| [Contents.]
In certain versions of this etext, in certain browsers,
clicking on this symbol
will bring up a larger version of the illustration. (etext transcriber's note) |
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.
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
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
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 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 | u, as in rule υ, as in full o, as in note ↄ, as ou in ought a, as in bar |
| Δ, as in but | |
| DIPHTHONGS | |
| ai, as in aisle | oi, as in boil |
| SEMIVOWELS | |
| w, y, substantially as in English | |
| CONSONANTS | ||||||||||||
| Stop | Labialized stop | Continuant | Affricative | Lateral | Affricative lateral | |||||||
| Surd | Sonant | Fortis | Surd | Fortis | Surd | Surd | Fortis | Surd | Sonant | Surd | Fortis | |
| 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
WATERMAN—CANOES PL. I
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
WATERMAN—CANOES PL. II
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).