building frame, the posts for sheering were set with 

 outljoard flare. However, some builders made the 

 gunwales hogged by staking them out when green, 

 and then set them above the building frame with 

 vertical posts. These gunwales would not be fitted 

 with thwarts nor would the thwart tenons always be 

 cut at this stage. The bark was lashed to the gun- 

 wales while they were in the hogged position with 

 the ends secured; the gunwales were then spread by 

 inserting spreaders, or stays, between them, after 

 which the thwarts were fitted. This method required 

 knowledge of just how much hog should be given to 

 the gunwales, and it must be stated that not all 

 builders guessed right enough to produce a good- 

 looking sheer. Judging the hogging required in the 

 gunwales was complicated by the fact that most of 

 these canoes had laminated ends in the gunwales at 

 bow and stern, and a quick upturn there as well. 

 This method of construction persisted, however, 

 because the straight sides made easy the sewing of 

 gores and side panels. In some Alaskan birch-bark 

 canoes the building frame was, in fact, part of the 

 hull structure and remained in the canoe. In these, 

 the building frame was hogged and then flattened by 

 the ribs in construction so as to smooth the bottom 

 bark by placing it under tension. In some canoes 

 the posts for sheering the canoe rested under the 

 thwarts rather than under the gunwales. In most 

 canoes the building frame was taken apart and re- 

 moved from the canoe when the gunwale structure 

 was complete and in place, sheered. 



Where large sheets of bark were available, the 

 setting up with the building frame or gunwale was 

 made easier than where the bark had to be pieced 

 out for both length and width. If large pieces of 

 bark could be obtained there was little or no sewing 

 on the bjottom; only the gores or laps, and the panels, 

 in the side required attention after the bark had been 

 lashed to the gunwales. In such instances, the set-up 

 did not require perpendicular sides, as the sides 

 could be completed after the canoe was removed from 

 the building bed and the building frame had been 

 removed from the hull. There were many minor 

 variations in the set-up and in the sequence of the 

 sewing. In view of the slight opportunities that now 

 e.\ist for examining the old building methods and 

 construction sequences, it is impossible to be certain 

 that the one used by a tribe in recent times was that 

 employed in prehistoric times by their ancestors. 



Instead of a laminated stem-piece, a large root 

 whittled to the desired cross section was sometimes 



used by builders among the Malecites and other 

 eastern tribes. This was bent into the ends while 

 green and to it was lashed the bark, so that the stem 

 dried in place to the desired profile curve. No inner 

 stem-piece was used by the Micmacs, who formed 

 the end structure by placing a split-root batten on 

 each outside face of the bark and passing the lashing 

 around both. When a plank-on-edge was used to form 

 the stem-piece, as mentioned earlier, no headboard 

 was required, as the gunwales ends could be brought 

 to the plank structure. In canoes having the compli- 

 cated stem structure seen in the large fur-trade canoes 

 and some others, the headboard became an integral 

 part of the stem structure, rather than an independent 

 unit, and was placed in the canoe during building 

 with the stem-pieces. 



There was much variation in the form of gunwale 

 structure employed in bark canoes. A strip of bark 

 was added all along the outwale by some tribes, so 

 that between the gunwale members and for a short 

 distance below the sewing the bark was doubled; the 

 bottom of this strip was, in fact, a flap not secured and 

 thus was much like the flaps at the ends of the Malecite 

 canoe, but without covering the top of the main gun- 

 wales. The outwale and inwale cross sections of 

 some canoes were almost round. The use of a single 

 gunwale member is commonly followed by continuous 

 lashing of the bark along it. On some northwestern 

 canoes having continuous lashing, the ends of the 

 ribs were made in sharp points that could penetrate 

 between the turns of root sewing, under the gunwales. 

 The ends of the ribs in some of these were secured 

 more firmly by tying them to long battens placed 

 between the ribs and the bark cover just below the 

 gunwales. The northwestern canoes built in this 

 manner had double gtmwales, an outwale and an 

 inwale, but no bevel or notch for the rib heads. The 

 ends of the gunwales, inner and outer, were secured 

 in many ways. Some, instead of being pegged and 

 lashed, were simply tied together; others were fastened 

 by a rather elaborate lashing through the bark and 

 around the gunwales. Caps were sometimes allowed 

 to overlap at the ends and were pinned together with 

 pegs or lashed. In some canoes the outwales were 

 lashed, rather than pegged, to the inwales, and for 

 this and for the caps rawhide appears to have once 

 been widely used. In some canoes the head of the 

 stem-piece was bent inboard sharply and lashed to 

 the ends of the inwales or outwales. In many canoes 

 the gunwales, instead of stopping short of the stem- 

 piece, ran to it and were lashed there. 



55 



