The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America

Chapter Four
EASTERN MARITIME REGION

Study of the tribal forms of bark canoes might well be started with the canoes of the eastern coastal Indians, whose craft were the first seen by white men. These were the canoes of the Indians inhabiting what are now the Maritime Provinces and part of Quebec, on the shores of the St. Lawrence River and in Newfoundland, in Canada, and of the Indians of Maine and New Hampshire, in New England. Within this area were the Micmac, the Malecite, and the mixture of tribal groups known as the Abnaki in modern times, as well as the Beothuk of Newfoundland. All these groups were expert canoe builders and it was their work that first impressed the white men with the virtues of the birch-bark canoe in forest travel.

Micmac

The Micmac Indians appear to have occupied the Gaspé Peninsula, most of the north shore of New Brunswick and nearly all the shores of the Bay of Fundy as well as all of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Cape Breton. They may have also occupied much of southern and central New Brunswick as well, but if so they had been driven from these sections by the Malecites before the white men came. The Micmacs were known to the early French invaders under a variety of names; "Gaspesians," "Canadiens," "Sourikois," or "Souriquois," while the English colonists of New England called them merely "Eastern Indians." The name Micmac is said to mean "allies" and not known, but this name was in use early in the 18th century, if not before 1700.

The Micmac were a hunting people with warlike characteristics; they aided the Malecite and other New England Indians in warfare against the early New England colonists and in later times aided the French against the English in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These Indians lived in an area where water transport represented the easiest method of travel and so they became expert builders and users of birch-bark canoes, which they employed in hunting, fishing, general travel, and warfare.

The area in which they lived produced fine birch bark and suitable wood for the framework. Through experience, they had become able to design canoes for specific purposes and had produced a variety of models and sizes. The hunting canoe was the smallest, being usually somewhere between 9 and 14 feet long, with an occasional canoe as long as 15 feet. This light craft, known as a "woods canoe" and sometimes as a "portage canoe," was intended for navigating very small streams and for portaging. Another model, the "big-river canoe," somewhat longer than the woods canoe, was usually between 15 and 20 feet long. A third model, the "open water canoe," was for hunting seal and porpoise in salt water and ranged from about 18 feet to a little over 24 feet in length. The fourth model, the "war canoe," about which little is known, appears to have been built in either the "big-river" or "open-water" form, and to the same length, but sharper and with less beam so as to be faster.

The tribal characteristics of the Micmac birch-bark canoes were to be seen in the form of the midsection, in certain structural details, and in their generally sharp, torpedo-shaped lines. The construction was very light and marked by good workmanship. The distinctive profiles of bow and stern, which do not appear in the canoes of other tribes in so radical a form, were almost circular, fairing from the bottom around into the sheer in a series of curves. The break in the profile of the ends at the sheer, a break that marks in more or less degree, the end profile of other tribal forms, never occurs in the Micmac canoe. At most, a slight break in the "streamlined" curve might occur at the point where the profile was started in the bottom, at which point there might be a short, hard curve.

The form of the sheer line of the Micmac canoes apparently varied with the model: the woods canoe had the usual curved sheer with the point of lowest freeboard about amidships, the big river canoe had either a nearly straight sheer or one very slightly hogged, while the open-water canoe had a strongly hogged sheer in which the midship portion was often as much as 3 or 4 inches above that just inboard of the ends. However, there is a possibility that, at one time, the sheer of all Micmac canoes was more or less hogged. The little that is known of the war canoes of colonial times indicate that they had the strongly hogged sheer that now marks the open-water model, through it is also known that some of these were really of the big-river model, which in later times had usually no more than a vestige of the hogged sheer.

The hull-forms of the Micmac canoes were marked in the topsides by a strong tumble-home, carried the full length of the hull, that gave these canoes more beam below than at the gunwale. The form of the midsection varied with the model; the woods canoe usually had a rather flat bottom athwartships, the big river canoe a slightly rounded bottom, and the open water canoe either a well-rounded bottom or one in the form of a slightly rounded V. The fore-and-aft rocker in the bottom was always moderate, usually occurring in the last few feet near the ends; however, many of the canoes were straight along the bottom. This condition will be again referred to in discussing the building beds used in this type. The ends were usually fine-lined; in plan view the gunwales came into the ends in straight or slightly hollow lines. The level lines below the gunwales might also be straight as they came into the ends, but were commonly somewhat hollow; a few examples show marked hollowness there. Predominantly, the Micmac canoes were very sharp in the ends and paddled swiftly. Early Micmac canoes seem to have been narrower than more recent examples, which are usually rather broad as compared to the types used by some other tribes.

