In the vicinities of Lake Athabasca and Great 

 Slave Lake, the Chipewyan employed not only their 

 own models of canoes but also that of the western 

 Cree. The latter had invaded Chipewyan territory 

 before the arrival of the first white men in the North- 

 west and undoubtedly had influenced canoe-building 

 technique during the long period of the fur trade that 

 followed. It is therefore not possible to say where 

 the influence of Chipewyan building techniques 

 ends and that of the Cree and the eastern Indians, 

 as introduced through the fur-trade canoes, begins. 

 This raises the question whether the high-ended 

 Athabascan canoe is itself the result of influence. 

 One may infer from Samuel Hearne's description of 

 his travels in this area, in his Journey . . . to the 

 .\ortlurn Onnii,* that only the Kayak-form then 

 existed, for this type is the only one he describes, 

 and he describes it in great detail. However, Alexan- 

 der Mackenzie, in an entry in his journal for June 23, 

 1789, refers to the "large canoe" in a manner indicat- 

 ing that it was a local type. It may well be that 

 then, as later, the kayak-form and cargo canoe existed 

 side by side, or it may be that Mackenzie was referring 

 to a large kayak-form canoe like the family canoe 

 of the Alaska Yukon Indians. Perhaps the reason 

 that Hearne did not mention the "large canoe" 

 is that the people he met on his way to the Copper- 

 mine River, and on his way back by way of Lake 

 Athabasca to Hudson Bay, did not then use canoes 

 of the second model. 



Narroiv-Bottom Canoe 



Because the variations in the second model, the 

 Algonkin-Ojibway type, are relatively slight, it will 

 be easiest to describe this first. The canoe is known 

 to have been liuilt extensively by the Chipewyan, 

 Dogrib, and .Slave. The sizes most common were 16 

 to 22 feet over the gunwales, with a beam of between 

 36 and 48 inches. The sheer was usually rather 

 straight, the sharp upward turn to the end taking 

 place very close to the gunwale ends. Most of the 

 bottom was straight; the rocker, if existing, occurred 

 close to the ends of the canoe and was moderate. 

 The midsection was dish-shaped and nearly flat 

 across the lx)ttom, with a rather slack, well-rounded 



*See bibliography. 



Clnii'F.wv.AN 2-Fathom hunter's canoe 

 (top), with bent stem piece, and .Atha- 

 bascan 2'2-fathom canoe with plank 

 stem piece. Plank and bent stem pieces 

 were both employed in .Athabascan 

 canoes. .Spruce or birch bark were used 

 without aheration of the design or basic 

 conslnictitin methods. 



bilge and alinost straight flaring sides, the amount of 

 flare being usually great. The bottom apparently 

 was never dead flat athwartships, for in all known 

 examples it was somewhat rounded. Near the <-nds 

 the sections were in the shape of a V with apex 

 rounded; the form of the ends was sharp and without 

 hollow either at the gunwale or at the le\el lines. 

 The ends of the canoes were never lofts and many 

 had end profiles that were very long fore-and-aft and 

 showed a marked angularit\'. Inwales and outwales 

 fonned the gunwale structure; some canoes also had 

 gunwale caps which stopped well short of the end 

 profiles. The ends of the inwales were carried to the 

 stem-pieces; they were sharply tapered and curxed to 

 sheer, and were elaborately cross-wrapped to secure 

 them there. The end profiles were formed of a thin 

 plank-on-edge in most canoes, i)ut some had stem- 

 pieces split into laminae in the usual fashion and bent. 

 In all cases headboards were employed; the heads 

 were forced under the inwale ends and against the 

 inside face of the stein-piece. The gunwale lashings 

 were in groups, although some canoes exist in which 



155 



