From Amazonia to Tierra Del Fuego

Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego

(English text without illustrations)

Béat Arnold

Le tour du monde en 80 pirogues Part Three

ARNOLD Béat, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). Le Locle, Editions G d’Encre (Le tour du monde en 80 pirogues, Part Three, PDF).

Translated by Jane Davis

Note: the English translation of the text is without figures (for the latter, see the original version in French). It can be downloaded free of charge from: https://www.alphil.com/index.php/alphil-diffusion/le-tour-du-monde-en-80-pirogues/les-canoes-en- ecorce-d-amerique-du-sud-de-l-amazonie-a-la-terre-de-feu.html

Recommended method for quoting the original version:

ARNOLD Béat, 2017. Les canoës en écorce d’Amérique du Sud : de l’Amazonie à la Terre de Feu. Le Locle, Editions G d’Encre (Le tour du monde en 80 pirogues, fascicule 3).

ISBN 978-2-940501-73-1

Distributed by Éditions Alphil, Neuchâtel www.alphil.ch

Printing: Gasser Media SA, Le Locle

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 1 Contents 00

Foreword 05

South America: a remarkable nautical space 06

Ygat, igáripé, attamanmad, aată, cascara, pakasse, yikchibitiri etc.: bark-canoes of Amazonia and the Guianas 14 Terminology issues 16 Towards a typology of bark-canoes of Amazonia and the Guianas 16 Distribution of canoe types 20 Cultural and dynamic divisions of territorial occupation 21

The canoes of Amazonia and the Guianas 23 Simple bark-canoes with raised or lowered sides 23 Canoes with one folded end 24 Canoes with apical lashings 28 Canoes with pressed and tied ends 30 Woodskin type canoes 31 Bark and structural diversity 46

Paxiuba or palmboats 47 The stipe or false trunk of the palm tree 49 Palmboats 49

The anan and yeni canoes of Tierra del Fuego 53 Yahgan and Alacaluf 55 Scientific expeditions and first detailed observations 56 Extended visits by the Anglican missionaries among the Yahgan 57 Construction of a bark-canoe among the Yahgan, by Martin Gusinde 62 Construction of a bark-canoe among the Alacaluf, by Martin Gusinde 66

Analysis of some Fuegian canoes 68 The Yahgan canoe in the Museum of Santiago 68 The Yahgan canoe in the Museum of London 71 The Alacaluf canoe in the Museum of Bern 72 The Alacaluf canoe in the Museum of Punta Arenas 80 The Yahgan canoe in the Museum of Rome 82 Materials employed 87

In conclusion: what is the origin of the Fuegian canoes? 89

Appendix 1: Inventory of canoes of Amazonia and the Guianas together with their location (fig. 24) 94

Appendix 2: Inventory of the canoes observed 100

Bibliography 102

Index 109 Tribes and indigenous names of the craft 109 Tree species 110 Geographical names 111

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 2 List of illustrations

Fig. 1 Raft of unprocessed logs of balsa type observed by Joris van Spielbergen in the port of Paita (northern Peru, near Piura), during his voyage between 1614 and 1618. In this illustration, three gouarès – a kind of leeboard – are controlled by three people. Finally, two triangular sails are directly attached to a curved mast (VAN SPIELBERGEN 1620, pl. XII).

Fig. 2 Log raft of balsa type, equipped with a square sail stretched over two spars arranged in a cross. The front is shaped into an oblique plane (Puerto Viejo province, Ecuador; BENZONI 1572, p. 165-a).

Fig. 3 Balsilla 4-4.5 m long, with their rama (leeboard and rudder, a kind of gouarès) in the port of Yasila (desert coast of Sechura, northern Peru; August 2011).

Fig. 4 Caballito de totora consisting of two bundles resulting from the overlapping of two assemblies of different lengths (b). The construction was carried out by Felix Gondillo and Alejandro Urcia, on Huanchaco beach (August 2011). It took 15 minutes to create each bundle, and 10 minutes to assemble them. Length 4.1 m. Duration of use: 2-3 months. The totora (Scirpus sp.) were first dried (a). The two bundles were then created in parallel in order to ensure that they were symmetrical. Finally, the two elements were assembled (j). Transporting a canoe at Pimente (o), and going to sea on the craft, using the traditional bamboo stem paddle, split longitudinally (p).

Fig. 5 Adobe bas-relief from Huaca las Balsas (Túcune, Lambayeque civilisation, around 1000-1100 A.D.), illustrating two large rafts consisting of bundles of stems lashed together. The length must have been around 10 m, and they were propelled by 7-8 paddles per side.

Fig. 6 Small traditional balsa with raised ends, Lake Titicaca (Huarina, Bolivia; August 2011). The ropes were plaited, with the width prevented chafing of the stems in the outer layers of the bundles.

Fig. 7 Sometimes, towards one end or the other, the cross-section of the central bundle suddenly increases to that of the two major bundles, emphasising its function, which is to enable the assembly of the two main parts via two series of ropes. It is also possible to observe this construction principle by dismantling a small-scale model, here intended to be sold to tourists.

Fig. 8 A piece of wood acts as the support for the bipod mast. Here the sail is placed in the bottom of the balsa. The bundles are pulled together by means of a plaited plant rope which prevents fraying in the upper layers of the totora, unlike the current nylon cords (Huatajata on the banks of Lake Titicaca, Bolivia; August 2011).

Fig. 9 The rivers Saña and Santa, located between Trujillo and Chimbote (north of Lima), are crossed by means of an assembly of calabashes (DE BRY ed. 1601, pl. II).

Fig. 10 Balse used along the desert coasts of Chile, consisting of sea lion skins. Length 3 m (FRÉZIER 1716, pl. XVI).

Fig. 11 Watertight seam on a balse consisting of sea lion skins and technical drawing by A.-F. FRÉZIER (1716, pl. XVI/F).

Fig. 12 “Apical lashing” type canoe of the Arára or Caripúna Indians (Madeira, Caldeirão do Inferno rapids, near the Brazil/Bolivia border; KELLER-LEUZINGER 1874a, fig. p. 101, 1874b, fig. p. 408; KELLER 1875, fig. p. 144). For the location: see fig. 24/52 ; Appendix 1/record 32.

Fig. 13 Distribution map for a series of vernacular craft in South America with, in particular the pelota separating the area where bark-canoes were used in Amazonia from that of the more complex canoes in Tierra del Fuego (after HORNELL 1946, extract from world map in Appendix).

Fig. 14 Pelota consisting of an envelope formed by one or sometimes two cow skins sewn together (Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; CÂMARA 1888, fig. p. 172).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 3 Quand ils ont arraché cette écorce, ils la portent au bord de la mer, la chauffent fortement, replient les deux bouts, après avoir eu soin d’y placer des traverses en bois [des varangues plates sur le dessin], et en font ainsi des canots, qui peuvent porter jusqu'à trente personnes. Cette écorce est épaisse d’un pouce, et les canots ont environ quatre pieds de large sur quarante de long : il y en a de plus petits et de plus grands. Ils vont fort vite, et les sauvages font souvent de très-longs voyages dans ces embarcations. Quand la mer devient mauvaise, ils les tirent à terre, et se rembarquent, dès que la tempête est apaisée. Ils ne s’avancent pas à plus de deux milles en mer; mais ils vont quelquefois très-loin le long des côtes.”

Fig. 16 Ygat canoes with flat frames for the floor (STADEN 1557, Part 2, fig. chap. 20).

Fig. 17 The same canoes as above, but equipped with a tie (DE BRY ed. 1593, pl. p. 52).

Fig. 18 Canoe with two folded ends from the Upper Xingú, in central Brazil (QUIRKE 1952, fig. p. 81; after VON DEN STEINEN 1894, pl. X); a type sometimes called the jatobá, named after the tree from which the bark is taken.

Fig. 19 Canoe with apical lashings, cascara (MATHEWS 1879, p. 60) or kānāwā’ constructed by the Jamamadí on the rio Marmoreá Mirí (STEERE 1903, p. 386, fig. 12); W. ROOP (1942, p. 399) uses the term of jamamadí to describe this type of canoe.

Fig. 20 Canoe with pressed and tied ends, by the Oyampí (CREVAUX 1883a, fig. p. 216).

Fig. 21 Open-ended woodskin, or pakasse (SCHOMBURGK 1841a, p. 92), observed among the Carib in the upper stretches of the Barama River; the suspended bench on the right is missing from the drawing (ROTH 1924, fig. 336).

Fig. 22 Woodskin with raised ends, or attamanmad, constructed by the Wapisiána (FARABEE 1918, p. 75, fig. 8). At this stage of construction, the stretchers have not yet been incorporated.

Fig. 23 Typical V-shaped slit partway through the bark of a woodskin in order to permit the edges of the sides to be folded onto themselves and the ends to be raised (ROTH 1924, fig. 335).

Fig. 24(bis) Distribution map for the various types of bark canoe in the Amazon Basin and the Guianas, with in the background the map by SCHMIDT 1913 with its hydrographic network, the borders from the outline map by W. ROOP (1942, appendices; see our fig. 26) and the overall map from J. HORNELL (1946, map in Appendix at the end of the volume; see our fig. 13) with the areas covered by the canoes and, to the south, the pelota (dotted). The references to each of these occurrences are further explored in Appendix 1 (p. 94-99). The locations have been determined using the National Geographic Atlas, 1975, p. 74-75. We have not been granted the copyright for this document: we have therefore used for the background the map by SCHMIDT 1913 with its hydrographic network.

Fig. 25 Distribution of Iriartea ventricosa palm trees (STEEGE et al. 2013, fig. 5B).

Fig. 26 Amazon basin: distribution of canoe types by W. ROOP (1942, map in Appendix). JJ, canoe with one folded end; YY, canoe with apical lashings; WW, woodskin.

Fig. 27 Distribution of bark-canoes in South America (diagonal hatching, on blue background) but also logboats, rafts and plank craft (after SCHMIDT 1913, p. 1043/fig. 3).

Fig. 28 Location of Tupi-Guarani tribes, after A. MÉTRAUX (1928, map 4).

Fig. 29 Basic cultural divisions in the tropical forest, after J. STEWARD ed. (1948, vol. 3, p. 884-map 8): 1) Guianas, 2) NW Amazonia, 3) Montaña, 4) Juruá-Purús, 5) Mojo-Chiquito, 6) Tupían (a, Madeira-Tapajos; b, lower Xingú-Tocantins; c, Tupinambá and Guarani); the other points are amalgamated into “marginal” entities, with the Múra at B.

Fig. 30 Simple bark-canoe with lowered sides, used by the Katukína on the rio Biá; ends a little raised (fig. 24/£9; Appendix 1/46).

Fig. 31 Simple bark-canoe with lowered sides, and on the right, raised (LIMA et PY-DANIEL 2008, fig. p. 106).

Fig. 32 Simple bark-canoe with developed sides, Katukína, on the rio Biá, known as peedak (for the location: fig. 24/£9; Appendix 1/46).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 4 Fig. 33 One of the bark-canoes with one folded end constructed by Karl von den Steinen’s team on the Kulisehu, a tributary of the Xingú (for the location, see fig. 24/22; Appendix 1/6), during his 1887-1888 expedition (VON DEN STEINEN 1894, pl. XI). Here, the ends have not been raised by giving them a central terminal fold.