Structurally, the Micmac canoes were distinguished by the construction of the ends and by their light build throughout. The canoes had no inner framework to shape the ends; stiffness there was obtained by placing battens outside the bark, one on each side of the hull, that ran from the bottom of the cut in the bark required to shape the ends to somewhat inboard of the ends of the gunwales at the sheer. These two battens, as well as a split-root stem-band covering the raw ends of the cut bark, were held in place by passing a spiral over-and-over lashing around all three. Sometimes thicker battens reaching from the high point of the ends inboard to the end thwarts were added, in which case the side battens were stopped at the high point of the ends and there faired into the thick battens.

The gunwale structure was rather light, the maximum cross section of the main gunwale in large canoes being rarely in excess of 1¼ inches square. These members usually tapered slightly toward the ends of the canoe and had a half-arrowhead form where they were joined. Old canoes had no guard or outwale, but some more recent Micmac canoes have had a short guard along the middle third of the length. Often there was no bevel to take the rib ends on the lower outboard corner of the main gunwales, and the gunwales were not fitted so that their outboard faces stood vertically. Instead, the tenons in the gunwales were cut to slant upward from the inside, so that installation of the thwarts would cause the outboard face to flare outward at the top. Between this face and the inside of the bark cover were forced the beveled ends of the ribs, which were cut chisel-shape. However, some builders beveled or rounded the lower outboard corner of the main gunwale, as described under Malecite canoe building (p. 38). The bark cover in the Micmac canoe was always brought up over the gunwales, gored to prevent unevenness, and folded down on top of them before being lashed. The gunwale lashing was a continuous one in which the turns practically touched one another outboard, though they were sometimes separated under the gunwale to clear the ribs, which widened near their ends, so the intervals between them were very small.

The other member of the gunwale structure was the cap; its thickness was usually ¼ to ⅜ inch, reduced slightly toward the ends. Its inboard face and the bottom were flat, but the top was somewhat rounded, with the thickness reduced toward the outboard edge. The cap was fastened to the main gunwales with pegs and with short lashing groups near the ends, but in late examples nails were used. The ends of the caps were bevelled off on the inboard side, so that they came together in pointed form. The cap usually ended near the end of the gunwale but in some canoes, particularly those that were nail-fastened, the cap was let into the gunwale (see p. 50) so that the top was flush with end of the gunwale.

The ends of the gunwales were supported by headboards that were bellied outboard to bring tension vertically on the bark cover. The heel of the board stood on a short frog, laid on the bottom with the inboard end touching or slightly lapping over the endmost rib. The frog supported the heels of the headboard and also the forefoot of the stem-piece, which otherwise would have but partial support from the sewing battens outside the ends at these points. The headboard was rather oval-shaped and the top was notched on each side to fit under the gunwale; the narrow central tenon stood slightly above the top of the main gunwales when the headboard was sprung into place and was held in position by a lashing across the gunwales inboard of the top of the headboard. The heel was held by the notch in the frog. Cedar shavings were stuffed into the ends of the canoe between the stem-piece and the headboard to mold the ends properly, as no ribs could be inserted there. All woodwork in these canoes was white cedar, except the headboards and thwarts, which were maple, and the stem battens, which were usually basket ash but sometimes were split spruce roots.

The more recent Micmac canoes usually had no more than five thwarts; this number was found even on small woods canoes. However, old records indicate that canoes 20 to 28 feet long on the gunwales were once built with seven thwarts. The shape of the thwarts varied, apparently in accordance with the builder's fancy. The most common form was nearly rectangular in cross-section; in elevation, it was thick at the hull centerline and tapered smoothly to the outboard ends; and in plan it was narrowest at the hull centerline and increased in width toward the ends, the increase being rather sharp at the shoulders of the tenon. In some, the tenon went through the main gunwales and touched the inside of the bark cover; in others the ends of the thwarts were pointed in elevation, square in plan, and were inserted in shallow, blind tenons on the inboard side of the main gunwales. A single 3-turn lashing through a hole in the shoulder and around the main gunwale was used in every case.

