First working replica of a bark canoe.

Comparison with other bark canoes around the world.

Maritime Ethnography

There is a discipline that studies the relationship between man and the sea. Within this field, we learn about the world of mariners, the setting where their everyday life takes place both on board and on land, their tools, needs, social environment and, especially, their frame of mind. History and archaeology used to study these matters without delving too deeply in them because they were beyond their scope. Therefore, a new discipline was born –maritime ethnography, backed by the resources of ethnohistory and nautical archaeology.

It has developed significantly in the Scandinavian Peninsula and in former Eastern Germany, it has reached an important development and it is also intensively applied in Anglo-Saxon countries and France (to a lesser extent).

Foreword

This work avoids all those words that might interfere with fast reading and confine it within a specific science.

As there are nautical terms which are impossible to replace except by a long explanation, you will find a short glossary as an Appendix for the correct interpretation of the terms used in this work.

The Yamana vocabulary referring to nautical skills or their canoes has been taken from Thomas Bridges’ Yamana English Dictionary in order to classify them by topic. Many interpretations stem from it and, due to its relevance, we thought it necessary to include it to help others who may be interested in conducting research on this subject.

We also considered it was important not only to describe the way that we rebuilt a Yamana bark canoe based on ethnohistorical data; but also to widen the scope to take in the Yamana as a seaman, understanding them from that point of view after having built a canoe and trying it out in the Beagle Channel, in their habitat and in the context of their daily experiences..

We believe that it is appropriate to clarify that the canoe that we built is neither a replica nor a model. It is not a mere haphazard assembly either, since we gathered data from the different voyagers that navigated through the region to be able to rebuild the canoe step by step using the native’s methods. Nowadays, there aren’t any men who know about stripping off bark or sewing it. We had to learn how to do it, trying to imitate the Yamanas on the basis of historical and ethnographic data.

As for the rebuilding of the canoe, we think that we are not dealing with experimental nautical archaeology even when, at times, it is quite close to it. Some have even pigeonholed our work into that discipline. We believe that based on our work, a comprehensive experimental archaeology project on “canoe people” could be undertaken Now we know all the data regarding their canoes, building methods, tools, fittings, maintenance, repairs, etc.

The project “Las Manos Color de Arcilla” (Clay-colored Hands) explains the works carried out regarding tools and canoe fittings. As it was not discussed in this book, we include it as Appendix I.

As there are other bark canoes around the world, we believe the readers should reach their own conclusions after comparing them; that is the reason for Appendix II.

Appendix III deals with the Dalca, a wooden vessel that shares some aesthetic features with bark canoes.

Appendix IV explains how this project was born and how we managed to get on with our project without depending on governmental support.

This is just a starting point for potential future works aiming at a better understanding of an extinct people who, on the other hand, were the only native naval maritime tradition of the ArgentineRepublic.

To my dear wife, Cecilia Illa, for her steadfast contribution throughout the numerous stages of this work

Acknowledgements

All projects need contributors who offer their help in different degrees and, thanks to all of them you manage to achieve a goal which is almost like the one you dreamt about.

I want to congratulate the basic team at Ushuaia made up by: Miriam Corsi, Cecilia Illa, Pedro Esteban “Gato” Curuchet, Moreno Preto, Edith Pacotti, and Jorge May. Through Jorge May, I would like to thank all his family, especially to his brothers Guillermo, Roberto, and Eduardo; his wife, Marta, who spent the end of a year scraping sea lion skins and stripping off bark. I also thank Marta Vaggi, his secretary, who was in charge of our meals, Daniel Van Lierde, who had to put off his plans, among other things.

I also wish to acknowledge the significant scientific contribution by Ernesto Piana Ph.D and Hernán Vidal Ph.D as well as the team of the Museo Territorial de Tierra del Fuego [Tierra del Fuego’s Territorial Museum] (at that time, Tierra del Fuego was not a province) and its Director, Oscar Pablo Zanola.

My thanks to the Argentine Navy and especially to all the staff at the Naval Base of Ushuaia that, through Captain Héctor Alvarez, offered us vital logistic support. To the group Lanchas Rápidas [Speedboats] and especially to the command and crews of launches Indómita, Clorinda, Barranqueras, and Concepción del Uruguay, and dispatch boats Tte. Olivieri and Somellera, which willingly took us everywhere.

I am also grateful to companies and businessmen in Ushuaia such as La Anónima S. A., Club Náutico Ushuaia, Tolkeyén, Preto Automotores, Juan Carlos Begué, and Jorge Luis Trabuchi, our translator Sandra Lajous, our historian Francis Gati, and Inés “turca” Keumurdji.

I also wish to thank to the documentary team of the Polish Television (Poltel), Andrzej Radominski, Andrzej Galinski, and Antoni Bokum (who filmed in 16 mm for the European Television); R&C Video Ediciones, who edited the video on the Rebuilding of the Bark Canoe.

