single large sheet of bark that was reasonably flexible and strong. But
many of the barks meeting this specification had a coarse longitudinal
grain that split easily, so forming a canoe by cutting gores was out of
the question. This difficulty was avoided by folding, or "crimping,"
the bark cover along the gunwales at two or more places on each side of
the canoe; this permitted the bottom to be flattened athwartships and
the keel line to be rockered, both desirable in a canoe.
The problem of closing the ends also had to be solved. This was done
by clamping the ends of the bark between two battens and, perhaps, a
bark cord as well, and then lashing together the battens, bark ends,
and cord with wrappings of root thongs. Cord made from the inner bark
of the basswood and other trees could also be used for this purpose.
The ends of the canoe could then be made watertight by a liberal
application of gum or tallow, while grass, shavings, moss, or inner
bark mixed with gum or even clay could be used to fill the larger
openings that might appear in hurried construction.
Obviously, a simple wood structure was required by the specifications.
Therefore, the gunwales were usually made of saplings with their butts
roughly secured together or spliced. This allowed length to be obtained
without the necessity of working down large poles to usable dimensions,
a laborious and time-consuming undertaking with primitive tools. The
thwarts were commonly of saplings with the ends cut away so that the
thin remainder could be wrapped around the main gunwales and lashed
underneath the thwarts inboard. Ribs were usually of split saplings,
but there is some evidence that in very hurriedly built canoes the
whole small sapling was used. The kind of sheathing employed in these
canoes during the pre-Columbian era is a mystery. It would be quite
unlikely that time was taken to split splints such as were used in the
late elm-and spruce-bark canoes, when steel tools were available. The
writers believe that for small canoes it may have been the practice
to use a second sheet of stiff bark inside the first and extending
only through the middle two-thirds of the length, across the bottom
and up above the bilge but short of the gunwales. This, with the
ribs and a few poles lashed to each rib along the bottom, would have
given sufficient longitudinal strength and a stiff enough bottom for
practical use. However, in large canoes of the type reputedly employed
by Iroquois warriors, a stronger construction seems necessary, and
these canoes may have had a number of split or whole poles lashed to
the ribs along the bottom.
With small variations in details, the general construction outlined
above was employed by many North American Indians for building
temporary canoes for emergency use. In at least one case, however, it
was also used in canoes of somewhat more permanent status within the
boundaries of the powerful Iroquois Confederation. On large bodies
of water within their territory, the Iroquois used dugouts, but for
navigating streams and for use in raiding their enemies they employed
bark canoes. While some birch bark was available there, it was probably
widely scattered; therefore these great warriors used elm or other bark
for their canoe building.
Early French accounts show that the Iroquois built bark canoes of
greater size than ordinary; Champlain wrote that their canoes were of
oak bark and were large enough to carry up to 18 warriors; later French
accounts, as we shall see, indicate that the Iroquois used even larger
canoes than these. Champlain may have been in error about the Iroquois
use of oak bark, as suggested earlier (p. 7), for experiments have
shown that the inner bark of this tree is too thin and weak for the
purpose; the canoes Champlain saw may have been built of white or red
elm bark. The barks of the butternut, hickory, white pine, and chestnut
might also have been employed, as they were usually suitable.
It was noted by the early French writers that the Iroquois built their
bark canoes very rapidly when these craft were required by a war party
in order to attack their enemies or to escape pursuit. In one case at
least the canoes for a war party were apparently built in a single day.
This was accomplished, it seems, by the excellent organization of their
war parties, in which every man was assigned a duty, even in making
canoes.
When it was deemed necessary to build a canoe, certain warriors were to
search out and obtain the necessary materials in the order required for
construction. To do this effectively, they had to know the materials in
order of their suitability for a given purpose, for the most desirable
material might not be available at the building site. Other warriors
prepared the materials for construction, scraping the bark, making
thongs, and rough-shaping the wood. Others built the canoe, cutting and
sewing the bark, and shaping and lashing the woodwork. These duties,
too, required intimate knowledge of the different materials that could
be used in canoe construction. It would be natural, of course, to find
that the methods used to construct a temporary craft for a war-party
would also be employed at home by the hunter or fisherman, even when a
rather more permanent canoe was desired. These were smaller craft and
easily built. Only when a long-lasting watercraft was desired would
the bark canoe be unsatisfactory; then the dugout could be built. The
early French observers agree that though the Iroquois occasionally used
birch-bark canoes, these were acquired from their neighbors by barter
or capture and were not built by the tribesmen of the Confederation.
