| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Types of canoes on Puget Sound
Author: Waterman, Thomas Talbot, Coffin, Geraldine
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Types of canoes on Puget Sound" ***
Libraries.)
INDIAN NOTES
AND MONOGRAPHS
[Illustration: colophon]
A SERIES OF PUBLICATIONS
RELATING TO THE
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
TYPES OF CANOES ON
PUGET SOUND
BY
T.T. WATERMAN
AND
GERALDINE COFFIN
NEW YORK
MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN
HEYE FOUNDATION
1920
Publications of the Museum of the
American Indian, Heye Foundation
THE GEORGE G. HEYE EXPEDITION
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOUTH AMERICAN
ARCHAEOLOGY
=Vol. 1=
The Antiquities of Manabi, Ecuador: A Preliminary
Report. By Marshall H. Saville.
1907. =$25.00.=
=Vol. 2=
The Antiquities of Manabi, Ecuador: Final
Report. By Marshall H. Saville. 1910.
=$25.00.=
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM
OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN,
HEYE FOUNDATION
=Vol. 1=
No. 1: Lucayan Artifacts from the Bahamas.
By Theodoor de Booy. Reprinted from _Amer.
Anthropol._, Vol. 15, 1913, No. 1. 50c.
No. 2: Precolumbian Decoration of the Teeth
in Ecuador, with some Account of the Occurrence
of the Custom in other parts of
North and South America. By Marshall H.
Saville. Reprinted from _Amer. Anthropol._,
Vol. 15, 1913, No. 3. 50c.
No. 3: Certain Kitchen-middens in Jamaica.
By Theodoor de Booy. Reprinted from
_Amer. Anthropol._, Vol. 15, 1913, No. 3. (_Reprinted_,
1919.) 50c.
No. 4: Porto Rican Elbow-stones in the Heye
Museum, with discussion of similar objects
elsewhere. By J. Walter Fewkes. Reprinted
from _Amer Anthropol._, Vol. 15, 1913, No. 3.
50c.
INDIAN NOTES
AND MONOGRAPHS
[[Illustration: colophon]]
A SERIES OF PUBLICATIONS
RELATING TO THE
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
TYPES OF CANOES ON
PUGET SOUND
BY
T.T. WATERMAN
AND
GERALDINE COFFIN
NEW YORK
MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN
HEYE FOUNDATION
1920
This series of INDIAN NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS is devoted primarily to the
publication of the results of studies by members of the staff of the
Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, and is uniform with
HISPANIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS, published by the Hispanic Society of
America, with which organization this Museum is in cordial coöperation.
TYPES OF CANOES ON
PUGET SOUND
BY
T.T. WATERMAN
AND
GERALDINE COFFIN
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction 7
Specialization of the North Pacific Canoe
into Different Models 10
Points of Interest in the Various Types 14
The War Canoe 14
The “Freight Canoe” 17
The “Trolling Canoe” 18
The “Shovel-nose Canoe” 19
The “One-man Canoe” 21
The “Children’s Canoe” 22
Native Terms for the Parts of the Canoe 23
Distribution of the Various Types 29
Conclusions 36
Bibliography 39
Notes 42
TYPES OF CANOES ON PUGET SOUND
BY
T.T. WATERMAN AND GERALDINE COFFIN
INTRODUCTION
The canoes and the canoe manufacture of the North Pacific area have
already received a fair amount of attention in ethnographical
literature.[1] Many sizes and shapes of craft are in use, most of which
have not been described in detail. All North Pacific canoes from Mount
St Elias in Alaska to Eel river in northern California are, to quote the
_Handbook_,[2] of a dugout type. The area of Puget sound lies in a
general way toward the center of this region, and in this vicinity the
largest variety of canoes seems to be in use. Our present purpose is to
describe the types of canoes found at the present time on Puget sound
proper, and then to outline, so far as is possible on the basis of
scanty information, the distribution of these types into other regions.
The specimens on which this discussion is based were collected for the
Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, in the immediate
vicinity of Seattle. The native terms for the various models and for the
parts of the canoes are in the “Duwamish” dialect of Salish. The sounds
occurring in this and the other Salish dialects spoken on the upper part
of Puget sound are represented in the following tabulation.
VOWELS
i, ι u, υ
e, ε o, ↄ
Δ
α a
i, as in _machine_
ι, as in _pin_
e, as in _fête_
ε, as in _met_
α, as in _hat_
Δ, as in _but_
u, as in _rule_
υ, as in _full_
o, as in _note_
ↄ, as ou in _ought_
a, as in _bar_
DIPHTHONGS
ai, as in _aisle_
oi, as in _boil_
SEMIVOWELS
w, y, substantially as in English
CONSONANTS
---------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+-------+-----------|
_Stop_ |Labialized |Continuant|Affricative|Lateral|Affricative|
| stop | | | | lateral |
---------------------+---+-------+----------+-----+-----+---+---+---+-------|
| | S | F | | F | | | F | |S | | F |
| | o | o | | o | | | o | |o | | o |
|S | n | r |S | r | S | S | r |S |n |S | r |
|u | a | t |u | t | u | u | t |u |a |u | t |
|r | n | i |r | i | r | r | i |r |n |r | i |
|d | t | s |d | s | d | d | s |d |t |d | s |
----------|--|---|---|---|-------|----------|-----|-----|---|---|---|-------|
_Labial_ |p | b | p’| | | | | | | | | |
_Dental_ |t | d | t’| | | s | ts | ts’|L | l |tL | tL’ |
_Alveolar_| | | | | | c | tc | tc’| | | | |
_Palatal_ |k | g | g’|kw | kw’ | | | | | | | |
_Velar_ |q | γ | q’|qw | qw’ | | | | | | | |
_Glottal_ | ’| | | | |h,´ | | | | | | |
----------|--|---|---|---|-------|----------|-----|-----|---|---|---|-------|
Of these sounds the following need, for the casual reader, some
explanation. Surd _l_ (written _L_) is an _l_ produced without the help
of the vocal cords. The symbol _c_ has approximately the value of _sh_
in _she_. The digraph _tc_ is sounded like _ch_ in _church_. The symbols
in those columns which are headed “fortis” represent exploded or cracked
consonants, produced with hard pressure of the tongue, followed by an
abrupt release. The sound is quite sharp, markedly different from
anything in English. The “velar” sounds likewise seem quite strange to
English-speaking people; they are produced by making contact between the
tongue and the back part of the palate (the velum). The glottal stop (’)
represents a catch which checks the breath in the throat (larynx). Two
sounds resembling English _h_ seem to exist, one of them very weak,
represented here by ^{c}. Superior letters represent whispered or weakly
articulated sounds.
