The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 13

The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 13

GUNWALES AND STAKES ON BUILDING BED, plan view. (_Sketch by Adney._)]

 

The bark was secured to the gunwales by a continuous spiral lashing

all along the main gunwale or by separated lashing in series. In the

first, the continuous lashing, where it passed through the bark, might

show regularly spaced separations to avoid the tops of the ribs. In the

second, the lashings were placed clear of the ribs. There were some

slight variations in the lashings, but these were of minor importance

so far as structural strength is concerned. In all cases, the bark was

brought up to or over the top of the gunwale before being secured, so

that the holes for the lashing were pierced at some distance from the

edge of the bark to prevent it from splitting.

 

The ends of the thwarts were mortised into the gunwales and also

secured by lashings. The number of thwarts varied with the tribal type,

the size, and the purpose of the canoe. Usually an odd number, from

three to nine, were used, though occasional canoes had two or four

thwarts. Very small canoes for hunting might have only two or three

thwarts, but most canoes 14 to 20 feet long had five. Canoes intended

for portaging usually had one thwart at midlength to aid in lifting the

canoe for the carry position. The distance between the thwarts might be

determined by structural design, or might be fixed so as to divide the

cargo space to allow proper trim. The thwarts might serve as backrests

for passengers, but were never used as seats. There was no standard

form for the shape of the thwarts, which varied not only to some degree

by tribal classification, but even among builders in single tribe. They

were usually thickest and widest over the centerline of the canoe,

tapering outboard and then spreading again at the gunwales to form a

marked shoulder at the mortise. The lashings to the gunwales often

passed through two or more holes in this shoulder.

 

The ribs, or frames, of most canoes were very closely spaced and

were wide, flat, and thin. They ran in a single length from gunwale

to gunwale. In canoes having ~V~-sections near the ends, the ribs

were often so sharply bent as to be fractured slightly. Across the

bottom they were wide but above the bilge they tapered in width toward

the end, which was either a rounded point or a beveled or rounded

chisel-edge. The ribs were forced under the gunwales so that the heads

fitted into the bevel, or into notches or holes at the underside and

outboard edge of the gunwale, between it and the bark cover. By canting

the rib to bring its ends into the proper position and then forcing it

nearly perpendicular, the builder brought enough pressure on the bark

cover to mold it to the required form. Bulging of the bark at each

frame was prevented by a thin plank sheathing. The ribs in many Eastern

canoes were spaced so that on the bottom they were separated only by a

space equal to the width of a rib.

 

Each piece of sheathing, better described as a "splint" than as

"planking," was commonly of irregular form. The edges were often

beveled to a marked thinness. While some builders laid the sheathing

edge-to-edge in the bark cover, others overlapped the edges. Nearly

all builders feathered the butts and overlapped them slightly. The

sheathing was held in position by a number of light temporary ribs

while the permanent frames, or ribs, were being installed. It is to be

noted that the sheathing was neither lashed nor pegged; it remained

fixed in place only through the pressure of the bent ribs and the

restraint of the bark skin.

 

The exact method of fitting the sheathing varied somewhat from area

to area, but not in every instance from tribe to tribe. The bottom

sheathing used by some eastern Indians was in two lengths. The

individual pieces were tapered toward the stems and the edges butted

closely together. The sides were in three lengths, but otherwise

similarly fitted. The butts lapped very slightly. In a second method,

used to the westward, the sheathing was laid edge-to-edge in two

lengths, with the butts slightly lapped. The center members of the

bottom, usually five, were parallel-sided, but the outboard ends of

those at the turn of the bilges were beveled, or snied, off. The

members further outboard were in one length, with both ends snied off.

The bottom thus appeared as an elongated diamond-form. The topside

sheathing was fitted as in the first instance.

 

[Illustration: Figure 27

 

GUNWALE LASHINGS, examples made by Adney: 1, Elm-bark, Malecite; 2, St.

Francis; 3, Algonkin; 4, Malecite.]

 

[Illustration: Figure 28

 

GUNWALE-END LASHINGS, examples made by Adney: Athabascan (large),

Ojibway (small).]

 

A variation in the second style used three lengths in the centerline

sheathing. In still another variation a centerline piece was laid in

two lengths without taper, the next outboard piece was then cut in the

shape of a broad-based triangle, and the rest were laid in two lengths,

with the sides parallel to the sides of the triangular strake and with

their ends snied off against the centerline pieces. In a fourth style

short pieces, roughly elongate-oval in shape, were overlapped on all

sides and laid irregularly so that when in place they appeared "thrown

in." With this style, the midship section was laid first and secured by

a temporary rib, then the next toward the ends, with the butts shoved

under the ends of the middle section. The next series was similarly

laid so that the top member of each butt-lap faced toward the ends of

the hull and was under a rib. The ends were not cut square across,

but were either blunt-pointed or rounded. Five lengths of sheathing

were often used, and the widths of the individual pieces of sheathing

were rarely the same, so the seams were not lined up and presented an

irregular appearance in the finished canoe. The sheathing was thin

enough to allow it to take the curve of the bilge easily.

 

[Illustration: Figure 29

 

SPLINTS ARRANGED in various ways to sheath the bottom of a canoe: 1,

Micmac, Malecite; 2, Central Cree, Têtes de Boule, etc.; 3, Montagnais;

4, Algonkin, Ojibway, etc.]

