example, that there are 10 ribs from the center to the first thwart
forward; these are laid out on the ground edge-to-edge with the rib
under the center thwart to the left and the rib under the first thwart
to the right. On the rib to the left the middle thwart is laid so
that its center coincides with that of the rib, and the ends of the
thwart are marked on the rib. The same is done to the rib on the far
right, over which the first thwart is laid as the measure. On each
side of the centerline the points marking the ends of the thwarts
are then joined by a line across the ribs, as they lie together, to
mark the approximate taper of the canoe toward the ends, at the turn
of the bilge. Each rib is taken in turn from the panel and with it
is placed another from the stock on hand to be set in a matching
position on the other side of the middle thwart, toward the stern; the
pair, placed flat sides together, are then bent over the knee at, or
outside of, the marks or lines. The ribs in the next portion of the
canoe's length are shaped in the same manner, using the lengths of the
first and second thwarts as guides. Thus, the ribs are given a rough,
preliminary bend before being fitted inside the bark cover and stayed
into place to season. This method allowed the bilge of the canoe to
be rather precisely determined and formed during the first stages of
construction. At the ends, of course, the ribs are sharply bent only
in the middle. Since the full thwart length makes a wide bottom, by
setting the length of the rib perhaps a hand's width less than that of
the whole thwart, the narrow bottom is formed.
The rough length of the ribs was twice the length of the thwarts
nearest them. Hackmatack was used for thwarts by the St. Francis
Indians, rock maple being considered next best. Cedar was first choice
for ribs, then spruce, and then balsam fir. Longitudinals were cedar
or spruce. All canoe measurements were made by hand, finger, and
arm measurements. Basket ash strips were often used in transferring
measurements.
[Illustration: Figure 84
MODEL OF A ST. FRANCIS-ABNAKI CANOE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, showing method
of moulding ribs inside the assembled bark cover.]
From what has been said, it will be seen that the construction practice
of the St. Francis did not follow in all details that of their Malecite
relatives. The intrusion of western practices into this group probably
took place some time after the group's final settlement at St. Francis.
As they gradually came into more intimate relations with their western
neighbors and drifted into western Quebec, beyond the St. Lawrence,
their canoe building technique became influenced by what they saw
to the westward. As would be expected, the St. Francis Abnaki began
early to use nails in canoe building, but, being expert workmen, they
retained the good features of the old sewn construction to a marked
degree up to the very end of birch-bark canoe construction in southern
Quebec, probably about 1915. It should perhaps be noted that what has
been discovered about the St. Francis Abnaki canoes refers necessarily
to only the last half of the 19th century, since no earlier canoe of
this group has been discovered. The changes that took place between the
decline of the Penobscot style of canoe and that of the later Abnaki
remain a matter of speculation.
[Illustrations: Figure 85
ST. FRANCIS-ABNAKI CANOE.]
_Beothuk_
The fourth group of Indians, classed here as belonging to the eastern
maritime area, are the Beothuk of Newfoundland. Historically, perhaps,
these Indians should have been discussed first, as they were probably
the first of all North American Indians to come into contact with
the white man. However, so little is known about their canoes that
it has seemed better to place them last, since practically all that
can be said is the result of reconstruction, speculation, and logic
founded upon rather unsatisfactory evidence. The tribal origin of the
Beothuk has long been a matter of argument; they are known to have
used red pigment on their weapons, equipment, clothes, and persons. A
prehistoric group that once inhabited Maine and the Maritime Provinces
appears to have had a similar custom; these are known as the "Red Paint
People," and it may be that the Beothuk were a survival of this earlier
culture. But all that can be said with certainty is that the Beothuk
inhabited Newfoundland and perhaps some of the Labrador coast when the
white man began to frequent those parts. The Beothuk made a nuisance
of themselves by stealing gear from the European fishermen, and by
occasionally murdering individuals or small groups of white men. Late
in the 17th century, the French imported some Micmac warriors and began
a war of extermination against the Beothuk. By the middle of the 18th
century the Newfoundland tribe was reduced to a few very small groups,
and the Beothuk became extinct early in the 19th century, before
careful investigation of their culture could be made.