SPECIALIZATION OF THE NORTH PACIFIC CANOE INTO DIFFERENT MODELS
In the year 1806 Lewis and Clark noted that the Indians on Columbia
river possessed a number of different types or models of canoes.[3]
Among more recent authors, Boas,[4] Gibbs,[5] Swan,[6] Niblack,[7] and
Curtis,[8] have made observations to a similar effect. It may be relied
on, therefore, that in the whole area which lies between Columbia river
and southern Alaska, the canoe has
[Illustration: WATERMAN--CANOES
PL. I
DIAGRAM REPRESENTING THE SIX TYPES OF CANOES ON PUGET SOUND
(_a_, the “war canoe”; _b_, the “freight canoe;” _c_, the “trolling
canoe”; _d_, the “shovel-nose canoe”; _e_, the “one-man canoe”; _f_, the
“children’s canoe,” used by children and as a knockabout.)]
been evolved into a number of highly specialized forms. Various writers,
however, classify canoes in somewhat different ways. Gibbs, and Lewis
and Clark seem to imagine that the various forms are characteristic of
different tribes. With Curtis and Niblack the _essential_ thing in
classification seems to be a matter of size. Boas alone has given the
proper weight to differences in form.[9] On Puget sound at the present
time there are six types of canoes in use, which are distinguished by
the Indians not on account of their size but by differences in the shape
of the hull. The variation in shape is very wide. On these waters one
type of canoe is built for going to sea, and the lines of the hull are
designed with the idea of enabling the craft to ride waves without
shipping water. Every inch of the model is carefully calculated to keep
it “dry.” No better craft for rough water, by the way, has ever been
devised. The canoe rides the combers better than the white ma1’s boat.
This was noted by Lewis and Clark[10] more than a hundred years ago, and
similar comments are made today, even by men who follow the sea. A
second type of canoe is designed for use on rivers and lakes. The bow
and stern of this second model are cut off square, making the craft very
convenient for poling. In spearing salmon in the streams, also, a
spearsman can ride on the extreme tip of the bow and strike fish almost
under his feet, while a companion paddles. This canoe is of little use
in open waters. The salt-water villagers take the fish by means of nets
and traps only. Each of the types in this way has its own particular
uses. The series as a whole is an example of high specialization in a
seafaring mode of existence.
Characteristic specimens of each of the six types used on Puget sound
are illustrated in the accompanying diagram (pl. I). In order to bring
out differences in outline, the drawings have been reduced to one
length.
In actual practice each model of canoe is made in a large range of
sizes, a matter which can hardly be presented in a diagram. Specimens of
model _a_ (pl. I) exist which are, for example, only 16 ft. long, while
one other specimen of the same model exists which
[Illustration: WATERMAN--CANOES
PL. II
DIAGRAM SHOWING (_a_) THE SHOVEL-NOSE CANOE USED ON PUGET SOUND, AND
(_b_) THE CANOE USED BY THE YUROK OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA]
has a length of 80 ft. Model _b_ in the diagram is usually made of
fairly good size, in the neighborhood of 22 ft. long; but there is great
variation in specimens. Model _c_ is always small, and model _f_ is
never very large. We have not examined a large enough number of canoes
to make it worth while to publish the measurements taken. The specimens
from which the drawings were made were collected in the immediate
neighborhood of Seattle and are in the Museum of the American Indian,
Heye Foundation.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Diagram showing the outline of the “Alaska”
canoe, used by the Kwakiutl, Tsimshian, and Haida. It is occasionally
seen on Puget sound. (After a diagram in Boas, 1909.)]
An additional type, the great “Alaska” canoe, called by the Salish
_tsaba´xad_, is sometimes seen on the sound. Such canoes came down from
the north, manned usually by Haida from the Queen Charlotte islands, or
by Nootka from the west coast of Vancouver island; occasionally by
people of other tribes. These canoes were not used by the Puget Sound
people, and were looked on with some curiosity. Their outline is shown
in fig. 1 (after Boas).
POINTS OF INTEREST IN THE VARIOUS TYPES
A.--The “WAR CANOE” (αο´τος)
The Songish about Victoria, B. C., have this model, which they call
_a´tqEs_.[11] Its most characteristic features, both there and here,
are a prominent and lofty bow and stern. These consist, on Puget
sound, of separate sections hewn out of cedar and fitted carefully
into their places on the hull. They are fastened there by pegs of
cedar (_st’Δ´stΔd_, the word now applied to nails) and lashings of
twisted cedar withes (_sti´dΔgwΔt)_, and the joint is watertight
without being “pitched” (see Swan, 1868, for the method of fitting).