The details of the construction of elm canoes (and of other bark than
birch) by the Iroquois are speculative, since no bark canoe of their
construction has been preserved. This reconstruction of their methods
is, therefore, based upon the incomplete accounts of early writers and
upon what has been discovered about the construction of spruce-and
elm-bark temporary canoes by other Eastern Indians.
In view of what has been reported, it must be kept in mind that the
construction was hasty and that a minimum of labor and time was
employed; hence, the appearance of the elm-bark canoe of an Iroquois
war-party had none of the gracefulness that is supposed to mark the
traditional war canoe of the Indians. The ends are known to have been
"square," that is, straight in profile, and the freeboard low. The
use of saplings for the gunwales would cause an uneven sheer, and
its amount must have been small; the high, graceful ends seen in some
birch-bark canoes did not exist in the Iroquois model. The rocker of
the bottom profile was not a fair curve, but was angular, made of
straight lines breaking under the folds, or "crimps," in the bark cover
at the gunwales. The amount of bark in each crimp and the location
of the crimps fore-and-aft would determine the shape of the bottom
profile and the amount of rocker, as well as the flatness of the bottom
athwartships in the midbody. It appears that two crimps to the side
were employed in most of these canoes, but perhaps more, say four to
a side, might have been employed in a very large canoe. The tendency
in forming these canoes must have been toward an almost semicircular
midsection, a condition which would have produced an unstable craft if
not checked.
[Illustration: Figure 209
MALECITE AND IROQUOIS TEMPORARY CANOES. The Iroquois 3-fathom elm-bark
canoe, below, is designed to carry ten to twelve warriors.]
The early French writers agree that the canoes of Iroquois war parties
were sluggish under paddle. This was due to the fact that the hull
form of these canoes was not good for speed, and also because the
bulges at the bottom of the crimps caused them to be markedly unfair
at and near the waterline. This handicap in their canoes may have been
an inducement for the Iroquois to waylay their victims at portages
when the travellers were usually spread out and easily cut down while
burdened with goods. The Algonkin tribes countered by moving in very
large numbers when within striking distance of Iroquois raiders. Hence
there were very few recorded instances of battles in canoes; these took
place only when sudden meetings occurred without preparation on either
side, such as when war parties surprised canoemen in narrow waters. The
shortcomings of their canoes did not seriously affect the deadliness of
the Iroquois warriors, for their usual practice was to raid in winter,
when they could travel rapidly on snowshoes and surprise their enemies
in winter camps wholly unprepared for defense, a most pleasing prospect
for the attacking warrior.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume that these factors made the
Iroquois poor canoemen; the French repeatedly stated that they were
capable in handling their craft and ran rapids with great daring and
skill, showing that the apparently crude and weak elm-bark canoes were
far better craft than they first appeared.
The theory that the Iroquois type of canoe was very like the emergency
or temporary elm-and spruce-bark canoes of neighboring tribes is
supported by some statements of the early French writers, as well as by
a comparison of the rather incomplete descriptions of Iroquois canoes
by later travellers with what is known about the spruce and other
temporary bark canoes used in more recent times by the eastern Indians.
M. Bacqueville de la Poterie, writing of the adventures of Nicholas
Perrot in the years 1665 to 1670, tells of an instance in which
Perrot's Potawatomi mistook the emergency canoes of some Outaouais
(Ottawa) for Iroquois canoes.
