Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal ofAnthropology

Volume 7 | Issue 1 Article 9

6-19-2011

The Development of Aboriginal Watercraft in theGreat Lakes RegionKimberly E. MonkThe University of Western Ontario

Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totemPart of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology

Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Totem: The University of WesternOntario Journal of Anthropology by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact kmarsha1@uwo.ca.

Recommended CitationMonk, Kimberly E. (1999) "The Development of Aboriginal Watercraft in the Great Lakes Region," Totem: The University of WesternOntario Journal of Anthropology: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 9.Available at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol7/iss1/9

The Development of Aboriginal Watercraft in the Great Lakes Region

Keywordswatercraft, Great Lakes, skin boats, canoes, First Nations

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0License.

This article is available in Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol7/iss1/9

The Development of Early Aboriginal Watercraft In the GreatLakes Region

Kimberly E. Monk

In the thousands of years before Samuelde Champlain explored the Great Lakes basin therewas scarcely a populated place where the land metriver, lake or bay that prehistoric people did notuse some form of watercraft. Today, there is awealth of information about these indigenousvessels from two primary sources: ethnographicaccounts and archaeological remains. The Periodof Contact provides us with European explorers'letters, books, journals, sketches and paintings ofindigenous watercraft. We must also depend onarchaeology for additional knowledge about thevery earliest watercraft. In some geographicalareas the use of watercraft can be inferred simplybecause islands were settled and material remainswere found (McGhee 1984: 7). In others,representations of vessels have been discovered inthe form of pictographs, petroglyphs, engravings,murals, models and even surviving aboriginalboats.

Through the analysis of both historicaland archaeological evidence, I wish to study thethree primary watercrafts of the Great Lakesregion: the skin boat, dugout canoe and barkcanoe. This discussion will include information onthe regional styles of bark canoes among theEastern Cree, Algonquin and Colonial fur-traders.It will also discuss the materials and methods ofcanoe construction, the decorative styles of thesevarious canoes, and the variety of utilitarianpurposes to which the canoe was employed.Ultimately, the focus of this paper is to analyze thedevelopment of Great Lakes watercraft in an effortto emphasize the importance of this line of study toa comprehensive and complete picture of Ontarioarchaeology and prehistory.

In the Great Lakes region, skin boats,dugout canoes and birch bark canoes were used forcenturies by the indigenous people. Theenvironment dictated the need for watercraft andprovided the natural resources for tools andbuilding materials. Environmental niches alsoplayed a major role in the development ofspecialized local watercraft in diverse regions in

and around Ontario. Transportation provided bythe many types of watercraft would have beenessential to the indigenous peoples of the GreatLakes region, not only for fishing and cropgathering, but also for short and long distancetrade with other indigenous populations. Suchconsiderations are important in formulating acohesive understanding of the peoples who haveroamed our waterways for over 11,000 years. Theearliest constructed watercraft used in the GreatLakes region, aside from reed constructed craft,was the skin boat (Roberts & Shackleton 1983:145).

Indigenous peoples of the Arctic regionconstructed the highest quality and mostexceptional boats of animal skin. However, theWoodland Indians were also familiar with hidecovered craft and utilized this mode oftransportation to assist in many utilitarian tasks(Roberts & Shackleton 1983: 149). The simplestskin boat used in the Great Lakes region wasactually a coracle called a 'bull-boat'. Adaptedfrom the Plains Indians, the name was derivedfrom the use of buffalo hides. Generally, one ortwo of these hides were stretched over a basket-like framework of willow or other boughs.Usually, the 'bull-boat' was towed by someone inthe water or propelled with short-handled paddlesor with poles. Moose skin was also used as thecovering for rough-and-ready boats among peopleof the Woodlands region (Roberts & Shackleton1983: 152).

