Athabascan construction represents a high-ended canoe having ends with
a slight rake and a straight cutwater. This form of canoe has long been
extinct, and no description of an actual canoe of the form exists.
Judging by the model it had a very narrow flat-bottom and rounded
flaring sides.
The extinct bateau variant has already been described (pp. 159-161);
it might be considered a primitive form of the kayak-form bark canoes,
were it not that no intermediate type, between the bateau and the later
and highly developed bark kayak-form, has been found; as a result, any
such statement can be no more than speculation.
_Sturgeon-Nose Canoe_
In southern British Columbia and in northern Washington, the ram-ended
or sturgeon-nose canoes were built. These were the canoes of the
Kutenai, also spelled "Kootenay," and of the Salish tribal groups.
Used on rivers and lakes, they were constructed of the bark of birch,
spruce, fir, white pine, or balsam, whichever was available at the
building site. Wherever possible a panel of birch bark was worked in
along the whole length of the gunwales. The hull form of these canoes
varied somewhat, perhaps by decision of the builder, or perhaps by
local tribal custom. The ends were formed with a marked "ram," the stem
profiles running down and out to the "nose" in a straight or nearly
straight line. In some examples the stem profiles were in a hollow
curve, starting down from the gunwales rather steeply and then curving
outward more gently to the nose. Most examples had a bottom that was
straight or slightly hogged, while those with the hollow curve in
the ram often had a slight rocker. It is believed that the intention
was always to have the bottom straight but that in construction the
center of the canoe lifted somewhat, thus showing a slight hog in the
bottom line. The effects of loading and use on the light and flexible
structure of these canoes would cause the bottom to rocker and the
outboard ends to lift, thus causing the hollow in the ram profiles.
These effects of loading are confirmed by tests with models of this
form of canoe.
The midsection was usually quite round, almost ~U~-shaped, on the
bottom, but some canoes showed the bottom slightly flattened and the
sides flared out somewhat. Toward the ends, the ~U~-shape became
marked, and near the gunwale ends the sides of the ~U~ fell inboard
slightly as they came to the gunwales, the bottom of the ~U~ having a
hard turn. In plan, the gunwales approached the stems without hollow,
being nearly straight or even slightly convex. The ram was long and
sharp in its lower level lines and this, with the form of midsection,
made this model a fast-paddling canoe, though rather unstable. Most of
these canoes had but one thwart, placed at midlength, but some have
been found with three thwarts and a thong tie across the gunwales,
close to the stems, as well.
No stem-pieces were used; the bark ends were closed by two outside
battens, one on each side, whose heads were carried some 3 inches above
the gunwales. A cutwater batten was placed over the edges of the bark
between the battens, and the three were lashed together, with the bark,
by a coarse spiral wrapping or by group ties. The bark cover was not
sheathed inside; instead, six battens, ⅜ by 1½ inches, were placed on
each side of the keel piece, which measured about ½ by 3 inches and
tapered toward the ends. The battens, widely spaced, ran well into the
ram ends, and were held in place, like sheathing, by the pressure of
the ribs. The ribs, spaced 8 to 12 inches on centers, were often split
saplings; sometimes they were shaped to approximately ¼ by ¾ inch. The
batten nearest the gunwale on each side was lashed to every rib. In
some canoes the heads of the ribs were brought up between the inwale
and outwale, inside the bark cover, with their ends against the cap.
The stitching of the longitudinal seam of the topside panel was passed
around these frames and so helped to secure them. In one example, the
ribs were passed through the bark cover just below the horizontal seam
of the topside panel; there a turn of the stitching was passed around
each rib; then the rib was brought inboard again in the seam by being
passed between the edges of the bark cover and the panel. In many
canoes there were no ribs in the ram ends, but this was not universal
practice; small light ribs were sometimes placed there, with their
heads caught in the closure lashing of the end.
[Illustration: Figure 154
BARK CANOE OF THE KUTENAI AND SHUSWAP, about average in size and
proportion. Original in the Museum of the American Indian, New York.]