Their canoes were made to a distinctive model quite different from
that of the canoes of other North American Indians. The descriptions
available are far from complete and, as a result, many important
details are left to speculation. Some parts of the more complete
descriptions are obscure and do not appear to agree with one another.
In spite of these difficulties, however, some information on the canoes
is rather specific; by using this, together with a knowledge of the
requirements of birch-bark canoe construction, and by reference to some
toy canoes found in 1869 in the grave of a Beothuk boy, a reasonably
accurate reconstruction of a canoe is possible.
Captain Richard Whitbourne had come with Sir Humphrey Gilbert to
Newfoundland in 1580 and revisited the island a number of times
afterward. In 1612 he wrote that the Beothuk canoes were shaped "like
the wherries of the River Thames," apparently referring to the humped
sheer of both; in the wherry the sheer swept up sharply to the height
of the oar tholes, in profile, and flared outward, in cross section.
John Gay, a member of the Company of Newfoundland Plantation, wrote
in 1612 that Beothuk canoes were about 20 feet long and 4½ feet wide
"in the middle and aloft," that the ribs were like laths, and that
the birch-bark cover was sewn with roots. The canoes carried four
persons and weighed less than a hundredweight. They had a short, light
staff set in each end by which the canoes could be lifted ashore. "In
the middle the canoa is higher a great deale, than at the bowe and
quarter." He also says of their cross section: "They be all bearing
from the keel to portlesse, not with any circular, but with a straight,
line."
Joann de Laet, writing about 1633, speaks of the crescent shape of the
canoes, of their "sharp keel" and need of ballast to keep them upright;
he also states that the canoes were not over 20 feet long and could
carry up to five persons.
The most complete description of the Beothuk canoe was in the
manuscript of Lt. John Cartwright, R.N., who was on the coast of
Newfoundland in 1767-1768 as Lieutenant of H.B.M. Ship _Guernsey_.
However, some portions are either in error or the description was
over-simplified. For example, Cartwright says that the gunwales were
formed with a distinct angle made by joining two lengths of the main
gunwale members at the elevated middle of the sheer. This hardly
seems correct since such a connection would not produce the rigidity
that such structural parts require, given the methods used by Indians
to build bark canoes. The three grave models show that the sheer
was actually curved along its elevated middle. It is possible that
Cartwright saw a damaged canoe in which the lashings of the scarf of
the gunwales had slackened so that the line of sheer "broke" there.
Cartwright is perhaps misleading in his description of the rocker of
the keel as being "nearly, if not exactly, the half of an ellipse,
longitudinally divided." The models show the keel to have been straight
along the length of the canoe and turned up sharply at the ends to form
bow and stern. Cartwright also states the keel piece was "about the
size of the handle of a common hatchet" amidships, or perhaps 1 inch
thick and 1½ inches wide, and tapered toward the ends, which were about
¾ inch wide and about equally thick. The height of the sheer amidships
was perhaps two-thirds the height of the ends.
[Illustration: Figure 86
A 15-FOOT BEOTHUK CANOE OF NEWFOUNDLAND with 42½-inch beam, inside
measurement, turned on side for use as a camp. It gives headroom
clearance of about 3 feet, double that of an 18-foot Malecite canoe
with high ends. When the ends were not high enough to provide maximum
clearance, small upright sticks were lashed to bow and stern. The
shape of the gunwales would permit the canoe to be heeled to an angle
(more than 35°) which would swamp a canoe of ordinary sheer and depth.
(_Sketch by Adney._)]
Nearly all observers, Cartwright included, noted the almost perfect
~V~-form cross section of these canoes, with the apexes rounded off
slightly and the wings slightly curved. From an interpretation of
Cartwright's statements, it appears that after the bark cover had been
laced to the gunwales, the latter were forced apart to insert the
thwarts, as in some western Indian canoe-building techniques. The three
thwarts are described as being about two fingers in width and depth.
