements of the Micmac canoes appear to have

changed between the colonial period and the late 19th century. From

early references, it is apparent that the early canoes were much

narrower than later ones, in proportion to length, as mentioned

earlier. An 18-foot rough-water canoe of the 18th century appears to

have had an extreme beam of between 30 and 34 inches and a gunwale

beam, measured inside the members, of 24 to 28 inches, the depth

amidships being about 18 to 20 inches. A similar canoe late in the 19th

century would have had an extreme beam of nearly 40 inches, a beam

inside the gunwales of 33 or 34 inches, and a depth of about 18 inches

or less. An early woods canoe, about 14 feet long overall, appears

to have had an extreme beam of only 29 inches and a beam inside the

gunwales of about 25 or 26 inches. A woods canoe of 1890 was 15 feet

long, 36½ inches extreme beam, and 30 inches inside the gunwales, with

the depth amidships about 11 inches. A big-river canoe of this same

date was a little over 20 feet in extreme length, 18 feet over the

gunwales, 41 inches extreme beam, and 34 inches gunwale width inside,

with a depth amidships of about 12½ inches. An 18-foot big-river canoe

of an earlier time was reported as being 37 inches extreme beam, 30½

inches inside the gunwales, and 13 inches depth amidships. The maximum

size of the rough-water seagoing canoe, in early times, may have been

as great as 28 feet but with a narrow beam of roughly 29 or 30 inches

over the gunwales, and say 24 inches inside, with a depth amidships

as much as 20 or 22 inches due to the strongly hogged sheer there. In

modern times, such canoes were rarely over 21 feet in overall length

and had a maximum beam of about 42 inches, a beam inside the gunwales

of 36 or 37 inches, and a depth amidships of 16 or 17 inches.

 

In early colonial times, and well into the 18th century, apparently,

the Micmac type of canoe was used as far south as New England, probably

having been brought there by the Micmac war parties aiding the Malecite

and the Kennebec in their wars against the English. The canoe in the

illustration on page 12 is obviously a Micmac canoe and apparently one

used by a war party. As it was brought to England in 1749 in the ship

_America_, which was built in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and probably

sailed from there, it seems highly probable that the canoe had been

obtained nearby, perhaps in eastern Maine.

 

The small woods canoe, most commonly about 12 feet long, appears first

to have been used by all the Micmac. By the middle of the 19th century,

however, this type was to be found only in Nova Scotia, owing to the

movement of most of the tribe toward the north shore in New Brunswick,

where their inland navigation was confined to large rivers and the

coast. Hence the Micmac in New Brunswick used the big-river model and

the seagoing type. The latter was last used in the vicinity of the head

of Bay Chaleur and was often called the Restigouche canoe, after the

Micmac village of that name. It was replaced by a 3-board skiff-canoe

and finally by a large wooden canoe of the "Peterborough" type with

peaked ends and lapstrake planking; some of the latter may still be

seen on the Gaspé Peninsula.

 

[Illustration: Figure 56

 

MICMAC ROUGH-WATER CANOE fitted for sailing. (_Photo W. H. Mechling,

1913._)]

 

The use of sail in the Micmac canoes cannot be traced prior to the

arrival of the white men. The use probably resulted from the influence

of Europeans, but it is possible that the prehistoric Indians may

have set up a leafy bush in the bow of their canoes to act as a sail

with favorable winds. The old Nova Scotia __EXPRESSION__ "carrying too

much bush," meaning over-canvassing a boat, is thought by some to

have originated from an Indian practice observed there by the first

settlers. In early colonial times, the Micmac used a simple square

sail in their canoes and this, by the last decade of the 19th century,

was replaced by a spritsail probably inspired by the dory-sail of the

fishermen. The Indian rig was unusual in several respects. The sheet,

for example, was double-ended; one end was made fast to the clew of the

sail and the other to the head of the sprit, so that it served also

as a vang. The bight was secured within reach of the steersman by a

half hitch to a crossbar fixed well aft across the gunwales. The sail,

nearly rectangular and with little or no peak, was laced to the mast,

and the sprit was supported by a "snotter" lanyard tied low on the

mast. A sprit boom was also carried by some canoes; this was secured to

the clew of the sail and to the mast, a snotter lanyard being used at

the latter position.

 

[Illustration: Figure 57

 

MICMAC ROUGH-WATER CANOE, BAY CHALEUR. (_Photo H. V. Henderson, West

Bathurst, N.B._)]

 

[Illustration: Figure 58

 

MICMAC ROUGH-WATER SAILING CANOE, BAY CHALEUR. (_Canadian Geological

Survey photo._)]

 

The mast was secured by a thwart pegged, or nailed, across the gunwale

caps. Sometimes, the thwart was also notched over the caps, so that

the side-thrust caused by the leverage of the mast would not shear the

fastenings. The crossbar for the sheet was sometimes similarly fastened

and fitted, with its ends projecting outboard of the gunwales. The heel

of the mast was sometimes stepped into a block, which was usually about

5 inches square and 1½ inches thick, nailed or pegged to the center

bottom board, or sometimes it was merely stepped into a hole in the

center bottom board. The bottom boards, usually three in number were

of wide, thin stock and were clamped in place over the ribs by three or

four false frames driven under the thwarts, just as were the canoe ribs

under the gunwales.

 

[Illustration: Figure 59

 

DETAILS OF MICMAC CANOES, INCLUDING MAST AND SAIL.]

 

The canoes could not sail close-hauled, as a rule, though some Indians

learned to use a leeboard in the form of a short plank hung vertically

over the lee side and secured by a lanyard to a thwart, the board

being shifted in tacking. An alternate was to have a passenger hold a

paddle vertically on the lee side. There seems to have been no fixed

proportions to the area of sail used; the actual areas appear to have

been somewhere between 50 and 100 square feet, depending upon the size

of the canoe. Joseph Dadaham, a Micmac, stated in 1925 that he used "24

yards" in the sail of a "rough-water canoe" 20 feet long and about 44

inches beam, while one 18 feet long and about 36 inches extreme beam

carried "16 to 18 yards"; it is obvious that the "yards" are of narrow

sail cloth and not square yards of finished sail. In the last days of

sailing bark canoes, mast hoops and a halyard block were fitted so that

the sail could be lowered instead of having to be furled around the

mast (to accomplish this the "crew" had to stand). Dadaham also stated

that for his sheet belay he used a jamb-hitch which could be released

quickly when the canoe was found to be overpowered by the wind. It

appears that during the last era of these bark canoes the rig had been improved to fit it for open-water sailing.