The canoes had 3-part gunwales consisting of inwale, outwale, and cap,
but in many the arrangement of these was such that this nomenclature is
misleading. In the latter construction, a lower inwale was used, as in
the above drawing; rather small in cross section, it was almost square,
with rounded edges. The rib ends, after passing through slits in the
bark cover below the lower inwale, continued upward past it, outside
the bark cover. Above the lower inwale and inside the bark cover was a
larger upper inwale; this was flat on the outboard and bottom sides,
the top and inboard sides being rounded into one another. The outwale,
roughly rectangular in cross section, clamped the bark cover and heads
of the ribs between it and the upper inwale. The ribs and bark were
trimmed off flush with the tops of the outwale and upper inwale. The
thwart amidships was caught, at the ends, between the lower and upper
inwales. The gunwale members and bark cover were secured by group
lashings of small extent and rather widely spaced.
The methods of fitting the thwarts differed in this class of canoe,
and it cannot be determined with certainty whether this variation was
tribal or the choice of the individual builder. In canoes having the
lower inwale arrangement there was but one thwart amidships. As has
been said, its ends were caught between the upper and lower inwales.
Directly beneath it was a rib whose head was not brought up outside
the bark cover but, after being secured to the uppermost sheathing
batten, was brought around inboard in a quick hard turn and secured
along the underside of the thwart with a close spiral lashing. Under
this rib at the topmost batten was secured a short false rib head by
forcing the beveled foot of the false rib between the batten and the
true rib, after lashing; the head of the false rib was then brought
up through and outside the bark cover in the customary manner, or it
might be forced under the lower inwale, inside the bark cover. In this
construction, the endmost ribs were at the gunwale ends, and the heads
of these were lashed to the stem battens outside the gunwale ends, on
the outside of the bark cover.
[Illustration: Figure 155
OJIBWAY CANOE CONSTRUCTION. (See pp. 122-131.)
Peeling bark.
Staking out bark.
Assembling bark over on building site.
(_Canadian Geological Survey photos._)
Making root thongs.
Setting ribs inside bark cover with a mallet.
Fitting gunwale caps on new canoe.]
In canoes having the usual gunwales of inwale, outwale, and cap, the
inwale and outwale were roughly rectangular, with their top sides
horizontal, and the cap, very small and light, was flat on the bottom
and rounded on top. In this construction, the rib heads usually were
clamped between the inwale and outwale, inside the bark cover.
The ribs of the ends were lighter than those of the main body and
more closely spaced, say 2 or 3 inches apart. These began about 8 or
9 inches inboard of the gunwale ends; the heads did not reach the
gunwales, but instead were caught in the horizontal seam of the side
panel and then cut off. Usually three ribs were so fitted. The rest of
the end ribs, usually eight in number, either had their heads caught in
the stem lashings or were made up as hoops with the heads overlapped
and lashed together, the ribs being placed so that the overlap came to
one side or the other of the canoe. Each hoop was usually caught by a
turn in the end-closure lashing.
To strengthen the ram, the lower ends of the three stem battens were
lashed to the extremities of the inside keel-piece, which was brought
through the bark cover at this point. The opening resulting from this
was sealed with gum or pitch. Minor variations in construction have
been noted in the canoes exhibited in museums; in one, for example,
only every fourth rib was caught in the topside panel stitching.