It is stated that the gunwales were made up of an inner and outer
member and all were scarfed in the middle to taper each way toward the
ends, the outer member serving as an outwale or guard. Cartwright also
states that the inside of the bark cover was "lined" with "sticks"
2 or 3 inches broad, cut flat and thin. He refers also to others of
the same sort which served as "timbers" so he is describing both the
sheathing and the ribs as being 2 or 3 inches wide. He does not say how
the thwarts were fitted to the gunwales, how high the ends were, how
the ends of the gunwales were formed, nor does he give any details of
the sewing used. However, the grave models suggest the form of sewing
probably used and the approximate proportions of sheer.
An old settler told James Howley that the Beothuk canoes could be
"folded together like a purse." Considering the construction required
in birch-bark canoes, this is manifestly impossible; perhaps what the
settler had seen was a canoe in construction with the bark secured to
shaped gunwales, ready for the latter to be sprung apart by thwarts,
as in opening a purse. Howley also obtained from a man who had seen
Beothuk canoes a sketch which shows a straight keel and peaked ends,
confirmed in all respects by the grave models or toys.
The toy canoes so often referred to here were found by Samuel Coffin
in an Indian burial cave on a small island in Pilley's Tickle, Notre
Dame Bay (on the east coast of Newfoundland), in 1869. Among the graves
in the cave, one of a child, evidently a boy, was found to contain
a wooden image of a boy, toy bows and arrows, two toy canoes and a
fragment of a third, packages of food, and some red ochre. With one of
the canoes was a fragment of a miniature paddle. One of the canoes was
32 inches long, height of ends 8 inches, height of side amidships 6
inches, straight portion of keel 26 inches and beam 7 inches, as shown
by Howley.
In Newfoundland there was very fine birch but no cedar. There was,
however, excellent spruce which would take the place of cedar. It seems
certain, then, that all the framework of the Beothuk canoes was of
spruce. It seems likely that they were never built of a single sheet
of birch but were covered with a number of sheets sewn together, as in
other early Indian birch-bark canoes. The canoe birch of Newfoundland
grew to a diameter of 2 to 2½ feet at the butt, which would produce a
sheet of birch of 6 to 7 feet width; the length would be decided by how
far up the tree the Indian could climb to make the upper cut. As has
been stated, the prehistoric Indians seemingly made little attempt to
build birch-bark canoes of long lengths of bark, preferring to use only
the bark obtainable near the ground and above the height of the winter
snows.
The form of the Beothuk canoes, particularly the lack of bilge and the
marked ~V~-form, has caused much speculation. One writer assumed that
the form was particularly suited for running rapids. Actually, the
Beothuk appeared to have used canoes for river travel very rarely, as
few rivers in their country were suited for navigation. Instead, they
seem to have been coast dwellers and to have used canoes for coastal
travel and for voyages from island to island.
Their canoes were undoubtedly designed for open-water navigation, and
the ~V~-form was particularly suitable for this. The draft aided in
keeping the canoe on its course with either broadside or quartering
winds, and if the Beothuks knew sail, the hull-form would have served
them well. It is quite evident that the Beothuk canoes used ballast
in the form of stones or heavy cargo. Stones would have been placed
along the keel piece and covered with moss and skins. The strongly
hogged sheer was useful in protecting cargo amidships from spray and,
in picking up a seal or porpoise, the canoe could be sharply heeled
without taking in water. The ~V~ sections fore and aft were suitable
for rough-water navigation; because of its form and the weight of
ballast, the canoe would pass partly over and through the wave-top
without pounding. If a wave of such height as to overtop the gunwales
just abaft the stem were met, the strongly flaring sides would give
reserve buoyancy, causing the canoe to lift quickly as the wave reached
up the sides.
The small sticks in the ends, mentioned by John Gay, served not only
for lifting the canoe but also as braces to support the canoe at a
given angle when turned over ashore to serve as a shelter. The Beothuk
canoe, because of its form, was not well suited for portaging, and it
must be concluded that little of this was done. In coastal voyages, the
canoe would be unloaded and brought ashore each night to serve as a
shelter.