LaHontan (1700) gives some general information as well as specific
opinions on the speed and seaworthiness of Iroquois canoes, saying
that--
the canoes with which the Iroquois provide themselves are so
unwieldy and large that they do not approach the speed of those
which are made of birch bark. They are made of elm bark, which is
naturally heavy and the shape they give them is awkward; they are
so long and so broad that thirty men can row in them, two-by-two,
seated or standing, fifteen to each rank, but the freeboard is so
low that when any little wind arises they are sensible enough not
to navigate the lakes [in them].
LaFiteau, writing before 1724, stated definitely that the Iroquois
did not build any birch-bark canoes, but obtained them from their
neighbors, and that the Iroquois elm-bark canoes were very coarsely
built of a single large sheet of bark, crimped along the gunwales, with
the ends secured between battens of split saplings. He noticed that the
gunwales, ribs, and thwarts were of "tree branches," implying that the
bark was not removed from them. The most detailed description was by a
Swedish traveller, Professor Pher Kalm, who gave extensive information
on the construction of an elm-bark canoe in 1749; this account is
particularly useful when interpreted in relation to the spruce-and
elm-bark canoes of the eastern Indians. It is upon the basis of Kalm's
account that the procedures used to build an Iroquois war canoe have
been reconstructed.
The bark most favored by the Iroquois was that of the white elm.
Next most favored was red elm, and then other barks--certain of the
hickories and chestnut are mentioned in various early references.
It was necessary to find a tree of sufficient girth and height to
the first limbs to give a sound and fairly smooth bark sheet in the
length and breadth required. If possible the bark was stripped from
the standing tree; even after steel tools were available, felling was
avoided for fear of harming the bark. Great care had to be taken in
the operation, to avoid splitting or making holes in the bark, and
often two or more trees had to be stripped before a good sheet of
bark was obtained. In warm weather the bark could be removed without
much difficulty, but in the spring and fall it might be necessary to
apply heat; this was apparently done by means of torches or by the
application of hot water to the tree trunk.
When the bark was removed from the tree, the rough outer bark was
scraped away; if the builder was hurried this scraping was confined to
the areas to be sewn or folded. The bark was then laid on a cleared
piece of ground, the building bed, with the outside of the bark up,
so that it would be inside the finished boat. The building bed does
not appear to have required much preparation; apparently not raised at
midlength, it was merely a plot of reasonably smooth ground, located in
the shade of a large tree if building was to be done in summer.
It is not wholly clear from the descriptions whether the gunwales were
shaped before or after being secured to the bark. However, extensive
experiments in building model canoes show very plainly that it would
be easiest to assemble the main gunwale frame and use it in building,
after the fashion of eastern birch-bark canoe construction. With the
main gunwales assembled, the stakes would be placed on the bed, the
bark replaced, the frame laid on it and weighted, and the stakes then
redriven in the usual way and their heads lashed together in pairs.
Each gunwale was formed either of two small saplings or of split poles,
with the butts scarfed at the canoe's midlength. The canoe of an
Iroquois war party would probably have gunwales of split saplings so
that inwale and outwale for half the length of one side of the canoe
would be from a single pole; this would allow the flat sides to be
placed opposite one another, on each side of the edge of the bark, to
form a firm gunwale structure. However, when a rather permanent craft
was being built, the poles might be split twice, or quartered, to give
pieces to make half of the gunwales of a canoe; these too might be
worked nearly round before assembly.
That the gunwale joints were scarfed is reasonably certain. The
elm-bark canoes of the St. Francis Indians are known only from a
model, as are the spruce-bark hunters' canoes of the Malecite, but the
testimony of old St. Francis and Malecite builders support the evidence
of the models; therefore it is probable that the use of scarfed
gunwales was common in these canoes, and, hence, also in the canoes of
the Iroquois, who dwelt nearby. The manner of scarfing is not certain.
Probably the butts were snied off so that the lap would be flat face,
as was usual in the Malecite spruce-bark canoes of this same class. The
butts were secured together by lashings--apparently let into shallow
grooves around the members. In a very hastily built canoe the butts
might be merely lapped for a short distance, one butt above the other,
and lashed; this, of course, would make a jog in the sheer, but do no
harm, as the jog would occur in both inwale and outwale, and the bark
would lay up between these and be trimmed to suit.
