Types of canoes on Puget Sound
Part 1
INDIAN NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
_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.
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.”
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_.