In canoes having the usual gunwales of inwale, 

 outwale, and cap, the inwale and outwale were 

 roughly rectangular, with their top sides horizontal, 

 and the cap, very small and light, was flat on the 

 bottom and rounded on top. In this construction, 

 the rib heads usually were clamped between the inwale 

 and outwale, inside the bark cover. 



The ribs of the ends were lighter than those of the 

 main body and more closely spaced, say 2 or 3 inches 

 apart. These began about 8 or 9 inches inboard of 

 the gunwale ends; the heads did not reach the gun- 

 wales, but instead were caught in the horizontal seam 

 of the side panel and then cut off. Usually three ribs 

 were so fitted. The rest of the end ribs, usually eight 

 in number, either had their heads caught in the stem 

 lashings or were made up as hoops with the heads 

 overlapped and lashed together, the ribs being placed 

 so that the overlap came to one side or the other of the 

 canoe. Each hoop was usually caught by a turn in 

 the end-closure lashing. 



To strengthen the ram, the lower ends of the three 

 stem battens were lashed to the extremities of the 

 inside keel-piece, which was brought through the 

 bark cover at this point. The opening resulting from 

 this was sealed with gum or pitch. Minor variations 

 in construction have been noted in the canoes ex- 

 hibited in museums; in one, for example, only every 

 fourth rib was caught in the topside panel stitching. 



In canoes having the usual arrangement of gunwale 

 members, with the cap over the ends of the ribs, the 

 ends of the thwart were sometimes carried some 6 to 8 

 inches beyond the gunwales, at each end, and much 

 reduced in thickness by cutting away about half the 

 depth of the thwart. This part was then wrapped 

 tightly around the inwale, brought inboard along the 

 underside of the thwart, and there lashed. Examples 

 show that the amount of end brought inboard under 

 the thwart varied with the builder. It should be 

 added that the thwarts were usually no more than 

 barked saplings and were obviously installed in the 

 canoe when green and treated with hot water so they 

 would not break when wrapped around the inwales. 

 In canoes having three thwarts, all were fitted in this 

 manner, but often the thwarts on each side of the 

 middle were also wrapped in a long spiral with a 

 thong whose ends were tied to each gunwale. In 3- 

 thwart canoes, there was commonly a cross tie, 

 located roughly 12 inches from the gunwale ends and 

 consisting of three or more turns of cord, or thong, 

 around the gunwale members on each side and 

 athwartships, secured by turns of the ends around 



the cross tie. In one canoe there was a thwart amid- 

 ships and one at one end, about halfway between the 

 middle thwart and the gunwale ends; at the other end 

 were two cross ties, one replacing the thwart and 

 another a foot inboard of the ends of the gunwales. 

 In this canoe the ribs at the gunwale ends were hoops 

 and there were only three hoop ribs in the ram ends. 



One canoe, from Stevens County, Washington, 

 had a peculiar double framing. The sheathing 

 battens, instead of being on the inside of the bark 

 cover, rested on light ribs, spaced aljout 6 inches apart, 

 that ran only far enough up the sides to have their 

 ends caught in the stitching at the bottom of the top- 

 side birch-bark panel along the gunwales. The longi- 

 tudinal battens were placed inside these, with the 

 batten nearest the gunwale lashed to the light ribs. 

 Inside these battens and spaced about a foot apart 

 was another set of ribs whose heads were secured 

 between the inwale and outwale inside the bark cover; 

 each of these inside ribs was also lashed to the upper- 

 most batten. Only the keel batten was under the 

 small ribs. The thwart ends were wrapped around 

 the main gunwale members, and the stem battens 

 were secured to the birch topside panels by but one 

 group lashing, near the gunwales. The bottom cover 

 was stiff pine bark. 



The topside panel of birch bark was placed in these 

 canoes so that its grain was horizontal instead of the 

 usual vertical. Presumably this was done as a mainte- 

 nance solution: the panel was much easier to repair 

 or replace than the bottom bark; and by having the 

 panel placed in this weak mode, it would split before 

 the bottom bark if too much pressure were brought on 

 the framework in loading. 



These canoes paddled well in strong winds and in 

 smooth water, and worked quietly in the marshes 

 where they were much used. Canvas canoes of the 

 same model replaced the bark canoes, indicating that 

 the model was suitable for its locality and use. These 

 sturgeon-nose canoes were so different from other 

 North American bark canoes that they have been the 

 subject of much speculation, particularly since ram- 

 ended canoes, though of different construction, existed 

 in Asia. 



The size of the Kutenai-Salish sturgeon-nose canoes 

 varied; the most common size appears to have been 

 between 14 and 20 feet over the ends of the rams, 

 24 to 28 inches beam, and with a depth ranging 

 from 12 to 13 inches amidships and from 14% to 17% 

 inches at the ends of the gunwales. However, records 

 exist that show rather large canoes were built on this 



172 