Ethnographic reports show that variousGreat Lakes groups used the bull-boat quiteextensively. In the seventeenth century, north ofLake Superior, Pierre-Esprit Radisson becameinvolved with a party of Cree who were using abull boat (Radisson 1885: 123). George Setongives other evidence of the use of the 'bull-boat' in1858, whereby he sketched a group of indigenouspeoples modifying the skin boat concept. Thelocation of these indigenous peoples was identifiedonly as "Rupertsland", the name given earlier tothe old Hudson's Bay Company. Thus, the specific

Monk: The Development of Aboriginal Watercraft in the Great Lakes Region

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1999

peoples who were using and modifying a 'bull-boat' are not unequivocally known (Roberts &Shackleton 1983: 150). However, Seton reportsthat these peoples improvised with otherconstruction materials to cover a frame whiletraveling. It is reported that sheath sections ofoiled cloth were carried along, that could be fittedover canoe frames made from resilient willowbranches and shoots.

Roberts and Shackleton (1983: 153) reportthat the 'bull-boat' was primarily constructed andmaintained by women for assistance in thegathering of agricultural crops and naturalfoodstuffs, but was also used for fishing. Thus, the'bull-boat' was primarily a type of watercraft usedlocally as a working transport and was rarelyutilized as a long-distance travelling vessel.Through its capacity as a working vessel, itallowed women the ability to carry out thegathering of crops in a much easier and moreproductive manner (Roberts and Shackelton 1983:154). In the Lake of Woods area, an unknownartist sketched Ojibwa women carrying these boatsto and from the river. This artist also noted thatthe boats were removed from the water when notin use, in order to help preserve the skin covering(Adney & Chapelle 1964: 219).

The 'bull-boat' was actually quite anawkward vessel to construct and maintain. It wasrelatively large, and the materials for itsconstruction were often sparse. Furthermore, itrequired high maintenance to last any significantamount of time. As such, the bull-boat was not amainstay in the Great Lakes region. While, itcontinued to be employed on a minor scale forfishing and personal transportation needs, astestified to by the ethnographic reports, generallythe bull-boat was replaced by the dugout canoe.The 'bull-boat' simply did not provide a securebasis for everyday extensive use by the indigenouspeoples of the Great Lakes region.

The dugout canoe was probably the firsttype of canoe made by indigenous groups acrossNorth America (Johnstone 1980: 48). It wasconstructed by selecting a tree of suitable size,which was then chopped or burned down at thebase. The top of the tree would then be cut off,and the outside roughly shaped, while the insidewas carefully burned and removed. Once thecanoe was the desired size many holes were drilled

through it so as to gauge the thickness of the hull.Once the desired thickness had been reached, theholes were plugged in with wooden pegs(Christensen 1986: 148). The canoe was thenfilled with hot water to soften the wood and makeit more pliable. The sides of the canoe werestretched apart at the top, and held apart by shapedrods called thwarts. Native watercraftmanufacturers would also make the boat wider atthe center, and therefore much more stable than around boat. This procedure would force the frontand the back of the boat to lift up slightly(Christensen 1986: 152). The height of the bowand stem relative to the center is called rocker.This was important because the more rocker a boathas the greater maneuverability it would allow.

The hull of the dugout canoe was usuallyconstructed so that the bow of the canoe was thebottom of the tree, because the wood from thebottom of the tree is denser than the wood from thetop of the tree. Thus, with a single individualsitting towards the back of the canoe, the denserwood in the front would level the canoe out in thewater. This process is referred to as trim(Johnstone 1980: 50). After the basic hull wasmade, special attachments were designed. Oftenthere were decorative bow and stem cones thatserved to break large waves and keep them fromcoming into the boat (Johnstone 1980: 52).

Many examples of dug-out canoes havebeen found in Ohio. A 3,500-year-old dugout wasaccidentally discovered in 1976 on the Ringlerproperty in Savannah Lake, Ohio (Brose & Greber1982: 274). This peat-filled bog had earlieryielded two similar canoes. This vessel of whiteoak, now known as the Ringler Archaic dugout,has been radiocarbon dated to around 1,500 B.C.This attests to the use of such canoes in the GreatLakes region before the first millennium B.C.Archaeologists Brose and Greber point out that theRingler dugout exhibits construction techniquesthat involved the use of fire and stone axes (Broseand Greber 1982: 275).