It is believed that the gunwale lashing of these canoes was in groups,
as in the Malecite. Howley questioned an old Micmac who had seen the
Beothuk lashing; he likened it to the continuous lashing used by his
own people, indicating some form of group wrapping, at least. It is
probable that the group lashings were let into the gunwales by shallow
notching at each group, a common Indian practice when no rail cap was
used, to prevent abrasion from the paddle or from loading and unloading
the canoe. The lacing of the ends appears to have been in the common
spiral stitch, judging by the grave models. These, however, show a
continuous wrapping at the gunwales, a common simplification found in
Indian canoe models, representing either group or continuously wrapped
gunwales indiscriminately.
The paddle of the Beothuks had a long, narrow blade, probably with a
pointed tip and a ridged surface. The shape is nearly spatulate. The
handle is missing from the grave model but was perhaps of the usual
"hoe-handled" form without a top cross-grip.
From these descriptions and on the basis of common Indian techniques
in birch-bark canoe construction, the form and methods of building the
Beothuk canoe can be reconstructed. The drawing on page 97 shows the
probable shape and appearance of the finished canoe. It seems likely
that a level building bed was first prepared. The keel, probably
rectangular in cross section, was then formed of two poles placed
butt-to-butt, worked to shape, and scarfed. The fastening of the scarf
was probably two or more lashings let into the surface of the wood.
These lashings are assumed to have been of split-root material but may
have been sinew. Possibly to strengthen the scarfs, pegs were also
used, a technique consistent with the state of Beothuk culture. The
keel probably had its ends split into laminae to allow the sharp bend
required to form the bow and stern pieces; and it was probably treated
with hot water and staked out to the desired profile. The main gunwales
were similarly made and worked to the predetermined sheer which, in
staking out, was hogged to a greater degree than was required in the
finished canoe. The ends of the gunwales were apparently split into
laminae to allow the shaping of the sharp upsweep of the sheer close to
bow and stern. The outwales were probably formed in the same manner,
after which the three thwarts were made and the material for ribs and
sheathing prepared. The ribs were apparently bent to the desired
shape, using hot water, and were either staked out or tied to hold them
in form until needed.
[Illustration: Figure 87
BEOTHUK CANOE, APPROXIMATE FORM AND CONSTRUCTION]
The keel was then laid on the bed and a series of stakes, perhaps
4½ feet long, were driven into the bed on each side of the piece in
opposing pairs at intervals of perhaps 2 or 3 feet. The stakes and
keel piece were then removed and the bark cover laid over the bed.
This may have been in two or three lengths, with the edges overlapped
so that the outside edge of the lap faced away from what was to be the
stern. The keel was then placed on the bark and weighted down with a
few stones or lashed at the stem heads to the end stakes; then the bark
was folded up on each side of the keel, and the stakes slipped back
into their holes in the bed and driven solidly into place, perhaps with
the tops angled slightly outward. The heads were then tied together
across the work and battens placed along the stakes and the outside of
the bark to form a "trough" against which the cover could be held with
horizontal inside battens. These were secured by "inside stakes" lashed
to each outside stake in the manner used in building eastern Indian
canoes (see p. 45). The bark cover now stood on the bed in a sharp
~V~ form, with the keel supported on the bed, the ends of the bark
supported by the end stakes, and both held down by stones along the
length of the keel. An alternative would have been to fix heavy stakes
at the extreme bow and stern of the keel and to lash the stem-heads
firmly to these in order to hold the keel down on the bark.
Next the main gunwales, prebent to the required form, were brought
to the building bed and their ends temporarily lashed to stem and
stern. The bark was brought up to these, trimmed, folded over their
tops, and secured by a few temporary lashings. Then the outwales were
placed outside the bark with their ends temporarily secured, and a few
pegs were driven through outwale, bark, and main gunwales, or a few
permanent lashings were passed. The bark cover was next securely lashed
to the gunwales and outwales combined, all along the sheer to a point
near the ends. The excess bark was then trimmed away at bow and stern
and the cover was laced to the end pieces to form bow and stern. This
lacing must have passed through the laminations of the stem and stern
pieces in the usual manner, avoiding the spiral lashing that held
the laminae together. The ends of the gunwales and outwales were next
permanently lashed together with root or other material and to the stem
and stern pieces. This done, the gunwales were spread apart amidships,
pressing the stakes outward still more at the tops. At this point the
tenons may have then been cut in the main gunwales and the thwarts
inserted. This method, incidentally, was used in building some western
Indian bark canoes.