In canoes having the usual arrangement of gunwale members, with the
cap over the ends of the ribs, the ends of the thwart were sometimes
carried some 6 to 8 inches beyond the gunwales, at each end, and much
reduced in thickness by cutting away about half the depth of the
thwart. This part was then wrapped tightly around the inwale, brought
inboard along the underside of the thwart, and there lashed. Examples
show that the amount of end brought inboard under the thwart varied
with the builder. It should be added that the thwarts were usually no
more than barked saplings and were obviously installed in the canoe
when green and treated with hot water so they would not break when
wrapped around the inwales. In canoes having three thwarts, all were
fitted in this manner, but often the thwarts on each side of the middle
were also wrapped in a long spiral with a thong whose ends were tied
to each gunwale. In 3-thwart canoes, there was commonly a cross tie,
located roughly 12 inches from the gunwale ends and consisting of three
or more turns of cord, or thong, around the gunwale members on each
side and athwartships, secured by turns of the ends around the cross
tie. In one canoe there was a thwart amidships and one at one end,
about halfway between the middle thwart and the gunwale ends; at the
other end were two cross ties, one replacing the thwart and another a
foot inboard of the ends of the gunwales. In this canoe the ribs at the
gunwale ends were hoops and there were only three hoop ribs in the ram
ends.
One canoe, from Stevens County, Washington, had a peculiar double
framing. The sheathing battens, instead of being on the inside of the
bark cover, rested on light ribs, spaced about 6 inches apart, that ran
only far enough up the sides to have their ends caught in the stitching
at the bottom of the topside birch-bark panel along the gunwales. The
longitudinal battens were placed inside these, with the batten nearest
the gunwale lashed to the light ribs. Inside these battens and spaced
about a foot apart was another set of ribs whose heads were secured
between the inwale and outwale inside the bark cover; each of these
inside ribs was also lashed to the uppermost batten. Only the keel
batten was under the small ribs. The thwart ends were wrapped around
the main gunwale members, and the stem battens were secured to the
birch topside panels by but one group lashing, near the gunwales. The
bottom cover was stiff pine bark.
The topside panel of birch bark was placed in these canoes so that its
grain was horizontal instead of the usual vertical. Presumably this was
done as a maintenance solution: the panel was much easier to repair or
replace than the bottom bark; and by having the panel placed in this
weak mode, it would split before the bottom bark if too much pressure
were brought on the framework in loading.
These canoes paddled well in strong winds and in smooth water, and
worked quietly in the marshes where they were much used. Canvas canoes
of the same model replaced the bark canoes, indicating that the model
was suitable for its locality and use. These sturgeon-nose canoes were
so different from other North American bark canoes that they have been
the subject of much speculation, particularly since ram-ended canoes,
though of different construction, existed in Asia.
The size of the Kutenai-Salish sturgeon-nose canoes varied; the most
common size appears to have been between 14 and 20 feet over the ends
of the rams, 24 to 28 inches beam, and with a depth ranging from 12
to 13 inches amidships and from 14½ to 17½ inches at the ends of the
gunwales. However, records exist that show rather large canoes were
built on this model, 24 feet over the rams, 48 inches beam and 24
inches depth.
The building methods of this type of canoe have never been reported.
Probably some kind of a rough building frame was used. Perhaps this
was comprised of a couple of the battens and the keel piece, weighted
with stones. The building bed was probably level. The main gunwale
members were apparently made up temporarily and the bark cover shaped
and staked out. From that point the work may have followed the usual
canoe-building practices except that the ends could not be closed until
the framing there was complete, otherwise it would have been impossible
to fasten the small ribs in the rams. The structure of these canoes
appears to have been almost entirely cedar, except for the bark and
lacings which, in some instances, were partly some bark fiber as well
as roots. In general, the construction of this class of canoe did not
match in quality that of the other bark canoes of the Northwest.
[Illustration: Figure 156
INDIANS WITH CANOE at Alert Bay, on Cormorant Island, B.C.]
_Chapter Seven_
ARCTIC SKIN BOATS
_Howard I. Chapelle_
Among the three primitive watercraft of North America (the others being
the dugout and the bark canoe of the American Indians), the Arctic
skin boats of the Eskimos are remarkable for effective design and
construction obtained under conditions in which building materials are
both scarce and limited in selection. The Arctic skin boat is almost
entirely to be found in the North American Arctic from Bering Sea to
the East Coast of Greenland. In Russian Siberia, only in a small area
of the eastern Arctic lands adjacent to the North American continent
are any employed.
