Another kayak-form canoe of unknown tribal designation from the Mackenzie Basin was 13 feet 3 inches long, 27 inches beam over the gunwales, 8½ inches deep amidships, 8¾ inches deep at heel of stem, 10 inches deep at the aftermost thwart, and with about ⅜ inch of rocker in the forebody, none in the afterbody. The greatest beam occurred 7 feet 2 inches from the stem. The width amidships of the bottom framework of loose longitudinals was 13 inches. The length of the rake foreward was 12 inches and aft, 12 inches. The fore deck extended inboard to the second thwart, where a roll of bark formed a breakwater. The after deck extended inboard to the aftermost thwart. Between the end thwarts the sheer was practically straight; at the ends it rose gently, becoming almost a straight line as it came to the stem and stern, and without the usual upward hook in the ends of the gunwales.

This was a very light and well-built canoe with a birch-bark cover, a slightly rounded bottom athwartships, slack bilge, and flaring sides showing some curve in cross-section. The ends were rather sharp, the gunwales coming in to them almost straight, in plan, as did the chine members. The stem and stern pieces were of wide plank sharpened along their outboard edge outside the bark cover, for their whole height, to form cutwaters. The stem and stern profiles were about the same as those of the Chipewyan canoes.

An old model in the Peabody Museum of an undecked kayak-form canoe of Athabascan construction represents a high-ended canoe having ends with a slight rake and a straight cutwater. This form of canoe has long been extinct, and no description of an actual canoe of the form exists. Judging by the model it had a very narrow flat-bottom and rounded flaring sides.

The extinct bateau variant has already been described (pp. 159-161); it might be considered a primitive form of the kayak-form bark canoes, were it not that no intermediate type, between the bateau and the later and highly developed bark kayak-form, has been found; as a result, any such statement can be no more than speculation.

Sturgeon-Nose Canoe

In southern British Columbia and in northern Washington, the ram-ended or sturgeon-nose canoes were built. These were the canoes of the Kutenai, also spelled "Kootenay," and of the Salish tribal groups. Used on rivers and lakes, they were constructed of the bark of birch, spruce, fir, white pine, or balsam, whichever was available at the building site. Wherever possible a panel of birch bark was worked in along the whole length of the gunwales. The hull form of these canoes varied somewhat, perhaps by decision of the builder, or perhaps by local tribal custom. The ends were formed with a marked "ram," the stem profiles running down and out to the "nose" in a straight or nearly straight line. In some examples the stem profiles were in a hollow curve, starting down from the gunwales rather steeply and then curving outward more gently to the nose. Most examples had a bottom that was straight or slightly hogged, while those with the hollow curve in the ram often had a slight rocker. It is believed that the intention was always to have the bottom straight but that in construction the center of the canoe lifted somewhat, thus showing a slight hog in the bottom line. The effects of loading and use on the light and flexible structure of these canoes would cause the bottom to rocker and the outboard ends to lift, thus causing the hollow in the ram profiles. These effects of loading are confirmed by tests with models of this form of canoe.

The midsection was usually quite round, almost U-shaped, on the bottom, but some canoes showed the bottom slightly flattened and the sides flared out somewhat. Toward the ends, the U-shape became marked, and near the gunwale ends the sides of the U fell inboard slightly as they came to the gunwales, the bottom of the U having a hard turn. In plan, the gunwales approached the stems without hollow, being nearly straight or even slightly convex. The ram was long and sharp in its lower level lines and this, with the form of midsection, made this model a fast-paddling canoe, though rather unstable. Most of these canoes had but one thwart, placed at midlength, but some have been found with three thwarts and a thong tie across the gunwales, close to the stems, as well.

No stem-pieces were used; the bark ends were closed by two outside battens, one on each side, whose heads were carried some 3 inches above the gunwales. A cutwater batten was placed over the edges of the bark between the battens, and the three were lashed together, with the bark, by a coarse spiral wrapping or by group ties. The bark cover was not sheathed inside; instead, six battens, ⅜ by 1½ inches, were placed on each side of the keel piece, which measured about ½ by 3 inches and tapered toward the ends. The battens, widely spaced, ran well into the ram ends, and were held in place, like sheathing, by the pressure of the ribs. The ribs, spaced 8 to 12 inches on centers, were often split saplings; sometimes they were shaped to approximately ¼ by ¾ inch. The batten nearest the gunwale on each side was lashed to every rib. In some canoes the heads of the ribs were brought up between the inwale and outwale, inside the bark cover, with their ends against the cap. The stitching of the longitudinal seam of the topside panel was passed around these frames and so helped to secure them. In one example, the ribs were passed through the bark cover just below the horizontal seam of the topside panel; there a turn of the stitching was passed around each rib; then the rib was brought inboard again in the seam by being passed between the edges of the bark cover and the panel. In many canoes there were no ribs in the ram ends, but this was not universal practice; small light ribs were sometimes placed there, with their heads caught in the closure lashing of the end.

The canoes had 3-part gunwales consisting of inwale, outwale, and cap, but in many the arrangement of these was such that this nomenclature is misleading. In the latter construction, a lower inwale was used, as in the above drawing; rather small in cross section, it was almost square, with rounded edges. The rib ends, after passing through slits in the bark cover below the lower inwale, continued upward past it, outside the bark cover. Above the lower inwale and inside the bark cover was a larger upper inwale; this was flat on the outboard and bottom sides, the top and inboard sides being rounded into one another. The outwale, roughly rectangular in cross section, clamped the bark cover and heads of the ribs between it and the upper inwale. The ribs and bark were trimmed off flush with the tops of the outwale and upper inwale. The thwart amidships was caught, at the ends, between the lower and upper inwales. The gunwale members and bark cover were secured by group lashings of small extent and rather widely spaced.

