gunwales coming in to them almost straight, in plan, 

 as did the chine members. The stem and stern 

 pieces were of wide plank sharpened along their out- 

 board edge outside the bark cover, for their whole 

 height, to form cutwaters. The stem and stern pro- 

 files were about the same as those of the Chipewyan 

 canoes. 



An old model in the Peabody Museum of an un- 

 decked kayak-form canoe of Athabascan construc- 

 tion represents a high-ended canoe having ends with 

 a slight rake and a straight cutwater. This form of 

 canoe has long been extinct, and no description of an 

 actual canoe of the form e.xists. Judging by the model 

 it had a very narrow flat-bottom and rounded flaring 

 sides. 



The extinct bateau variant has already been 

 described (pp. 159-161); it might be considered a 

 primitive form of the kayak-form bark canoes, were 

 it not that no intermediate type, between the bateau 

 and the later and highly developed bark kayak-form, 

 has been found; as a result, any such statement can 

 be no more than speculation. 



Sturgeon-Nose Canoe 



In southern British Columbia and in northern 

 Washington, the ram-ended or sturgeon-nose canoes 

 were built. These were the canoes of the Kutenai, also 

 spelled " Kootenay," and of the Salish tribal groups. 

 Used on rivers and lakes, they were constructed of 

 the bark of birch, spruce, fir, white pine, or balsam, 

 whichever was available at the building site. Wher- 

 ever possible a panel of birch bark was worked in 

 along the whole length of the gunwales. The hull 

 form of these canoes varied somewhat, perhaps by 

 decision of the builder, or perhaps by local tribal 

 custom. The ends were formed with a marked" ram," 

 the stem profiles running down and out to the "nose" 

 in a straight or nearly straight line. In some exam- 

 ples the stem profiles were in a hollow curve, starting 

 down from the gunwales rather steeply and then 

 curving outward more gently to the nose. Most 

 examples had a bottom that was straight or slightly 

 hogged, while those with the hollow curve in the ram 

 often had a slight rocker. It is believed that the 

 intention was always to have the bottom straight but 

 that in construction the center of the canoe lifted 

 somewhat, thus showing a slight hog in the bottom 



line. The effects of loading and use on the light and 

 flexible structure of these canoes would cause the 

 bottom to rocker and the outboard ends to lift, thus 

 causing the hollow in the ram profiles. These effects 

 of loading are confirmed by tests with models of this 

 form of canoe. 



The midsection was usually quite round, almost 

 U-shaped, on the bottom, but some canoes showed the 

 bottom slightly flattened and the sides flared out 

 somewhat. Toward the ends, the U-shape became 

 marked, and near the gunwale ends the sides of the U 

 fell inboard slightly as they came to the gunwales, 

 the bottom of the U having a hard turn. In plan, 

 the gunwales approached the stems without hollow, 

 being nearly straight or even slightly convex. The 

 ram was long and sharp in its lower level lines and 

 this, with the form of midsection, made this model a 

 fast-paddling canoe, though rather unstable. Most 

 of these canoes had but one thwart, placed at mid- 

 length, but some have been found with three thwarts 

 and a thong tie across the gunwales, close to the stems, 

 as well. 



No stem-pieces were used ; the bark ends were closed 

 by two outside battens, one on each side, whose heads 

 were carried some 3 inches above the gunwales. A 

 cutwater batten was placed over the edges of the 

 bark between the battens, and the three were lashed 

 together, with the bark, by a coarse spiral wrapping 

 or by group ties. The bark cover was not sheathed 

 inside; instead, six battens, Js by 1^ inches, were 

 placed on each side of the keel piece, which measured 

 about )i by 3 inches and tapered toward the ends. 

 The battens, widely spaced, ran well into the ram 

 ends, and were held in place, like sheathing, by the 

 pressure of the ribs. The ribs, spaced 8 to 12 inches 

 on centers, were often split saplings; sometimes they 

 were shaped to approximately y^ by % inch. The 

 batten nearest the gunwale on each side was lashed 

 to every rib. In some canoes the heads of the ribs 

 were brought up between the inwale and outwale, 

 inside the bark cover, with their ends against the 

 cap. The stitching of the longitudinal seam of the 

 topside panel was passed around these frames and 

 so helped to secure them. In one example, the ribs 

 were passed through the bark cover just below the 

 horizontal seam of the topside panel; there a turn of 

 the stitching was passed around each rib; then 

 the rib was brought inboard again in the seam by 

 being passed between the edges of the bark cover 

 and the panel. In many canoes there were no ribs 

 in the ram ends, but this was not universal practice; 



1( 