Artistically, the shape of the prow strongly suggests an anima1’s
head, and gives the canoe (which is exquisite in design) an air of
alertness, as though it were moving of its
[Illustration: WATERMAN--CANOES
PL. III
TWO SUQUAMISH “WAR CANOES” LASHED TOGETHER AND CARRYING A PLATFORM OF
POLES
This device was used in transporting house-planks and for moving large
quantities of effects from one site to another. (Photographed at
Suquamish, Washington, 1913.)]
own accord. From the practical standpoint these elevated additions to
the hull are designed to throw aside the seas. The naked hull without
these bow and stern pieces would soon fill in rough water. The pieces
seem so slender and inadequate that an observer would doubt their
effectiveness for such a practical end. The answer is that in the course
of generations they have been reduced to the most slender proportions
which will give the necessary protection, and they are wonderfully
effective in aiding the actual navigation of the canoe. Many Indians and
whites who have followed the sea tell us that this type of canoe ships
less water in a storm than any craft in the world. If we are looking for
a catchword, we may call this the “ocean-going canoe.”
A number of other terms have been applied to this class of vessel. A
popular term in the Northwest is the word “Chinook.” We find, for
example, the “Chinook” wind, the “Chinook” jargon, and “Chinook” salmon.
“Chinook” is also applied by Indians and whites to the type of hull just
described, and appears in that sense in the works of Swan and Boas. The
term, bearing in mind, of course, that it is used in a general sense and
is not necessarily to be associated with the Chinook tribe proper,
living at the mouth of the Columbia, is distinctive, and has the
advantage of usage behind it. Locally, on Puget sound, the model goes
commonly by this name. This same type of hull is found in use by all the
tribes from Columbia river northward to the Quatsino, living at the
northern end of Vancouver island.[12] North of this area, among the
Kwakuitl and Tsimshian, Haida and Tlingit, the sea-going canoe is
different, and is of the type illustrated in fig. 1. Niblack[13] and
Boas[14] have noted the distinction between the sea-going canoes of the
south and those of the north, and Niblack illustrates it with a somewhat
misleading figure. Niblack calls this northern model the “north coast
type,” while Boas styles it the “Tsimshian” model. The terms “Tsimshian”
and “Chinook” might well be used as catchwords to mark the distinction
between the two varieties: one found along the coast of Alaska and
British Columbia, the other
[Illustration: WATERMAN--CANOES
PL. IV
BOW OF THE HULL SHOWN IN PLATE V, VIEWED FROM THE SIDE, WITH THE MAKE1’S
WIFE, MARY ADAMS (TAI´PΔS) SEATED BESIDE IT
(Photograph by J. D. Leechman.)]
occurring on the west coast of Vancouver island and southward as far, at
least, as Columbia river.
_B._--THE “FREIGHT CANOE” (_sti´waL_)
The freight canoe differs in several respects from the foregoing. It
never reaches the great size which the first-mentioned type sometimes
attains, though specimens exist which are as much as 40 ft. in length.
The cutwater in this type is vertical, or nearly so. This is the point
mentioned by the Indian informants as the characteristic thing. The
Songish term for this craft, _sti´uwaitatl_, is translated by Boas as
“having a square bow.” I can find no reason for this peculiarity, nor
advantage in it. An extra piece of cedar is carved and fitted with
dowels on the prow of this craft also, “lifting” the lines of the hull
somewhat. This piece differs greatly from the pieces fitted on the
ocean-going canoe. The stern is modeled out of the original log. The tip
of the prow is shaped into a “notch” resembling an open mouth. This type
of canoe is used for journeys with household possessions in quiet
waters. In a storm it is not particularly safe.
_C._--THE “TROLLING CANOE” (_sd_Δ´χωι_L_)
This craft has a very narrow hull, and the bow has more lift than in the
preceding model.[15] Specimens of this type are usually relatively
small, designed to carry only two or three men. This was the vessel used
for hunting, for harpooning porpoise and otter, and in trolling for
fish. The model exhibits some elegance of design. We may perhaps follow
Boas in calling this craft the fishing or trolling canoe. A very large
canoe of this model was called _sdΔxwi´lūs_. For hunting
the porpoise a very swift canoe was needed, for the animal was alert,
and hard to harpoon. Boas gives a complete account of the pursuit, as
carried on by the Kwakiutl. The term for porpoise-hunting on Puget sound
is _ca´sab_. The canoe intended for this purpose was called
_casa´bhwlL_. It was of the type being discussed, but a fine, “clear”
model and had to be fast.
[Illustration: WATERMAN--CANOES
PL. V
INTERIOR VIEW OF THE HULL OF A SUQUAMISH “HUNTING CANOE” IN PROCESS OF
MANUFACTURE
Made by Jack Adams (Xa´bsus), near Suquamish, Washington, in March,
1920.
(Photograph by J. D. Leechman.)]
_D._--THE “SHOVEL-NOSE CANOE” (τ_L_´αι_)
This type of canoe is called the “shovel-nose” because it is cut off
square at bow and stern and the hull scoops forward like a shovel. The
Songish visited by Boas have the same term, _t1’lai_, but the model
pictured by Boas has a configuration somewhat different in certain
details from the Puget Sound specimens seen. On the sound, the boat is
hewn from one piece, while the Songish are said to add on the flattened
end in the form of a separate plank. In spite of its shape the
“shovel-nose” is in appearance anything but clumsy. It is excellently
designed for a special purpose. A man may stand at the tip-end of bow or
stern, and push with a pole, in shallow water. The people also who live
up the rivers depend on this type of canoe for the spearing of salmon.
