The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 40

The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 40

NORTHWESTERN CANADA

 

 

Indians of the Northwest Territories and the Province of British

Columbia in Canada, and the States of Alaska and Washington, built bark

canoes that may be divided into three basic models.

 

The first may be called the "kayak" model, a flat-bottom, narrow

canoe having nearly straight flaring sides and either a chine or a

very quick turn of the bilge. These bark canoes were low-sided and

were usually partly decked. A number of tribal groups built canoes of

this model, the variation being relatively minor. The rake and form

of the ends varied somewhat as did the amount of decking; there were

also some slight variations in structure and method of construction.

While these bark canoes had some superficial resemblance in general

proportions to the Eskimo kayaks, it is necessary to point out that

they did not, particularly in Alaska, have the same hull form as the

seagoing kayaks in that area. In fact, the single-chine form of the

Alaskan version of this canoe appears only in the kayaks of northern

Greenland and Baffin Island. The Alaskan seagoing skin kayaks are all

multi-chine forms that approximate a "round-bottom" hull. It has been

thought that the flat-bottom seagoing kayak form may have existed in

the Canadian Northwest, at the mouth of the Mackenzie; a kayak so

identified is in the collections of the U.S. National Museum (see p.

202), but there is now doubt among authorities as to the correctness of

this identification. As will be shown later, it seems probable that it

has been improperly assigned to the Mackenzie delta and is, in fact, an

eastern Eskimo model.

 

The second model used in the Northwest area was a narrow-bottom

flaring-sided bark canoe with elevated ends, having, perhaps, a faint

resemblance to the Algonkin-Cree canoes of the old type. Here too

there was some variation among the canoes of tribal groups, mostly

in the shape and construction of the ends and in the fitting of the

gunwales. Most of the canoes of this type had stem-pieces formed of a

plank-on-edge, but in a few examples the stem-pieces were bent. This

model was built by the same tribal groups in Canada that built the

kayak form, the explanation being that the kayak form was the hunting

while the second model was commonly the family or cargo canoe. In

Alaska, however, only the kayak-form was used and the family, or cargo,

canoe was merely an enlargement of it.

 

The third model may be called the "sturgeon-nose" type; in this the

ends were formed with a long, pointed "ram" carried well outboard

below the waterline as an extension of the bottom line of the canoe.

Primitive in both model and construction, it was built in a rather

limited area in British Columbia and in the State of Washington. The

last canoes built on this form were canvas-covered; in earlier times

spruce or pine bark was usually employed.

 

The birch in most of the Northwest is a small tree and the bark is of

poor quality for canoe building; hence, in many areas spruce bark was

commonly employed in its place; a single tribal group might build its

canoes of either, depending upon what was available near the building

site. However, near the Alaska coast, where kayak-form bark canoes were

used and good birch was usually not available, some tribes used seal or

other skins as a substitute. In the framework spruce and fir were most

commonly employed, but occasionally cedar was available and was used.

 

The canoe-building Indians in northwestern Canada were mostly of the

Athabascan family and included the Chipewyan or "Chipewans," the Slave

or "Slavey" (= Etchareottine), the Beaver (= Tsattine), the Dogrib (=

Thlingchadinne), the Tanana (= Tenankutchin), the Loucheux, the Hare (=

Kawchodinne), and others. Some of these tribal groups built not only

bark canoes but also dugouts. There were also some Eskimo people who

built bark canoes for river service, as well as skin canoes, on the

same model as the bark kayak-form.

 

In the vicinities of Lake Athabasca and Great Slave Lake, the Chipewyan

employed not only their own models of canoes but also that of the

western Cree. The latter had invaded Chipewyan territory before the

arrival of the first white men in the Northwest and undoubtedly had

influenced canoe-building technique during the long period of the fur

trade that followed. It is therefore not possible to say where the

influence of Chipewyan building techniques ends and that of the Cree

and the eastern Indians, as introduced through the fur-trade canoes,

begins. This raises the question whether the high-ended Athabascan

canoe is itself the result of influence. One may infer from Samuel

Hearne's description of his travels in this area, in his _Journey ...

to the Northern Ocean_,[1] that only the kayak-form then existed, for

this type is the only one he describes, and he describes it in great

detail. However, Alexander Mackenzie, in an entry in his journal for

June 23, 1789, refers to the "large canoe" in a manner indicating

that it was a local type. It may well be that then, as later, the

kayak-form and cargo canoe existed side by side, or it may be that

Mackenzie was referring to a large kayak-form canoe like the family

canoe of the Alaska Yukon Indians. Perhaps the reason that Hearne did

not mention the "large canoe" is that the people he met on his way to

the Coppermine River, and on his way back by way of Lake Athabasca to

Hudson Bay, did not then use canoes of the second model.

 

[1] See bibliography.

 

[Illustration: Figure 144

 

CHIPEWYAN 2-FATHOM hunter's canoe (top), with bent stem piece, and

Athabascan 2½-fathom canoe with plank stem piece. Plank and bent stem

pieces were both employed in Athabascan canoes. Spruce or birch bark

were used without alteration of the design or basic construction

methods.]

 

 

_Narrow-Bottom Canoe_

 

Because the variations in the second model, the Algonkin-Ojibway type,

are relatively slight, it will be easiest to describe this first. The

canoe is known to have been built extensively by the Chipewyan, Dogrib,

and Slave. The sizes most common were 16 to 22 feet over the gunwales,

with a beam of between 36 and 48 inches. The sheer was usually rather

straight, the sharp upward turn to the end taking place very close

to the gunwale ends. Most of the bottom was straight; the rocker, if

existing, occurred close to the ends of the canoe and was moderate.

