great Algonkian family. In the east during the 18th and 19th centuries,
however, some members of the Iroquois Confederacy were also found, and
in the west, from at least as early as the beginning of the French
fur trade, groups of Sioux, Dakota, Teton, and Assiniboin. From the
fur trade as well as from normal migratory movements there was much
intermingling of the various tribes, and it was long the practice in
the fur trade, particularly in the days of the Hudson's Bay Company, to
employ eastern Indians as canoemen and as canoe builders in the western
areas. These apparently introduced canoe models into sections where
they were formerly unknown; as a result, the tribal classification of
bark canoes within the area under examination cannot be very precise
and the range of each form cannot be stated accurately. It was in this
area, too, that the historical _canot du maître_ (also written _maître
canot_), or great canoe, of the fur trade was developed.
Most of central Canada, except toward the extreme north in Quebec
and toward the south below the Great Lakes, is in the area where the
canoe birch was plentiful and of large size. There the numerous inland
waterways, the Great Lakes, and the coastal waters of James and Hudson
Bays make water travel convenient, and natural conditions require a
variety of canoe models. Hence, when Europeans first appeared in this
area they found already in existence a highly developed method of
canoe transportation. This they immediately adopted as their own, and
in the long period lasting until very recent times, during which the
development of the northern portion of this area was slow, the canoe
remained the most important means of forest travel.
In the northeastern portion of the area, including the Province of
Quebec (with Labrador) from a line drawn from the head of James Bay
eastwardly through Lake St. John and the Saguenay River Valley to the
St. Lawrence and thence northward to the treeline in the sub-Arctic,
dwelt the eastern branch of the far-ranging Cree tribe. Those living
on the shores of Hudson and James Bays, along the west side of the
Labrador Peninsula, were known as the Eastern, Swamp, or Muskeg Cree.
To the north, at the Head of Ungava Bay, around Fort Chimo, and to the
immediate southward, were the Nascapee, or Nascopie, supposedly related
to the Eastern Cree. In southern Labrador and in Quebec along the north
shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and for some distance inland, dwelt
another related tribal group now known as the Montagnais.
Although the most recent canoe forms employed by these three Indian
groups were very much the same, this may not have been the case
earlier. A common canoe model in this area was the so-called "crooked
canoe," in which there was a very marked fore-and-aft rocker to the
bottom without a corresponding amount of sheer; as a result the canoe
was much deeper amidships than near the ends. Another common model
had a rather straight bottom fore and aft, with some lift near the
ends and a corresponding amount of sheer. Between these was a hybrid
which had some fore-and-aft rocker in the bottom and a very moderate
sheer. Not until the 1870's was any detailed examination made of the
canoes in this area; then it appeared that the crooked canoe might be
the tribal model of the eastern Cree only, while the Nascapee employed
a straight-bottom model, but it is possible that the examination was
limited and that Nascapee use of the crooked canoe was simply not
observed. By 1900, however, the crooked model was in use not only by
the eastern Cree and the Nascapee but also by the Montagnais.
[Illustration: Figure 88
MONTAGNAIS CROOKED CANOE. (_Canadian Geological Survey photo._)]
In the area around Fort Chimo and at the northern ranges of the
eastern Cree and of the Montagnais the lack of good birch bark made it
necessary to make up the bark cover out of many small pieces. This not
only was laborious but made a rough and rather unsightly cover. Hence,
some of the northern builders, particularly the Nascapee, substituted
spruce bark, which was available in quite large sheets. The use of
the spruce bark, however, did not cause any of these people to depart
markedly from the model or the method of constructing birch-bark
canoes, as it did for the Indians in the maritime area.
At the time (1908) when Adney was carefully observing the canoes
in this area he found that both crooked and straight-bottom canoes
were being used by all three tribal groups, but with a variation in
midsection form among individual builders. Both types were built with
a midsection that had a wide bottom and vertical sides, or, as an
alternative, a narrow bottom and flaring sides. The end profile of
all these canoes showed chin. In some crooked canoes the profile was
apparently an arc of a circle, but in most canoes the form was an
irregular curve. The stem met the gunwale in a marked peak rounded very
slightly at the head, as the result of the method by which the stem
was constructed, but in the hybrid model used by the Nascapee the ends
were low and not much peaked and the quick upward rise of the sheer
near the ends was lacking. In cross section all these canoes became
~V~-shaped close to the ends, regardless of the midsection form. For
the straight-bottom canoe and in the hybrid form this resulted in very
sharp level lines, but the very great rocker of the crooked canoe
brought the ends well above the normal line of flotation, so that this
type was quite full-ended at the level line in spite of the ~V~-section.