When the fish are running in the rivers, one man paddles in the stern
while a companion stands at ease out on the extreme end of the prow,
with his spear poised ready for fish. His position there is ideal for
striking salmon, since he lunges at fish almost directly under his
feet. The bow-end of this boat is more slender than the stern. This type
of boat is useful only in quiet waters. A characteristic piece of
equipment is the canoe pole, _he´Δqalsιd_. Such a canoe is fine for
sandbanks and shoals where the heavy Chinook type, with its features
designed for protection against waves, is largely useless. Far up the
rivers no canoes other than the shovel-nose are seen. The “salt-water”
people, or “_xwaldja´bc_,” relate with amusement that “forest-dwellers,”
or _La´labι^{w}_, that is, the people living up the rivers, have only
one word for canoe. “If it is a _sd_Δ´χωι_L_, or if it is a _sti´waL_,
or even if it is a big αο´τχς, they call it a ‘shovel-nose,’ just the
same.”
Some of these “fresh-water” Indians some years ago came voyaging down to
Port Washington inlet, near the navy yard at Bremerton, in a shovel-nose
canoe. In trying to negotiate the channel during a breeze and a change
of tide, their canoe, which was not designed for such operations, filled
and sank under their feet, and they lost their lives.
[Illustration: WATERMAN--CANOES
PL. VI
THE FINISHED HULL OF THE CANOE SHOWN IN PLATES IV AND V
To the left in the photograph is the bow, which in this case lacks the
“notch” found in many specimens. The “lift” of the boa1’s lines toward
the prow may be plainly seen. This enables it to ride the waves.
(Photograph by J. D. Leechman.)]
E.--THE “ONE-MAN CANOE” (_di´twiL_)
This is a very diminutive vessel, the smallest of all the Northwestern
canoes. The term is grammatically the diminutive of _sdΔ´wiL_ (_c_ in
the diagram, pl. I). Nevertheless, as a glance at the drawing will
show, its hull differs somewhat in shape from that of its larger
namesake. The _di´twiL_ will carry only one person; but it is often
very beautifully made. Specimens capsize very easily, but so long as
they remain right-side up, they may be driven at high speed, and are
light enough to be easily lifted and carried from place to place. They
were used for fishing, and, following the introduction of firearms,
for hunting ducks. Firing a shotgun over the side, however, turns the
craft over. Bow and stern are finished off with very small carved
pieces, which are set in place with the usual cedar pegs, and the bow
carries the “notch” characteristic of the larger type. The canoe is
rigged with thwarts, but the huntsman sits, not on these, but flat
on the bottom of the boat. We may perhaps speak of this type as “the
one-man canoe.”
F.--THE “CHILDRE1’S CANOE” (_qe´lbιd_)
The canoe pointed out under this name is a “double-ended” type. The
Indians describe it as a craft _with two sterns_. Its ends, which are
identical in shape, are finished off to resemble the stern of the big
war-canoe shown in pl. I, _a_. This craft, while not of great length, is
very heavy, since the sides are relatively thick, and it is also very
wide in the beam. It was used for the commonest purposes. Children got
their first knowledge of the handling of canoes by “practising” with it.
While the sides are not adzed down to the thinness which characterizes
the hunte1’s craft, the vessel is nevertheless well designed in its own
way and is much lighter and more manageable than a white-ma1’s boat. It
is worth noting that the word _qe´lbιd_, given as the term for
this type of boat, is the general word for canoe. The term _dl1’e´dwlL_
was also applied to this type. We may perhaps speak of this form of
craft as the “children’s canoe.”
[Illustration: WATERMAN--CANOES
PL. VII
A “SHOVEL-NOSE” CANOE IN ACTION
Scene on the upper waters of Quinault river, coast of Washington.
(Photograph by J. H. Weir, of “The Mountaineers.”)]
NATIVE TERMS FOR THE PARTS OF THE CANOE
1. Bow, _cεdst_.
2. Stern, _i´laaq_.
3. Side, _sila´lgwil_.
A steam vessel is called _u´dalgwil_, “burning sides.”
4. Gunwale, _sbΔtctca´lgwil_.
5. Additional piece or section, hewn out separately, set on the bow, and
fastened in place with pegs and lashing of twisted cedar, _stL’a´lu_.
It is fastened in place with dowels or pegs of cedar (No. 6), and
lashings of twisted cedar-twigs (No. 7).
6. Dowels or pegs used as above, _st’Δ´stΔd_.
This word is now used for iron nails.
7. Cedar withes, _sti´dagwΔt_.
Used in fastening on the bow and stern sections, and in closing up
cracks.
8. Stern-piece, _stL’a´lalΔp_.
Seated in place like the bow-piece, mentioned above.
_On the Exterior of the Hull_
9. Narrow piece projecting forward at the tip of the prow, _bΔ´qsιd_.
The shape of the forward part of the bow-piece strongly suggests
the head of some living creature. The projection would correspond
to a snout or beak. The Indians say the resemblance is accidental.
10. A knob or projection on the neck of the canoe, about two feet below
the preceding feature, _bla´lgwa’_.
This word means “navel.” The Makah call this projection the boa1’s
uvula.
11. Ornamentation consisting of parallel lines, incised with a special
tool, like a reamer, on the side of the neck, _astc_ι´_1’absub_.
This is incised with a special tool, in the old days made of flint,
resembling a reamer. This ornamentation is found also on the top
surface of the bow-piece.
