Chapter Three 



FORM AND CONSTRUCTION 



C 



■ lassific:ation oi' THE TYPES of hark canoes built 

 by the Indians is not a simple matter. Perhaps the 

 most practical way is to employ the tribal designa- 

 tion, such as Cree canoe, Micmac canoe, accepting as 

 a criterion the distinctive general appearance of the 

 canoes used by each tribe. It must be emphasized, 

 however, that this method of classification does not 

 indicate the model, or "lines," employed. Both the 

 model and the size of bark canoes were extensively 

 affected by the requirements of use: lake, coastal, or 

 river navigation; smooth, rough, or fast-running 

 water; transportation of a hunter, a family, or cargo; 

 the conditions and length of portages; and the per- 

 manence of construction desired. Canoes of various 

 models, sizes, methods of construction, or decoration 

 might be found within the limits of a single tribal 

 classification. Also, within a given area, there might 

 be apparent similarity in model among the canoes of 

 two or three tribal groups. However, a classification 

 based on geographical areas has been found to be 

 impractical, because the movements of tribal groups 

 in search of new hunting grounds tend to make tribal 

 boundaries difficult to define. 



Form 



The canoes of some tribal groups appear to be 

 hybrids, representing an intermingling of types as a 

 result of some past contact between tribes. Those of 

 other groups are of like model, form, and even appear- 

 ance, possibly owing to like conditions of employment. 

 The effects of a similarity in use requirements upon 

 inventiveness is seen in the applications for modern 

 patent rights, where two or more applications can 

 cover almost e.xactly the same device without the 

 slightest evidence of contact between the applicants; 



there is no logical reason to supjjose the same con- 

 dition cannot apply to primitive peoples, even though 

 their processes of invention might be very slow or 

 relatively rare in occurrence. 



The effects of migration of tribes upon their canoe 

 forms can only be studied with respect to those com- 

 paratively recent times for which records and observa- 

 tions are available. From the limited information at 

 hand it appears that the Indian, when he moved to an 

 area where use requirements and materials available 

 for building differed from those to which he had been 

 accustomed, was often forced to modify the model, 

 form, size, and construction of his canoe. In some 

 instances this seems to have resulted in the adoption 

 of another tribal form. 



The distinctive feature that usually identifies the 

 tribal classification of a bark canoe is the profile of 

 the ends, although sometimes the profile of the gun- 

 wale, or sheer, and even of the bottom, is also involved. 

 The bow and stern of many bark canoes were as near 

 alike in profile as the method of construction would 

 permit; nevertheless some types had distinct bow and 

 and stern forms. Among tribes the form of the ends 

 of the canoes varied considerably; some were low 

 and imimpressive, others were high and often grace- 

 ful. 



Obviously practical reasons can be found for 

 certain tribal variations. In some areas, the low 

 ends appear to ensue from the use of the canoe in 

 open water, where the wind resistance of a high end 

 i.nuld make paddling laborious. In others the low 

 ends appear to result from the canoe being commonly 

 employed in small streams where overhanging 

 branches would obstruct passage. Portage condi- 

 tions may likewise have been a factor; low ends would 

 pass through brush more easily than high. Types 

 used where rapids were to be run often had ends 

 higher than the gunwales to prevent the canoe from 

 shipping water over the bow. The high, distinctive 



27 