Museums

My special thanks to all the museums whose management, researchers, museologists, and librarians contributed in different ways to the research and the collection of data and photos published here:

  • Museo Naval de la Nación, Paseo Victorica 602, Tigre, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Especially to Juan C. Sidders and all the library and rooms staff.
  • Departamento de Estudios Históricos Navales, Casa Amarilla, Almirante Brown 401, Buenos Aires. Directors Javier Sosa, Hugo Colombotto, and Eduardo Ramos. Thanks to Dora Martínez y Sunblad.
  • Museo Etnográfico J. B. Ambrosetti; Moreno 350, Ciudad de Buenos Aires.
  • Archivo General de la Nación; Alem 246, Ciudad de Buenos Aires.
  • Museo de la Patagonia Francisco P. Moreno, Centro Cívico, 8400, S. C. de Bariloche, Río Negro. Librarian Gloria Padrós de Henning.
  • Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Santiago, Chile. Casilla 787, Santiago. My special thanks to Doctor Eliana Durán and to the museologist Miguel Angel Azocar.
  • Museo Regional Salesiano Mayorino Borgatello, Punta Arenas. Casilla 347, Punta Arenas, Chile. Thanks to father Vicente Luccelli and Professor Sergio Lausic Glasinovic.
  • Biblioteca Nacional, Subjefe Departamento de Museos [Assistant Chief of the Department of Museums] Licentiate Daniel Quiroz Larrea. Clasificador 1400, SantiagoChile.
  • Museo del Recuerdo, Instituto de la Patagonia, Universidad de Magallanes, Casilla 113-D Punta Arenas, especially to Mateo Martinic.
  • National Maritime Museum, Greenwhich, London SE109NF, Great Britain. Wood conservation and nautical archaeology techniques.
  • Musée de la Marine, Palais de Chaillot, 75116 Paris, France.
  • Musée de L’ Homme, Palace du Trocadero et du 11 Novembre, 75116, Paris, France.
  • Chasse Marée, Abri du Marin B. P. 159 29117, Douarnenez Cedex. France.
  • Museo Naval de Madrid, Montalbán 2, 28071 Madrid, Spain.
  • Ministerio da Marinha, Servicio de Documentacao Geral da Marinha, Rua D. Manoel 15 Centro, 20091 Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil.
  • Museum do Indo, Library: Rua das Palmeiras 55, Botafogo, 22270 Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil.
  • Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), GPO Box 553, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia.
  • The Tasmaniana Maritime and Folk Museum; P. O. Box 658, Devonport 7310, Australia. Research by Stephen Hiller.
  • Port Albert Maritime Museum, Hedley 3967, Victoria, Australia. Compilation by Beryl Atkin.
  • Bernisches Historisches Museum, Helvetiaplatz 5, CH-3000 Bern 6, Switzerland. Secretary, Heidi Hofstetter.
  • Folkens Museum Estnografiska, Djugardsbrunnsvagen 34, S-11527 Stockholm, Sweden. Photo collections’ curators, Sanna Torneman and Steffan Brunius.

Austin Introduction

Primitive Vessels?

Nowadays, Man is trying to reveal the mystery shrouding how we began to navigate and which evolutionary path led us to building a ship. With the passage of time, man began to pay attention as he realized that the waters did not set the continents apart, and that many of the so called primitive vessels were capable of undergoing oceanic voyages. It is this point that splits the ethnographers that side with the diffusionist theory of the peopling of the world from those that side with the isolationist school: the latter denies seaworthiness to primitive vessels.

In this manner, after Thor Heyerdhal, many scholars with an adventurous vein (occasionally, adventurers with some studies) dared to ply the oceans in all kinds of rafts, and some, the boldest dared to rebuild vessels starting from petroglyphs, paintings on ceramic vases and any information that they could garner from the past. They concluded that even though they were primitive vessels they were perfectly adapted for their intended use and environment.

At lake Titicaca, they use the totora reed rafts, while Eskimos use skin boats, the Celts used leather (tanned hides, otherwise it would decay) ones. None of them would even think about changing their boat or the materials used to build them.

But, at this point, the first divergence arose between the specialists in this field. The answer to the question: Which of these vessels is more primitive than the other? Led to two streams of thought that don’t have any point in common.

For some the reed raft (totora or papyrus) was the predecessor of all other types of boats. Their durability and capability to face strong storms was put to test during long voyages from the Euphrates to Africa; from Egypt to America (Thor Heyerdhal expeditions), and very recently from Peru to the Marquesas Islands in totora rafts (Uru expedition).

Yet naval archaeologists consider that a raft can only lead to one thing, another raft. It is a dead end without any chance of further evolution. It is based on the principle that its floatability depends on the materials employed in building it, regardless of its size, and even if water seeps into it, it will always stay afloat. On the other hand, all agree that in northern latitudes its use is only possible in interior waters. They don’t have much maneuverability and are pushed about by the wind and the currents to wherever they may go.

According to Landstron and Greenhill, vessels such as bark, monoxylons[1] and leather canoes differed from rafts on another principle; their floatability is due to the shape, which encloses a volume that is lighter than the volume of water that it displaces. They all share a common trait: they sink if they fill up with water. They rely on the navigator’s seamanship to keep afloat.