Fig. 34 Scaffolding erected for removing the bark of a jatobá, here intended for manufacturing two canoes (SCHMIDT 1905, p. 53, fig. 8).

Fig. 35 Closing the stern by folding the central part of the end of the sheet upwards (after VON DEN STEINEN 1894, pl. X).

Fig. 36 The levers are inserted diagonally. The narrow strip of bark (here seen from the front) is not removed (fig. 24/25; Appendix 1/7).

Fig. 37 The bark is made more flexible by heating and the sides are brought together (fig. 24/£4; Appendix 1/15; DE LIMA 1950, pl. 9).

Fig. 38 Shaping the stern when the bark is sufficiently warm (fig. 24/£4; Appendix 1/15; DE LIMA 1950, pl. 7).

Fig. 39 Two canoes near to the villages of Nahuquá and Matipyhy (fig. 24/26; Appendix 1/8; DE LIMA 1950, pl. 12).

Fig. 40 Bark-canoe with one folded end, seen from behind, on the rio Kuluseu or Kulisehu (fig. 24/34; Appendix 1/13; DYOTT 1929, opposite p. 540).

Fig. 41 Model of a canoe, collected by J. Steere on the rio Marmoreá Miri, a tributary of the Purús (fig. 24/62; Appendix 1/37), and detail of the apical lashings at one end, associated with a stretcher.

Fig. 42 Cascara: canoe with apical lashings used by the Pacaguará, on the rio Très Irmãos (fig. 24/Sc-10; Appendix 1/43). Length 4.6-4.9 m; thickness of the bark 13-19 mm. A small hearth was installed on a slab of earth in the interior of the canoe (MATHEWS 1879, p. 59-60, fig. p. 60).

Fig. 43 Canoe with apical lashings on the rio Beni (fig. 24/£6; Appendix 1/40). Length 6.1 m (HERNDON and GIBBON 1854, vol. 2, pl. - p. 294).

Fig. 44 Aată canoe of the Ipuriná (fig. 24/£7; Appendix 1/41), equipped with an axial pole and two very short ties located in the centre of the ends (EHRENREICH 1891, fig. 37). Probable length of the canoe 6.71 m (Appendix 2/4).

Fig. 45 Model of an aată canoe collected by P. Ehrenreich, equipped with an axial pole, two very short ties set a little away from the ends and two stretchers (one is broken), each supported by a stay.

Fig. 46 Large canoe with apical lashings (CÂMARA 1888, fig. p. 74).

Fig. 47 Shape of the bark sheet used to manufacture a canoe with apical lashings (STEERE 1903, fig. 13; see fig. 19).

Fig. 48 Diagram of the end of a canoe with pressed and tied ends.

Fig. 49 Removal, on the banks of the Rouapir River (fig. 25/165; Appendix 1/48), of bark to manufacture a bark- canoe with pressed and tied ends, using scaffolding (CREVAUX 1883, fig. p. 216).

Fig. 50 Open-ended woodskin, used on the Mazaruni River (fig. 24/£18; Appendix 1/64; LAVARRE 1919, fig. opposite p. 124).

Fig. 51 Model of a woodskin from the upper waters of the Cuyuni (fig. 24/£19; Appendix 1/65), with a Z fold in the edge of the internal bark, a tie acting as a stretcher and supports attached to the gunwale poles for supporting a bench.

Fig. 52 Open-ended woodskin, used on the Pomeroon River (fig. 24/£21; Appendix 1/67); length 5.5-6 m (WORCESTER 1956, fig. 1).

Fig. 53 Z fold based on local release of one of the lips (open-ended woodskin collected in 1862).

Fig. 54 Z fold based on a partial slit of the bark (a) and local release of the internal bark from one of the lips. Pressure employed to create the fold (1) and raise the relevant end (2).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 5

Fig. 55 Sophisticated stop for tensioner intended to lift one of the ends, at the triangle removed from part of the thickness of the bark, based on an overlapping oblong cross stitch type lashing, with a length of three units (open- ended woodskin model collected by E. im Thurn).

Fig. 56 Diagramm laid out on a single level of a basic overlapping oblong cross stitch lashing of three units. The passages A-A, B-B etc. through the bark correspond to the thickness of the bark and are set in a staggered arrangement (see fig. 55). In brown : ridge to be reinforced (with or without gunwale pole, longitudinal ropes, ends of tips pressed together etc.).

Fig. 57 The Trió (fig. 24/169; Appendix 1/53) maintained the overlapping areas of a woodskin with raised ends by two stitches of lashing (DE GOEJE 1908, fig. 1).

Fig. 58 Open-ended woodskin, used on the Mazaruni River (fig. 24/176; Appendix 1/56; ROTH 1924, pl. 177A).

Fig. 59 Open-ended woodskin on the Igarapé of Poanna (fig. 24/166; Appendix 1/50), which flows into the Cuminá at the foot of the south-east flank of the Guiana Highlands (COUDREAU 1901, fig. p. 161).

Fig. 60 Open-ended woodskin, Kashuyéna, in 1957, upstream of the rio Trombetas (fig. 24/£11; Appendix 1/57; POLYKRATES 1957, fig. 3).

Fig. 61 Woodskin from Walter Roth Museum of Anthropology (Georgetown), with a tensioner consolidated by a short lashing of overlapping oblong cross stitch (central part of the canoe on the left).

Fig. 62 Woodskin from the Mazaruni River (fig. 24/£18; Appendix 1/64), with a tensioner intended to lift the sides of one end, consolidated by a short lashing of overlapping oblong cross stitch type (central part of the canoe on the right).

Fig. 63 Open-ended woodskin, tube-shaped, from the Mazaruni River (fig. 24/£18; Appendix 1/64), collected in 1951-1952 from the Akawai: length 3.73 m, width 0.46 m; tree species used Copaifera pubiflora (museum accession sheet).

Fig. 64 Large open-ended woodskin collected in around 1876, or a little earlier (Guyana): length 6.39 m, width 0.70-0.76 m; depth 0.30 m; bark thickness 12 mm. Scale 1:40. The disappearance of the tensioners has led to sagging of the ends. On the longitudinal view, the torsion inherent in the canoe structure has been removed from the diagram (the dotted lines probably correspond to a minimum situation, with a horizontal gunwale).

Fig. 65 Slit completely piercing the bark, with bevelled edges and lips with a substantial overlap. Here, they are partially broken and the edges are emphasised by a white line.

Fig. 66 Open-ended woodskin fitted with ribs, produced by the Pemón in the Orinoco Basin (fig. 24/£24; Appendix 1/70; RESNIK 2009, fig. 2).

Fig. 67 Woodskin from 1862 in its rather cramped setting.

Fig. 68 Open-ended woodskin collected in 1862 (fig. 24/£22; Appendix 1/68), with a longitudinal pole suspended beneath each gunwale pole in order to support three benches (only one remains in place), each consisting of two battens. Length 3.66 m.

Fig. 69 Woodskin from 1862: S-shaped fold created by locally releasing the internal bark.

Fig. 70 Woodskin with raised ends constructed by the Waiwái (fig. 24/£14; Appendix 1/60), known as yikchibitiri, with ogival ends (ROTH 1929, fig. 90 b-d).

Fig. 71 Woodskin with raised ends, called thõmorõ (fig. 24/£25; Appendix 1/71). Highly developed slits completely piercing the bark and slender gunwale poles attached in a minimal manner (FUENTES 1980, fig. 15; LIZOT 1974, fig. 8).

Fig. 72 A pointed-ended woodskin being created in 1952 by the Trió (rio Coeroeni, Surinam; fig. 24/£16; Appendix 1/62).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 6 Fig. 73 Rolled bark woodskin collected in 1957 by G. Polykrates and Ch. Søderberg from the Kashuyéna (museum accession sheet), with two benches and one stretcher (fig. 24/£12; Appendix 1/58). The prow is probably on the left. Transverse section from above: hypothesis before drying and current condition with the top of the edges rolled in on themselves. Length 3.71 m; width 0.58 m; depth 0.10 m, thickness of the bark 8-10 mm. Scale 1:25.

Fig. 74 Rolled bark woodskin, used by the Macusí on the Rupununi River (fig. 24/175; Appendix 1/55; ROTH 1924, pl. 179A).

Fig. 75 Rolled bark woodskin, used by the Akawai (Akawoi) on the Mazaruni River; length 4.70 m, width 1.30 m (fig. 24/£17; Appendix 1/63; BRINDLEY 1924, fig. 4).

Fig. 76 Woodskin from 1957, with notched sides rolled in on themselves and which thus provide significant additional rigidity to the entire hull.

Fig. 77 Small, slender stem suspended from the gunwale pole and supporting a stretcher which, after drying, almost rests on the bottom of the craft.

Fig. 78 Fold visible between the two lips, here widely separated from each other.

Fig. 79 Rolled bark woodskin collected from the Kashuyéna in 1957, on the rio Cashorro (museum register, fig. 24/£12; Appendix 1/58), by G. Polykrates and Ch. Søderberg. It possesses two benches and one stretcher. The central longitudinal element is a museographical addition. Length 3.58 m, width 0.50-0.57 m, current depth 0.13 m, thickness of the bark 8-10 mm.

Fig. 80 Rolled bark woodskin in the British Museum.

Fig. 81 Texture of the bark.

Fig. 82 Notches on the lower face of one of the ends.

Fig. 83 Small rolled bark woodskin (length 2.20 m), made from very thin bark (4.5 mm). It was collected from the Arapaí, on the rio Jari (fig. 24/£10; Appendix 1/47), by the Otto Schulz-Kampfhenkel expedition (1935-1937).

Fig. 84 Texture of the bark.

Fig. 85 Fold in bark slit to half way through the thickness.

Fig. 86 Caulking between the lips of the slit.

Fig. 87 Early stage of shaping a paxiuba (ROOP 1942, pl. at the end of the volume).

Fig. 88 Paxiuba on the rio Mutum-Paraná (DOMVILLE-FIFE 1925, fig. opposite p. 64; for the location, see fig. 25/P-71; Appendix 1/78).

Fig. 89 Paxiuba on the rio Mutum-Paraná (SAVAGE-LANDOR 1913, vol. 2, opposite p. 41).

Fig. 90 Cross-section of a palm tree (Type 3) with a peripheral ring of lignified fibres – the ultimate indication of the petiole base – followed by a compact subcortical cylinder of support fibres (in dark brown), surrounding a soft mass of parenchyma permeated by a dispersed group of support fibres (near Khulna, Bangladesh; November 2010).

Fig. 91 Cross section of a baobab trunk, characterised by its soft texture and concentric circles: this is therefore not a palm tree (Belo-sur-Mer, Madagascar; July 2003).