12. Curved line of the prow, _cli´bus_.
13. Cutwater, _tL’kwa´psΔb_.
14. A bulge or raised strip at the gunwale, _stLaa´gwΔp_.
A corresponding excavation on the inside of the hull is mentioned
below (No. 23).
15. Bottom, _1’a´tsΔp_.
16. Where the bottom turns up toward the gunwale to form the sides,
_cΔxdt1’a´ladi_.
17. Sharp blade or half-keel, under the cano1’s forefoot, _st’ιtci´bιt_.
This acts as a “muffler.” It cuts into the waves as the canoe
forges ahead, without splashing. The canoe moves silently.
18. Forward extremity of the half-keel, _1’ilqs_.
_On the Interior of the Hull_
19. Interior of the canoe, _xuxta´ts_.
20. Where the bottom turns up to form the sides, _wila´ladiL_.
21. Offset where the canoe widens at the gunwale, _stpu´tsid_.
This corresponds to the _stLaa´gwΔp_ (No. 14 above).
22. Side of the canoe, _i´lalgwιL_.
23. Trench leading sternward from the tip of the prow, _sxwο´qbus_.
24. Vertical line of the hull at the stern, _stLkwa´·lap_.
_Additional Fittings_
25. Thwarts, _cxalwi´ld_.
These are round poles instead of flat benches, as in the canoes of
Alaska and in our own boats. When on a trip the Indians pad them
with an old mat, folded.
26. Withes of twisted cedar limbs, which fasten the thwarts,
_cli´dclidgΔs_.
They are rove through a perforation in the thwart, and then through
perforations in the side of the boat. Similar withes are used for
mending cracks and in fastening the bow and stern sections in place
(see No. 7 above). The present word refers to the way in which they
are manipulated in fastening thwarts in place.
27. Strip of wood along the gunwale, _stL’a´lalgwιL_.
This is pegged to the top surface of the gunwale, to where the
paddles rub, to prevent the sides of the canoe from being worn.
28. Painter, or boat rope, _LΔdgwi´lad_.
Used for mooring the boat, or anchoring it.
29. Crack in the hull, _actcΔ´x_.
30. Knot-hole, _st1’a´ctalus_ (knot, _stcact_).
31. “Patched place,” _stΔka´lgwιL_.
When the side of a canoe is broken, a section is cut out bodily, a
piece of plank being carefully shaped to fit in the space. This
plank is fastened in place with cedar pegs and by “sewing” with
cedar withes.
32. A “long patch,” _sΔp1’a´tsgwιL_.
This term refers to a place where a longitudinal crack in the
bottom of the hull has been closed by stitching it up with cedar
withes.
33. Holes bored in making the canoe, to test the thickness of the sides,
_udtc’ι´stΔd_.
These holes are later closed by plugging them with round pegs of
maple, which swells greatly on being wet.
34. Mast, _xputdale_ (cf. _pu´tιd_, sail).
Informants insist that masts and sails are aboriginal. Vancouver,
writing in 1792, says they are not.
35. Step or socket for the mast, _tcugwacα´gwΔp_.
36. Sail, _pu´tιd_.
This was a “square” sail, of checker-work matting, and was hoisted
only when the breeze happened to come directly over the stern.
37. Upper yard, _taLa´Lqud_.
38. Lower yard, _tLi´dΔp_.
39. Paddle, _xobt_.
_Terms of Direction_
40. Ahead, _tudzi´q^{w}_.
41. Astern, _tuxula´q^{w}_.
42. Starboard, or right side, _dzaha´lgwisapΔp_.
43. Port, or left side, _kala´lgwisapΔp_.
44. Forward, _tuca´dst_ (cf. _cεdst_, bow).
45. Aft, _tue´laq_ (cf. _i´laaq_, stern).
46. Amidships, _o´dugwιL_.
Linguistically there is evident similarly between certain of the words
in this list, as shown by the following groups:
(5) Bow-piece, _stL’a´lu_.
(8) Stern-piece, _stL’a´lalΔp_.
(13) Cutwater, _tL’kwa´psΔb_ (cf. especially No. 26 below).
(14) Raised strip along gunwale, _stLaa´gwΔp_.
(24) Vertical line at stern, _stLkwa´·lap_.
(27) Strip pegged to gunwale, _stL’a´lalgwιL_.
(6) Dowels, or pegs, _st’Δ´stΔd_.
(33) Holes bored to test the thickness of the hull, _udtc’ι´stΔd_.
One is inclined to suspect the presence of a common suffix in the
following cases:
(12) Curved line of the prow, _cli´bus_.
(23) Trench leading backward from the prow, _sxwο´qbus_.
The presence of a suffix is obvious in the following cases:
(3) Side, _sila´lgwil_.
(4) Gunwale, _sbΔtctca´lgwil_.
(22) Side of the canoe (interior), _i´lalgwιL_.
(31) Section of plank used as a patch, _stΔka´lgwιL_.
(32) Closing of a crack by sewing, _sΔp1’a´tsgwιL_.
(11) Ornamental lines, _astcι´1’absub_.
(13) Cutwater, _tL’kwa´psΔb_.
(15) Bottom, _1’a´tsΔp_.
Analysis of these expressions is not possible at the present time.
The terms in the above list apply especially to the sea-going canoe.
Similar words are applied to the other types of canoes, except where the
corresponding parts are missing.
The notch at the bow of the trolling canoe is simply called _qa´dxu_,
“notch.”