Sometimes the thwarts just described were straight (in plan view) on the side toward the middle of the canoe, and only the middle thwart was alike on both sides. In others the straight side of the end thwart and of that next inboard were toward the bow and stern of the canoe. In still others, the middle thwart had a rounded barb form in plan, with the barb located within 6 or 7 inches of the shoulder and pointed toward the tenon; the next thwarts out on each side of the middle thwart were shaped like a cupid's bow but slightly angular and aimed toward the ends of the canoe, and the end thwarts were of similar plan. In one known example having such thwarts, there were two very short thwarts at the ends of the canoe, of the usual plain form described earlier, each a few inches inboard of the headboard. Thus this canoe had seven thwarts in the old fashion.

The ribs, or frames, were thin, about ¼ or ⁵⁄₁₆ inch thick, and across the bottom of the canoe they were often 3 inches wide. In the topsides the ribs were tapered to about 2 inches in width; when the bottom and outboard corner of the main gunwales were not beveled, the rib ends were cut square across on the wide face and chisel-shaped. When the gunwale corner was beveled, the ribs were formed with a sharply tapered dull point at the ends. From the middle of the canoe to the first thwarts each way from the middle, the ribs were spaced 1 inch edge-to-edge. From the first thwarts to the ends, the spacing was about 1½ inches. Most builders made the ribs narrower toward the ends; if those in the middle of the canoe were 3 inches wide, those near the ends might be 2½. They were shaped and placed as described for the Malecite canoe in Chapter 3.

In the construction of a Micmac canoe, the gunwales were first formed, assembled, and used as a building frame. If the sheer was to be hogged, this was done by treating the main gunwales with boiling water before assembly and then staking them out to dry in the required sheer curves. The building bed was well crowned, usually 2 to 2½ inches because of the very wide bottom and the tumble-home of these canoes. Most Micmac canoes appear to have had only slight fore-and-aft rocker in the bottom; the bottoms of the seagoing type were often quite straight, and the other two types had a slight rocker of perhaps 1½ inches, most of it near the ends. When the sheer was hogged, the amount of hog was probably close to the amount of crown in the building bed. The ends of the gunwales, when laid on the bed, were blocked up to about the desired amount of rocker to be given the bottom.

The bark cover was selected with great care from the fine stand of paper birch available to the Micmac. Except in emergencies, only winter bark was used. The cover was gored six to eight times on each side, and most of these cuts were grouped amidships, owing to the sharpness of the ends. The gores were trimmed edge-to-edge, without overlap, as the Micmac preferred a smooth surfaced canoe, and the sewing was the common spiral, over and over. The width of the bark cover was usually pieced out amidships on each side (at least in existing models) by the addition of narrow panels. These may not have been necessary in the very old canoes, which appear to have been much narrower than more recent examples. The horizontal seams of the panels were straight, or nearly so, and did not follow the sheer. The closely spaced spiral over-and-over stitch was sewn over a batten, the lap being toward the gunwale. As has been said, a continuous over-and-over gunwale lashing was used. The thwart lashings were through single holes in the thwart shoulders, three turns being usual, and two turns around the gunwale on each side were added, all passing through the bark cover, of course. The sewing was neat and the stitches were even.

The wood lining, or sheathing, of the Micmac canoe was like that described for the Malecite canoe in the last chapter. The sheathing was a full ⅛ to about ³⁄₁₆ inch thick. The strakes were laid edge-to-edge longitudinally, with slightly overlapping butts amidships, and were tapered toward the ends of the canoe. The maximum width of any strake at the butts was about 4 inches.

In some of the rough-water canoes fitted to sail, a guard strip running the full length of the canoe and located some 6 or 7 inches below the gunwale was placed along both sides to protect the strongly tumble-home sides from abrasion from the paddles, particularly when the craft was steered under sail. These strips, about ⁵⁄₁₆ inch thick and ¾ inch wide, were butted on each side, a little abaft amidships, and were held together by a single stitch. The guards were secured in place by rather widely spaced stitches around them that passed through the bark cover and ceiling, between the ribs in the topsides. At bow and stern, the ends of the guards butted against the battens outside the bark at the end profiles and were secured there by a through-all lashing.