The methods of fitting the thwarts differed in this class of canoe, and it cannot be determined with certainty whether this variation was tribal or the choice of the individual builder. In canoes having the lower inwale arrangement there was but one thwart amidships. As has been said, its ends were caught between the upper and lower inwales. Directly beneath it was a rib whose head was not brought up outside the bark cover but, after being secured to the uppermost sheathing batten, was brought around inboard in a quick hard turn and secured along the underside of the thwart with a close spiral lashing. Under this rib at the topmost batten was secured a short false rib head by forcing the beveled foot of the false rib between the batten and the true rib, after lashing; the head of the false rib was then brought up through and outside the bark cover in the customary manner, or it might be forced under the lower inwale, inside the bark cover. In this construction, the endmost ribs were at the gunwale ends, and the heads of these were lashed to the stem battens outside the gunwale ends, on the outside of the bark cover.

In canoes having the usual gunwales of inwale, outwale, and cap, the inwale and outwale were roughly rectangular, with their top sides horizontal, and the cap, very small and light, was flat on the bottom and rounded on top. In this construction, the rib heads usually were clamped between the inwale and outwale, inside the bark cover.

The ribs of the ends were lighter than those of the main body and more closely spaced, say 2 or 3 inches apart. These began about 8 or 9 inches inboard of the gunwale ends; the heads did not reach the gunwales, but instead were caught in the horizontal seam of the side panel and then cut off. Usually three ribs were so fitted. The rest of the end ribs, usually eight in number, either had their heads caught in the stem lashings or were made up as hoops with the heads overlapped and lashed together, the ribs being placed so that the overlap came to one side or the other of the canoe. Each hoop was usually caught by a turn in the end-closure lashing.

To strengthen the ram, the lower ends of the three stem battens were lashed to the extremities of the inside keel-piece, which was brought through the bark cover at this point. The opening resulting from this was sealed with gum or pitch. Minor variations in construction have been noted in the canoes exhibited in museums; in one, for example, only every fourth rib was caught in the topside panel stitching.

In canoes having the usual arrangement of gunwale members, with the cap over the ends of the ribs, the ends of the thwart were sometimes carried some 6 to 8 inches beyond the gunwales, at each end, and much reduced in thickness by cutting away about half the depth of the thwart. This part was then wrapped tightly around the inwale, brought inboard along the underside of the thwart, and there lashed. Examples show that the amount of end brought inboard under the thwart varied with the builder. It should be added that the thwarts were usually no more than barked saplings and were obviously installed in the canoe when green and treated with hot water so they would not break when wrapped around the inwales. In canoes having three thwarts, all were fitted in this manner, but often the thwarts on each side of the middle were also wrapped in a long spiral with a thong whose ends were tied to each gunwale. In 3-thwart canoes, there was commonly a cross tie, located roughly 12 inches from the gunwale ends and consisting of three or more turns of cord, or thong, around the gunwale members on each side and athwartships, secured by turns of the ends around the cross tie. In one canoe there was a thwart amidships and one at one end, about halfway between the middle thwart and the gunwale ends; at the other end were two cross ties, one replacing the thwart and another a foot inboard of the ends of the gunwales. In this canoe the ribs at the gunwale ends were hoops and there were only three hoop ribs in the ram ends.

One canoe, from Stevens County, Washington, had a peculiar double framing. The sheathing battens, instead of being on the inside of the bark cover, rested on light ribs, spaced about 6 inches apart, that ran only far enough up the sides to have their ends caught in the stitching at the bottom of the topside birch-bark panel along the gunwales. The longitudinal battens were placed inside these, with the batten nearest the gunwale lashed to the light ribs. Inside these battens and spaced about a foot apart was another set of ribs whose heads were secured between the inwale and outwale inside the bark cover; each of these inside ribs was also lashed to the uppermost batten. Only the keel batten was under the small ribs. The thwart ends were wrapped around the main gunwale members, and the stem battens were secured to the birch topside panels by but one group lashing, near the gunwales. The bottom cover was stiff pine bark.

The topside panel of birch bark was placed in these canoes so that its grain was horizontal instead of the usual vertical. Presumably this was done as a maintenance solution: the panel was much easier to repair or replace than the bottom bark; and by having the panel placed in this weak mode, it would split before the bottom bark if too much pressure were brought on the framework in loading.

These canoes paddled well in strong winds and in smooth water, and worked quietly in the marshes where they were much used. Canvas canoes of the same model replaced the bark canoes, indicating that the model was suitable for its locality and use. These sturgeon-nose canoes were so different from other North American bark canoes that they have been the subject of much speculation, particularly since ram-ended canoes, though of different construction, existed in Asia.

The size of the Kutenai-Salish sturgeon-nose canoes varied; the most common size appears to have been between 14 and 20 feet over the ends of the rams, 24 to 28 inches beam, and with a depth ranging from 12 to 13 inches amidships and from 14½ to 17½ inches at the ends of the gunwales. However, records exist that show rather large canoes were built on this model, 24 feet over the rams, 48 inches beam and 24 inches depth.

The building methods of this type of canoe have never been reported. Probably some kind of a rough building frame was used. Perhaps this was comprised of a couple of the battens and the keel piece, weighted with stones. The building bed was probably level. The main gunwale members were apparently made up temporarily and the bark cover shaped and staked out. From that point the work may have followed the usual canoe-building practices except that the ends could not be closed until the framing there was complete, otherwise it would have been impossible to fasten the small ribs in the rams. The structure of these canoes appears to have been almost entirely cedar, except for the bark and lacings which, in some instances, were partly some bark fiber as well as roots. In general, the construction of this class of canoe did not match in quality that of the other bark canoes of the Northwest.