These craft, an important and necessary factor in the hunting lives
of most Eskimo tribal groups, have long attracted the attention of
explorers and ethnologists, and many specimens have been deposited
in American and European museums. Like bark canoes, they have
unfortunately proved difficult to preserve under conditions of museum
exhibit. As a result, examples of once numerous types have become
so damaged that they no longer give an accurate impression of their
original form and appearance, and some have so deteriorated that they
have had to be destroyed. Among the latter may have been examples
of types long since out of use. One such type was represented by a
single kayak, now destroyed; as a result this form has become extinct,
and only a poor scale model remains to give a highly unsatisfactory
representation of it.
In 1946 the late Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who was then projecting his
_Encyclopedia Arctica_, asked me to prepare for it a technical article
on the Arctic skin boat. The decision of the sponsors to discontinue
the publication, after the first volume had appeared, prevented
appearance of the article, but in 1958, through the kindness of Dr.
Stefansson, it was returned to the author for publication by the U.S.
National Museum. I have since revised and added to it, after receiving
criticisms and suggestions from Henry B. Collins, of the Smithsonian's
Bureau of American Ethnology, from John Heath, and from other
authorities.[2]
[2] For their aid to him the author takes this occasion to extend
particular thanks. He also thanks his Smithsonian Institution
colleagues in the Division of Ethnology, U.S. National Museum; members
of the staffs of The American Museum of Natural History and The Museum
of the American Indian in New York, of the Peabody Museum at Harvard,
and of the Stefansson Library at Dartmouth; and the Washington State
Historical Society and Museum, and others in the Northwest who gave
both aid and encouragement.
The object of the study, as will be seen, was to measure the skin boats
and to make scale drawings that would permit the construction of a
replica exact in details of appearance, form, construction, and also in
working behavior. Special regard was given to the diversity of types
with respect to hull form and construction methods; but questions of
ethnic trends, tribal migrations, and such matters, being outside the
scope of the study, were not considered. Wherever possible, full-size
craft were used as the source, but where only fragments existed, these
had to be supplemented by reference to and interpretation of models of
the same type.
In spite of the difficulty of locating skin boats of some Arctic areas,
examples of most of those mentioned by explorers since 1875 have been
found and recorded, so that, as far as possible, every distinctive
tribal type of Arctic skin boat which in 1946 was represented by museum
exhibits in the eastern United States is represented in plans here.
[Illustration: Figure 157
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY LINES DRAWING of a kayak, from Labrador or southern
Baffin Island (according to Dr. Kaj Birket-Smith of the Danish National
Museum). Note the long stem that is characteristic of present day
kayaks from Labrador. The lettering apparently reads:
From Strait's Sⁿᵗ. David
A Canoe--N.B. The sections are 2 feet asunder from forward
Length 21'-6"
Breadth 2'-1½"
Depth 0'-8¼"
(_Courtesy National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, England._)]
With the material available it was not possible, of course, to explore
all the individual types and forms in full; hence, the geographical
range of a type can be stated only approximately, owing to the
overlapping of tribal groups and the almost constant migratory movement
of the Eskimo. Originally the 2-and 3-cockpit kayaks of Russian
colonial Alaska had been omitted as being probably the results of
Russian influence. John Heath, however, believing attention should be
given to this type, has very kindly prepared for me a fine draught of
such a kayak, or "baidarka" (other spellings of this name are common);
this is shown on page 197.
Although the scale drawings accurately represent the form and details
of construction, they necessarily idealize somewhat the primitive boat
design. Also, in showing the hull-form, the usual method of projecting
the "lines" of the hull was discarded as unsuitable. Instead structural
features have been emphasized, with the result that "round"-bottom
kayaks appear as multi-chine hulls, as they properly are. In view
of the fluid state of design in Eskimo craft it is obvious that the
examples shown represent the stage of development at the given date,
though the alteration in most designs has been so gradual that the
representation could serve to illustrate with reasonable accuracy a
tribal or area type for a decade or more.