The proportions and measurements of the Micmac canoes appear to have changed between the colonial period and the late 19th century. From early references, it is apparent that the early canoes were much narrower than later ones, in proportion to length, as mentioned earlier. An 18-foot rough-water canoe of the 18th century appears to have had an extreme beam of between 30 and 34 inches and a gunwale beam, measured inside the members, of 24 to 28 inches, the depth amidships being about 18 to 20 inches. A similar canoe late in the 19th century would have had an extreme beam of nearly 40 inches, a beam inside the gunwales of 33 or 34 inches, and a depth of about 18 inches or less. An early woods canoe, about 14 feet long overall, appears to have had an extreme beam of only 29 inches and a beam inside the gunwales of about 25 or 26 inches. A woods canoe of 1890 was 15 feet long, 36½ inches extreme beam, and 30 inches inside the gunwales, with the depth amidships about 11 inches. A big-river canoe of this same date was a little over 20 feet in extreme length, 18 feet over the gunwales, 41 inches extreme beam, and 34 inches gunwale width inside, with a depth amidships of about 12½ inches. An 18-foot big-river canoe of an earlier time was reported as being 37 inches extreme beam, 30½ inches inside the gunwales, and 13 inches depth amidships. The maximum size of the rough-water seagoing canoe, in early times, may have been as great as 28 feet but with a narrow beam of roughly 29 or 30 inches over the gunwales, and say 24 inches inside, with a depth amidships as much as 20 or 22 inches due to the strongly hogged sheer there. In modern times, such canoes were rarely over 21 feet in overall length and had a maximum beam of about 42 inches, a beam inside the gunwales of 36 or 37 inches, and a depth amidships of 16 or 17 inches.

In early colonial times, and well into the 18th century, apparently, the Micmac type of canoe was used as far south as New England, probably having been brought there by the Micmac war parties aiding the Malecite and the Kennebec in their wars against the English. The canoe in the illustration on page 12 is obviously a Micmac canoe and apparently one used by a war party. As it was brought to England in 1749 in the ship America, which was built in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and probably sailed from there, it seems highly probable that the canoe had been obtained nearby, perhaps in eastern Maine.

The small woods canoe, most commonly about 12 feet long, appears first to have been used by all the Micmac. By the middle of the 19th century, however, this type was to be found only in Nova Scotia, owing to the movement of most of the tribe toward the north shore in New Brunswick, where their inland navigation was confined to large rivers and the coast. Hence the Micmac in New Brunswick used the big-river model and the seagoing type. The latter was last used in the vicinity of the head of Bay Chaleur and was often called the Restigouche canoe, after the Micmac village of that name. It was replaced by a 3-board skiff-canoe and finally by a large wooden canoe of the "Peterborough" type with peaked ends and lapstrake planking; some of the latter may still be seen on the Gaspé Peninsula.

The use of sail in the Micmac canoes cannot be traced prior to the arrival of the white men. The use probably resulted from the influence of Europeans, but it is possible that the prehistoric Indians may have set up a leafy bush in the bow of their canoes to act as a sail with favorable winds. The old Nova Scotia expression "carrying too much bush," meaning over-canvassing a boat, is thought by some to have originated from an Indian practice observed there by the first settlers. In early colonial times, the Micmac used a simple square sail in their canoes and this, by the last decade of the 19th century, was replaced by a spritsail probably inspired by the dory-sail of the fishermen. The Indian rig was unusual in several respects. The sheet, for example, was double-ended; one end was made fast to the clew of the sail and the other to the head of the sprit, so that it served also as a vang. The bight was secured within reach of the steersman by a half hitch to a crossbar fixed well aft across the gunwales. The sail, nearly rectangular and with little or no peak, was laced to the mast, and the sprit was supported by a "snotter" lanyard tied low on the mast. A sprit boom was also carried by some canoes; this was secured to the clew of the sail and to the mast, a snotter lanyard being used at the latter position.

The mast was secured by a thwart pegged, or nailed, across the gunwale caps. Sometimes, the thwart was also notched over the caps, so that the side-thrust caused by the leverage of the mast would not shear the fastenings. The crossbar for the sheet was sometimes similarly fastened and fitted, with its ends projecting outboard of the gunwales. The heel of the mast was sometimes stepped into a block, which was usually about 5 inches square and 1½ inches thick, nailed or pegged to the center bottom board, or sometimes it was merely stepped into a hole in the center bottom board. The bottom boards, usually three in number were of wide, thin stock and were clamped in place over the ribs by three or four false frames driven under the thwarts, just as were the canoe ribs under the gunwales.