Fig. 92 Distribution of the fibrovascular bundle, in the cross-section of a stipe. One is of homogenous type (Type 1 or A), while the other (Type 3 or B) presents a peripheral concentration (SZ) constituting a compact cylinder surrounding a tender supple central mass. The transition zone (TZ) is small. It becomes more extensive, or even extremely extensive, in Type 2 (after THOMAS 2011, fig. 2.6).

Fig. 93 Migoma, canoe cut from a palm tree with an apical bulge (Borassus aethiopum). At the ends, a complete ring of the stipe is often retained, with its cortex (Munbara, on Lake Sagara; Tanzania, July 2013).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 7 Fig. 94 A migoma created by hollowing out a palm tree with a wide, oval-bladed adze; the structure of the stipe is here smooth and the scars left by the leaves and the petiole are clearly visible (Munbara, on Lake Sagara; Tanzania, July 2013).

Fig. 95 Canoe shaped from a large diameter stipe, with very solid ends, one of which has been made into a bench (Púnguè River, to the north-east of Dondo; Mozambique, July 2013).

Fig. 96 A donga shaped from the lower part of a Borassus flabellifer, extended by a narrow stipe (between Dhaka and Palashpur; Bangladesh, November 2010).

Fig. 97 A sangādam, a ferry used in the delta of Godavari (east coast of India; HORNELL 1920, fig. 21, 1924, fig. 4).

Fig. 98 Prow of a donga cut from the solid base of an Asian Palmyra palm (Borassus flabellifer), belonging to Type 2 (Lake Kolleru, Andhra Pradesh). The cut support fibres are visible as dark spots.

Fig. 99 Far from Amazonia: the icy landscapes of Tierra del Fuego (the Piá glacier, in the southern spring, near the Beagle Channel; November 2016).

Fig. 100 Confrontational encounter in the Strait of Magellan, between Sebald de Weert and the Alacaluf, in May 1599. The successive phases of this event were illustrated with remarkable artistic skill by the engravers working for Theodor DE BRY (ed. 1601, pl. XXII). Seven canoes are occupied by giants 10-11 feet tall (3.05-3.35 m), painted red, throwing stones at the Dutch, then taking refuge in the forest where they pull up trees with their bare hands in order to construct a dam. An active hearth is present in one of the canoes, and stretchers maintain the separation of the sides. The extremely grainy surface of the exterior of the bark used is emphasised by a network of orthogonal dotted lines.

Fig. 101 Typical crescent moon shape of canoes of the Yahgan, observed by Jacques L’Hermite in Tierra del Fuego (VAN WALBEECK 1626, pl. opposite p. 47). In the middle ground, as in the cartoons of the period, we see the nocturnal massacre by the Yahgan, in February 1624, of 17 of the 19 members of his team who had come ashore and were forced to remain on land by unfavourable weather conditions. A little further away, we observe a canoe being constructed on a beach. Finally, in the background, we see the Nassau fleet commanded by Jacques L’Hermite.

Fig. 102 Assembling the bark sheets into a canoe (VAN WALBEECK 1626; background of the figure presented above).

Fig. 103 Two populations of maritime nomads: areas occupied by the Alacaluf or Halakwulup (in red, with, to the north, the border with the territory of the Chonos) and the Yahgan or Yamana (in green). In yellow, the territory of the Onas or Selk’nam, nomads having turned their backs on the sea (GUSINDE 1937, map 1 in the Appendix).

Fig. 104 Chonos craft initially consisting of three planks sewn together and called dalca; the example illustrated here should have five planks. The presence of two upper elements, one on each side, is indicated by the holes pierced in the neighbouring pieces. Two runners facilitated the launching of the canoe, or were used to draw it up onto the beach (NORDENSKIÖLD 1930, fig. 32).

Fig. 105 Two canoes side by side in the channel of Lajarte; in other words in the area occupied by the Yahgan (photograph by Jean-Louis Doze and Edmond Joseph Augustin Payen; MARTIAL 1888, vol. 1, pl. VI).

Fig. 106 Photograph of a Fuegian canoe by the French scientific mission to Cape Horn (1882-1883).

Fig. 107 Drawing of an anan canoe, Yahgan: length 4.5-5.0 m, width 0.8 m, max. height 0.7 m. Three short slits, indicated by arrows, are present on the tops of the sides. The structure of the bark (Nothofagus betuloides), with its characteristic network of elongated white areas, is clearly depicted (HYADES and DENIKER 1891, pl. XXXI).

Fig. 108 Objects associated with the construction and use of canoes: a, bone wedge for removing bark (length 9.6 cm); b, work glove used for cutting the wooden paddles; c, chisel with a sharpened shell blade and a stone for the handle (length 14.4 cm); d, recent iron chisel, with a stone for the handle (length 22.1 cm); e, bark bailer (height 26.5 cm); HYADES and DENIKER 1891, pl. XXXII and XXXIII.

Fig. 109 Narrow end consisting of a small triangle of bark supported by a rope, a kind of shroud, attached to the first or second tie (KING, FITZ-ROY and DARWIN 1839, vol. 2, opposite title page).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 8 Fig. 110 Canoe with its network of frame sticks covered, on the right, by bark sheets placed transversely.

Fig. 111 Anan bark-canoe of the Yahgan or Yamana (a; GUSINDE 1937, fig. 25), and yeni of the Alacaluf or Halakwulup (b; GUSINDE 1974, fig. 15; given the smoothed out areas of the bark, this is undoubtedly the canoe at Punta Arenas, see fig. 163).

Fig. 112 Logboat of the Yahgan, equipped with a washstrake (a) raising the sides (LOTHROP 1932, fig. 2).

Fig. 113 An anan manufactured by the Yahgan in around 1920, collected and used by M. Gusinde: condition in around 1930.

Fig. 114 Condition of the canoe in 1980, before restoration. The framework has separated the gunwale poles of the hull at several points (ACEVEDO and AZOCAR 1992, fig. 2).

Fig. 115 Anan canoe manufactured by the Yahgan in around 1920, collected and used by M. Gusinde, after restoration. Length 3.77 m (previously, 4.10 m had been mentioned with its ends complete); width 0.93 m; depth 0.51 m. Finally, the bark that had covered the gunwales now lies loose on the large bark sheets placed over the framework.

Fig. 116 Current condition of M. Gusinde’s canoe, in the permanent exhibition of the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural (Santiago, Chile).

Fig. 117 Ropes made from whalebone (some of these are from the most recent conservation work).

Fig. 118 Ropes made from whalebone. The row of holes drilled beneath is from a museographical consolidation prior to 1980 which has since been removed.

Fig. 119 Striated structure corresponding to the agglomeration of “hair” to build up the whalebone here placed horizontally. In this case, the ropes will be cut horizontally.

Fig. 120 Small canoe from Tierra del Fuego, London. Preserved length 2.37 m; width 0.56 m; depth ~ 0.30 m; thickness 6-8 mm.

Fig. 121 Mass of plant fibres filling the chine, marked by the imprint of frame sticks.

Fig. 122 Bottom bark sheet: slits more or less opposite each other (a fourth pair is located at the other end).

Fig. 123 Sketches by H. Wiederecht (Abb. I-III) intended to illustrate his description of the construction of a pel-larkál canoe by the Alacaluf.

Fig. 124 Canoe of the Alacaluf, called pel-larkál, upon arrival at the Museum of Bern, with its two ends and no museographical reinforcement intended to maintain the framework. Length 4.50 m, width 1.01 m, depth 0.57 m. Preserved thickness of the bark: 18 mm.

Fig. 125 The Bern canoe. The end on the right was probably broken (see fig. 140) when the canoe was turned over to take the photographs enabling the condition of the bottom of the canoe to be analysed. The end on the left was broken at an earlier date. We also note the presence of a set of museographical reinforcements on the inside and outside of the sides, intended to maintain the framework.

Fig. 126 The Bern canoe (GUSINDE 1974, pl. 30). The initial total length was 4.5 m.

Fig. 127 The horizontal structure of the bottom has been reinforced by a series of flat frames (*) which are thicker than the frame sticks.

Fig. 128 On the inside and outside of the sides, four longitudinal poles have been added for museographical purposes to consolidate the framework.

Fig. 129 The lumpy part of the external face of the bark has been smoothed using a wide-bladed iron axe. An additional section has been removed at the top of the sheet in order to facilitate piercing with a punch. In the centre, a rough mortice makes it possible to insert a leather strap attaching a stretcher. The bark sheets covering the gunwale are consolidated by an iron wire of museographical origin.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 9 Fig. 130 Watertight bundle located at the joint between two bark sheets (bottom) over a slit (top), and plant fibre padding covering the whole (right) in order to compensate for the hollow inside the chine.

Fig. 131 Watertight bundles beneath the frame sticks and end broken in the past.

Fig. 132 Triangle of added bark, constituting one of the ends (for its position, see fig. 142).

Fig. 133 White structure of the bark, in hollow areas which have not been smoothed out. Top right, start of a new strip held in place by a knot.

Fig. 134 Seam, seen from the outside, between the bottom and one side, caulked with rope consisting of twisted fibres. The tears in the bark sheet of the side enable the observation of the presence of an additional bundle of plant fibre filling the hollow of the chine.

Fig. 135 Lashing between the bottom and a lateral bark sheet displaying a significant longitudinal split caulked on the inside.

Fig. 136 Branches of Nothofagus betuloides used for padding, with leaves.

Fig. 137 Lashing of a stretcher, carried out using a plait of plant fibres.

Fig. 138 Start of a new strip held in place by a knot and strips cut from the sapwood of Drimys winteri.

Fig. 139 The 135 frame sticks are covered by large bark sheets, four of which (*) demonstrate charcoal residues; final traces of the hearth initially present in the craft.

Fig. 140 Gunwales of one end, covered by bark with a smooth surface.

Fig. 141 Stretcher displaying a deep slit, enabling this element to also act as a tie.

Fig. 142 Structure of the inside of the bark at the larger end, currently also broken.

Fig. 143 Inside of the canoe with the bark sheets arranged transversely.

Fig. 144 Yeni canoe produced by the Alacaluf, and collected in 1903. Length 2.78 m, width 0.75 m, depth 0.65 m. Thickness a little less than 10 mm.

Fig. 145 This canoe was collected in 1903 and presents significant transverse dissymetry, induced in particular by a large slit in the sheet constituting the entire bottom of the canoe. Almost all of the bark covering the gunwales has fallen into the bottom of the canoe, and the structure of the frame sticks has been considerably disrupted at the ends.

Fig. 146 Bundle of fibres intended for caulking, and strips passed through punched holes.

Fig. 147 The tear in the bottom bark sheet enables the observation of the ribs, made of stems split in half (pith clearly visible) and the presence of a waterproofing cord between the sheets (maintained in place by helicoidal sewing), topped by padding made of plant fibres (in grey).

Fig. 148 Close up of the wooden strips. One of these, adjacent to the stretcher, is partially broken.

Fig. 149 Small, relatively rustic canoe, used by a child, who probably also constructed it.

Fig. 150 Large model with padding made of branches, still with their leaves (Nothofagus betuloides), located between the upper part of the ribs and the hull.

Fig. 151 Triangular sheet forming one of the raised ends of the bottom, with two pairs of opposing slits.

