By T.T. Waterman and Geraldine Coffin...

T he 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 variet

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 somewha

The Songish about Victoria, B. C., have this model, which they call a´tq E s . [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 Sw

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

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

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

This is a very diminutive vessel, the smallest of all the Northwestern canoes. The term is grammatically the diminutive of sdΔ´wi L ( 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´twi L 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 easil

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 t

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, st L ’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´dagwΔ

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

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

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. 2