The canoes could not sail close-hauled, as a rule, though some Indians learned to use a leeboard in the form of a short plank hung vertically over the lee side and secured by a lanyard to a thwart, the board being shifted in tacking. An alternate was to have a passenger hold a paddle vertically on the lee side. There seems to have been no fixed proportions to the area of sail used; the actual areas appear to have been somewhere between 50 and 100 square feet, depending upon the size of the canoe. Joseph Dadaham, a Micmac, stated in 1925 that he used "24 yards" in the sail of a "rough-water canoe" 20 feet long and about 44 inches beam, while one 18 feet long and about 36 inches extreme beam carried "16 to 18 yards"; it is obvious that the "yards" are of narrow sail cloth and not square yards of finished sail. In the last days of sailing bark canoes, mast hoops and a halyard block were fitted so that the sail could be lowered instead of having to be furled around the mast (to accomplish this the "crew" had to stand). Dadaham also stated that for his sheet belay he used a jamb-hitch which could be released quickly when the canoe was found to be overpowered by the wind. It appears that during the last era of these bark canoes the rig had been improved to fit it for open-water sailing.

The paddles used by the Micmac appear to have varied in shape. If the canoe shown in Chapter 1 (p. 12) was indeed a Micmac canoe as supposed, the paddle shown there is quite different from the later tribal forms illustrated above, and it is possible that the top grips shown in the more modern forms were never used in prehistoric times, when the pole handle shown with the old canoe may have been standard.

The Micmac canoes were decorated by scraping away part of the inner rind of the birch bark, leaving portions of it in a formal design. It seems very probable that the Micmac seldom used this form of decoration in early times, but later they used it a great deal in their rough-water canoes, perhaps as a result of contact with the Malecite. The formal designs used as decoration by the Micmac did not have any particular significance as a totem or religious symbol; they were used purely as decoration or to identify the owner. Such forms as the half-moon, a star in various shapes, or some other figure might be used by the builder, but these were apparently only his canoe mark, not a family insignia or his usual signature, and could be altered at will.

The usual method of decoration was to place the canoe mark on both sides of the canoe at the ends and to have along the gunwales amidships a long narrow panel of decoration, usually of some simple form. The panel decorations are said by Micmacs to have been selected by the builder merely as pleasing designs. One design used was much like the fleur-de-lis, another was a series of triangles supposed to represent camps, still another was the northern lights design, a series of closely spaced, sloping, parallel lines (or very narrow panels) that seem to represent a design much used in the quill decoration for which the Micmac were noted. Canoes are recorded as having stylized representations of a salmon, a moose, a cross, or a very simple star form; these may have been canoe marks or may once have been a tribal mark in a certain locality. A series of half-circles were sometimes used in the gunwale panels, which were rarely alike on both sides of the canoe, and it is probable that use was made of other forms that have not been recorded. Colored quills in northern lights pattern were used in some model or toy canoes but not in any surviving example of a full-size canoe. It is quite possible, however, that such quill-work was once used in Micmac canoe decoration. Painting of the bark cover for decorative purposes in Micmac canoes has not been recorded.

Historical references to the canoes of the Micmac are frequent in the French records of Canada; it must have been Micmac canoes that Cartier saw in 1534 at Prince Edward Island and in Bay Chaleur. The most complete description of such canoes is in the account of Nicolas Denys, who came to the Micmac country in 1633 and remained there almost continuously until his death at 90, in 1688. His travels during this period took him into Maine as far as the Penobscot and throughout what are now New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. While his descriptions are primarily concerned with the Malecite dress, houses, and hunting and fishing techniques, his notes on birch-bark canoes seem to indicate very clearly that he is describing a hogged-sheer Micmac rough-water canoe. He says, for example, that the length of these canoes was between 3 and 4½ fathoms, the fathom being the French brasse, so that they ranged in length from 16 to 24 feet over the gunwales. This gunwale length seems reasonable, since Denys gives the beam as only about 2 English feet, obviously a gunwale measurement in view of the great tumble-home in these canoes. That the Micmac rough-water canoe is the subject of Denys' observations is further indicated by his statement that the depth was such that the gunwales came to the armpits of a man seated on the bottom. This could only be true in a canoe having a hogged sheer in the lengths given, and is, in fact, a slight exaggeration unless the man referred to was of less than average height. The depth would be about 22 English inches, great even for a 24-foot canoe. Denys states that the inside sheathing of these canoes was split from cedar. He also states that the splints were about 4 inches wide, were tapered toward the ends, and ran the full length of the canoe. It is probable that they were butted amidships, as in known examples; this, however, would have been covered by a rib and might not have been noticed.