It is apparent upon examining the crooked canoe that there was actually
less variation in its form, in spite of differences in midsection
shape, than in that of the straight-bottom canoe, owing to its very
great depth amidships in proportion to its width. This proportion
made necessary a very moderate flare in the narrow-bottom midsection
and resulted in a rather wall-sided appearance, even in this model.
The hybrid form, which fell between the extremes of the crooked canoe
and the straight-bottom canoe, had a narrow-bottomed flaring-sided
midsection, and its relatively moderate depth made obvious the flare in
the topsides and thus created a distinctive model.
[Illustration: Figure 89
BIRCH-BARK CROOKED CANOE, UNGAVA CREE. (_Smithsonian Institution
photo._)]
_Eastern Cree_
The construction of canoes of the eastern Cree and related tribes
seems generally like that of the Micmac craft. Instead of the gunwale
method employed in the Maritime area, a building frame was used, and
as a result the gunwales were longer than the bottom. In constructing
the crooked canoe, the building frame must be heavily sheered, and
there is evidence that the building bed was depressed amidships, rather
than raised as was usual in the east. The great amount of rocker in
the bottom in this form of Cree canoe made it necessary to block up
the ends of the building frame to a very great height, and there was
no need to raise the building bed at midlength, since the rocker
extended the full length of the bottom. The bark cover had to be gored
at closely spaced intervals to allow the rocker to be formed, and
even in the straight-bottom model, the quick rise of the bottom near
the ends required closely spaced gores there. In the straight-bottom
model, however, the building bed was raised at midlength, as in eastern
canoe-building, and the building frame was ballasted to a cupid's-bow
profile, when on the bed, so as to achieve the combination of straight
bottom amidships with sharply rising ends.
The gunwales were formed of the main gunwale member and a light gunwale
cap, no outwale being employed. They were joined at the ends and,
after hot water had been applied, were staked out with posts under
the ends to obtain the required sheer. The thwarts were then tenoned
into the main gunwales, though occasionally a canoe was built with
"broken" gunwales, that is, the thwart-ends were let flush into the
top and covered by the caps. Some builders did not spread the gunwales
and place the thwarts until after the bark cover was lashed at the
sheer; others used the eastern methods of assembling the gunwale
structure prior to securing the bark cover at sheer. The bark cover
was attached to the main gunwales with a continuous lashing, as in
the Micmac canoes, but the bark was not always brought over the top
of the gunwales. As a result, some canoes had a batten placed under
the lashing, near the edge of the cover, to prevent the lashing from
tearing away. Due to the lack of good root material, the lashing was
often of rawhide. For all horizontal seams in the side panels of the
bark cover, rawhide sewing over a root batten was used. The ends of the
gunwales were supported by sprung headboards; in some canoes these were
bellied toward the ends to such a degree that they almost paralleled
the end profiles.
[Illustration: Figure 90
NASCAPEE 3-FATHOM CANOE, EASTERN LABRADOR. Similar canoes, with slight
variations in model and dimensions, were used by all Ungava Indians:
the Montagnais and the Eastern, or Swamp, Crees.]
[Illustration: Figure 91
MONTAGNAIS 2-FATHOM CANOE OF SOUTHERN LABRADOR AND QUEBEC, showing old
decoration forms. Drawing based on small model of a narrow-bottom canoe
built for fast paddling.]
[Illustration: Figure 92
CROOKED CANOE, 2½-FATHOM, OF THE UNGAVA PENINSULA, used by the
Ungava-Cree, Montagnais, and Nascapee. Also built with a wide bottom
and a slight tumble-home in the topsides.]
[Illustration: Figure 93
HYBRID MODEL OF THE NASCAPEE-CREE CANOE, 2-FATHOM, built of spruce or
birch bark, with details of canoes and paddles.]