DISTRIBUTION OF THE VARIOUS TYPES
A situation with many points of interest exists in regard to the
distribution of these forms of canoes. For example, on Puget sound we
have the six types of dugout canoes, which have been described; in
northern California we have only one. The question at once suggests
itself, How far southward along the Pacific coast does the use of six
types of canoes extend? And, again, as we travel southward, do all six
of the Puget Sound types disappear from use at once, being replaced by
new types of craft, or are certain of these Puget Sound types more
widely distributed than the others? The last question, I think, is the
more easily answered. The single type which is used on Klamath river and
on Humboldt bay in northern California is probably a modification of one
of the types used on Puget sound--the “shovel-nose” model described
above (pl. I, _d_). The appended diagram (pl. II) shows these two craft
side by side. There seems to be in a general way a marked similarity in
these canoes. They are both dugouts, of a “square-ended” type, and in
each case the model has reached a high degree of refinement. There is a
skilful “pinching-in” of the lines of the craft toward the ends, and
also a very graceful “lift” of the bottom at bow and stern. It may be
asserted from experience that both craft are very light and easily
handled. The California canoe has no gunwale-strips,[16] and, moreover,
it has in the stern some foot-braces and a seat, hewn in one piece with
the hull, which are absent in the Puget Sound boat. The California boat,
on the other hand, has no thwarts. The most striking difference,
however, is that the bow and the stern of the California craft are
crowned up into a peak, and the bow is further graced with a removable
carven ornament, shaped like an inverted V. These differences seem
superficial and underneath them the present writers see almost identical
lines in the two vessels.
So much for the general resemblance. The facts of distribution make the
idea of relationship much more plausible. It is worthy of remark that in
California south of Humboldt bay there are no dugout canoes at all.
Northward, however, dugouts are in use among all tribes as far as Puget
sound. Moreover, in the case of some, at least, of the intervening
tribes the shovel-nose or square-ended type of dugout occurs. This is
true of the tribes about Klamath lake, for instance, as shown by a
specimen of their canoes collected by Dr Barrett, now in the Museum of
the University of California. Information on this point is
unsatisfactory, for in this intervening area few observers have taken
the pains to note in detail what kinds of canoes were used. This is true
of much of Oregon, even on the coast. Vancouver says of the Indians of
Port Orford that “their canoes, calculated to carry about eight people,
were rudely wrought out of a single tree; their shape much resembled a
butche1’s tray, and seemed very unfit for a sea voyage or any distant
expedition.”[17] This seems almost certainly to indicate that he saw
craft of a shovel-nose type. We can find few other statements on this
matter in the literature. On Columbia river, as shown by the statements
of Boas,[18] on the coast of Washington as illustrated by the
photographs of Curtis,[19] on Puget sound and northward to an unknown
distance, as observed by the present writers, shovel-nose canoes are in
general use. The bare facts, as we have them, seem to be most readily
explained on the assumption that one type of dugout canoe, of wide
distribution on the North Pacific, has spread also as far south as the
Yurok and neighboring tribes in northern California. The increased
complexity of the design as found among the Yurok and their neighbors,
as shown especially in the ornamentation, is possibly explainable by the
fact that these tribes exhibit a distinctly higher culture in many
respects than do their neighbors to the south, the east, or the north.
For some reason, in the region about the mouth of Klamath river a
secondary center of high culture has developed. It is not unlikely that
this has produced the peculiar traits of their canoe.
It is noticeable also that there seems to be a _gradual_ modification of
all types of canoes as we move southward toward California. On Puget
sound, five canoes out of six show a lift in the gunwales toward bow and
stern. On the coast south of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, as shown by
the photographs of Curtis,[20] canoes other than the shovel-nose have an
abrupt “raise” at the prow, but amidships and at the stern they are
“flush,” the gunwales forming a straight horizontal line. Apparently
this arrangement might be considered as an approach to the California
type of canoe, where the gunwales are perfectly flat, without any lift
at either end.
If our inference is correct, it is apparent that, as we travel southward
from Columbia river, five of the North Pacific types become modified and
finally cease to be used. It has not been possible to find any evidence
in the literature that indicates the point where the distribution of any
of these models ceases.
The use of dugout canoes extends, of course, up the rivers which flow
toward the Northwest coast. Thus the Wishram at the falls of the
Columbia use the “Chinook” model described in the present paper, and
other dugout models besides. George Gibbs stated that the shovel-nose
type is the only one used on the Columbia above The Dalles.[21] Curtis
has one picture of a dugout canoe used by the Nez Percés.[22] It is of
the shovel-nose type (though shockingly clumsy, heavy, and
ill-made--merely a log roughly shaped and somewhat hollowed out).
Chamberlain states[23] that the Kootenay have a dugout type of craft, of
what shape we do not know. It seems to be impossible to trace in detail
the distribution of the shovel-nose in this direction on the basis of
any material now in print. We may speak with certainty, therefore, only
of the region immediately about Seattle, where the present authors have
had a chance to make observations. In this vicinity the only type of
canoe used on the upper courses of the streams is the shovel-nose.
Concerning the distribution, in a northerly direction, of these types of
canoes, little can be said at the present time. As remarked above, the
Kwakiutl use in place of the αο´τχς, a great sea-going canoe of
somewhat different and more complicated model, and much more elaborately
ornamented.
The evolution of canoes probably took place among the people somewhat
northward of Puget Sound peoples, whose general level of culture is
higher. Going southward from the Kwakiutl, say, canoes are steadily
less and less specialized, until we come to the tribes of northern
California with their one model. South of the California tribes just
mentioned, these influences are not apparent at all. Concerning the
canoes of the coast north of the Kwakiutl, we can get at the present
time no information. It is not known whether several types are in use,
or only one. The pictures of Curtis, which might tell the story, are not
nearly so useful as they are in other cases, since he photographed very
few canoes in this area; possibly because he found so much else to
picture.
