this number was found even on small woods canoes. However, old records
indicate that canoes 20 to 28 feet long on the gunwales were once built
with seven thwarts. The shape of the thwarts varied, apparently in
accordance with the builder's fancy. The most common form was nearly
rectangular in cross-section; in elevation, it was thick at the hull
centerline and tapered smoothly to the outboard ends; and in plan it
was narrowest at the hull centerline and increased in width toward
the ends, the increase being rather sharp at the shoulders of the
tenon. In some, the tenon went through the main gunwales and touched
the inside of the bark cover; in others the ends of the thwarts were
pointed in elevation, square in plan, and were inserted in shallow,
blind tenons on the inboard side of the main gunwales. A single 3-turn
lashing through a hole in the shoulder and around the main gunwale was
used in every case.
[Illustration: Figure 51
MICMAC 2-FATHOM PACK, OR WOODS, CANOE with normal sheer and flat
bottom.]
Sometimes the thwarts just described were straight (in plan view) on
the side toward the middle of the canoe, and only the middle thwart
was alike on both sides. In others the straight side of the end thwart
and of that next inboard were toward the bow and stern of the canoe.
In still others, the middle thwart had a rounded barb form in plan,
with the barb located within 6 or 7 inches of the shoulder and pointed
toward the tenon; the next thwarts out on each side of the middle
thwart were shaped like a cupid's bow but slightly angular and aimed
toward the ends of the canoe, and the end thwarts were of similar plan.
In one known example having such thwarts, there were two very short
thwarts at the ends of the canoe, of the usual plain form described
earlier, each a few inches inboard of the headboard. Thus this canoe
had seven thwarts in the old fashion.
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.
The paddles used by the Micmac appear to have varied in shape. If the
canoe shown in Chapter 1 (p. 12) was indeed a Micmac canoe as supposed,
the paddle shown there is quite different from the later tribal forms
illustrated above, and it is possible that the top grips shown in the
more modern forms were never used in prehistoric times, when the pole
handle shown with the old canoe may have been standard.
The Micmac canoes were decorated by scraping away part of the inner
rind of the birch bark, leaving portions of it in a formal design.
It seems very probable that the Micmac seldom used this form of
decoration in early times, but later they used it a great deal in their
rough-water canoes, perhaps as a result of contact with the Malecite.
The formal designs used as decoration by the Micmac did not have any
particular significance as a totem or religious symbol; they were
used purely as decoration or to identify the owner. Such forms as the
half-moon, a star in various shapes, or some other figure might be used
by the builder, but these were apparently only his canoe mark, not a
family insignia or his usual signature, and could be altered at will.
The usual method of decoration was to place the canoe mark on both
sides of the canoe at the ends and to have along the gunwales amidships
a long narrow panel of decoration, usually of some simple form. The
panel decorations are said by Micmacs to have been selected by the
builder merely as pleasing designs. One design used was much like the
fleur-de-lis, another was a series of triangles supposed to represent
camps, still another was the northern lights design, a series of
closely spaced, sloping, parallel lines (or very narrow panels) that
seem to represent a design much used in the quill decoration for
which the Micmac were noted. Canoes are recorded as having stylized
representations of a salmon, a moose, a cross, or a very simple star
form; these may have been canoe marks or may once have been a tribal
mark in a certain locality. A series of half-circles were sometimes
used in the gunwale panels, which were rarely alike on both sides of
the canoe, and it is probable that use was made of other forms that
have not been recorded. Colored quills in northern lights pattern were
used in some model or toy canoes but not in any surviving example of a
full-size canoe. It is quite possible, however, that such quill-work
was once used in Micmac canoe decoration. Painting of the bark cover
for decorative purposes in Micmac canoes has not been recorded.
[Illustration: Figure 60
MICMAC CANOE, BATHURST, N.B. (_Canadian Geological Survey photo._)]
Historical references to the canoes of the Micmac are frequent in
the French records of Canada; it must have been Micmac canoes that
Cartier saw in 1534 at Prince Edward Island and in Bay Chaleur. The
most complete description of such canoes is in the account of Nicolas
Denys, who came to the Micmac country in 1633 and remained there almost
continuously until his death at 90, in 1688. His travels during this
period took him into Maine as far as the Penobscot and throughout what
are now New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. While his descriptions are
primarily concerned with the Malecite dress, houses, and hunting and
fishing techniques, his notes on birch-bark canoes seem to indicate
very clearly that he is describing a hogged-sheer Micmac rough-water
canoe. He says, for example, that the length of these canoes was
between 3 and 4½ fathoms, the fathom being the French _brasse_, so
that they ranged in length from 16 to 24 feet over the gunwales. This
gunwale length seems reasonable, since Denys gives the beam as only
about 2 English feet, obviously a gunwale measurement in view of
the great tumble-home in these canoes. That the Micmac rough-water
canoe is the subject of Denys' observations is further indicated by
his statement that the depth was such that the gunwales came to the
armpits of a man seated on the bottom. This could only be true in a
canoe having a hogged sheer in the lengths given, and is, in fact, a
slight exaggeration unless the man referred to was of less than average
height. The depth would be about 22 English inches, great even for a
24-foot canoe. Denys states that the inside sheathing of these canoes
was split from cedar. He also states that the splints were about 4
inches wide, were tapered toward the ends, and ran the full length of
the canoe. It is probable that they were butted amidships, as in known
examples; this, however, would have been covered by a rib and might not
have been noticed.