Fig. 152 The sheet forming the base is extended by a piece of bark in the form of a triangle, attached in an overlapping position.

Fig. 153 Offset sewing, in order to avoid tearing the edge of the bark, of a gunwale pole by means of a plant strip. Vertically, strip extracted from a piece of whalebone.

Fig. 154 Beneath the ribs or frame sticks, a piece of glued canvas indicates previous and complete museographical dismantling of the canoe.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 10

Fig. 155 Anan canoe of the Yahgan or Yamana, exhibited in Rome.

Fig. 156 Survey of an anan canoe of the Yahgan or Yamana, preserved in Rome, with slits present on the central sheet and terminal triangles. Length 5.25 m, width 0.95 m, depth 0.62 m, thickness in finished state 10-12 mm; a) flattened bark (hearth?); b) area without ribs; c) proposed extension of the poles. Scale 1/25.

Fig. 157 Closely positioned network of frame sticks covered by wide curved sheets of bark.

Fig. 158 Area characterised by locally flattened bark, probably in relation to the presence of a hearth.

Fig. 159 Longitudinal reinforcement poles positioned on the ribs are visible between two transverse sheets.

Fig. 160 Marks of the tools used when shaping the outside of the bark.

Fig. 161 Various restorations: glossy black encrustation still partially present, long stranded cord and yellow canvas (in this case not painted grey).

Fig. 162 Horizontally: seam carried out with a strip of wood covered on the right with varnish. Vertically: seam carried out using whalebone.

Fig. 163 For a little less than a century all Fuegian three-piece sewn bark-canoes have been present only in museums.

Fig. 164 Methods for folding the bark sheets in order to create the ends of the canoe, Amazonia/Guianas region.

Fig. 165 Distribution of canoe types in South America (for details, see fig. 24): 1) canoe with one folded end; 2) canoe with apical lashings; 3) woodskin; 4) palm tree canoe (paxiuba: P); 5) three-piece sewn bark-canoe.

Fig. 166 Canoe with pressed and sewned tips from North America.

Fig. 167 THE ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS dated 8 August 1868, p. 133 (see Appendix 2/16).

Fig. 168 Technical terms used in this work to describe the different elements of a bark-canoe.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 11 05 Foreword After East Africa and the South East Asia/Australia complex, a third region is worthy of examination in the context of our study of bark-canoes. This is the region of South America. Data relating to bark-canoes are often restricted to just a few lines in the accounts of explorers having travelled in Amazonia or the Guiana Highlands, perhaps one or two pages in the works of ethnologists and considerably more for the canoes of Tierra del Fuego. To successfully inhabit this last archipelago at the end of the world, exposed to winds from the Antarctic, the use of such craft was clearly essential. We can imagine that canoes of umiak type would dominate, with an assemblage of skins stretched across a wooden groundwork. However, for some strange reason, the craft were constructed from relatively thick bark. The structural complexity of these canoes, and the apparently very simple forms of those used in Amazonia, has led to a particularly close examination of the Fuegian canoes, which were true “aliens” (according to some authors) in the tradition of naval construction in South America an observation upon which will be based the conclusion of this work. Finally, the entire history of South America was disrupted by the discovery by Christopher Columbus in 1492 of the Americas, opening the way to the arrival of the Conquistadors and leading to the destruction of the civilisations of Central America and the areas north of the Andes and the colonial dominance of the coastal lands of Brazil. This often reduced the indigenous people to slavery and led to significant migratory movements, thus resulting in a major erosion of traditions and customs. Finally, the modern development of Brazil, associated with intensive urbanisation at the heart of Amazonia and unlimited exploitation of the forest, has drastically reduced the indigenous populations living in their traditional environment, with an unknown number of these having disappeared during the last century. The same is true for Tierra del Fuego. And finally, the administrative restrictions implemented in the last 20 years in Brazil now make it very difficult to arrange encounters with indigenous peoples still using bark-canoes. This critical situation for the indigenous peoples also results from the fact that the population density is extremely low in these areas. Amazonia can thus be considered as a desert, albeit a green one. In this context, it is therefore more problematic to analyse the structural data for bark-canoes, and without the rare examples preserved in museums this would be an almost impossible task. In light of this, we would like to thank the conservators and their colleages who welcomed us into their museums and provided access to their reserves, from Copenhagen to Punta Arenas:

Cristian Becker Álvarez and Guillermo Castillo Muñoz (Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Santiago, Chile); Carrie Beauchamp (National Museum of Natural History, Washington); Jeremy Coote (Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford); Salvatore Cirillo Dama (Museo Salesiano Maggiorino Borgatello, Punta Arenas); Mille Gabriel and Anja Blok Jespersen (Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen); Rachel Griffin, Maria Martinez and Veronica Quiguango (National Museum of the American Indian, Washington); James Hamill and Ian Taylor (British Museum, London); Solange Ferraz de Lima and Maria Aparecida de Menezes Borrego (Museu Paulista, São Paulo); Claudia Leonor López and Lucia Hussak van Velthem (Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém); Pavel I. Pogorelskiy (Kunstkamera, Saint Petersburg); Donatella Saviola (Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico Luigi Pigorini, Rome); Martin Schultz (Musée d’histoire, Bern).

In this context, we have systematically indicated, beneath each photograph taken in a museum, the name of the museum and the inventory number of the canoe, or the place and date on with we photographed a vernacular craft illustrated in this work.. In this volume we will continue with the structure established in our previous works – in particular in the second volume – by presenting the invaluable data collected from early publications, together with synthesis, supplemented by our own observations. We will also pay particular attention to the raw materials used and their constraints, how they were collected, and to the sewing techniques employed.

Regarding the production of this volume, we would like to thank in particular Patrice Pomey, Eric Rieth and Danièle Tissot for their critical reading of this manuscript, Costantino Nicolizas for the ethnographic aspects and Maeva Arnold for her illustrations.

Béat Arnold

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 12 06 South America: a remarkable nautical space South America constitutes a remarkable nautical space, characterised by an exceptionally diverse range of vernacular craft. The continent consists of enclosed natural spaces marked by an extremely varied succession of environmental types. The Andes cordillera thus subdivides the continent into a number of sections. There is a narrow western band with a distinctly desert character and a notable absence of large trees, leading to the use of other materials for the construction of canoes1. The same is true for the area of the high Andean plateaux (the Altiplano), particularly lakes Titicaca and Poopó, which are linked by the Desaguadero River. To the east are found the vast alluvial plains of the Amazon and its neighbouring rivers, in particular the Orinoco to the north, with the common denominator being the virgin forest and its giant tree specimens, but also a very low population density, comparable to that of the most severe deserts. Further to the south is the Gran Chaco plain, with the basin of the Paraguay and then the pampas stretching as far as the eye can see. Finally, in the far south of the continent, the rigours of the Antarctic climate have had a notable influence, resulting in a particular type of forest vegetation adapted to these extreme conditions. The discovery of the Americas by the Europeans (1492) gives rise to the question of the origins of the nautical diversity present on the continent and the role played by influences emanating from the new arrivals. The first accounts of these travellers, often either missionaries or people accompanying captains and conquistadors, enable us to determine that the concepts implemented for naval construction were already all present, indicated primarily by the logboat and the log raft, associated with the major tropical forests and their margins, and rafts constructed of tied bundles of stems in the drier areas. In other words, elementary constructions. Naturally, the concepts discovered, applied and developed in this space and over time have been significantly affected by the raw materials available. It is only when analysing canoes presenting noteworthy, original or complex development or features that questions relating to origin, exogenous influences or, on the contrary, endogenous developments, can be approached, as emphasised in the work of Clinton EDWARDS (1965), with his chapter “Problems of Origin”. A synthetic overview was drawn up by Seán MCGRAIL in his chapter “The Americas” (2001, p. 394-430). This presents an interesting overall approach, which we will not repeat here2. Our aim is not to draw up an exhaustive analysis of indigenous naval construction of South America, but to contextualise the bark-canoes used in the Amazon basin and in the Guianas, and above all the complex canoes used in Tierra del Fuego where the base is formed by three bark sheets sewn together (three-piece sewn bark- canoe)3. The works by Hans SUDER (1930) and James HORNELL (1946) constitute fundamental references, to which we must add the monograph by C. EDWARDS (1965), which we have already mentioned, covering the west coast of South America. If we exclude the problem of the dalca4 (see fig. 104), for the pre-Columbian period, we possess no information relating to the presence of hulls consisting of an assembly of planks as far north as the South of California, where the tomol craft of the Chumash Indians of Santa Barbara were found, with a hull consisting of an assembly of several planks of modest dimensions, maintained in place by lashing/sewing5.

1) See in particular EDWARDS 1965. 2) However, contrary to what is stated by this author (MCGRAIL 2001, p. 411), we note that the framework of the canoes from Tierra del Fuego was not attached to the hull, but wedged between it and the gunwale poles, that the bark of the hull could not enclose the gunwale poles (because it was much too thick) but that the gunwale poles were covered by another type of much thinner bark. Finally, the stretchers were too narrow to serve as thwarts and the paddlers sat on the bottom of the canoe, as we can observe on numerous photographs from the 19th century, for example. 3) For the technical terms used for the bark-canoe, see the diagram at the end of the book (fig. 168, p. 114). 4) Our approach has been not to put an “s” at the end of the indigenous name for a canoe type when it is in plural, but instead to write it in italics. The same applies, without italics, when evoking the names of the various tribes mentioned in the text. 5) The tomol canoes have been the subject of a number of studies by R. HEIZER (1940, 1966) and P. Harrington (HUDSON et al. ed. 1978). There is considerable controversy about the spatiotemporal origin of these canoes. These craft demonstrate the absence of

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 13 a framework. The means of ensuring transverse rigidity was restricted to the insertion of a single crossbeam. The waterproofing of the seams was ensured by the application of bitumen extracted from a number of natural local occurrences. New data relating to the dating of sites, in particular in Hawaii, have enabled J. ARNOLD (2007) to reinforce the interpretation of a local origin and development, in other words in the region of Santa Barbara, starting in around 500 A.D. She thus rejects diffusionist ideas (JONES and KLAR 2005) based on linguistic analysis of the name of the canoe itself and a limited number of archaeological artefacts (in particular certain types of hooks). In any case, with these new temporal and structural data, we can all the more exclude a direct influence by the tomol on the South American dalca, and still more on the Fuegian bark-canoes.