The dugout is the most prolific and wellknown of all prehistoric boat types. The dugoutcanoe allows individuals and groups to traveleasily across great distances of water and for themovement of large amounts of cargo from place toplace with little effort. It was very useful for thetravel necessary for getting to far away huntingareas and returning to camp with game.Furthermore, the dugout canoe is the most likely tosurvive to be included in the archaeological record.

Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 7 [1999], Iss. 1, Art. 9

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol7/iss1/9

The sturdy and hearty wood of a dugout canoe isthe most unyielding construction material,compared to skin and bark, to natural bio-decompositional processes (Hornell 1946: 46).

Although the dugout canoe was preferredin the Great Lakes region to the skin-boat, it haddisadvantages. Namely, the weight of the boatmade it difficult to transport on land and difficultto paddle in the water (Johnstone 1980: 190;Christensen 1986: 145). A lighter boat was asignificant improvement in terms of accessibilityof disjoined waterways through portages, and interms of the power required for motion in thewater. It was the bark canoe that filled this role.

The most common bark canoe is thebirchbark canoe. The distinctive characteristic ofbark canoes is that they were built by forcing aframing system into a previously assembled tree-bark cover. The bark would be peeled off the treeusing a knife and then placed over a frame. Thebark could then be made pliable through theapplication of heat at which point the frame andthe bark were sewn together using split roots. Theseams would be sealed together using a mixture ofsix parts resin (sap from a coniferous tree), onepart animal fat and one part charcoal. The fatadded plasticity and the charcoal added body to themixture (Gidmark 1988: 15; Leshikar 1996: 14).

Though paper birch provided the superiorand preferred bark for canoes, the bark of elm,hickory, chestnut, cottonwood and spruce wereoften used. Some of the prehistoric tools used forbuilding bark canoes in this way were stonegouges, adzes, wedges, hammers, knives, scrapersof stone, bone awls, and wooden mauls(Christensen 1986: 150; Leshikar 1996: 18).These specific prehistoric tools are often the mostcommon tools found on archaeological sites, and aplethora of examples exist in the Great Lakesregion.

The bark canoe came in a wide variety ofsizes, anywhere from about ten to sixty feet inlength (Leshikar 1996: 20). It was not uncommonto have eight or more people paddling the boats.These boats could easily be lifted out of the waterand transported long distances over land andbetween waterways. The smaller canoes weregenerally solo canoes used for trapping and~u'nting (Leshikar 1996: 21).

Other uses of the bark canoe includedfood gathering. In the south and west of LakeSuperior, during harvest time in early September,women lined their canoes with thin birch bark andpaddled them into standing stalks of wild rice, astaple of the Indian diet and an important tradecommodity (Roberts & Shackleton 1983: 162).The stalks were bent over the gunwales and theears of rice were beaten with short paddles so thatthe grains fell into the bottom of the craft.Industrious Ojibwa women could fill a canoe threetimes in a day through this method (Roberts &Shackleton 1983:164).

The bark boat was a 'blind alley' in thehistory of ship construction and it is the leastsusceptible of all the boats mentioned to furtherdevelopment. The size of the bark boat is limitedby the availability of a suitable seamless bark shelland even the skin of the boat cannot withstandsevere wave motion and is vulnerable to damage(Leshikar 1996: 23). However, the bark-boat wasexcellently suited to its natural environment: theinland waterways and lakes. Thus, it was the barkcanoe that occupied and continuously held a mainpractical and ecological niche of the many GreatLakes peoples.

The use of bark canoes in the variousregions around the Great Lakes may not havediffered, however, regional styles did develop.These styles assist archaeologists in reconstructingprehistoric spatial delineation and relationships,trade partners and routes, and also gives us cluesinto the ideological overtones of the variousindigenous groups who occupied and utilized thevast and rich waterways of the Great Lakes region.