Denys says that the Indians "bent the cedar ribs in half-circles to
form ribs and shaped them in the fire." Adney believed this meant by
use of hot water. However, this bending could have been done by what
was known in 17th-century shipbuilding practice as stoving, in which
green lumber was roasted over an open fire until the sap and wood
became hot enough to allow a strong bend to be made without breakage.
Wood thus treated, when cooled and seasoned somewhat, would hold
the set. While it is certain that later Indians knew how to employ
hot water, it does not follow that all tribes used this method,
particularly in early times.
Denys also states that the roots of "fir," split into three or four
parts, were used in sewing. He apparently used "fir" as a general name
for an evergreen. It is probable that the roots used were of the black
spruce. The technique of building he describes is about the same as
that outlined in the last chapter. He says that the gunwales were round
and that seven beech thwarts were employed, practices that differ from
those in more recent Micmac canoe building, and he notes the goring of
the bark cover. Denys states the paddles were made of beech (instead
of maple as was perhaps the case) with blades about 6 inches wide and
their length that of an arm (about 27 inches), with the handle a little
longer than the blade. He also says that four, five, or six paddlers
might be aboard a canoe and that a sail was often used. "Formerly of
bark," the sail was made of a well-dressed hide of a young moose. Since
it could carry eight or ten persons, the canoe Denys is referring to is
obviously a large one. In his building description he does not mention
headboards, rail caps, or the end forms. It may be assumed that he
was then describing a canoe he had seen during construction but whose
building he did not follow step by step.
De la Poterie, in his book published in 1722, gives a profile and
top view of what must have been a Micmac canoe. The probable length
indicated must have been about 22 English feet overall and about 32
inches extreme beam; seven thwarts are shown.
Late in the 19th century there appears to have been some fusion of
Micmac and Malecite methods of construction, as Malecite built to
Micmac forms and vice versa. This apparently did not produce a hybrid
form so far as appearance was concerned but it did affect construction,
in that inner end-frames were used and other details of the Micmac
design were altered. The Micmac, having early come into close contact
with the Europeans, were among the first Indians to employ nails in the
construction of bark canoes, and this resulted in an early decadence in
their building methods. Hence, some examples of their canoes show what
the Indians termed broken gunwales, in which the ends of the thwarts
were not tenoned into the gunwales, but rather were let flush into the
top by use of a dovetail cut or, less securely, by a rectangular recess
across the gunwale, and were held in place with a nail through the
thwart end and the gunwale member.
From scanty references by early writers, it appears that a spiral
over-and-over lashing was originally used by the Micmac on the ends and
gunwales. The lower edges of the side panels were sewn over-and-over
a split-root batten. In some extant examples the gores are sewn with
a harness stitch; in others a simple spiral stitch is used. The
cross-stitch does not appear to have been used by the Micmac. The
gunwale caps were certainly pegged and the ends lashed; the bark cover
was folded over the gunwale tops and clamped by the caps as well as
secured by the gunwale lashings. Tacking the bark cover to the top of
the gunwales, with the cap nailed over all, marks the later Micmac
canoes. The use of nails and tacks seems to have begun earlier than
1850.
[Illustration: Figure 61
MICMAC WOMAN gumming seams of canoe, Bathurst, N.B., 1913. (_Canadian
Geological Survey photo._)]
In spite of decadent construction methods used in the last Micmac
birch-bark canoes, the model remained a very good one in each type.
The half-circular ends, sharp lines, and standard mid-sectional forms
were unaltered; the hogged sheer was retained in some degree in at
least two of the canoe types, the rough water and the big river,
right down to the end of bark-canoe building by this tribe. The very
fine design and attractive appearance of the Micmac canoe may have
contributed to the early acceptance by the early explorers and traders
of the birch-bark canoe as the best mode of water transport for forest
travel.
_Malecite_
Another tribe expert in canoe building and use was the Malecite. These
Indians were known to the early French explorers as the "Etchimins"
or "Tarratines" (or Tarytines). Many explanations have been given for
the name Malecite. One is that it was applied to these people by the
Micmac and is from their word meaning "broken talkers," since the
Micmac had difficulty in understanding them. When the Europeans came,
these people inhabited central and southern New Brunswick and the shore
of Passamaquoddy Bay, with small groups or tribal subdivisions in the
area of the Penobscot to the Kennebec. These were early affected by the
retreat of the New England Indians before the whites into eastern and
northern Maine and southeastern Quebec. As a result, the Penobscot and
Kennebec Indians became part of the group later known as Abnaki, while
the Passamaquoddy Indians remained wholly Malecite and closely attached
to those living along the St. John River in New Brunswick. Like their
neighbors the Micmac, the Malecite were hunters and warlike; during the
colonial period they were usually friendly to the French and enemies
of the English settlers in their vicinity. It is not certain that the
tribe now called by that name were actually of a single tribal stock;
it is possible that this designation really covers a loose federation
of small tribal groups who eventually achieved a common language. In
addition, the tribal designation cannot be wholly accurate because of
the fact that much of the original group living in New England were
absorbed in the Abnaki in the 17th and 18th centuries. Therefore, the
Malecite are considered here to be those Indians formerly inhabiting
valleys of the St. John and the St. Croix Rivers, and the Passamaquoddy
Bay area. The remaining portions, the Kennebec and Penobscot Indians,
must now be classed as Abnaki, of whom more later (see p. 88).