07 It is certain that one of the elements having prevented the development of plank craft is the fact that these populations remained nomadic, or gathered together only in small sedentary societies. As for the major empires of Central America (for example the Aztec and Maya) and the Andean cordillera and its western margin (the Inca empire), these were above all oriented towards land and agriculture. Nevertheless, along the west coast of the Pacific, between Meso-America and Peru, we find evidence of an intense coastal traffic, often over long distances – as indicated, for example, by the presence of shells of Spondylus princeps, a large bright red bivalve – which begins in the 2nd millennium B.C. and intensifies in the context of the development of the Inca empire until its collapse following the arrival of the Spanish (LAVALLÉE 1985). This traffic was based on the use of large rafts (fig. 1). The second parameter is certainly the fact that the American forests possess a number of trees of exceptional dimensions. These clearly played a major role in the lack of necessity to resort to the use of an assembly of planks, as huge logboats could be created on the basis of a well-developed technology for constructing monoxylous craft or logboats. Another solution which was systematically applied is based on the combination of unprocessed logs; in other words, rafts. Large rafts called balsa, named after the trees used to construct them, developed on the Pacific coast, particularly around Ecuador. These were powered by sail and steered by means of a set of planks more or less deeply inserted through the gaps present between the beams, the gouarès (fig. 1). Where did these leeboards come from? Were they the result of endogenous development or exogenous influence? And what about the triangular sails for which the curved mast served as a spar? (fig. 1). The same question applies to the rectangular sails maintained by two spars arranged in a cross (fig. 2). The structure of these arrangements is complex enough to confirm that they were free of any European influence. Even today, similar rafts but with much smaller dimensions – and economically extremely attractive – are used for fishing off the desert coasts of Sechura in northern Peru. These are known as balsilla (fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Balsilla 4-4.5 m long, with their rama (leeboard and rudder, a kind of gouarès) in the port of Yasila (desert coast of Sechura, northern Peru; August 2011).

08-09 Fig. 4 Caballito de totora consisting of two bundles resulting from the overlapping of two assemblies of different lengths (b). The construction was carried out by Felix Gondillo and Alejandro Urcia, on Huanchaco beach (August 2011). It took 15 minutes to create each bundle, and 10 minutes to assemble them. Length 4.1 m. Duration of use: 2-3 months. The totora (Scirpus sp.) were first dried (a). The two bundles were then created in parallel in order to ensure that they were symmetrical. Finally, the two elements were assembled (j). Transporting a canoe at Pimente (o), and going to sea on the craft, using the traditional bamboo stem paddle, split longitudinally (p).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 14

10 A few kilometres to the south, the sub-desert areas favoured the development of the concept of rafts consisting of bundles of stems lashed together, such as the caballito de totora formed by two bundles (fig. 4). Those with three elements have now disappeared, as have the large examples mentioned in historical accounts (fig. 5). Numerous pieces of pottery dated to the Mochica and Chimú periods (100-800 and 1000-1400 A.D. respectively) indicate the intensive use of such reed bundle rafts. On the Altiplano, we can still see the balsa of Lake Titicaca (fig. 6), whose name is unfortunately the same as that of the large log rafts mentioned above. The Lake Titicaca craft consist of two major bundles assembled by means of a third one with a much smaller cross-section which is used to assemble the two major pieces (fig. 7). The whole is bordered on each side by a small bundle to raise the sides, sometimes bearing the equivalent of a step for the bipod mast (fig. 8).

11 It should also be noted that in the late 16th century, the Saña and Santa rivers, located between Trujillo and Chimbote (north of Lima), were crossed by a number of Europeans using a structure based on calabashes (fig. 9; EDWARDS 1965, p. 59-60, 107 - map 1). Along the coastal deserts of Chile balse were used (FRÉZIER 1716, p. 109; PÂRIS 1843, p. 150, pl. 132/8-10). These consisted of two inflated piriform skins (fig. 10), created by sewing together (fig. 11) a number of sea lion skins. The whole was topped by a wooden framework which united the skins and served as a seat for the fisherman and any passenger. These craft disappeared in the early 20th century. In the Amazon basin and to the north – in other words in the Guianas and Colombia – the basic craft was the logboat. Some bark-canoes were also present, particularly in the upper part of the watercourses where rapids are found (fig. 12). The analysis of these craft constitutes the central theme of this work and will be explored in the following chapters (see fig. 168). The bark employed is characterised by thicknesses, which are often quite significant. The canoes produced from this bark generally present an apparently relatively rustic appearance, with the exception of the woodskin. Finally, the paxiuba were made from palm trees. They were technologically located, in some ways, between canoes and logboats.

Fig. 9 The rivers Saña and Santa, located between Trujillo and Chimbote (north of Lima), are crossed by means of an assembly of calabashes (DE BRY ed. 1601, pl. II).

12 Fig. 10 Balse used along the desert coasts of Chile, consisting of sea lion skins. Length 3 m (FRÉZIER 1716, pl. XVI).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 15 Fig. 11 Watertight seam on a balse consisting of sea lion skins and technical drawing by A.-F. FRÉZIER (1716, pl. XVI/F).

13 The Matto Grosso, and above all south of it (fig. 13), saw the development of the pelota (CÂMARA 1888, p. 172-176; HORNELL 1941). These were small craft consisting of a cow skin, dried into the appropriate shape, with the hairs on the outside. The upper edge was generally reinforced by a light casing in wood (fig. 14). However, if we intend to attribute these craft a Pre-Columbian origin, it would be necessary for them to have employed guanaco skins sewn together and stretched across a well- developed groundwork, given the fineness of the skin, unlike the bull-boats of North America, which are constructed using a bison skin. With the exception of the far south, all Pre-Columbian naval construction in South America was thus essentially based on the logboat and the concept of the raft consisting of logs or bundles of stems lashed together. The use of waterproofing systems was not necessary, and nor in principle was the use of plank assemblies. It was thus only in the vast areas of coastal desert in Chile, where ligneous material was rare, that the inhabitants were forced to develop new strategies based on pairs of inflated skins; the balse. In the southern coastal zone of Chile, we observe the presence of another type of craft, consisting initially of three planks lashed together; the dalca, the existence of which we have already mentioned. The joints were made waterproof by the use of bundles of fibres surrounded by lashing. Still further to the south, around Tierra del Fuego, was the domain of the complex canoes (three-piece sewn bark-canoe), the anan and the yeni, consisting of three sheets of bark also assembled together by sewing: the “canoas planchas de corteza”, as they are named by R. LATCHAM (1930, p. 68). What was the origin of these craft, whose hull was formed of elements assembled by sewing and which must be made waterproof? This question is at the centre of extensive discussion; a problem that we will examine, as previously mentioned, in the conclusion to this work.

The general context has thus been presented, and we will begin our study with the bark-canoes of the Amazon basin and the neighbouring regions, such as the Guianas and the Orinoco Basin.

Fig. 14 Pelota consisting of an envelope formed by one or sometimes two cow skins sewn together (Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; CÂMARA 1888, fig. p. 172).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 16 14 Ygat, igáripé, attamanmad, aată, cascara, pakasse, yikchibitiri etc.: bark-canoes from Amazonia and the Guianas In 1492, Christopher Columbus reached the coasts of what would soon become America. Voyages of exploration, discovery and conquest increased in the following decades. In 1520, Fernand de Magellan sailed around South America by the strait that would from then on bear his name. He continued his voyage in the direction of the Philippines where he died, struck by a poisoned arrow. His expedition ultimately succeeded in completing the first circumnavigation of the world (1519-1522). In 1552, the vessel upon which Hans Staden was travelling sank not far from São Paulo. Shortly afterwards he was captured by Tupinambá Indians6, who regularly promised to devour him. He ultimately survived by covincing them that he had a very powerful god who could intervene to heal the sick or help avoid storms. He was finally released after nine months of captivity. This confinement enabled him to obtain a remarkable knowledge of the customs of the indigenous people. He returned to Europe in 1555, and two years later published a richly illustrated account of his adventures, the second part of which is dedicated to the life and customs of the Tupinambá (STADEN 1557). A short chapter deals with bark- canoes (see fig. 15). He paid particular attention to the method of removal of the bark using scaffolding that surrounded the selected tree, the shaping of the removed bark by softening it with fire, the dimensions of the canoes (12.2 m long and 1.2 m wide), the presence of bark 25 mm thick and a capacity to transport 30 people (sometimes more). This use of scaffolding was systematically commented upon by 19th century explorers (see fig. 34 and 49; CREVAUX 1883, fig. p. 216; VON DEN STEINEN 1886, fig. p. 145; SCHMIDT 1905, fig. 8). This information was supplemented by Jean DE LÉRY (1578, p. 228 and 360) in the bay of Rio de Janeiro. He described the ygat (or igat), bark craft some of which could hold 30 to 50 warriors. Fleets sometimes included almost 60 canoes. The paddles were used standing upright, and bore two blades7. André THEVET (1558, p. 75) also mentioned the presence of fleets of 100 to 120 bark-canoes, occupied by 40-50 people each. He called these canoes “almadie”, describing them as 5-6 fathoms long (around 9-10 metres) and around one metre wide. He noted that on the day selected for the removal of the bark, those involved did not eat or drink, hoping thus to prevent any bad luck occurring later while navigating the craft. In the language of the Tupi and Guarani, igá and igára correspond to the concept of a canoe; but the bark-canoe is named igáripé (DE MONTOYA 1639, p. 173-174, Guayrá region; FRIEDERICI 1907, p. 40)8.

6) For the distribution of the various tribes in South America, see, for example, the map located at the end of the work by SCHMIDT 1913 (see also our fig. 24(bis)); but also those of MÉTRAUX 1928, map 4 (fig. 28 in this volume); BUSCHAN ed. 1922, vol. 1, around p. 224; or the very detailed maps published in STEWARD ed. 1946-1959 (1946, vol. 1, maps 1, 4, 5, 7; 1946, vol. 2, map 7; 1948, vol. 3, maps 3, 4, 5, 7; 1948, vol. 4, map 6). As indicated in note 4, we have chosen as far as possible, to write the names of tribes in the singular. In particular, we have based the spelling of these names on the dictionary by OLSON 1991. 7) FRIEDERICI 1907 (p. 41) debates the relevance of this observation, which remains unique. But the data published by MÉTRAUX 1928 (p. 210) support this information. 8) Due to a lack of structural data, we will not use this term to define the simple bark-canoes and/or those with one folded end of the Upper Xingú. We will retain it rather to describe the canoes formerly used, sometimes in the interior, in particular in the region of Guayrá.

Fig. 15 First ethnographic description of the manufacture and use of bark-canoes by H. STADEN, in 1557 (Part 2, chap. 25), and its first translation into French by H. TERNAUX (1837, p. 289-290): “Il y a dans ce pays une espèce d’arbre que l’on nomme yga-ywero; ils en détachent l’écorce depuis le haut jusqu’en bas, et font, autour de l'arbre, une espèce d’échafaudage pour l’enlever d’un seul morceau. Quand ils ont arraché cette écorce, ils la portent au bord de la mer, la chauffent fortement, replient les deux bouts, après avoir eu soin d’y placer des traverses en bois [des varangues plates sur ses dessins], et en font ainsi des canots, qui peuvent porter jusqu'à trente personnes. Cette écorce est épaisse d’un pouce, et les canots ont environ quatre pieds de large sur quarante de long : il y en a de plus petits et de plus grands. Ils vont fort vite, et les sauvages font

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 17 souvent de très-longs voyages dans ces embarcations. Quand la mer devient mauvaise, ils les tirent à terre, et se rembarquent, dès que la tempête est apaisée. Ils ne s’avancent pas à plus de deux milles en mer; mais ils vont quelquefois très-loin le long des côtes.”