The ends were formed by means of the same technique used for Micmac
canoes; no inside stem-piece was employed and the bark cover was
stiffened by outside battens covered by the lashing. In the Cree
canoes, however, the stem battens were "broken" sharply at the sheer to
form a slightly rounded peak where the end met the gunwale caps. The
"break" in the battens was made by bending them very sharply, so that
they were almost fractured. The Cree practice also differed from that
of the Micmac, although not universally, by passing the lower end of
the stem batten through the bark cover at the point where the stem met
the bottom. The slit thus made was sealed with gum or, more recently,
covered with cloth impregnated with gum. The stems were lashed in
various ways; the most common was a spiral form up to the sheer. Near
the gunwale caps crossed stitches or small, closely spaced wrappings
were also employed. The tops of the battens, forming the peak of the
stem, were brought along under the rail caps, in line with the gunwale
lashings inboard, and secured with a continuous lashing for about 6
inches. In the northern parts of the area under discussion the stem
lashing was often of rawhide.
[Illustration: Figure 94
EASTERN CREE CROOKED CANOE of rather moderate sheer and rocker.
(_Canadian Pacific Railway Company photo._)]
Gunwale caps were wider than the gunwales and thus gave some protection
to the lashing there. The ends of the gunwale caps were heavily tapered
to allow the sharp bends necessary to carry them out on the stems. They
were pegged or nailed to the gunwales, but at the ends were lashed;
usually with two or three small group lashings over and under the stem
battens, below the caps.
The most recent canoes had canvas covers instead of bark. Nails, tacks,
and twine for sewing were used; otherwise they were built as the
Indians built birch- and spruce-bark craft, and not as white men built
canvas canoes and boats.
The framework of the canoes was usually spruce or larch. Toward the
south and along the St. Lawrence some white cedar was used, and in the
south maple was sometimes used for thwarts. The ribs of the canoes
inspected by Adney were usually about 3 inches wide, and a short taper
brought them to about 2 inches at the ends, where they were cut square
across. They were spaced about 1 inch apart edge-to-edge amidships
and somewhat further apart toward the ends of the canoe. The canoes
usually had an odd number of ribs, as the first was placed under the
thwart amidships. The last three ribs at the ends were "broken" at the
centerline to allow them to take the necessary ~V~-section there; but
the fourth rib from each end was only sharply bent. In some canoes the
heel of the very narrow headboard was stepped on the sheathing against
the endmost rib, in others it was stepped, as in the Micmac canoes, on
a frog which rested against the endmost rib.
[Illustration: Figure 95
STRAIGHT AND CROOKED CANOES, EASTERN CREE.]
In more recent times the sheathing was laid in one of two ways,
according to the preference of the builder, but the existence of the
two styles suggests that each was once a tribal-group method. One
method of shaping the bottom sheathing was to employ a center, or
keelson, piece in two lengths, the butts being overlapped amidships,
parallel-sided except toward the stems, where it was tapered to fit the
~V~-sections rather closely. The next strake outboard was short and
was in the form of a shallow triangle with its base along the middle
portion of the first strakes and about one-third the length of the
bottom. Its apex was under the middle thwart. The next strake outboard
was in two lengths lapped amidships, parallel sided along the arms of
the triangular strake, and snied off at the ends to fit along the sides
of the first strake. Another strake outboard of this was similar in
form and position, but longer. Thus seven strake widths would complete
the bottom sheathing. The side sheathing was narrow and slightly
tapered; each strake in two lengths overlapped slightly amidships.
The ends of the topside sheathing ran well into the ends, in most
canoes, where they apparently served as stiffening. The second method
of sheathing employed parallel-sided strakes throughout, laid side by
side on the bottom, with the ends snied off to fit the form of the bark
bottom. The existence of a model canoe made about 1850 (see p. 91)
supports the theory that the first method was originally the Montagnais
tribal construction and that the more primitive second method was
probably Cree or Nascapee.
The ribs were preformed and fitted to the canoe after drying out. They
were bent to the desired shape in pairs and tied with a thong across
the ends to hold their shape while drying. Some builders inserted a
strut inside the bent ribs, parallel to the thong, protecting the
surface of the inner rib by a pad of bark placed under each end of
the strut. The pair of ribs might also be wrapped with a bark cord to
help hold them together. To aid in handling, one pair of ribs might
be nested inside another. As in eastern canoes the ribs under the
gunwales were driven into place. At the ends they were canted toward
the center, so that in the straight-bottom models they stood nearly
perpendicular to the rocker of the bottom there; in the crooked canoe
the ribs were all somewhat canted in this manner.