Bark Canoe Construction Among Cree,Algonquin, and Colonial Fur Traders

The eastern Cree, who were located innorth-eastern Ontario, employed the use of abuilding frame that resulted in longer gunwales. Acommon canoe model in this area was the so-called "crooked canoe", in which there was a verymarked fore-and-aft rocker to the bottom without acorresponding amount of sheer (Adney & Chapelle1964: 101). As a result, the canoe was muchdeeper amidships than near the ends. Anothercommon canoe model had a rather straight bottomfore and aft, with some lift near the ends and acorresponding amount of sheer. Between these

Monk: The Development of Aboriginal Watercraft in the Great Lakes Region

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1999

was a hybrid, which had some fore-and-aft rockerin the bottom and a very moderate sheer (Adney &Chapelle 1964: 101 ).

Although birch bark was quite plentiful inmost of the regions where the eastern Cree werelocated, some northern areas lacked a comparableabundance. This often made it necessary toconstruct a bark cover using many small pieces.This was not only laborious but made a rough andrather unsightly cover. Hence, some Cree groupssubstituted spruce bark, which was available inlarger sheets (Hornell 1946: 68).

Little is known about the decorationemployed by the eastern Cree. The Montagnaisbirch-bark model canoe has three small circlesplaced in a triangular position on the bow pnd aband along the bottom of the side panels (Gidmark1988: 33). The circles and the bands are painted inred, although this may represent the dark inner rindleft after scraping the winter bark cover (Gidmark1988: 33). However, much is known of thedecoration the Cree employed on their paddles.The Cree were the only indigenous population ofthe three groups I discuss who decorated theirpaddles (Adney & Chapelle 1964: 120). Thesepaddles had parallel-sided blades with roundedtips. The handle was sometimes constructed witha ball-shaped top grip and other times it was pole-ended. Old Cree paddles were often decoratedwith red pigment bands; markings in the shape ofcrosses; squares in a series; and dots on the blades.In addition, the top grip might also have beenpainted (Adney & Chapelle 1964: 106).

The Algonquin, who were located insoutheastern Ontario, were heavily influenced bythe fur-trade, in which they were long employed ascanoe builders. Many of their uniquely formedcanoes were later employed by the Colonial fur-traders (Adney & Chapelle 1964: 121). Unlike theEastern Cree, the Algonquin canoe style wasdeveloped on two different profiles.

The first style to be discussed is the high-ended canoe (Adney & Chapelle 1964: 113). Themost marked feature in the appearance of thiscanoe was the profile of the ends: the stem line hada slight angle at the point where it joined thebottom. This would produce an outward bend in agentle curve, reaching the perpendicular at a pointlittle more than half the height of the end. Fromthere, it tumbled home slightly - which means that

it slightly curved outward when viewing the shipfrom fore of aft (Adney & Chapelle 1964: 113).

The other form of Algonquin canoe had ~low sheer with only a slight lift towards the ends(Adney & Chapelle 1964: 113). In this canoe, thestem might have a short, hard curve at the heel andan upper portion that was straight and slightlytumbled; or the full height might be well rounded,with a slight tumblehome near the stem head(Adney & Chapelle 1964: 113).

There is no certainty about the decorationof Algonquin canoes. Some Algonquian eldersclaim that the old form of canoe was oftendecorated with figures formed by scraping thewinter bark: usually these figures depicted thegame that the owner of the canoe hunted (Adney &Chapelle 1964: 122). Such meaningful decorationcould be very useful to archaeologists should anyexamples be found. Five pointed stars, fish, andcircular forms are known to be used as well,however it is not known if these decorationsrepresent cultural in situ Algonquin creations, or ifthey were adopted from different groups.Certainly more study by archaeologists needs to bedone in this area (Adney & Chapelle 1964: 122).

Fur-trade canoes were specificallyemployed for use in European exploration pursuits.Unfortunately, little has survived concerning theform and construction of the early French colonialfur-trade canoes. Circumstantial evidence leads tothe conclusion that the model was perhaps adevelopment and enlargement of the Algonquinform of a high-ended canoe (Adney & Chapelle1964: 115). For example, one of the Algonquinmodels, which has high ends resembling those ofthe large fur-trade canoe, may have been the typefrom which the fur-trade canoe was developed.The early French came into contact with theAlgonquin before they met the Great LakesOjibway who were the other builders of the high-ended model (Gidmark 1988: 17).