It is also said that nautical building evolved from canoes and not from rafts to become the hulls of today’s ships. We do not know which was the first step because written naval history is delayed by about 2,000 years after the first seagoing expeditions undertaken in primitive sea craft. Many are convinced that the first step in the evolution towards a ship was the monoxyle canoe with its gunwales[2] raised by the addition of planks, to increase its freeboard, so as to be able to increase its floatability for more cargo and resist larger waves (just like the Yamana did after the arrival of the Europeans, when they stopped using their bark canoes). Others maintain that it was the rush rafts which were used as molds and covered with planks of wood, which originated the first ship. (Pharaoh Cheops royal boat dated 4,600 years Before Present). The Nordic peoples, who sailed 3,000 years after the Egyptians did, say that replacing hides for wooden planks led towards the ship.

To conclude this overview, the premise accepted around the world is that the birth of the ship, opposed to canoes and rafts, coincided with the invention of metal tools. In the same manner, for many people, those made from hides are the most primitive vessels because they do not require tools to be built.

How did the Yamana get their vessels? Was there an evolution or did they arise suddenly, as it is generally believed? Was progress due to the metal tools introduced by the Europeans? Questions which lack answers, and if they do, they follow a train of thought of minds which are used to a different way of reasoning.

Another Nature

Why not apply the theory that the usage of bark evolved from the use of hides, replacing them with a wooden sheath, as a prior step to the use of planks. Perhaps hides, as they could not be tanned, rotted rapidly (to tan you require tannin, and very little can be found in the trees of this region). We do not have definite data on the use of hides, but there must be a good reason they did not use them, or if they did, for dropping its use. It could also be claimed that the wood available in the Cape Horn Archipelago is not suitable for boats or, rather, that its useful life is very short in comparison to the effort required to get the planks or even a complete tree trunk from them. Ernesto Piana, Ph.D, conducted some experiments that show the quick destruction that guindo wood suffers in comparison to others such as cedar, due to the effect of the teredo[3].

Although it is true that after the arrival of civilization, the Yamana began building monoxyle canoes and later used planks (thanks to the tools, nails and planks that they got from the sawmills), this does not imply evolution. FitzRoy remarked that in 1833 he saw how Jimmy Button (one of the natives that were taken in a previous voyage back to England and then returned to their homeland), built a monoxyle canoe like the ones he had seen at Rio de Janeiro. Thomas Bridges mentions that the first time he saw a canoe of this kind, was in 1878. Martial also mentions that he saw one in 1883; and from then on, their usage increased until they replaced the bark ones.

Martial points out that they are heavier than the bark ones, and therefore less maneuverable, slower and with less cargo capacity and more unstable; so much so that in the photographs of these canoes their freeboard is made higher with planks that at the same time increase its weight, so we could say that overall they are less seaworthy.

Is this supposed to be evolution? A people who had developed a boat by sewing sheets of bark together, caulking their seams and mounting an interior framework, had actually taken a step backwards. They did it hand in hand with the Europeans who had quickly given them the tools; the steel axe accelerated the process of whittling a trunk, and even though its useful life was shorter, it could be done quickly at any time.

Project for Rebuilding Bark Canoes

We had to build a canoe to corroborate this kind of reasoning and to try to understand a bit more about the aquatic nomads, expression which is somewhat romantic if it were not for the fact that they lived in an region known as the uttermost part of the world.

Goals

The project’s final objective was to build and navigate in a bark canoe to prove its seaworthiness and the way it could have been used in that region by a people whose way of life depended on the sea. If possible we intended to navigate a long distance. We soon realized that to be able to do so we needed to take several prior steps and other concurrent activities.

The project was outlined in broad strokes as follows:

1. Undertake the rebuilding works based on data obtained from history and ethnography. This included drawings, photographs, travelers’ accounts, ship logs and studies undertaken by ethnographers and scientists. We would not limit ourselves to copy some genuine canoe. Working in this manner would be useful for our future interpretation of the different texts. On the other hand we would, through experimentation, become familiar with the raw materials used by the Yamana, their way of usage and their virtues depending on how they were used. That way we could better understand the Yamana and make the most of what each voyager had written about the subject.

ii. Make two canoes. One, like the one described by Weddell, 4 m [13.1 ft.] long, and another larger one (5 or 6 m [16.4 – 19.7 ft.] ). The purpose of the first was to help us become familiar with the different building techniques. Reproduce the tools that they used to strip off the bark, cut leather and smooth the wood. For this purpose we hired two craftswomen under the supervision of Hernán Vidal Ph.D., who was directing the Project “Las Manos de Color Arcilla” (Clay Colored Hands) , which aimed at rescuing the movable cultural heritage objects of the Yamana

iv) Reproduce the canoe’s fittings: oars, hand guards, buckets and the thick ropes that they used to replace lines with. To go together with the canoe: harpoons, spears, baskets and forks for mussels and spider crabs (See Appendix I).