Denys says that the Indians "bent the cedar ribs in half-circles to form ribs and shaped them in the fire." Adney believed this meant by use of hot water. However, this bending could have been done by what was known in 17th-century shipbuilding practice as stoving, in which green lumber was roasted over an open fire until the sap and wood became hot enough to allow a strong bend to be made without breakage. Wood thus treated, when cooled and seasoned somewhat, would hold the set. While it is certain that later Indians knew how to employ hot water, it does not follow that all tribes used this method, particularly in early times.

Denys also states that the roots of "fir," split into three or four parts, were used in sewing. He apparently used "fir" as a general name for an evergreen. It is probable that the roots used were of the black spruce. The technique of building he describes is about the same as that outlined in the last chapter. He says that the gunwales were round and that seven beech thwarts were employed, practices that differ from those in more recent Micmac canoe building, and he notes the goring of the bark cover. Denys states the paddles were made of beech (instead of maple as was perhaps the case) with blades about 6 inches wide and their length that of an arm (about 27 inches), with the handle a little longer than the blade. He also says that four, five, or six paddlers might be aboard a canoe and that a sail was often used. "Formerly of bark," the sail was made of a well-dressed hide of a young moose. Since it could carry eight or ten persons, the canoe Denys is referring to is obviously a large one. In his building description he does not mention headboards, rail caps, or the end forms. It may be assumed that he was then describing a canoe he had seen during construction but whose building he did not follow step by step.

De la Poterie, in his book published in 1722, gives a profile and top view of what must have been a Micmac canoe. The probable length indicated must have been about 22 English feet overall and about 32 inches extreme beam; seven thwarts are shown.

Late in the 19th century there appears to have been some fusion of Micmac and Malecite methods of construction, as Malecite built to Micmac forms and vice versa. This apparently did not produce a hybrid form so far as appearance was concerned but it did affect construction, in that inner end-frames were used and other details of the Micmac design were altered. The Micmac, having early come into close contact with the Europeans, were among the first Indians to employ nails in the construction of bark canoes, and this resulted in an early decadence in their building methods. Hence, some examples of their canoes show what the Indians termed broken gunwales, in which the ends of the thwarts were not tenoned into the gunwales, but rather were let flush into the top by use of a dovetail cut or, less securely, by a rectangular recess across the gunwale, and were held in place with a nail through the thwart end and the gunwale member.

From scanty references by early writers, it appears that a spiral over-and-over lashing was originally used by the Micmac on the ends and gunwales. The lower edges of the side panels were sewn over-and-over a split-root batten. In some extant examples the gores are sewn with a harness stitch; in others a simple spiral stitch is used. The cross-stitch does not appear to have been used by the Micmac. The gunwale caps were certainly pegged and the ends lashed; the bark cover was folded over the gunwale tops and clamped by the caps as well as secured by the gunwale lashings. Tacking the bark cover to the top of the gunwales, with the cap nailed over all, marks the later Micmac canoes. The use of nails and tacks seems to have begun earlier than 1850.

In spite of decadent construction methods used in the last Micmac birch-bark canoes, the model remained a very good one in each type. The half-circular ends, sharp lines, and standard mid-sectional forms were unaltered; the hogged sheer was retained in some degree in at least two of the canoe types, the rough water and the big river, right down to the end of bark-canoe building by this tribe. The very fine design and attractive appearance of the Micmac canoe may have contributed to the early acceptance by the early explorers and traders of the birch-bark canoe as the best mode of water transport for forest travel.

Malecite

Another tribe expert in canoe building and use was the Malecite. These Indians were known to the early French explorers as the "Etchimins" or "Tarratines" (or Tarytines). Many explanations have been given for the name Malecite. One is that it was applied to these people by the Micmac and is from their word meaning "broken talkers," since the Micmac had difficulty in understanding them. When the Europeans came, these people inhabited central and southern New Brunswick and the shore of Passamaquoddy Bay, with small groups or tribal subdivisions in the area of the Penobscot to the Kennebec. These were early affected by the retreat of the New England Indians before the whites into eastern and northern Maine and southeastern Quebec. As a result, the Penobscot and Kennebec Indians became part of the group later known as Abnaki, while the Passamaquoddy Indians remained wholly Malecite and closely attached to those living along the St. John River in New Brunswick. Like their neighbors the Micmac, the Malecite were hunters and warlike; during the colonial period they were usually friendly to the French and enemies of the English settlers in their vicinity. It is not certain that the tribe now called by that name were actually of a single tribal stock; it is possible that this designation really covers a loose federation of small tribal groups who eventually achieved a common language. In addition, the tribal designation cannot be wholly accurate because of the fact that much of the original group living in New England were absorbed in the Abnaki in the 17th and 18th centuries. Therefore, the Malecite are considered here to be those Indians formerly inhabiting valleys of the St. John and the St. Croix Rivers, and the Passamaquoddy Bay area. The remaining portions, the Kennebec and Penobscot Indians, must now be classed as Abnaki, of whom more later (see p. 88).