Adney and Chapelle (1964: 135) suggestthat the basic form of the fur-trade canoe likelystayed the same in the hundreds of years they wereutilized in the Great Lakes area. However, theyalso suggest that it is reasonable to expectdifferences to occur in accordance with thedifferent trading posts built all over the GreatLakes region. As such, local modifications would

Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 7 [1999], Iss. 1, Art. 9

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol7/iss1/9

be patterned on canoes from the specific postlocation.

All fur-trade canoes are believed to havehad narrow bottoms, flaring topsides, and sharpends (Christensen 1986: 153). The flaring sideswere rather straight and the bottoms nearly flatathwartships. The bottom had a moderate rockervery close to the ends. In nearly all of thesecanoes, the main gunwales were sheered up onlyslightly at the ends and were secured to the sides ofthe inner stem-piece. The outwales and caprails,however, were strongly sheered up to the top of thestem (Christensen 1986: 153).

The variation in the forms of fur-canoeswas expressed almost entirely in the form andframing of the ends. The curvature and form ofthe ends varied with the post of building.Generally, the lines were all about the same,though small variations in sheer, rocker, and mid-section must also have existed (Adney & Chapelle1964: 136). The later fur-trade canoes wereactually identified with their post. They hadpainted on them such names as Duchess, Sir JohnA. MacDonald, Express, Arrow and Ivanhoe(Adney & Chapelle 1964: 150). In fact, these latercanoes were were often painted in white, with thefigures or letters on this background. TheCompany flag was often painted on the stem withthe initials of the Hudson Bay Company. Manytrading posts used such figures as jackfish, loon,deer, wolf or bear on the bow. The rayed circulardevices appear to have been long popular and weresaid to have been introduced by the French.

The discovery and analysis of thesevessels clearly holds significant information forarchaeologists, in terms of delineating and refiningthe relationship between indigenous peoples andEuropeans. To shed light on the often turbulentrelationship between these two peoples and thefur-trade industry will contribute to a line ofinquiry which explores a practice that significantlyaltered the environment and peoples of the GreatLakes region.

When purSUIng the study of earlyaboriginal watercraft from a developmentalperspective there are five issues that need to betaken into consideration. The first is thatwatercraft designed for very specific functions,such as fishing, or moving small numbers ofpeople over short distances have been observed to

contain only small degrees of detectable changeliterally over millennia. The second considerationis that some aboriginal watercraft may embodydesign features merged from more than one coresource. It is therefore necessary to look beyondthe diversity of appearances with regard to thesecanoes and instead, concentrate on the basicstructure and fundamental shape of the canoe.Change can then be detected in relation to thebasic design structure rather than to externalappearance. Thus, much study is needed tounderstand the source and nature of change to thediffering prehistoric watercrafts, temporally andspatially. As well, an emphasis should be placedon understanding the technological changes ofthese watercrafts.

The third issue when studying the historyof the development of prehistoric watercraft is thatit is not always correct for archaeologists toassume that the design of a successive watercraft isprogressive or an improvement on existing models.For example, the dugout has been used forthousands of years and can still be found in someof today's industrial societies, despite numerousalternatives. In fact, archaeologists are findingdugouts in modem cultures that are essentiallyindistinguishable from those recovered duringNorth American prehistory.

The fourth consideration to archaeologistsstudying prehistoric watercrafts is that canoes arebuilt of wood and other organic materials such asskins, leather or bark. Wood, however, decaysunless it happens to be preserved underexceptional circumstances. Furthermore, it wascommon to break up canoes once they had reachedthe end of their working life and then use thematerials for something else. For the most part,when studying the development of early aboriginalwatercraft, there will be an almost total lack of firsthand evidence. In these cases, archaeologists mustrely instead on secondary sources. A furtherproblem is that archaeologists may not haveknowledge of canoe construction, which maycause difficulties in identifying related artifacts.Therefore what is needed are archaeologists witheither a background in nautical archaeology orknowledge of prehistoric shipbuilding.