The midsection was dish-shaped and nearly flat across the bottom, with

a rather slack, well-rounded bilge and almost straight flaring sides,

the amount of flare being usually great. The bottom apparently was

never dead flat athwartships, for in all known examples it was somewhat

rounded. Near the ends the sections were in the shape of a ~V~ with

apex rounded; the form of the ends was sharp and without hollow either

at the gunwale or at the level lines. The ends of the canoes were never

lofty and many had end profiles that were very long fore-and-aft and

showed a marked angularity. Inwales and outwales formed the gunwale

structure; some canoes also had gunwale caps which stopped well short

of the end profiles. The ends of the inwales were carried to the

stem-pieces; they were sharply tapered and curved to sheer, and were

elaborately cross-wrapped to secure them there. The end profiles were

formed of a thin plank-on-edge in most canoes, but some had stem-pieces

split into laminae in the usual fashion and bent. In all cases

headboards were employed; the heads were forced under the inwale ends

and against the inside face of the stem-piece. The gunwale lashings

were in groups, although some canoes exist in which the outwale was

omitted and the lashing was continuous; these canoes usually had

laminated bent stem-pieces and their stem lashing was identical with

that of the Algonkin-Ojibway fur-trade canoes. This departure, it

is reasonable to assume, was the result of outside influence on the

Athabascan technique. When the stem-piece was of thin plank, the bark

was usually fastened to it by multiple turns of two thongs passed, one

from each side, through the bark and through holes bored in the stem.

 

[Illustration: Figure 145

 

ATHABASCAN CARGO OR FAMILY CANOES WITH BENT STEM PIECES, Chipewyan

2½-fathom (top) and Dogrib 3-fathom. These canoes were covered with

spruce or birch bark.]

 

The end profile varied with the tribe of the builder. Chipewyan canoes

had a very long end profile fore-and-aft; the heel was angular, and the

outline of the stem then swept forward in an easy curve to a height

about two-thirds the depth of the canoe amidships, then began to tumble

in a little, the curve becoming gradually sharper until the head was

reached. The stem-head in its fore-and-aft length was almost one third

the height of the ends and was roughly parallel to the bottom of the

canoe directly beneath it. Because of the rocker of the bottom, the

after end of the head was thus lower than the fore end. The sheer

was faired up to the after end of the head in a short, quick curve.

Usually the outwales were cut off short of this point, but in some

canoes they were brought up along with the inwales to the stem-head.

Wedges were used in making up the gunwale-end lashings in both the

Chipewyan and Dogrib canoes; these served to tighten the lashings and

formed a sort of breasthook. In a few examples of the Athabascan type,

the stem-pieces were of cedar root without lamination; this use of

the roots enabled the angular form of the plank-on-edge stems to be

retained. It cannot be determined whether the root stem-pieces were

part of the old Athabascan technique or were an importation from the

western Cree. The lashing in these canoes followed the forms used

in the fur-trade canoes--long-and-short turns in groups generally

triangular in shape, with a spiral turn between groups.

 

[Illustration: Figure 146

 

PLANK-STEM CANOES OF HYBRID FORMS, 3-FATHOM Slavey (top) and 2½-fathom

Algonkin-type Athabascan, probably the results of the influence of

fur-trade canoe-building.]

 

The canoes of the Dogrib were practically identical with those of the

Chipewyan except that the end profiles were usually slightly deeper

fore-and-aft; also the Dogrib canoes were perhaps more often of birch

bark, judging from the remaining canoes and models. The form of the

ends in the Dogrib canoes was such that they often appeared higher than

they really were, as the stem-heads stood some distance above the ends

of the sheer, an effect which was heightened by the small fore-and-aft

depth of the stem-heads.

 

The large canoes of the Slave had the same hull characteristics as

the others but differed in end profiles and did not have rail caps.

In the Slave canoe, the ends were formed of thin plank and in profile

were almost upright and slightly curved. The stem line came out from

the bottom in a sharp, almost angular curve and ascended with a slight

sweep to a point about level with the gunwale amidships (in some, to

within a few inches of the stem-head); from there a tumble-home carried

it to the stem-head, which was short fore-and-aft and slightly crowned,

the inboard end dropping vertically downward inside the gunwales. The

headboards were under the gunwale ends. Inwales and outwales were both

carried to the stems but the end lashings were quite short. There were

no rail caps. The bark cover was lashed to the stem with an in-and-out

stitch from side to side through holes in the plank. The sheer was

brought up nearly to the top of the stem in a rather long, easy sweep

beginning inboard at the endmost thwart.

 

The gunwale members in all these Athabascan canoes were quite light

compared with their Eastern counterparts. A reinforcing strip of bark

was placed under the outwales so as to hang down below them some four

inches or so amidships and less toward the ends; this was sometimes

decorated with a painted zigzag stripe or with widely spaced circles.

The end lashings of the gunwales were protected by short bark deck

pieces inserted under the caps. The edges of these deck pieces

were trimmed flush with the outboard edges of the caps, so that no

_wulegessis_ resulted.

 

In spruce-bark canoes, because the bark was stiff the ribs were spaced

6 to 8 inches, whereas in birch-bark canoes the ribs were spaced about

as usual, 1 to 2 inches edge to edge. In the Dogrib and Slave canoes

the ribs were without taper; in the Chipewyan there was usually a

slight taper from the bottom to the gunwale end. The ends of the ribs

were forced under the gunwales in the usual manner employed in the

east, the gunwales being rectangular in cross-section, with the lower outboard corner beveled.