In considering the birch-bark canoes of the Malecite, it is important to understand that this tribal form includes not only the types used in more recent times in New Brunswick and on Passamaquoddy Bay, but also an overlapping type related to the later Abnaki models. The old form of Malecite canoe used on the large rivers and along the coast appears to have had rather high-peaked ends, with a marked overhang fore and aft. The end profiles had a sloping outline, strongly curved into the bottom, and a rather sharply lifting sheer toward each end. This form was also to be seen in old canoes from the St. John River (the lower valley), the Passamaquoddy, the Penobscot, and the upper St. Lawrence. By late in the 19th century, however, this style of canoe had been replaced by canoes having rounded ends, the profiles being practically quarter-circles and sometimes with such small radii that a slight tumble-home appeared near the sheer. The small radius of the end curves is particularly marked in some of the seagoing porpoise-hunting canoes of the Passamaquoddy. In modern forms, the amount of sheer is moderate and the quick lift in the sheer to the ends is practically nonexistent. On the St. Lawrence, the radii of the end curves are very short and the upper part of the stems stands vertical and straight; the sheer, too, is usually rather straight. The older type, with high-peaked ends, was also marked by very sharp lines forward and aft, and had a midsection with tumble-home less extreme than in the Micmac canoes. The bottom, athwartships, was usually somewhat rounded (in coastal canoes the form might be a rounded V) and the bilges were rather slack, with a reverse curve above, to form the tumble-home rather close to the gunwales. The river model probably had lower ends and less rake than the coastal type, but surviving examples of both give confusing evidence. The river canoes usually had a flatter bottom than the coastal type, the latter having somewhat more rocker fore-and-aft. The sections near the ends were rather V-shaped in the coastal canoes, U-shaped in the river canoes.

The old form of small hunting canoe is represented by but one poor model (see p. 72) in which the ends are lower and with much less rake than those of the river type. From this very scant evidence, it seems probable that the small woods canoes were patterned on the river canoe in all respects but the profile of the ends.

From the early English and French accounts, it is evident that none of the maritime Indians used very large or long war canoes, capable of holding many men. The old war canoes of the Malecite appear to have been either of the coastal or river types as the circumstances of their place of building and use dictated. The slight information available in these accounts suggests that the war canoe did not differ in appearance from the other types of Malecite canoes, and that they were not of greater size. The Malecite appear to have followed the same practices as the Micmac, using for war purposes canoes of standard size and appearance but narrower and built for speed, since a war party sought to travel rapidly to and from its objective in order to surprise the enemy and escape before organized pursuit could be formed. The Malecite placed four warriors in each canoe, two to paddle and two to watch and use weapons while afloat. However, only on rare occasions were bows and arrows used from canoes afloat; most fighting was done on land. Each canoe carried the personal mark of each of the four warriors, apparently one mark on each flap, or wulegessis, under the gunwales near the ends. When a war leader was carried however, only his mark was on his canoe. After a successful raid, the Malecite used to race for the last mile or so of the return journey, and the winning canoe was given, as a distinction, some mark or picture, often something humorous such as a caricature of an animal. This practice, however, was not confined to war canoes; in rather recent times it has been noted that such pictures were placed on any canoe that had shown outstanding qualities in racing competition or in exhibitions of skill.

When making long canoe trips, the Malecite followed the widespread Indian practice of using the canoe as a shelter at night. When a camping place was reached, the canoe was unloaded, carried ashore, and turned upside down so that the tops of the ends and one gunwale rested on the ground. If the ends were high enough, as in the old Malecite type, one gunwale was raised off the ground far enough to permit a man to crawl under. If, as in the Micmac canoes, the ends were too low to allow this, they were raised off the ground by short forked sticks, with the forks resting against the end thwarts and the upper gunwale and the heels stuck into the earth. The dunnage (provisions or other cargo) was then stowed on the ground under the ends of the canoe and the two men would sleep under a single blanket with their feet pointed in opposite directions, each with his head on a pile of dunnage. If there were too many men aboard to do this, in bad weather a crude shelter was made by resting some poles on the upturned bilge and covering them with sheets of bark; under such a shelter meals could be cooked.