[Illustration: Figure 96
MONTAGNAIS CANVAS-COVERED CROOKED CANOE under construction. (_Canadian
Geological Survey photo._)]
The paddles used in this area were made with parallel-sided blades, the
end of the blade being almost circular. The handle might be fitted with
a wide grip at the head or it might be pole-ended. It is impossible to
say how early sails were used to propel canoes, but it is probable they
were introduced by the fur traders. Square sails were being used on the
coastal canoes at the time the earliest reference was made to these
canoes, in the 1870's.
Little is known about the decorations employed by the eastern Cree. The
Montagnais birch-bark model canoe of about 1850 (see p. 91) has three
small circles placed in a triangular position on the bow and a band
along the bottom of the side panels. The circles and the bands are in
red paint, but may have been intended to represent the dark inner rind
left after scraping the winter bark cover. The use of decoration in
this area after 1850 has not been noted in any available reference.
As a rule, the straight-bottom canoes were small, commonly between
12 and 18 feet overall, and the most popular size was 14 to 16 feet
overall. A canoe of this size was usually employed as a hunters' canoe
for forest travel, though it might be used occasionally along the
coasts. These canoes were light and, in this respect, resembled the
Micmac models shown in Chapter 4.
The original purpose of the crooked canoe is in question. Those
travelers who saw this canoe in use on the Hudson Bay side of the
Labrador Peninsula believed that it was designed for use in rough,
exposed water. While it would be a desirable form for beach work in
surf, the high ends would make paddling against strong winds very
difficult. On the other hand the Montagnais used the crooked canoe for
river navigation, particularly where rapids were to be run, and for
this work it appears to have been well adapted. The crooked canoe was
commonly built larger than the straight-bottom model, between 16 and
20 feet in length overall, and was a vessel of burden rather than a
hunting canoe. Canoes up to 28 feet in length have been mentioned by
travelers in this area but investigation indicates strongly that these
were not the tribal form but the _canot du nord_, or north canoe of the
Hudson's Bay Company traders.
Along the southern borders of their territory and to the westward
the eastern Cree often built and used canoes modeled on those of
their neighbors, the Têtes de Boule and the Ojibway. Hence the tribal
classification does not hold good in these localities. Also, the
eastern Cree were employed by the Hudson's Bay Company as builders of
forms of the _maître canot_ and _canot du nord_ that are unlike their
typical tribal model.
_Têtes de Boule_
The Têtes de Boule, particularly the western bands, were skilled canoe
builders and had long been employed by the Hudson's Bay Company in the
construction of large fur-trade canoes. Apparently made up of bands
of Indians inhabiting lower Quebec, in the basin of the St. Maurice
River and on the Height of Land, these bands had come down to the lower
Ottawa River to trade with the local Algonkin tribe there in early
times. They were known to the Algonkins, who had had some contact with
civilization, as "wild Indians." They also came into close trading
relations with the French colonists, as the Ottawa River was the early
French canoe route between Montreal and Lake Superior. Because they
cut their hair short, unlike the other Indians, these northern bands
were nicknamed "Bull Heads," or "Round Heads," by the French traders,
and the tribesmen soon came to accept this rather than their own
designation of "White Fish People" as the tribal name. In more recent
times, the name has been applied to groups of Indians living in western
Quebec Province, near Lake Barrière and Grand Lake Victoria, but these
do not consider themselves related to the St. Maurice bands.
It seems apparent that the canoe models of all these groups had been
altered as a result of long contact with other tribal groups. Although
the St. Maurice and the western bands were apparently not of the same
tribal stock, their relations with the Algonkin may have brought about
the use of a standard model by all.
[Illustration: Figure 97
FIDDLEHEAD OF SCRAPED BARK on bow and stern of a Montagnais birch-bark
canoe at Seven Islands, Que., 1915.]
[Illustration: Figure 98
DISK OF COLORED PORCUPINE QUILLS decorating canoe found at Namaquagon,
Que., 1898. Within the 4-inch disk may have been an 8-pointed star.]