The thwarts were described in old accounts as very small saplings, or
tree branches, with their ends sharply reduced in thickness so that
they were thin and pliable enough to be bent around the gunwales and
brought inboard under the thwart, as done by some Kutenai in the West
(see p. 169). The thwart ends might be lashed or, as in some eastern
spruce-bark canoes, brought up through a hole in the thwarts to the
top where it could be jammed or lashed. In the Iroquois canoe it seems
probable that the thwart ends passed around the main gunwales only and
were secured under the thwarts for, as noted, the evidence strongly
suggests that the main gunwale members were preassembled, a procedure
that requires the thwarts to be in place. In the small hunters' canoes,
however, some eastern builders apparently put in a temporary spreader
in place of a single thwart until the canoe was completed to the point
where the outwales were in place, then the thwarts were added, the ends
passing over and around both inwale and outwale and through the bark
cover below, to the underside of the thwart.
One requirement in building these canoes was to crimp the edges of the
bark at the gunwales in such manner that the bottom of the canoe would
be rockered and at the same time would be moulded athwartships. First
steps in the process were to set into the building bed two heavy stakes
on each side of the stems, a little inboard of the ends, and to tie
the heads of each pair together with a heavy bark cord or a rawhide
thong. Then a sling was made, the bight of which went under the bottom
of the bark cover near its ends, and the ends of the sling were made
fast to the heads of the stakes. By taking up on these slings, the ends
of the bark cover were sharply lifted and then the folding of the bark
along the gunwales could be easily accomplished, as they then formed
naturally, without strain. The crimps were commonly located a fourth to
a fifth the length of the canoe inboard of the ends, about where the
end thwarts would be located. In small hunters' canoes the end thwarts
were often replaced by twisted cords across the gunwales, but in the
large Iroquois canoes there were probably five or seven or perhaps as
many as nine thwarts according to length.
The ends of the gunwales were simply lashed together with cords or
thongs in shallow grooves to prevent slipping. They were raised by a
small inside post, its heel placed on the bark near the stem and its
head brought under the gunwales, so that it served the purpose of a
headboard in sheering the gunwales.
The procedure in building to this point, then, appeared to follow the
general plan used in birch-bark construction. Next, the stakes were
redriven in the bed around the gunwale frame, which was weighted on
the bark with stones, and the sides of the bark cover were brought
upright. Apparently only a few stakes were considered necessary--three
or four to a side and two pairs of end stakes to raise the stems. The
gunwale frame was then lifted to the required height of side and lashed
temporarily to the side stakes, the ends of the bark cover were creased
to form bow and stern, and the headboard posts were inserted to support
the ends of the inwales and to sheer the canoe. Before this, of course,
the ends of the bark cover had been raised by means of the slings to
the end stakes.
The outwales of split saplings were now put into place, with the edges
of the bark cover lashed between the flat surfaces of the inwale and
outwale, the gunwales having been assembled with the flat face of
the longitudinal members outboard. The lashings were in small groups
spaced 5 to 7 inches apart so as not to split the bark, and these not
only secured the bark in place but also held the inwales and outwales
tightly together, to clamp the edges of the bark cover. At the thwarts,
the outwales were notched on their inboard face to allow them to come
up against the bark pressed against the face of the inwales (in some
eastern canoes the bark cover was notched at the thwart ends to lay
up smoothly there, and this may have also been done in the Iroquois
canoes). In placing the outwales, the crimps were carefully formed and
held by the clamping action of the inwale and outwale, and reinforced
by a lashing through the crimp or by two lashings close to the sides of
the fold. The fold of the bark forced the outwale away from the inwale,
and although this was counteracted to some extent by the lashings, the
gunwales were unfair at these points. The crimps were formed so that
the maximum fold in the bark took place at the gunwales; below this the
fold tapered away to nothing, ending low in the side with an irregular
bulge in the bark. Such a bulge could only be avoided by goring, which
is impractical with elm, pine, chestnut, or hickory barks.