As did many of the eastern Indians, the old Malecite tribesmen built canoes of materials other than birch bark. When a canoe was required for a temporary use such as in hunting, it could be made of spruce bark. (As the designs of such canoes were rather standardized, they will be dealt with in Chapter 8.) When bark was unobtainable, the Malecite built canoes covered with moosehide, or, in rare instances, they built wooden dugouts.

The old Malecite river canoe shown on page 71 will serve to illustrate a description of the details of construction that were used. These canoes were obviously built with their gunwales (which were the length of the bottom only) serving as a building frame. The ends of the gunwales were supported by headboards stepped on the heels of the inner stem-pieces, and the stems raked outward from their heels. The gunwale ends were joined to the head of the stem-piece by the outwales and the gunwale caps. Bark was used to the ends of the canoe. One side of the bark cover was cut so that it stood well above the sheer line from the gunwale end outboard, and the opposite side was cut to the level of the sheer. The first piece was then folded over the opposite side and down, so that it covered both the extreme ends of the gunwales and the top of the inner stem-piece. Another piece of bark was then fitted over this fold, and this new piece formed the flaps below the outwales on each side, the wulegessis. The outwales ran past the gunwale ends and were cut off flush with the outboard face of the stem; the caps ran likewise and covered the bark over the head of the inner stem piece. The characteristic sheer of these canoes, where the rise toward the ends began, showed a quick curve that faired into a rising straight line at the gunwale and then continued straight and rising to the stem head. The wulegessis was therefore quite long. The ends of the gunwales were not of the half-arrowhead shape, but were snied off on their inboard sides so that they met on a rather long bevel; the lashing was slightly let in to the outboard faces to keep it from slipping over the gunwale ends. The caps of the gunwales were similarly reduced in width, where they came together over the ends of the canoe.

The main gunwale members were about 1¼ inches square amidships, tapering to ¾ inch at the ends. The lower outboard corner was beveled to take the ends of the ribs, as shown on page 71, and the lower inboard corner was also beveled or rounded, but to a lesser degree. The upper inboard corner, shown beveled in the drawing of figure 62, was sometimes slightly rounded, as were the outwales. Amidships the outwale was about 1 inch deep, and it tapered toward the ends, where its depth was about ⅝ inch, the thickness being ½ inch amidships and a scant ⅜ inch at the ends. On the canoe shown, the cap was ⅜ inch thick, tapering to about ⁵⁄₁₆ inch at the ends, and 1¾ inches wide amidships, tapering to about ⅝ or ½ inch where the caps came together at the ends. The top corners of the cap were beveled in the example.

The sheathing appears to have been about ³⁄₁₆ inch thick on the average. On the bottom and sides it was in two lengths, overlapping slightly amidships. Toward the ends of the canoe the sheathing was tapered, maximum width of the splints being about 4 inches amidships.

The canoe, which was 18 feet 6 inches long overall, had 46 ribs. These were about 3 inches wide and ⅜ inch thick from the center to the first thwart outboard on each side, and 2 inches wide from these thwarts to the ends, except for the endmost five ribs, which were roughly 1¾ inches wide. The drawing on page 71 shows the shape of the thwarts. The ends were tenoned through the gunwales, and there were three lacing holes in the ends of the middle and first thwarts and two in the end thwarts. The beam of the canoe inside the gunwales was 30 inches and outside, 31¼ inches; the tumble-home made the extreme beam 35½ inches. The canoe was rather flat bottomed athwartships and quite shallow, the depth amidships being 10¾ inches.

The building bed must have had about a 1½ inch crown at midlength. It is probable that the stem pieces were not fixed in place until after the gunwales had been raised to sheer height. The gunwales were lashed with the Malecite group lashings, each of four turns through the bark and spaced at 3 to 3½ inches apart in the midlength and at 2 inches from the end thwarts to the headboards. Two auxiliary lashings were placed over the outwales and caps outboard of the gunwale ends, one about 6 inches beyond the ends of the gunwales and the other against the inboard side of the stem-piece. The end closure was accomplished by the usual spiral lashing passed through the laminated stem pieces. The latter were split (to within about 4 inches of the heel), into six or more laminae that were closely wrapped with bark cord. The headboards were bellied toward the ends to keep the bark cover under tension, and the ends outboard of the headboards were stuffed with shavings or moss.