15 The illustrations accompanying the original publication by H. STADEN (1557, Part 1, fig. ch. 20, 29, 39, 42, 43, 44) systematically present craft with substantial depths, in which the bottom (and only the bottom) was reinforced by a number of flat frames (fig. 16). These were probably required for the transport of a large crew; something like 30 warriors or perhaps even more. However, in his text he describes something more like stretchers (“/ hitzen sie mit fewer / beugen sie hinden vnd forne hoch auff / binden mitten zwerst hoͤltzer daruͤ ber / das sie sich nicht weiten /”9. These are included in the plates in the third volume of America (DE BRY ed. 1593, pl. p. 22, 52, 70), but in the form of very carefully drawn ropes, and are thus ties rather than true stretchers (fig. 17). We will therefore retain the term of ygati exclusively for these sea-going canoes, without attempting to use it for the bark-canoes with one folded end used on the Upper Xingú. Although these latter sometimes exceeded a length of 10 m, they did not present any elements used to rigidify the bottom (fig. 18). Sometimes, however, in the Madeira/Purús Basin, a rack was placed in the bottom of the craft (fig. 19). Finally, the large canoes used along the Atlantic coast disappeared less than a century later, in parallel with the undivided domination of Europeans in this region.

9))http://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/view/staden_landschafft_1557?p=154

Fig. 16 Ygat canoes with flat frames for the floor (STADEN 1557, Part 2, fig. chap. 20).

Fig. 17 The same canoes as above, but equipped with a tie (DE BRY ed. 1593, pl. p. 52).

16 Terminology issues G. FRIEDERICI (1907, p. 29-30) emphasises the often insoluble problems posed by different authors in terms of the names used to designate logboats, bark-canoes and even plank craft. These terms are often employed in a very unclear manner to simultaneously designate logboats and bark craft. In this context, we will preferentially use the term ubá to designate the Amazonian logboats, in line with the accounts of a number of explorers. However, this name is also employed to designate bark-canoes by a number of authors, such as Francisco Adolfo de Varnhagen and Eduardo de Faria (FRIEDERICI 1907, p. 40). With a space covering practically the whole of Brazil, occupied by a remarkable diversity of indigenous populations speaking different dialects/languages, the identification of the tribes is ultimately the result of the concatenation of their name, language and, to a certain extent, location and some elements of their material culture (ROOP 1942, p. 379-381). It is therefore necessary to be conscious that we are largely unaware of the variety of terms used by these innumerable tribes to designate bark-canoes. This confusion in the names of these craft also results from the fact that both the logboats and canoes were very widely used for traditional navigation in South America. In the first half of the 20th century, bark-canoes still played a very important role in the upstream part of the river systems, characterised by the presence of rapids and waterfalls. Bark-canoes were, therefore, known as aată among the Ipuriná (EHRENREICH 1891, p. 60), attamanmad among the Wapisiána (FARABEE 1918, p. 74), cascara among the Caripúna (MATHEWS 1879, p. 60 – this term is clesrly of Spanish origin), kānāwā’ among the Jamamadí (STEERE 1903, p. 386), pudak or peedak among the Katukína (LIMA and PY-DANIEL 2008, p. 106), kanáwayíshchiputǘre, yíshchiputǘre (YDE 1965, p. 241) or yikchibitiri among the Waiwái in the south of Guiana (ROTH 1929,

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 18 p. 100), pakasse (SCHOMBURGK 1841a, p. 92) or wepipyu’ara among the Carib on the Barama River, ye:ipipé apénzag among the Taulipáng (KOCH-GRÜNBERG 1928, vol. 4, p. 22), thõmorõ among the Yanomami or Yanoama on the Padomo (upper Orinoco Basin; LIZOT 1974, p. 26, FUNTES 1980, p. 58). See also: THE MARINERS’ MUSEUM et al. 2000, p. 291 and 637.

As regards developing a typology, the use of the vernacular name of the canoe associated with a diagram is also problematic, because in a number of publications the term used is something similar to “bark-canoe followed by name of the tribe where it has been observed”. In view of such data, everyday language has sometimes been invaded by typically Western terms, such as woodskin in the Guianas (SCHOMBURGK 1842, p. 188; BRETT 1868, p. 267; IM THURN 1883, p. 51, 296; BRINDELY 1924, p. 125; etc.). We are still faced with the problem of attributing a canoe form to a particular name. It was only in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries that rare plans or sketches of canoes began to accompany some publications. W. ROOP (1942, p. 398-399) uses the terms of jatobá, jamamadí, woodskin and paxiuba. These designations are sometimes reused at a later date by other authors, even though “jamamadí” corresponds to a specific population and the bark of the jatobá was sometimes also used for this type of canoe, particularly the trees with the thinnest bark for this species. In the Orinoco Basin, explorers sometimes used the term of conchas, which means “shell” in Portuguese (CODAZZI 1841, p. 273; ALVARADO 1956, p. 62). No term is proposed for the Oyampí canoe described by J. CREVAUX (1883, p. 216). In this context, we have judged it preferable to define the classes by technical and structural terms, as in the typologies developed for the canoes of Australia (THOMAS 1905; DAVIDSON 1935; ARNOLD 2015, p. 8).

Towards a typology of bark-canoes of Amazonia and the Guianas As we have just mentioned, our classification will primarily be based on structural terms. This classification will also be underlined by the tree species used, and by the distribution map for these canoes (see fig. 24/24bis).

Simple bark-canoes, with raised or lowered sides The use of relatively thick bark makes possible the achievement of inherent structural rigidity sufficient to enable the construction of canoes with a minimum of effort. The ends were only slightly raised and their broad opening was very close to the water level. The top of the sides was, however, situated considerably above the flotation line: canoes with raised sides. The craft as a whole thus resembled a kind of slightly bowed gutter. Only the stretchers were sometimes placed between the sides in order to keep them apart and facilitate a slight raising of the ends. Sometimes the tops of the sides were slightly lowered to reach the level of the ends; canoes with lowered sides.

17 Fig. 18 Canoe with two folded ends from the Upper Xingú, in central Brazil (QUIRKE 1952, fig. p. 81; after VON DEN STEINEN 1894, pl. X); a type sometimes called the jatobá, named after the tree from which the bark is taken.

Fig. 20 Canoe with pressed and tied ends, by the Oyampí (CREVAUX 1883a, fig. p. 216).

Fig. 22 Woodskin with raised ends, or attamanmad, constructed by the Wapisiána (FARABEE 1918, p. 75, fig. 8). At this stage of construction, the stretchers have not yet been incorporated.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 19

18 Canoes with one folded end A noteworthy concentration of canoes with one folded end can be observed on the Upper Xingú, resulting in particular from the expeditions by K. VON DEN STEINEN (1886, 1894). The tree species used was the jatobá, locust tree or “courbaril” (Hymenaea courbaril), the bark of which is characterised by exceptional thicknesses, achieving and sometimes even exceeding 30 mm (DE LIMA 1950, p. 376). W. ROOP (1942, p. 398 and 453) has selected the term of jatobá for this type of canoe. There was no way of connecting or pressing the tips against each other. At most it was possible to slightly bend the centre of the ends towards the interior in order to attempt to close them by a V or W fold. Finally, stretchers prevented the bark from continuing to fold in on itself. Sometimes both ends are folded (fig. 18).

Canoes with apical lashings One series of canoes was characterised by having tips closed by means of a number of lashings located on the upper part of the ends. The ends were thus given the form of a teapot spout (fig. 19). Stretchers ensured the separation of the sides. The tree species used for these was clearly much thinner and more supple than that of the jatobá. The bark of the jutahy or purpleheart tree (Copaifera pubiflora) is regularly mentioned. W. ROOP (1942, p. 399) has apparently randomly chosen to use the term of jamamadí to designate this type of canoe, probably as a result of the sketch published by J. STEERE in 1903 (see fig. 19). However, the term of “jutahy” cannot be employed as this tree species was also very widely used in the construction of woodskin canoes.

Bark-canoes with pressed and tied ends No parallel can be made between the canoe described and illustrated by J. CREVAUX (1883, fig. p. 216) and any other example analysed/observed in Amazonia or the Guianas (fig. 20). This was characterised by short tips pressed together and held in place by a massive lashing surrounding the whole of the end. This canoe was observed in a marginal zone, between Brazil and French Guiana.

Woodskin type canoes The woodskin type canoes were characterised by the removal, near the base of each end, of a triangle from the outer layer of bark. The flexible internal layer could then be folded into an S or Z fold, enabling the end of the canoe to be raised while maintaining the original watertightness of the remainder of the hull (fig. 23). Sometimes this was a simple slit without removal of a triangle of bark (see fig. 54), and sometimes a complete slit with the addition of waterproofing material (see fig. 65). The ends could be open and very long, sometimes each corresponding to one third of the total length: open-ended woodskin (fig. 21). They could also be very short and strongly raised in the case of the woodskins with raised ends (fig. 22). The slits were then deep and very close to the ends of the canoe. The part of the bottom thus released could be raised considerably. The lips were then overlapped and waterproofing material inserted. Although the construction concept was very similar to that of the other woodskins, the geometry of the craft as a whole was totally different. The end part was situated significantly above the water line, unlike the other woodskin types. The use of bark from the jutahy and occasionally from other tree species is mentioned. The thickness of jatobá bark does not usually permit the manufacture of canoes with folds. In some examples, particularly those made with jatobá bark, a slit through the entire thickness replaced the removal of a V-shaped piece of bark. The lips of this slit were then partially overlapped and sealing measures applied. And finally, we shoud include the very specific case of the rolled bark woodskins.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 20 Paxiuba type canoes These canoes were made from palm trees (Iriartea ventricosa or I. deltoidea, and Mauritia flexuosa). They were characterised by the presence of a significant bulge in the “trunk” or stipe, in the apical section. This bulge formed the central area of the canoe. The structural rigidity was ensured by a fine outer layer consisting of the bases of leaves, supplemented by a ring in which the support fibres were concentrated. However, this outer layer could not be removed separately. Instead it was necessary to chip away primarily the very soft material in the centre of the stipe. From a conceptual point of view, this canoe was situated – as we will see later – (see p. 48 onward), somewhere between bark-canoes and logboats. However, we feel that it is appropriate to present these craft in a separate chapter.

Fig. 23 Typical V-shaped slit partway through the bark of a woodskin in order to permit the edges of the sides to be folded onto themselves and the ends to be raised (ROTH 1924, fig. 335).