The usual steps of completing a birch-bark canoe would then follow--the
insertion of sheathing, held in place by temporary ribs, and then the
driving home of the prebent ribs under the main gunwales, with their
heads in the spaces between the group lashings along the gunwales and
against the lower outboard corner of the main gunwale member, which was
probably beveled as in the Malecite canoe. The sheathing may have been
in two or three lengths, except close to the gunwale amidships where
one length would serve. On each side of the keel piece a sheathing
strake was placed which was thick on the edge against the keel but thin
along the outboard edge, in order to fair the sheathing into the keel
piece.
At some point in this process, the bark cover was pieced out to
make the required width, and gores were cut in the usual manner. In
spreading the gunwales, the bow and stern would have to be freed
from any stakes, as these would tend to pull inboard slightly as the
gunwales were spread in the process of shaping the hull. The ribs
could have been put in while green and shaped in the bark cover by use
of battens and cross braces inside, as were those of the St. Francis
canoes.
The sewing of the bark cover at panels and gores would take place
before the sheathing and ribs were placed, of course. A 15-foot canoe
when completed would have a girth amidships of about 65 to 68 inches
if the beam at the gunwales were 48 inches, and a bark cover of this
width could be taken from a tree of roughly 20 inches in diameter.
Hence, there may have been little piecing out of the bark for width.
In the form of the Beothuk canoe as reconstructed there is nothing
that departs from what is possible by the common Indian canoe-building
techniques. The finished canoe would, in all respects, agree with most
of the descriptions that have been found and would be a practical craft
in all the conditions under which it would be employed.
These were the only birch-bark canoes supposed to have made long runs
in the open sea clear of the land. In them the Beothuk are supposed to
have made voyages to the outlying islands, in which runs in open water
of upward of 60 miles would be necessary, and they probably crossed
from Newfoundland to Labrador.
The ~V~-form used by the Beothuk canoe was the most extreme of all
birch-bark canoe models in North America, although, as has been
mentioned, less extreme ~V~-bottoms were used elsewhere. The Beothuk
canoe may have been a development of some more ancient form of bark
sea canoe also related to the ~V~-bottom canoes of the Passamaquoddy.
The most marked structural characteristic of the Beothuk canoe was the
keel; the only other canoe in which a true keel was employed was the
temporary moosehide canoes of the Malecite.
The Beothuk keel piece may have sometimes been nearly round in section
like the keel of the Malecite moosehide canoe (p. 214). The two
garboard strakes of the sheathing may have been shaped in cross section
to fair the bark cover from the thin sheathing above to the thick keel
and at the same time allow the ribs to hold the garboards in place.
They could, in fact, be easily made, since a radial split of a small
tree would produce clapboard-like cross sections. This construction
would perhaps comply better with Cartwright's description of the keel
than that shown in the plan on page 97.
The sheer of the Beothuk canoe is an exaggerated form of the gunwale
shape of the Micmac rough-water canoe but this, of course, is no real
indication of any relationship between the two. Indeed, the probable
scarfing of the gunwales of the Beothuk canoe might be taken as
evidence against such a theory. On the other hand, the elm-bark and
other temporary canoes of the Malecite and Iroquois had crudely scarfed
gunwale members, as did some northwestern bark canoes.
Most of the building techniques employed by Indians throughout North
America are illustrated by these eastern bark canoes, yet marked
variation in construction details existed to the westward, as will be
seen.
_Chapter Five_
CENTRAL CANADA
The Indians inhabiting central Canada were expert builders of
birch-bark canoes and produced many distinctive types. The area
includes not only what are now the Provinces of Quebec (including
Labrador), Ontario, Manitoba, and the eastern part of Saskatchewan,
but also the neighboring northern portions of Michigan, Wisconsin and
Minnesota in the United States. The migrations of tribal groups within
this large area in historical times, as well as the influence of a
long-established fur trade, have produced many hybrid forms of bark
canoes and, in at least a few instances, the transfer of a canoe model
from one tribal group to another. It is this that makes it necessary
to examine this area as a single geographic unit, although a wide
variation of tribal forms of bark canoes existed within its confines.