CONCLUSIONS
The situation as regards canoes in the area under discussion may be
essentially like that respecting types of pottery in the Southwest, as
presented by Nelson.[24] He has shown in a most interesting way that the
archaic types of pottery are also the types with the widest
distribution. As we pass from center to periphery of the cultural region
which he discusses, we encounter types of pottery which are more and
more primitive. One striking difference between Nelso1’s problem and the
present one is that a great mass of evidence has been assembled in the
Southwest, while in regard to canoes on the Northwest coast the data are
largely lacking. Another difference is that Nelson carried out extensive
investigations in the field, while the present discussion is based
largely on scattered references in the literature. Nelso1’s conclusions,
to be brief, are based on knowledge and facts, while our own must be in
the last degree inferential.
The idea seems plausible, however, that the original type of canoe on
the Northwest coast was the shovel-nose. Several considerations point in
this direction. The shovel-nose is the simplest model. This raises a
logical presumption that it may well be the oldest. It is associated
with rivers, being of use only in streams and other quiet water. This
also suggests that it may represent an early type. It may be regarded as
certain that the first man or the first group who experimented with
navigation on the North Pacific coast, experimented on the rivers, and
not on the high seas. This would seem to imply that the river craft
would be the first to reach perfection. The sea-going “Chinook” type,
and models showing points of similarity to it, are in all human
probability later in origin. When we consider the distribution of the
various types of canoes, we emerge for a moment from the jungle of
speculation into the field of evidence, though that evidence is scanty.
It is a fact that the shovel-nose type of canoe is of wider distribution
than the other types. It is the only type found in the marginal regions
to the east and south of the area of typical North Pacific Coast
culture. Thus is raised the presumption that it represents an older type
of craft than do the other models.
The connection between northern California and the North Pacific area,
which seems to be exemplified in the distribution of dugout canoes, is
also a matter of some importance. Ultimately it will doubtless be proved
by a careful comparison, in the two areas, of houses, geographical
notions, money and financial institutions, and other matters, that the
mode of life of the tribes in extreme northern California is a direct
offshoot of the type of culture found in the Northwest.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOAS, FRANZ
1889 First general report on the Indians of British Columbia. _In_
Report of the Committee appointed for the purpose of investigating
... the northwestern tribes of the Dominion of Canada. _Report of
the Fifty-ninth meeting of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, held ... in ... 1889_, pp. 801-803. [Deals
with the Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and Kootenay.]
1890 Second general report on the Indians of British Columbia. Same
series as above. _Report of the Sixtieth meeting, held ... in ...
1890_, pp. 562-715. [Deals with the Nootka, Salish, and Kwakiutl.]
1895 Fifth report on the Indians of British Columbia. Same series
as above. _Report of the Sixty-fifth meeting, held ... in ...
1895_, pp. 523-592. [Deals with the Tinneh of Nicola valley,
Ts’Ets’ā´ut, and Nisk·a of Nass river.]
1896 Sixth report on the Indians of British Columbia. Same series
as above. _Report of the Sixty-sixth meeting, held ... in ...
1896_, pp. 569-591. [Deals with the Kwakiutl and Tsimshian.]
1909 The Kwakiutl of Vancouver island. _Memoirs of the American
Museum of Natural History_, vol. VIII, pt. 2 (reprint from
_Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition_, vol. V, pt.
2).
CHAMBERLAIN, A. F.
1892 Report on the Kootenay Indians of southeastern British
Columbia. _In_ Report of the Committee appointed to investigate ...
the northwestern tribes of the Dominion of Canada. _Report of the
Sixty-second meeting of the British Association for the Advancement
of Science held ... in ... 1892_, pp. 549-615.
COOK, JAMES
1784 A voyage to the Pacific ocean ... for making discoveries in
the northern hemisphere ... performed by Captains Cook, Clarke, and
Gore, in his Majest1’s ship the Resolution and Discovery, in the
years 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779 and 1780. In three volumes (London).
CURTIS, EDWARD S.
1907-1916 The North American Indian ... being a series of volumes
picturing and describing the Indians of the United States and
Alaska. In twenty volumes. [Eleven volumes published up the present
time.]
GIBBS, GEORGE
1855 Report on the Indian tribes of the Territory of Washington.
_Pacific Railroad Report_, vol. I, pp. 402-436, Washington, D. C.
1877 Tribes of western Washington and northwestern Oregon.
Department of the Interior, U. S. Geographical and Geological
Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region. _Contributions to North
American Ethnology_, vol. I, pp. 103-241.
LEWIS, ALBERT BUELL
1906 Tribes of the Columbia valley and the coast of Oregon and
Washington. _Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association_,
vol. I, pt. 2.
LEWIS and CLARK
1904 Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition,
1804-1806, printed from the original manuscript.... Edited ... by
Reuben Gold Thwaites, New York.
NELSON, N. C.
1919 Human Culture. _Natural History_, New York, vol. XIX, no. 2,
pp. 131-140.
NIBLACK, A. P.
1890 The Coast Indians of southern Alaska and northern British
Columbia. _Smithsonian Institution, Report of the U. S. National
Museum for 1888_, Washington.
SWAN, JAMES G.
1857 The Northwest coast; or, Three years residence in Washington
Territory. New York. (Harper.)
1868 The Indians of Cape Flattery at the entrance to the Strait of
Fuca, Washington Territory. _Smithsonian Institution, Contributions
to Knowledge_, No. 220.