Thus, the final· factor concernsethnography, which because of the paucity ofarchaeological examples has an important role toplay in the study of the development of the canoe.There are still people today who build boats theway they were built 700 or even a thousand years

Monk: The Development of Aboriginal Watercraft in the Great Lakes Region

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1999

ago. Therefore, much opportunity exists forethnoarchaeological experiments and studies.However, there is a fundamental concern raisedhere. Watercrafts are by definition mobile; theytravel; that is their fundamental design purpose.They carry people and ideas from one region toanother. Thus, a serious impediment occurs whentrying to fix a certain canoe type to a particularplace or people. Issues are raised when claims aremade that a particular canoe type is indigenous to apeople and/or region. Furthermore, this problemchallenges archaeologists and historians to be veryspecific when using the term indigenous, since it islikely a fluid exchange of technological andstylistic ideas was maintained over vast geographicareas. Although the term indigenous involvesconnotations of immobility, this correlation simplymay not be applicable to studies of transportation

These problems are familiar to terrestrialarchaeologists but they become acute with thespecific study of watercraft development. Werecanoe designs diffused from technologicallyadvanced regions into less advanced regions? Ordid various peoples use similar building materialsto solve similar design problems thus arrivingindependently at similar designs? The question ofdiffusion or independent development provides akey to the solution of some of the basic problemsof watercraft identification because it pointsclearly to the intention of the canoe builder and theconstraints imposed upon them by the materials attheir disposal.

Underwater archaeology is a fairly recentdevelopment that has opened up many newpossibilities towards the study of aboriginalwatercraft. Paradoxically, terrestrialarchaeologists are more likely to find intactwatercraft than their maritime colleagues sincewood can survive very well in mud or peat, butdeteriorates rapidly in seawater. Thus, maritimearchaeologists rarely recover entire watercraft, butwhat they usually find is the non-perishable cargo,tool kits and possibly fragments of timber trappedunderneath the cargo. Such evidence has beenfound on Allumette and Morrison's Island, locatedon the Ottawa River (Taylor 1980: 9).

Excavations along the Ottawa River haverevealed tools probably used in dugout canoemaking (Taylor 1980: 10). On Morrison's Island,archaeologists have discovered copper awls thatwere used 5000 years ago (Taylor 1980: 12). Awlsare essential to the construction of the canoe, butthey had many other uses and their mere discovery

do not necessarily indicate canoe manufacture. Inthe period between the use of copper awls 5000years ago and of iron and steel awls by FirstNation peoples today, awls were made of antler,and or, bone (Taylor 1980: IS). Additionalartifacts recovered at Morrison's Island are beaverteeth. It is thought that the antecedent to theIndian steel crooked knife, which was believed tobe an important tool in canoe construction, was aknife made from the incisor tooth of a beaver. Thebeaver teeth from Morrison's Island were foundground at the ends to form left or right-handedknives (Taylor 1980: ] 7). In addition, the siteyielded stone gouges and adzes that wereindispensable to the manufacture of dugout canoes.Furthermore, on Allumette Island, not far fromMorrison's Island, Taylor (] 980: ] 5) describedfinding "semi-lunar knives of slate"; stronglysuggestive of Indian crooked knives. However, asof yet, no knives made of copper and resemblingcrooked knives have been found in this specificarea (Taylor 1980: 20).