19 %

20 Distribution of canoe types The distribution map for bark-canoes types (fig. 24/24bis) highlights three interesting concentrations, each corresponding to a very specific type: woodskins in the Guiana Highlands, canoes with apical lashings on the Madeira and the Upper Purús, and bark-canoes with one folded end on the Upper Xingú. For the Tapajos and the lower reaches of the Xingú, it is not possible to define the most frequently observed type, due to a lack of accuracy in the published data. We can add a fourth group, running along the eastern slopes of the Andes (an area known as the Montaña) and composed of paxiuba. The distribution map of Iriartea ventricosa palm trees (fig. 25) superimposes neatly over the map of occurrences of paxiuba, demonstrating that the presence of the latter was directly dependant on the presence of the raw material. The two tree species normally used to manufacture bark-canoes, the jatobá (Hymenaea courbaril) and the jutahy (Copaifera pubiflora), are distributed across the whole of the Amazon Basin and the Guianas; the former extends into Central America and covers the whole of the east of Brazil and the upper part of the Paraguay Basin, particularly the Paraná. The two types of canoe present in the Amazon Basin (bark-canoes with one folded end and those with apical lashings) therefore correspond to cultural choices depending directly on the thickness of the bark and not on the presence/absence of particular materials. However, the woodskin canoes, made from the moderately thick bark of a number of tree species (particularly the jutahy), cover the Guiana Highlands (with a particular concentration in Guyana). These areas correspond to regions occupied by the Carib. The considerable areas which seem to separate almost artificially these concentrations covering Amazonia also result from the fact that canoes were above all used in areas where navigation was interrupted by large-scale rapids or waterfalls; in other words, the upper part of river basins. In the middle and lower sections of the major watercourses, the craft used were almost exclusively logboats or ubá. The nature of the canoes present between these areas of concentration have often not been specified by observers (see Appendix 1), but are unlikely to have changed the overall picture, which has also been influenced by the explorers/ethnographers who centred their work along a particular river, like the Xingú, studied by K. VON DEN STEINEN (1886, 1894).

Fig. 25 Distribution of Iriartea ventricosa palm trees (STEEGE et al. 2013, fig. 5B).

Fig. 26 Amazon basin: distribution of canoe types by W. ROOP (1942, map in Appendix). ). JJ, canoe with one folded end; YY, canoe with apical lashings; WW, woodskin.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 21 19

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 22 21 Our work has benefited to a large extent from the inventory drawn up by W. ROOP (1942, p. 435- 452; see fig. 26)10. This was supplemented by the reference work Handbook of South American Indians, edited between 1946 and 1959 by J. STEWARD, in seven volumes. In these works, the sections examining the material culture were extremely useful as a complement to W. Roop’s work. This domain is very little developed half a century later in the 1999 work edited by F. SALOMON and S. SCHWARTZ, The Cambridge history of the Native peoples of the Americas. Vol. 3, South America. We have also attached and compared (Appendix 1) the inventories by W. SCHMIDT (1913, p. 1062), E. NORDENSKIÖLD (1924, p. 182, map 22) and A. MÉTRAUX (1928, p. 295), and chosen to individually treat each of the observations made, essentially in the second half of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th century (Appendix 1). The result thus becomes significant, particularly on a large scale. However, the overall picture is somewhat biased, because canoes were used in a navigational space associated with the space occupied by a particular tribe, which was not necessarily located where the explorers made their observations. This is the option selected by W. SCHMIDT (1913, p. 1043/fig. 3; see fig. 27). His map, associated with that of the various tribes of South America (presented at the end of his work; see fig. 24(bis)), also highlights the early use of the large ygat war canoes on the Atlantic façade by the Tupinambá. These canoes were still present during the century that followed the first colonisation of this coast by Europeans. Finally, it is worth noting the absence of canoes north-west of the course of the Orinoco itself and, in the east of South America, on the rio São Francisco (STEWARD ed. 1948, vol. 3, p. 109). They were, however, present on the rio Paranaíba, at its confluence with the waters of the Gurguéira and the Piauí (SCHMIDT 1913, p. 1043/fig. 3). In the Amazon Basin, as a result of the various hatched areas, the map by W. Schmidt is rather difficult to interpret, particularly as the Upper Xingú has been transposed by error to the upper part of the rio Araguaya (fig. 27). For the Panama Isthmus, where one occurrence is mentioned on the map in the Appendix to the work by J. HORNELL (1946; see fig. 13), we have only one early observation (fig. 25/£28 ; Appendix 1/74), made by J. COCKBURN (1735, p. 229-230): the bark-canoes were 9.1 m long and 0.9 m wide, with the paddler standing upright. They had pointed ends. If women were present, they carried the canoe on their heads to the next watercourse.

Cultural and dynamic divisions of territorial occupation The dynamics of the occupation of Amazonia in the Pre-Columbian period, and in the period following the arrival of increasing numbers of Western colonists, are another major element in understanding the distribution of canoe types. In this context, the analysis of the Tupi-Guarani tribes by A. MÉTRAUX (1928) emphasises the impact of colonial influences on the coastal areas, together with the flood of indigenous inhabitants towards the interior and the upper parts of the river basins in order to avoid slavery (ibid., maps 2 and 3). This movement had already been preceded by large-scale Pre-Columbian migrations undertaken by this warrior population.

10) The work finished by W. ROOP in 1935 was subject to limited distribution duplication (for example, QUIRKE 1952), which is why we exclusively use the version printed in 1942.

Fig. 27 Distribution of bark-canoes in South America (diagonal hatching, on blue background) but also logboats, rafts and plank craft (after SCHMIDT 1913, p. 1043/fig. 3).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 23 22 According to his works, A. MÉTRAUX (1928, p. 310-311) suggests that the original centre of the Tupi was located in the upper part of the Paraná Basin (fig. 28). The area to the west of this, as in the north of the Amazon, was dominated by the Arawak until the arrival of the Carib, who later occupied the Guianas and Venezuela. From their original centre, the Tupi dispersed in waves towards both the lower and upper Xingú, then to the upper Amazon and Purús. The most recent of these migrations constitutes the foundation of the Tupinambá and Guarani tribes, occupying the Atlantic coast in the region of São Paulo/Rio de Janeiro, before moving back up the coast to the north. They ultimately reached French Guiana, where the Oyampí were secondarily subject to strong influence from the neighbouring tribes; in other words, the Carib. This mixture of influences was also demonstrated in the material culture, as indicated by the canoes, for example (fig. 20). Another approach has been implemented in the context of the synthesis directed by J. STEWARD (seven volumes published between 1946 and 1959), which we have mentioned previously. The space is subdivided into cultural divisions; fig. 29). These consist of a multitude of groups and tribes described systematically. We thus note that logboats were often used in contrast to bark-canoes (for the latter, a number of additional occurrences have been reported in Appendix 1), rafts, or simply the absence of any type of craft. This last situation is generally associated with sound mastery of swimming or the construction of footbridges across narrow rivers. Research approaches have developed significantly in the last 50 years, as is highlighted by the work edited by F. SALOMON and S. SCHWARTZ (1999), which discusses new archaeological data, the development – in particular the recent development – of societies and the analysis of early administrative archives (ibid., Part 1, p. 1-10). Any standardisation of the names of tribes in the form of a group restricted, for example to one village, or to a set of several groups, has proven impossible for this summary work in which terms written in Portuguese, Spanish and English are still intermingled (ibid., Part 1, p. 12-14). We have ultimately chosen to also retain the spelling of tribal names used in the dictionary by J. OLSON (1991).

Fig. 28 Location of Tupi-Guarani tribes, after A. MÉTRAUX (1928, map 4).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 24 23 The canoes of Amazonia and the Guianas

Simple bark-canoes with raised or lowered sides The documentation recently realised among the Katukína, who inhabit the area around the rio Biá has enabled an examination of the still common use of a type of canoe consisting of a single sheet of bark. These are known as peedak (see fig. 32), or pudak (LIMA and PY-DANIEL 2008, p. 106). The sides are generally raised and the open ends are only slightly raised above the flotation line (fig. 32). Sometimes the sides are lowered. In other words they are beaten down so that they are level with the opening of the ends (fig. 30). In both cases, this situation can be problematic when the canoe is heavily laden. The canoes are constructed from the particularly thick bark of the jatobá or locust tree (Hymenaea courbaril; LIMA and PY-DANIEL 2008, p. 106). In other words there are no gunwale poles. The structural resistance of the craft is entirely provided by the intrinsic rigidity of the bark. The construction of such canoes requires only minimal effort, almost entirely invested in removing the bark from the tree. We have no indications about this operation, but the bark is almost certainly obtained in the form of sheets cut from the unfelled tree, probably with the aid of scaffolding. Stretchers are sometimes present to maintain the separation of the sides (fig. 30). Sometimes small planks are inserted in the base of the sides to serve as benches (fig. 31). This is unquestionably the simplest type of bark-canoe observed in South America.

Fig. 30 Simple bark-canoe with lowered sides, used by the Katukína on the rio Biá; ends a little raised (fig. 24/£9; Appendix 1/46).

Fig. 31 Simple bark-canoe with lowered sides, and on the right, raised (LIMA et PY-DANIEL 2008, fig. p. 106).

Fig. 32 Simple bark-canoe with developed sides, Katukína, on the rio Biá, known as peedak (for the location: fig. 24/£9; Appendix 1/46).

24 Canoes with one folded end The intensive use of bark from the jatobá (Hymenaea courbaril), which is characterised by exceptionally thick bark (sometimes more than 30 mm; DE LIMA 1950, p. 376), has led to the development of a wide variety of canoes with one folded end. These are often simply called jatobá (ROOP 1942; see our fig. 26/JJ). The rigidity inherent in this material has made possible the construction of large canoes exceeding 10 m in length which require no insertion of longitudinal rigidification elements such as gunwale poles or stringers. As for the thickness of the bark itself, it plays a fundamental role in the buoyancy of the canoe should it sink – an essential parameter when the craft are used at sea or on a large body of water, unlike other, much thinner types of bark. The buoyancy of the envelope of the latter is, in effect, practically non-existent (WORCESTER 1956, p. 251; see also ARNOLD 2015, p. 68 for Australia). This considerable thickness also leads to a removal method involving large panels cut into an ogive shape (fig. 34). These characteristics relating to the thickness of the bark, the inherent rigidity of the raw material and its dimensions (canoes longer than 10 m) mean that we can assert with confidence that this is the tree species used to construct the ygat; the large war canoes of the Atlantic façade mentioned in the 16th century by H. STADEN (1557, part 2, ch. 25), A. THEVET (1558, p. 75) and J. DE LÉRY (1578, p. 228), in particular in the regions of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro (see p. 14). These canoes could carry more than 30 people and disappeared shortly after this date, in parallel with the colonisation of the coastal areas of Brazil by Europeans. They were characterised by the reinforcement of the bottom with flat frames (fig. 16).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 25 In the 19th and early 20th centuries, canoes made from this tree species were concentrated on the Upper Xingú (fig. 24, Appendix 1). K. VON DEN STEINEN (1886, p. 145-146; 1894, p. 46) states, as did H. STADEN in 1557 (see fig. 15), that scaffolding was installed, following which the general ogive-shaped form was cut in the bark of the unfelled tree (fig. 34). Once the bark sheet was on the ground, the pointed top was slightly raised with levers while the bark was softened over a fire, in order to constitute the prow (fig. 33). The sides were slightly curved towards the interior. The end made from the part nearest the base of the tree was rectilinear. By pushing the central part of the bark towards the interior with levers, the stern could be closed, presenting a marked V shape (fig. 35). Apparently a similar procedure was sometimes also applied to the prow (fig. 18). One of the canoes commissioned by K. VON DEN STEINEN from the Bakairí was produced in a single day using stone axes and transported by four of the indigenous inhabitants to the river bank (1894, p. 74 and 234-235). He also mentions a single day’s work in the context of another canoe (ibid., 1894, p. 46 and 235). A canoe measured in 1884 was 8 m long, with a width at the centre point of 0.64 m from the top of one side to the other and at the bottom of 0.56 m, and a depth of 0.24 m. The width of the stern was 0.63 m. The bark thickness was only 11-21 mm (ibid., 1894, p. 234). Larger specimens also existed (9 m; ibid., 1886, p. 241). An example 6.70 m long had a width at the centre of the canoe of 0.70 m at the top of the sides and 0.56 at the bottom, with a depth of 0.27 m. It was 0.67 m wide at the stern and was made of remarkably thick bark (37 mm) (ibid., 1886, p. 241).