VANCOUVER, GEORGE
1798 A voyage of discovery to the North Pacific ocean and round the
world ... performed in the years 1791-1792, 1793, 1794, and 1795 in
the Discovery Sloop-of-War, and the armed tender Chatham.... In
three volumes London.
NOTES
1. Boas, 1888, 1890, 1905-1909; Swan, 1868; Niblack, 1890; Gibbs, 1855;
Curtis, 1907-1916; vols. VIII-XI and folios. Of the earlier authors,
Cook, 1784, vol. II, p. 327; Vancouver, 1798; and Lewis and Clark, 1904,
vol. IV, give valuable data. For references, see the bibliography.
2. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, _Bulletin 30_.
3. 1904, vol. IV, pp. 31, 35.
4. 1889, p. 817; 1890, pp. 565, 566; also a remark quoted by A. B.
Lewis, 1906, p. 163.
5. 1855, p. 430; 1877, p. 216.
6. 1857, pp. 79, 80.
7. 1890, p. 294.
8. 1907-1916, vol. IX, p. 60.
9. See especially 1890, p. 817, with figures.
10. 1904, p. 30.
11. Boas, 1890, p. 566.
12. Boas, 1890, p. 566; see also Curtis, 1907-1916, vol. X, Folio, pl.
345.
13. 1890, p. 295.
14. 1889, p. 817.
15. The corresponding class of craft is called _snE´quatl_ among the
Songish, and is styled by Boas the “small fishing canoe.”
16. See above, p. 26.
17. 1798, vol. I, p. 204.
18. Quoted by A. B. Lewis, 1906, p. 163, as noted above.
19. 1907-1916, vol. VIII.
20. For example, 1907-1916, vol. IX, p. 98.
21. 1877, p. 215.
22. 1907-1916, vol. VIII, p. 46.
23. 1892, p. 566.
24. 1919, pp. 113-136.
No. 5: Note on the Archaeology of Chiriqui. By George Grant
MacCurdy. Reprinted from _Amer. Anthropol._, Vol. 15, 1913, No. 4.
50c.
No. 6: Petroglyphs of Saint Vincent, British West Indies, By Thomas
Huckerby. Reprinted from _Amer. Anthropol._, Vol. 16, 1914, No. 2.
50c.
No. 7: Prehistoric Objects from a Shell-heap at Erin Bay, Trinidad.
By J. Walter Fewkes. Reprinted from _Amer. Anthropol._, Vol. 16,
1914, No. 2. 50c.
No. 8: Relations of Aboriginal Culture and Environment in the
Lesser Antilles, By J. Walter Fewkes. Reprinted from _Bull. Amer.
Geogr. Soc._, Vol. 46, 1914, No. 9. 50c.
No. 9: Pottery from Certain Caves in Eastern Santo Domingo, West
Indies. By Theodoor de Booy. Reprinted from _Amer. Anthropol_.,
Vol. 17, 1915, No. 1. 50c.
Vol. 2
No. 1: Exploration of a Munsee Cemetery near Montague, New Jersey.
By George G. Heye and George H. Pepper. 1915. $1.00.
No. 2: Engraved Celts from the Antilles. By J. Walter Fewkes. 1915.
50c.
No. 3: Certain West Indian Superstitions Pertaining to Celts. By
Theodoor de Booy. Reprinted from _Journ. Amer. Folk-Lore_, Vol. 28,
No. 107, 1915. 50c.
No. 4: The Nanticoke Community of Delaware. By Frank G. Speck.
1915. $1.00.
No. 5: Notes on the Archeology of Margarita Island, Venezuela. By
Theodoor de Booy. 1916. 50c.
No. 6: Monolithic Axes and their Distribution in Ancient America.
By Marshall H. Saville. 1916. 50c.
Vol. 3
Physical Anthropology of the Lenape or Delawares, and of the
Eastern Indians in General. By Aleš Hrdlička. (_Bur. of Amer.
Ethnol., Bull. 62_, 1916, with added title-page and cover.) $1.00.
Vol. 4
No. 1: The Technique of Porcupine-Quill Decoration among the North
American Indians. By William C. Orchard. 1916. $1.00.
No. 2: Certain Archeological Investigations in Trinidad, British
West Indies. By Theodoor de Booy. Reprinted from _Amer.
Anthropol._, Vol. 19, 1917, No. 4. 50c.
No. 3: The Nacoochee Mound in Georgia. By George G. Heye, F. W.
Hodge, and George H. Pepper. 1918. $1.50.
Vol. 5
No. 1: A Letter of Pedro de Alvarado Relating to his Expedition to
Ecuador [1534]. By Marshall H. Saville. 1917. 50c.
No. 2: The Diegueño Ceremony of the Death-Images. By E. H. Davis.
1919. 50c.
No. 3: Certain Mounds in Haywood County, North Carolina. By George
G. Heye. Reprinted from _Holmes Anniversary Volume_, 1916. 1919.
50c.
No. 4: Exploration of Aboriginal Sites at Throgs Neck and Clasons
Point, New York City. By Alanson Skinner. 1919. $1.00.
_Address:_
MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE
FOUNDATION,
BROADWAY AT 155TH ST.,
NEW YORK CITY
INDIAN NOTES
AND MONOGRAPHS
EDITED BY F. W. HODGE
[Illustration: colophon]
A SERIES OF PUBLICATIONS
RELATING TO THE
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
HOW THE MAKAH OBTAINED
POSSESSION OF CAPE
FLATTERY
TOLD BY
ALBERT IRVINE
TRANSLATED BY
LUKE MARKISTUN
NEW YORK
MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN
HEYE FOUNDATION
1921
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Types of canoes on Puget Sound" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.