The Eskimos have produced two types of skin boats that have proved
remarkably efficient craft for small-boat navigation in Arctic waters:
an open boat ranging from about 15 to approximately 60 feet in length
for carrying cargo and passengers for long distances, and a small
decked canoe developed exclusively for hunting. With few exceptions
these Arctic skin boats are wholly seagoing craft.
The open boat, called the umiak, is propelled by paddles or oars or
sail or, in recent years, by an outboard gasoline engine, or it may be
towed. While fundamentally a cargo carrier the umiak has been employed
by some Eskimo in whaling and in walrus hunting. For these purposes a
faster and more developed design is used than that used only to carry
families, household goods, and cargo in the constant Eskimo search
for new hunting grounds. To a far greater degree than any other boat
of similar size, this Eskimo boat is characterized by great strength
combined with lightness.
The decked hunting canoe, the kayak, is propelled by paddle alone
when used for hunting and fishing, but is occasionally towed by the
umiak when the owner travels. The kayak is perhaps the most efficient
example of a primitive hunting boat; it can be propelled at high
speed by its paddler and maneuvered with ease. These hunting kayaks
are commonly built to hold but one person, though one group of Eskimo
built the kayaks to carry two or three. The kayak, remarkable for its
seaworthiness, lightness and strength, has been perhaps one of the most
important tools in the Eskimo fight for existence. Few tribes have been
unacquainted with its use. Because of its employment, the kayak often
has to be designed to meet very particular requirements and so there is
greater variation in its form and dimensions than in the umiak.
Seagoing skin boats have not been common outside the Arctic in
historical times. In fact only the European Celts are known with
certainty to have used such craft. The Irish, in particular, employed
large seagoing skin boats as late as the reign of Queen Elizabeth
of England; a drawing of one preserved in the Pepysian Library was
reproduced in the _Mariner's Mirror_ (vol. 8, 1922, facing p. 200).
Although there can be little doubt that large seagoing skin craft had
been more widely used in prehistoric times, the perishable nature of
the skin covering and the light framework probably account for the
lack of any archeological remains that would indicate its range. The
availability of the materials required in its construction, however,
suggest that its use could have been very widespread. The long voyages
made by the Irish, in the dawning of recorded history, could well have
made its design and construction known to others.
There are still many skin boats in use by primitive people and even a
few survivals in Europe, but with the exception of the Irish "curragh,"
these craft are designed for inland waters and are either rather
dish-shaped, or oval in plan, like half a walnut shell. In design they
are related to the coracle of ancient Britain rather than to a seagoing
skin boat of the Irish or Eskimo type. Both the Irish curragh and the
British coracle, now, of course, are covered with canvas rather than
hide.
Traditions of long voyages by the ancient Irish in the skin-covered
curragh make it apparent that such voyages were relatively common,
and the design and construction of existing models of the curragh and
umiak indicate that these voyages could have been made with reasonable
safety. Compared to the dugout canoe, the skin boat was far lighter
and roomier in proportion to length and so could carry a far greater
load and still retain enough freeboard to be safe. The size of the
early skin boats cannot be established with certainty; the modern Irish
curragh is probably debased in this respect, but early explorers of
Greenland reported umiaks nearly 60 feet in length and there is no
structural reason why the curragh could not have been as large or even
larger.
Compared with the curragh, the umiak is lighter, stronger, and more
resistant to shock. The curragh was built with closely spaced bent
frames and longitudinal stringers to support the skin cover, whereas
the umiak has very widely spaced frames and few longitudinals, giving
the skin cover little support. The difference in construction is
undoubtedly a result of the type of covering used, for the curragh
was covered with cattle hides, which were less strong than the seal
or walrus skins used by the Eskimo. The strong and elastic skin cover
of the umiak and the lack of a rigid structural support gives this
boat an advantage in withstanding the shocks of beaching or of working
in floating ice; and because of its relatively light framework and
the method of securing the structural members, its frame is far more
flexible than that of the curragh, adding to this ability.