 

If the sheathing was lapped, the overlap was always slight. In some

old canoes a small space was left between the edges of the sheathing,

particularly in the topsides. In some northwestern bark canoes there

was no sheathing; these used a batten system somewhat like that in

the Eskimo kayak, except that in the bark canoes the battens were

not lashed to the ribs, being held in place only by pressure. These

kayak-like bark canoes had a bottom framework formed with chine

members; some had a rigid bottom frame of this type, while others

had bottom frames secured only by rib pressure. The purpose of the

sheathing, it should be noted, was to protect the bark cover from

abrasion from the inside, to prevent the ribs from bulging the bark,

and to back up the bark so as to resist impacts; but in no case, even

when battens were employed, as in the Northwest, did the sheathing

add to the longitudinal strength of the bark canoe. The principle

of the stressed rib and clamped sheathing, which is the most marked

characteristic in the construction of the North American Indian bark

canoe, is fundamentally different from that used in the construction of

the Eskimos' skin craft.

 

A wide variety of framing methods are exhibited in the construction of

the ends, or stems, of bark canoes. In the temporary types of the East,

the bark was trimmed to a straight, slightly "ram" form and secured by

sewing over two battens, one outboard on each side. Birch-bark canoes

of the East usually had an inside stem-piece bent by the lamination

method to the desired profile, the heel being left unsplit; as usual,

the laminations were spirally wrapped, often with basswood-bark thongs.

The stem-piece was then placed between the bark of the sides, and

the bark and wood were lashed together with an over-and-over stitch.

Sometimes variations of the short-and-long form of stitch were used

here, and some builders also placed a halved-root batten over the

ends of the bark before lashing to form a stem-band as protection to

the seam. In some canoes the end lashing passed through holes drilled

in the stem-pieces, often with the turns alternating in some regular

manner through and around the stem-piece.

 

The stem-pieces were generally very light, and in some canoes the head

was notched and sharply bent down and inboard, so that it could be

secured to the ends of the gunwales. Some tribal types had no inner

stem-piece, and the stem profiles were strengthened merely by the use

of two split-root or halved-sapling battens, one on each side, outside

the bark and under the sewing.

 

[Illustration: Figure 30

 

END DETAILS, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF STEM-PIECES and fitting of bark

over them, ending of gunwale caps at stem heads, and the headboard,

with its location. Lamination of the stem pieces shows fewer laminae

than is common. (_Sketches by Adney._)]

 

Birch-bark canoes to the westward used battens under the end lashing

as well as rather complicated inside stem-pieces. In some parts of

the West and Northwest, the ends were formed of boards set up on edge

fore-and-aft, the bark being lashed through all, with the boards

projecting slightly outboard of the ends of the bark cover to form a

cutwater.

 

To support the inside stem-piece, some form of headboard was usually

fitted near each end after the sheathing was in place. These were

shaped to the cross-section of the canoe so as to form bulkheads.

In some canoes, these miniature bulkheads stood vertical, but in

others they were curved somewhat to follow the general curve of the

end-profile, and this caused them to be shaped more like a batten

than a bulkhead. Bent headboards were sometimes stepped so as to rake

outboard. Sometimes the form of the headboard permitted the gunwale

members to be lashed to it, and often there was a notch for the main

gunwale on each side.

 

The headboards were sometimes stepped on the unsplit heel of the

stem-piece; a notch was made in the bottom of the headboard to allow

this. In two types of canoe in which there was no inner stem-piece, the

headboards were stepped on short keel pieces, or "frogs," fore-and-aft

on the bottom and extending slightly forward of the end of the

sheathing to reinforce the forefoot. The purpose of the headboard was

to strengthen the stem-piece, and in many cases it was an integral

member of the end structure itself and helped to maintain its form. The

headboard usually served to support the gunwale ends in some manner, it

stretched the bark smooth near the stems, and it secured the ends of

the sheathing where support from a rib would have been most difficult

to obtain. Many canoes had the space between the headboard and the

stem-piece stuffed with shavings, moss, or other dry material to help

mold the bark to form beyond the sheathing in the ends. Some tribal

groups decorated the headboards.

 

In a few canoes, the stem-piece was additionally supported by a short,

horizontal member stepped in the forward face of the headboard and

projecting forward to bear on the after side of the stem-piece. The

latter was sometimes bent back onto itself above this member to form a

loop around the top of the end-profile, and the gunwale ends or a part

of the gunwale structure were secured to it. This complicated bending

of the stem-piece, in conjunction with use of a headboard and a brace

member, served to stiffen the end structure sufficiently to meet the

requirements of service.

 

[Illustration: Figure 31

 

MALECITE CANOE OF THE TYPE DESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER. This 2½ fathom

St. John River canoe represents the last Malecite birch-bark model,

and usually was fastened with tacks and nails, rather than with root

lashings and pegs as described here.]

 

The use of a bark cover over the gunwale ends has already been

mentioned. In some eastern canoes, this was placed under the cap and

outwale pieces and extended below the latter in a shallow flap on which

the owner's mark or other decoration might appear; the flap was in fact

a kind of name board. Such flaps do not appear on the partly decked

bark canoes of the Northwest.

 

This general description of the structure of the bark canoes is

sufficient to permit the explanation of the actual construction of

a bark canoe to be more readily understood, and it also serves to

illustrate the close connection between the method of construction

and the formation of the lines, or model, of bark canoes. From the

description, too, it can be seen that while the shape of a bark canoe

was partially planned during the construction the control of every part of the model could not be maintained with the same degree of precision as in the building of an Eskimo skin boat or an Indian dugout