[Illustration: Figure 210
HICKORY-BARK CANOE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, showing the sling with which
the ends are elevated and the crimp which takes up the slack in the
sides of the bark. Excess bark above the gunwales to be trimmed off.
Completed model in The Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Va.]
[Illustration: Figure 211
DETAIL OF THWART used in Malecite temporary spruce-bark canoe.]
The ends of the canoe were closed, as has been mentioned, by use of
split-sapling battens on the outside of the bark. The Iroquois and some
other builders also employed at the stems a thong or a twisted cord
made of the inner bark of some such tree as the basswood; this was
wrapped around the ends of the bark cover abreast the headboard posts
inside the canoe, so that the lashing stood vertically. Then the split
battens were placed on each side of the bark cover, just outboard of
the cord, and the whole was secured by a coarse spiral lashing of root
or rawhide, which passed inboard of the cord lashing and the headboard
post, as well as around them and the split battens outside of the bark
cover. Some builders apparently added a split-root batten over the
edges of the bark cover, as a sort of stem-band; this was secured by
the turns of the stem closure lashing, which passed around them as
well as the edges of the bark and the split side battens. It can be
seen that this closure formed a strong stem structure. Watertightness
was insured by merely forcing clay into the stems from the inside,
or by forcing in a wad of the pounded inner bark of a dead red elm
which would swell when damp. Still other methods included the use of
grass or moss impregnated with warm tallow from the cooking pot. If
available, the stems would be liberally smeared with spruce or other
gum, of course.
[Illustration: Figure 212
IROQUOIS ELM-BARK CANOE, after a drawing of 1849, equipped with paddles
for a crew of six, with owners' personal marks on blades. Length
of canoe 25 feet, with capacity for a war party of a dozen or more
men. Note supporting piece of cord tied in with the end battens. Far
gunwales are improperly sketched.]
While the ribs were customarily tree branches or small saplings, in
some canoes the saplings were split and bent so their flat face was
against the bark. In the East, hunters' canoes were often given the
lath-like ribs of the birch-bark canoes, for when steel tools became
available such ribs were easily made during the winter for use in the
spring, when the temporary canoe would be needed.
According to the early reports, the ribs were placed some 6 to 10
inches apart in the bark cover, with the heads forced under the inwales
against the bark, and were supported there by the outwales as well. No
mention is made of any sheathing; Kalm refers to a piece of bark and
some saplings or tree branches laid over the ribs to protect the bottom
inboard. In the large Iroquois canoes it would have been possible and
practical to employ a piece of bark inside the main bark cover, as
noted on page 213; this inside piece needed to be only long enough to
reach to the end thwarts, or abreast the crimps, and wide enough to
cover the bottom and bilges up to 3 or 4 inches short of the inwales.
With the ribs over this inner sheet, a stiff bottom would result. In a
long canoe, split poles could be laid lengthwise inside the bottom of
the canoe and fastened there by lashing them to a few ribs; these would
serve to protect the bottom in loading and to stiffen the bark cover.
However, in a small canoe the stiffness of elm bark when the rough
outside layer was not fully scraped off would make sheathing of any
kind unnecessary, and the bark mat inside the ribs, mentioned by Kalm,
would be sufficient.
The difficulty in reconstructing the building methods of the large
Iroquois canoes on the same basis is that Kalm's description is of a
rather small canoe; the information on the temporary canoes of the
eastern Indians also deals with short craft. It is evident, however,
that poles were not usually placed between the bark and the ribs, as
in temporary skin canoes built by Indians. It is also apparent that
splints were not used by the Iroquois for sheathing large canoes.
The ends of the outwales in the Iroquois canoes seem to have been
secured by snying them off on the outside face and holding these thin
ends by the cord around the ends, as well as by the closure battens
of the stems. In some eastern canoes, notably the elm-bark canoes of
the St. Francis, the outwale ends projected slightly outboard of the
stems and were lashed across them by a simple athwartship lashing which
passed through the bark cover and under and over the lashing at the
inwale ends.