The Têtes de Boule lived in an area where very superior materials for
birch-bark canoe construction were plentiful. This, with the need for
canoes imposed by the numerous waterways and the demand for canoes
from white traders, made many of the tribesmen expert builders. Their
small canoes, ranging from the 8-to 12-foot hunter's canoes to the
14-to 16-foot family canoes, were very similar in profile to the canoes
of the St. Francis Abnaki. The Têtes de Boule canoes, however, were
commonly narrower on the bottom, and in their construction a building
frame was always used. The Têtes de Boule model was straight along the
bottom for better than half the length and then rose rather quickly
toward the ends. Similarly, the sheer was moderate amidships and
increased toward the ends. The stems showed a chin and were much peaked
at the gunwale ends. Most commonly the midsection had a flat bottom
athwartships and a well-rounded bilge, giving the topsides, near the
gunwale, a very slight outward flare. Some Têtes de Boule canoes had
rather ~V~-section ends in which the endmost rib was "broken" at the
centerline. As a result the lines were sharp and the canoes paddled
very easily.
[Illustration: Figure 99
A FLEET OF 51 BIRCH-BARK CANOES of the Têtes de Boule Indians,
assembled at the Hudson's Bay Company post, Grand Lake Victoria,
Procession Sunday, August 1895. (_Photo, Post-Factor L. A.
Christopherson._)]
For construction of the Têtes de Boule canoe, which was marked by good
structural design and neat workmanship, the building bed was slightly
raised at midlength, as was the general practice of the St. Francis
builders. The building frame was usually about 6 inches less in width
amidships, inside to inside, than were the gunwales, and from 15 to 18
inches shorter. The building frame was made quite sharp toward the ends
so that, viewed from above, it rather approached a diamond form; this
produced the very sharp lines that are to be seen in many examples of
the Têtes de Boule canoes. The building frame was of course removed
from the canoe as soon as the gunwales were in place and the bark cover
lashed to them.
The gunwale structure, comprised of main gunwale members, caps, and
outwales, was the same as in the Malecite canoes. The main gunwales
were rectangular in cross-section, some being almost square, with the
lower outboard corner bevelled off. Compared to those of eastern canoes
of equal length, the main gunwales were unusually light; their depth
and width rarely exceeded 1 inch, and in very small hunter's canoes
these were often only about ¾ inch. Toward the ends, they tapered to ½
inch, or even slightly less. The ends of the main gunwales, usually of
the common half-arrowhead form, were held together by rawhide or root
thongs passed back and forth through horizontal holes in the members.
After being thus lashed together, they were securely wrapped with
thongs which usually went over gunwales and outwales and through the
bark cover.
The gunwale caps, also light, were usually between ¼ and ½ inch thick
and from 1 to 1½ inches wide. At the ends they were tapered in width
and thickness, often to ³⁄₁₆ by ½ inch, so as to follow the quickly
rising sheer there. The ends of the gunwales, caps, and outwales
required hot-water treatment to obtain the required curve of the sheer.
The caps were pegged to the gunwales and were secured at each end with
two or three groups of lashings which passed around the outwales as
well, and through the bark cover.
The outwales were likewise light battens between ¼ and ½ inch thick and
from ¾ to 1¼ inches deep, the depth near the ends being tapered to ⅜ to
¾ inch so as to sheer correctly.
The bark cover had four or five vertical gores on each side of the
middle thwart, the gore nearest each stem being commonly well inboard
of the end thwarts. The side panels were usually deep amidships and
narrowed toward the ends. A root batten was used under the stitching
of the longitudinal seams of the side panels, which were sewn with a
harness-maker's stitch. The top edge of the bark cover was brought
over the top of the main gunwales, as in the Malecite canoes, and was
secured by group wrappings passing over the gunwales and outwales,
under the caps. These groups were not independent, the root thong being
carried from group to group outside the bark in a long pass under the
outwales. The groups of seven to nine turns were roughly an inch apart
in many small canoes, and perhaps 1½ inches in the large craft. In the
last birch-bark canoes in which no nails or tacks were used, wrappings
of root thongs began with a stop knot, but this does not appear to have
been the earlier practice.
[Illustration: Figure 100
TÊTES DE BOULE CANOE.]