The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 4

The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America 4

211 Sketch: Detail of thwart used in Malecite temporary

spruce-bark canoe. 217

 

212 Iroquois temporary elm-bark canoe, after a drawing of 1849. 218

 

213 Large moosehide canoe of upper Gravel River, Mackenzie

valley. (_Photo, George M. Douglas._) 221

 

214 Sketch: Standard Greenland roll. 224

 

215 Sketch: Critical stage of a capsize recovery. 225

 

216 Sketch: Hand positions used with the standard Greenland roll. 226

 

217 Sketch: Kayak rescue, bow-grab method. 226

 

218 Sketch: Kayak rescue, paddle-grab method. 226

 

219 Preparing for demonstration of Eskimo roll, Igdlorssuit, West

Greenland. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._) 227

 

220 Getting aboard kayak. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._) 228

 

221 Fully capsized kayak. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._) 228

 

222 Emerging from roll. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._) 229

 

223 Emerging from roll. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._) 229

 

224 Righting the kayak. (_Photo by Kenneth Taylor._) 229

 

_The

Bark Canoes and Skin Boats

of

North America_

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

[Illustration: Figure 1

 

FUR-TRADE CANOE ON THE MISSINAIBI RIVER, 1901. (_Canadian Geological

Survey photo._)]

 

The bark canoes of the North American Indians, particularly those of

birch bark, were among the most highly developed of manually propelled

primitive watercraft. Built with Stone Age tools from materials

available in the areas of their use, their design, size, and appearance

were varied so as to create boats suitable to the many and different

requirements of their users. The great skill exhibited in their design

and construction shows that a long period of development must have

taken place before they became known to white men.

 

The Indian bark canoes were most efficient watercraft for use in

forest travel; they were capable of being propelled easily with a

single-bladed paddle. This allowed the paddler, unlike the oarsman,

to face the direction of travel, a necessity in obstructed or shoal

waters and in fast-moving streams. The canoes, being light, could be

carried overland for long distances, even where trails were rough or

nonexistent. Yet they could carry heavy loads in shallow water and

could be repaired in the forest without special tools.

 

Bark canoes were designed for various conditions: some for use in

rapid streams, some for quiet waters, some for the open waters of

lakes, some for use along the coast. Most were intended for portage in

overland transportation as well. They were built in a variety of sizes,

from small one-man hunting and fishing canoes to canoes large enough

to carry a ton of cargo and a crew, or a war-party, or one or more

families moving to new habitations. Some canoes were designed so that

they could be used, turned bottom up, for shelter ashore.

 

The superior qualities of the bark canoes of North America are

indicated by the white man's unqualified adoption of the craft. Almost

as soon as he arrived in North America, the white man learned to use

the canoe, without alteration, for wilderness travel. Much later,

when the original materials used in building were no longer readily

available, canvas was substituted for bark, and nails for the lashings

and sewing; but as long as manual propulsion was used, the basic

models of the bark canoes were retained. Indeed, the models and the

proportions used in many of these old bark canoes are retained in the

canoes used today in the wildernesses of northern Canada and Alaska,

and the same styles may be seen in the canoes used for pleasure in the

summer resorts of Europe and America. The bark canoe of North America

shares with the Eskimo kayak the distinction of being one of the few

primitive craft of which the basic models are retained in the boats of

civilized man.

 

It may seem strange, then, that the literature on American bark canoes

is so limited. Many possible explanations for this might be offered.

One is that the art of bark canoe building died early, as the Indians

came into contact with the whites, before there was any attempt fully

to record Indian culture. The bark canoe is fragile compared to the

dugout. The latter might last hundreds of years submerged in a bog, but

the bark canoe will not last more than a few decades. It is difficult,

in fact, to preserve bark canoes in museums, for as they age and the

bark becomes brittle, they are easily damaged in moving and handling.

 

Some small models made by Indians are preserved, but, like most models

made by primitive men, these are not to any scale and do not show

with equal accuracy all parts of the canoes they represent. They are,

therefore, of value only when full-sized canoes of the same type are

available for comparison, but this is too rarely the case with the

American Indian bark canoes. Today the builders who might have added to

our knowledge are long dead.

