gradually becoming sharper in canoes having "chin" 

 in the profiles of the ends; in canoes having no chin, 

 the sections necessarily took a pointed oval form close 

 to the ends. A few canoes having flaring sides and 

 chin ends showed a similar change in form. In all, 

 however, the bow and stern showed a tendency 

 toward fullness near the watcrline. 



Canoes with a strongly U-shaped midsection com- 

 monly carried this form to the ends, with increasing 

 sharpness in the round of the U. The U-form pre- 

 dominated in the end-sections of eastern canoes, of 

 course, though a few showed a V-form, as must be 

 expected. The fairing of the end sections into the 

 end profiles appears to have controlled this matter. 

 The outline of the gunwales, in plan view, also in- 

 fluenced the form of the end-sections and of the level 

 lines there. Some canoes, when viewed from above, 

 showed a pinched-in form at the ends, this was caused 

 by the construction of the gunwales or by the pro- 

 jection of the end-profile forms beyond the ends of the 

 true structural gunwale members. Such canoes 

 would have a very strong hollow in the level lines 

 projected through their hull-form below the gunwales, 

 and this could have been accentuated by any strong 

 chin in the bow and stern shapes. On the other hand, 

 many canoes showed no hollow, and the level lines 

 were straight for some distance inboard of the ends, or 

 were slightly convex. Full, convex level lines will 

 appear below the waterlinc in canoes having a strongly 

 rockered bottom. 



It should be noted that the Indians were aware 

 that very sharp-ended canoes usually were fast under 

 paddle; hence they employed this characteristic in 

 any canoe where high speed was desired. However, 

 the degree of sharpness in the gunwales and at the 

 level lines is not always the same at both ends, though 

 the variation is sometimes too slight to be detected 

 without careful measurement; it may at times have 

 been accidental, but in many cases it appears to have 

 been intentional. 



Some eastern canoes having their greatest width, or 

 beam, on the gunwales at midlength had finer level 

 lines aft than forward, apparently to produce trim 

 by the stern when afloat and manned. This made 

 them steer well in rough water. Some northwestern 

 canoes had their greatest beam abaft the midlength, 

 giving them a long, sharp bow; the run was sometimes 

 formed by sweeping up the bottom aft to a shallow 

 stern, as well as by the double-ended form of the 

 canoe. Despite a general similarity in the form of the 

 ends, in some canoes the bow was marked b)- its 



greater height, in others, by the manner in which the 

 bark was lapped at the seams, or by the manner of 

 decoration. In a few with ends exactly alike the 

 bow was indicated by the fitting of the thwarts such 

 as, for example, by placing at the forward end a 

 particular style of thwart, intended to hold the torch 

 used in spearing fish at night, or to support a mast 

 and sail. 



In examining the lines, or model, of a bark canoe, 

 the limitations imposed upon the builder by the char- 

 acteristics of bark must be considered. The degree 

 of flexibility, the run of the grain, and the toughness 

 and elasticity of the bark used all influenced the 

 form of canoes. The marked chin in the ends of 

 some canoes, for example, resulted from an effort 

 to offset the tendency of birch bark to split when a 

 row of stitches lay in the same line of grain. The 

 curved chin profile allowed the stitching to cross a 

 number of lines of grain. Sometimes this tendency 

 was avoided by incorporating battens into the coarse 

 stitching; this style of sewing was particularly useful 

 in piecing out birch bark for width in a canoe, where 

 the sewing had to be in line with the grain. The 

 Indians also employed alternating short and long 

 stitching in some form for the same purpose. Spruce 

 bark, as used in canoes in the extreme North and 

 Northwest, could be sewn in much the same manner 

 as birch bark, but with due regard for the longitudinal 

 grain of the spruce bark. 



The joining of two pieces of bark by root sewing 

 or lacing, combined with the use of spruce gum to 

 obtain watertightness, formed a scam that could be 

 readily damaged by abrasion from launching the 

 canoe, from pulling it ashore, or from grounding it 

 accidentally. For this reason, seams below the 

 waterline were kept at a minimum and were never 

 placed along the longitudinal centerline of the 

 bottom, where they would have formed a sharp apex 

 to both the V-shaped midsection and to the dead-rise 

 bottom form. Likewise, a seam was not used in 

 forming the rocker of the bottom. Though seams had 

 to be used to join the bark at bow and stern, the 

 form of the canoe allowed the seams to be greatly 

 strengthened and protected there. 



The restrictions on form imposed by barks such 

 as elm, chestnut, and hickory were very great. These 

 barks, which are not as elastic as birch bark, were 

 sometimes employed in a single large sheet. The sheets 

 were not joined for length; canoes of this material 

 were often formed by crimping, or lap folding, rather 

 than by cvitting out gores and then sewing the edges 



29 



