24 



The Canadian Field-Naturalist 



[Vol. XXXIII. 



more plentiful. The Iroquois canoe is everywhere 

 stated to have been heavy and loggy, inconvenient 

 for portaging and short-lived generally. In fact, so 

 poor a craft it was in comparison with that of the 

 Algonkians, that the Iroquois are said to have traded 

 eagerly for the lighter and more substantial con- 

 trivance.^ 



Bark and skin-covered canoes, however, are not 

 the only craft which have been used by Canadian 

 Indians, since at least two other devices — usually 

 constructed in a very primitive style — are found side 

 by side with considerable advancement in naviga- 

 tion. The dugout, for instance, which is usually 

 little more than a hoUowed-out log, is employed 

 by a great many tribes along with canoes of a 

 much superior kind. Another very primitive-ap- 

 pearing contrivance, the raft, is distributed quite 

 widely, though employed to a greater extent in some 

 areas than in others. 



It may be unnecessary, or even impossible, for us 

 to decide which of the foregoing came into use first, 

 but we should certainly be quite near the mark in 

 placing the raft first in degree of simplicity, with 

 the simpler class of dugout next. 



THE BIRCH-BARK CANOE. 

 Practically everywhere within the region of Al- 

 gonkian influence proper the birch-bark canoe was 

 essentially the same, such differences as occur con- 

 cerning mostly the shape of bow and stern, which 

 has evidently been derived almost exclusively from 

 a single pattern, with local variations in the amount 

 of curvature or recurvature and the method of deck- 

 ing over at the ends, where such a device was em- 

 ployed. The Malecite (western New Brunswick) 

 and Ojibwa forms are very good examples of the 

 extremes in outline in the Algonkian region. The 

 Malecite canoe also exhibits the decking-over sheet 

 at the ends, with side-flaps, in a well-developed form. 

 As we proceed westward, this sheet decreases in size 

 in the Algonquin canoe of northern Quebec and 

 Ontario and becomes vestigial in a smaller form 

 used by certain of the neighboring Ojibwa. The 

 same purpose, that of preventing the inflow of water, 

 is accomplished by the recurving ends of the Ojibwa 

 type with which we are most familiar. 



Regarding the Algonkian tribes of central Labra- 

 dor, Turner remarks that "a tribe of great dis- 

 similarity between the Naskopics and the Little 

 Whale River Indians (Eastern Cree) is that the 



iDr. K. Sapir, in "Time Perspective in Abor- 

 iginal American Culture," Memoir 90, of the 

 Geological Survey ff'anada), p. 20, remarlis: "Sim- 

 ilarly, the clum.sy elm-bark canoe of the Jro<|Uols 

 Heems le.s.s adapted to its cultural (-nvironmenl llian 

 the various tyiH-s of birch-bark canoe of Ihrir 

 Algonkian neighbors. We may risk the guess that 

 th<- Iro()Uols iiark canoe is a.i imp<Tf<ct copy in cliii- 

 bark, a characteristically lro(|uols material, of the 

 sup'-rlor Algonkian types, and connect this further 

 with the general consideration that the Iro(iuois 

 were rather more inclined to h(t cross-country 

 walker.s than tne neighlioring Algonkian trib<'H, who 

 were more adept river and S(!a folk." 



birch-bark canoe of the latter is much more turned 

 up at each end, producing a craft well adapted to 

 the swift currents of rivers." He also states that 

 "the occupants are skilful boatmen," that "sails are 

 sometimes erected in a single canoe," and that ' at 

 times two canoes are lashed together and a sail 

 spread from a single mast."- 



An offshoot of the Algonkian canoe was the 

 "rabiscaw" of the Hudson Bay Company, an extra 

 large birch-bark craft designed to meet the demands 

 of the fur-trade. A prominent feature was the high, 

 upturned bow and stern decorated with gaudy 

 designs. 



At the western extremity of the bark canoe arc 

 we find at least two somewhat divergent forms which 

 suggest an attenuation of eastern accultural influence, 

 combined, possibly, with modifications from other 

 sources. The Dog-ribs, an Athabascan tribe of the 

 Mackenzie basin, like the Ojibwa, construct a birch- 

 bark canoe having separate keel-pieces for the bow 

 and stern. The small and narrow ribs and the 

 slender, widely-separated siding or flooring strips 

 extending from end to end, however, show some 

 resemblance to kayak construction. A special fea- 

 ture (also showing a resemblance to the kayak)^ is 

 the fairly extensive sheet of decking at either end. 

 Conspicuous side-flaps, of the type found in the 

 Algonquin decking, are lacking. The seams are 

 sewn with spruce root and gummed. 



Among the Kootenay and the various Salish tribes 

 of southern British Columbia is found a canoe of 

 pine or spruce bark, rather rude in general work- 

 manship and showing but little external resemblance 

 to eastern forms. The most striking feature is the 

 peculiar pointed extension of the lower part of bow 

 and stern, which is said to be specially adapted to 

 rapid rivers. From a structural point of view no 

 radical difference from eastern types is to be noted. 

 The bark of the yellow cedar (Thuja excelsa) is 

 also mentioned as a British Columbia canoe-making 

 material. 



A Slave canoe from the neighborhood of Hay 

 river (flowing into Great Slave Lake) exhibits an 

 upward extension at the bow and stern which adds 

 much to its picturesqueness. In other respects it 

 conforms closely to eastern models. 



A description of Ojibwa canoe-making will no 

 doubt give a fair idea of the methods employed 

 throughout most of the bark canoe area.' The 

 process is most interesting and requires considerable 

 skill. 



sTurnor, Lucien M., "iCthnology of the ITngava 

 District," llth Annual Rept. of the Mureau of Kth., 

 Washington, D.C, p. 1S2. 



•■'.Meiillon of this resemblance is made by Pet- 

 itot, in "Autouf dii (Jniiid Lac drs lOsclavcs," p. 268. 



•iVroin data obtained by the writer among tiie 

 Saulteaux, or C)Jib\va of the Lake Nipigon region. 

 Permission to use this and other f)rigiiial notes 

 was accorded by the Geological Survey, Ottawa. 

 Canada. 