The study of the development ofaboriginal watercraft is important to archaeologybecause it gives a more realistic insight into thedaily lives of prehistoric peoples. The study ofsettlement and subsistence could particularlybenefit from additional knowledge of watercrafts.An analogy can be made here with past and currentstudies that employ the medium of pottery to traceand follow the moving settlement of differentindigenous groups. Indeed, differing canoeconstruction methods and materials could assist indelineating the movements, contacts andgeographic range of different groups around theGreat Lakes region. We have already seen howthe existence of regional canoe markings from thevarious colonial trading posts around the GreatLakes could be used to uncover early tradingroutes and relations. It is interesting to note thatthere exists no official records that indicate thatthese regional markings should have beenimprinted on the canoe. Yet, the use of' theemblems was widespread: Norway house used adeers' head with antlers, Saskatchewan twobuffalo, Cumberland a bear, Red River agrasshopper, and Manitoba a crocus (Adney &Chapelle 1964: ]50-151). An additional step couldbe taken in such material cultural studies, toinvestigate the feasibility of garnishing a greaterunderstanding of the stylistic and ideologicalelements of different societies by treating thestylistic components of these early watercrafts,

Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 7 [1999], Iss. 1, Art. 9

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol7/iss1/9

much the same as decoration on a pottery vesselhas been analyzed.

When Europeans first explored the NewWorld, they encountered indigenous peoples whoused watercraft extensively for numerouspurposes. Throughout the Great Lakes region, inboth lake and riverine environments, vessels weremade from locally available materials and rangedfrom those intended for use for a short amount oftime, to those capable of making extendedvoyages. Currently there exists much evidence forthe many kinds of prehistoric watercraft that wereemployed throughout the New World. (Frommodels to actual recovered craft, this evidence isgreatly enhanced by ethnohistorical andethnographic data. Furthermore, when sunkencraft are located there is a great potential forexcellent preservation.

What is important but obscure in thehistorical record is the interaction between the skinboat, bark boat and the dugout canoe. All of thesethree watercraft existed simultaneously in specifichistorical times and places, but have not beenanalyzed for correlation. The future study of GreatLakes indigenous watercraft needs to focus on therelationship between the terrestrial and aquaticworld. Only when considering these two areas inconjunction with one other will we achieve a moreenhanced understanding of the remarkabledevelopmental advancements that took place inindigenous Great Lakes watercraft. Overall, thestudy of prehistoric watercrafts will assistarchaeologists in understanding the complexityand resourcefulness which was daily employed bythe many differing groups of Great Lakes region,to negotiate with one of the most diverseenvironmental areas in the world.

Amidships middle portion of a boat lengthwise orcrossways

Tumblehome the sloping-in of a vessel's topsidesabove the point of greatest width

Adney, E.T. and Chapelle, Howard 1.1964. The BarkCanoes and Skin Boats of North America.Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Brose, D.S. and Greber 1. 1982. An Archaic Dugoutfrom Savannah Lake, Ohio. MidcontinentalJournal of Archaeology. 7: 245-282

Christensen, A.E. 1986. Tools Used for BoatbuildingIn Sailing Into the Past. New York:Routeledge.

Gidmark, David 1988 The Algonquin BirchbarkCanoe. Aylesbury: Shire Publications Ltd.

Hornell, J. 1946 Water Transport: Origins andEarly Evolution. Cambridge: CambridgePress.

Johnstone, P. 1980 The Sea-Craft of Prehistory.London: University College Press.

Leshikar, Margaret E. 1996 The EarliestWatercraft:From Rafts to Viking Ships in Ships andShipwrecks of the Americas. London:Thames and Hudson Ltd.

McGhee, R. 1984 Contact Between Native NorthAmericans and the Medieval Norse: AReview of the Evidence. AmericanAntiquity 49: 4-26.

Radisson, Pierre Esprit. 1885 Voyage of Peter EspritRadisson: Being an account of his travelsand experiences among the North AmericanIndians,from 1652 to 1684. GideonD. Scull (ed). Boston: Prince Society.

Roberts, Kenneth G. and Shackleton, P. 1983 TheCanoe: A History of the Craft from Panamato the Arctic. Toronto: Macmillan ofCanada

Taylor, J. Garth. 1980 Canoe Construction in a CreeCultural Tradition. National Museum ofMan, Mercury Series, Paper 64, Ottawa.

Monk: The Development of Aboriginal Watercraft in the Great Lakes Region

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1999