 

It might be said fairly that those who had the best opportunities to

observe, including many whose profession it was to record the culture

of primitive man, showed little interest in watercraft and have left

us only the most meager descriptions. Even when the watercraft of the

primitive man had obviously played a large part in his culture, we

rarely find a record complete enough to allow the same accuracy of

reproduction that obtains, say, for his art, his dress, or his pottery.

Once lost, the information on primitive watercraft cannot, as a rule,

be recovered.

 

However, as far as the bark canoes of North America are concerned,

there was another factor. The student who became sufficiently

interested to begin research soon discovered that one man was devoting

his lifetime to the study of these craft; that, in a field with few

documentary records and fewer artifacts, he had had opportunities for

detailed examination not open to younger men; and that it was widely

expected that this man would eventually publish his findings. Hence

many, who might otherwise have carried on some research and writing,

turned to other subjects. Practically, then, the whole field had been

left to Edwin Tappan Adney.

 

Born at Athens, Ohio, in 1868, Edwin Tappan Adney was the son of

Professor H. H. Adney, formerly a colonel in a volunteer regiment in

the Civil War but then on the faculty of Ohio University. His mother

was Ruth Shaw Adney. Edwin Tappan Adney did not receive a college

education, but he managed to pursue three years' study of art with

The Art Students' League of New York. Apparently he was interested in

ornithology as well as in art, and spent much time in New York museums,

where he met Ernest Thompson Seton and other naturalists. Being unable

to afford more study in art school, he went on what was intended to be

a short vacation, in 1887, to Woodstock, New Brunswick. There he became

interested in the woods-life of Peter Joe, a Malecite Indian who lived

in a temporary camp nearby. This life so interested the 19-year-old

Ohioan that he turned toward the career of an artist-craftsman,

recording outdoor scenes of the wilderness in pictures.

 

He undertook to learn the handicrafts of the Indian, in order to

picture him and his works correctly, and lengthened his stay. In 1889,

Adney and Peter Joe each built a birch-bark canoe, Adney following and

recording every step the Indian made during construction. The result

Adney published, with sketches, in _Harper's Young People_ magazine,

July 29, 1890, and, in a later version, in _Outing_, May 1900. These,

so far as is known, are the earliest detailed descriptions of a

birch-bark canoe, with instructions for building one. Daniel Beard

considered them the best, and with Adney's permission used the material

in his _Boating Book for Boys_.

 

In 1897, Adney went to the Klondike as an artist and special

correspondent for _Harper's Weekly_ and _The London Chronicle_, to

report on the gold-rush. He also wrote a book on his experience,

_Klondike Stampede_, published in 1900. In 1899 he married Minnie Bell

Sharp, of Woodstock, but by 1900 Adney was again in the Northwest,

this time as special correspondent for _Colliers_ magazine at Nome,

Alaska, during the gold-rush of that year. On his return to New

York, Adney engaged in illustrating outdoor scenes and also lectured

for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In 1908

he contributed to a Harper's Outdoor Book for Boys. From New York

he removed to Montreal and became a citizen of Canada, entering the

Canadian Army as a Lieutenant of Engineers in 1916. He was assigned

to the construction of training models and was on the staff of the

Military College, mustering out in 1919. He then made his home in

Montreal, engaging in painting and illustrating. From his early years

in Woodstock he had made a hobby of the study of birch-bark canoes, and

while in Montreal he became honorary consultant to the Museum of McGill

University, dealing with Indian lore. By 1925 Adney had assembled a

great deal of material and, to clarify his ideas, he began construction

of scale models of each type of canoe, carrying on a very extensive

correspondence with Indians, factors and other employees (retired and

active) of the Hudson's Bay Company, and with government agents on the

Indian Reservations. He also made a number of expeditions to interview

Indians. Possessing linguistic ability in Malecite, he was much

interested in all the Indian languages; this helped him in his canoe

studies.

 

Owing to personal and financial misfortunes, he and his wife (then

blind) returned in the early 1930's to her family homestead in

Woodstock, where Mrs. Adney died in 1937. Adney continued his work

under the greatest difficulties, including ill-health, until his death,

October 10, 1950. He did not succeed in completing his research and had

not organized his collection of papers and notes for publication when he died.