Part 2

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

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