Fig. 33 One of the bark-canoes with one folded end constructed by Karl von den Steinen’s team on the Kulisehu, a tributary of the Xingú (for the location, see fig. 24/22; Appendix 1/6), during his 1887-1888 expedition (VON DEN STEINEN 1894, pl. XI). Here, the ends have not been raised by giving them a central terminal fold.

25 M. SCHMIDT (1905, p. 53) mentions the use of prismatic scaffolding; i.e. scaffolding with a triangular base, one of the uprights of which consists of a tree, enabling the construction to be stabilised (fig. 34). The images published by DE LIMA (1950, pl. 1 and 2) show the use of four uprights. Whatever the model, it has to be possible to remove the horizontal elements of one of the faces (VON DEN STEINEN 1886, fig. p. 145), in order to carefully place the bark on the ground. The construction of this scaffolding is a direct consequence of the considerable length of the canoes produced. Up to a length of 4-5 m11 and where the bark is removed in the form of a split cylinder, the simplest solution is to use a small trunk with two main branches. This is placed diagonally against the trunk, and the artisan climbs onto it like an improvised ladder (ARNOLD 2014, fig. p. 22). For greater lengths or very thick and thus very heavy bark, this arrangement is no longer sufficient and the use of scaffolding becomes inevitable. A solution frequently employed is to use an iron tool (or, today, a chainsaw) and to simply fell the tree (see fig. 72b). In this case, it is essential to avoid damaging the bark as the tree falls. The traditional method of removal employed for the jatobá, and how the bark was shaped, were observed in detail between 1947 and 1949 by P. DE LIMA (1950). Normally, the “Xingú” Indians constructed their canoes during the rainy season, when the tree had the most sap and humidity, which facilitated the removal of the bark. However, where necessary, as was often the case for the needs of explorers in the 19th and 20th centuries, such construction was carried out at other times. During the dry period, there was a significant risk that the bark would not detach correctly, creating wide cracks and wasting the work previously carried out (ibid., p. 370). K. VON DEN STEINEN (1886, p. 145) thus mentions that six or seven examples cracked during the construction of his fleet. The tree selected must be rectilinear, without any branching on the bole. The bark must not peel, present natural cracks or excessive roughness. The leaves must be abundant and green, indicating good

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 26 circulation of sap. Finally, a few axe blows to the base of the trunk enable the adherence of the bark to be evaluated; this must not be too great (DE LIMA 1950, p. 370).

11) The bark removed was 4.45 m long, intended for the manufacture, in Tanzania, of a large kapepe; ARNOLD 2014, p. 24.

Fig. 34 Scaffolding erected for removing the bark of a jatobá, here intended for manufacturing two canoes (SCHMIDT 1905, p. 53, fig. 8).

Fig. 35 Closing the stern by folding the central part of the end of the sheet upwards (after VON DEN STEINEN 1894, pl. X).

26 An initial cut 10 cm wide is made horizontally, around 30 cm above the ground. This area constitutes the stern of the canoe. Scaffolding is then erected in order to create the two vertical cuts that join at the top, forming a kind of ogive shape. If the tree is of large diameter and the two vertical slits are opposite each other, it is possible to construct two canoes (fig. 34). In the opposite case, one of the sections remains attached to the trunk (top fig. 36, central area). In fact it is very difficult to cut only a single slit and be able to sufficiently separate the edges of the split cylinder, as the bark is much too thick and rigid.

To release the bark, a number of long, thin levers made from taquara (a kind of bamboo) are inserted with a wooden mallet between the bark and the wood (SCHMIDT 1905, p. 54). These levers are around 20 to 80 cm long and around 3 cm wide (DE LIMA 1950, p. 371). The largest are used at the base of the trunk, where the width of the sheet to be removed is greatest. They are placed regularly, around every 10 cm from top to bottom, at an angle of 45° in relation to the trunk (fig. 36). The upper, narrowest part is the first to be released. The Indians then pour water (around 60-80 litres in total) between the bark and the wood in order to facilitate the next stage in the process, and in particular to detach the lowest section, which presents the greatest risk of cracking (ibid., p. 371). It takes approximately 8 hours of uninterrupted work for 5 men to release the bark, and a further 50 minutes to carefully place it on the ground after having dismantled one side of the scaffolding (ibid., p. 372). Sometimes the bark is transported to the river bank where the canoe will be constructed (KOCH ed. 1984, pl. XXVI). The contour of the stern is then regularised and the thickness of this section is reduced using a knife to remove the outer bark (see Rio de Janeiro, Appendix 2/1). Thus only the phloem is retained, in order to achieve better flexibility. This operation is not always necessary for the prow, where the bark is thinner from the outset. The half-cylinder removed is then positioned between pairs of stakes around 2 m long, inserted into the ground at intervals of around 1 m. The bark is made more flexible by heating it over a fire. Dry palm tree leaves and wood are used to obtain sufficiently intense and prolonged heat. Each pair of stakes is then gradually brought together and linked by a horizontal element (fig. 37). Wooden stretchers around 3 cm in diameter are then inserted between the sides at intervals of around 1 m, in order to keep them apart. Some of these stretchers will later be removed until only three or four remain. The fire is then applied to the stern in order to be able to lift only the central part, giving it the characteristic V shape, so that the whole section takes on a W shape (fig. 35 and 38).

Fig. 36 The levers are inserted diagonally. The narrow strip of bark (here seen from the front) is not removed (fig. 24/25; Appendix 1/7).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 27 In general, the natural curve of the prow is not sufficient and it must also be heated in order to lift it evenly. These shaping operations take around 4 hours of effort (DE LIMA, p. 374). In the absence of folds on the prow, this end is very slightly raised in relation to the waterline, as for the simple bark-canoes (fig. 39). This rather unfavourable geometry is here undoubtedly compensated by the thickness of the bark, which provides the canoe with considerable buoyancy, even if a certain amount of water is taken on. The preferred position for the crew is in the central and rear part of the canoe (fig. 40). It is then necessary to leave the bark until it has cooled in order for it to retain its shape permanently (generally one night is sufficient). This phase is always present in the shaping of bark temporarily softened by heating, regardless of the tree species used. Finally, a team of 6-8 men bear the canoe on their shoulders to the river, if this was not carried out previously. A rack is often installed in the bottom of the canoe so that the cargo does not rest directly on the bark. Small seats are constructed using 2-3 rods arranged in a cross shape in the bottom of the canoe. If a split develops, it is caulked with a little clay. If the split is large, the Indians use the bark of a tree which becomes very sticky after being immersed in water. When the canoe is not in use, it is stored in the shade. If it will not be used for a long time, it is submerged, sometimes for up to a year (ibid., p. 375). The weight of a canoe 6.4 m long is 300 kg, with a transport capacity of around 400 kg. In good conditions, it may be used for up to two years, but often a single encounter with the rapids is fatal (DE LIMA 1950, p. 379). The lengths of the eight canoes measured by P. DE LIMA (1950, p. 376) varied between 5.5 and 8.5 m, with a central width of 0.60-0.86 m and a depth of 0.21-0.27 m. The thickness of the bark was between 20 and 35 mm, of which a good third consisted of phloem.

Fig. 37 The bark is made more flexible by heating and the sides are brought together (fig. 24/£4; Appendix 1/15; DE LIMA 1950, pl. 9).

Fig. 38 Shaping the stern when the bark is sufficiently warm (fig. 24/£4; Appendix 1/15; DE LIMA 1950, pl. 7).

Fig. 39 Two canoes near to the villages of Nahuquá and Matipyhy (fig. 24/26; Appendix 1/8; DE LIMA 1950, pl. 12).

Fig. 40 Bark-canoe with one folded end, seen from behind, on the rio Kuluseu or Kulisehu (fig. 24/34; Appendix 1/13; DYOTT 1929, opposite p. 540).

28 Canoes with apical lashings The form of the ends of the canoes with apical lashings is not compatible with the bark of the jatobá, except perhaps in a few cases where the bark is particularly thin. The primary tree species used is, in fact, the jutahy, or purpleheart tree (Copaifera pubiflora), which has considerably thinner bark. A single mention is also made of the use of a cajui (Anacardium microcarpum; STEWARD ed. 1948, vol. 3, p. 309). This type of canoe has essentially been observed in the Purús and Madeira basins (fig. 24). The geometry of the canoe is based on the lashing of the apical part of the tips, associated with the presence of a stretcher (fig. 41)12. It is similar to the construction of the kapepe in Tanzania, but without gunwale poles (ARNOLD 2014, p. 32). The position of the lashing point closest to the centre of the canoe and the width of the stretcher lead to greater or lesser raising of the end (fig. 12, 19, 42 and 43). If the final section of the end is too close to the flotation line, or the canoe is too heavily loaded, the opening is caulked with clay (STEERE 1903, p. 369); C. DOMVILLE-FIFE (1925, p. 174) refers to the insertion of a calabash as a closing element. The absence of gunwale poles can be noted. However, the presence of a rack can be observed on the drawing by J. STEERE (1903, fig. 12; see fig. 19), which helps to protect the bottom and maintain its shape. This canoe, manufactured by the Jamamadí, is called kānāwā’ (STEERE 1903, p. 386). It is simply named jamamadí by W. ROOP (1942; see our fig. 26/YY). These canoes are also called cascara among the Caripúna, which means “shell” in Spanish (MATHEWS 1879, p. 60). The

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 28 presence of a set of stems, lashed together and arranged on the bottom of the canoe, is also mentioned by L. HERNDON and L. GIBBON (1854, vol. 2, p. 287; see fig. 43).

12) The stretchers are consolidated by small iron nails of museographical origin, and not by pegs as shown on the model by T. Adney (JENNINGS 2004, p. 117).

Fig. 43 Canoe with apical lashings on the rio Beni (fig. 24/£6; Appendix 1/40). Length 6.1 m (HERNDON and GIBBON 1854, vol. 2, pl. - p. 294).

29 The sketch of an Ipuriná canoe, called aată (EHRENREICH 1891, p. 60), is characterised by the presence of an axial pole, supporting two stays wedged beneath the stretchers (fig. 44), the function of which is undoubtedly to maintain a significant transverse curve to the hull. It is not possible to detect the presence of a row of lashings on the apical section, this structural element having been replaced by a very short tie located between the end of the canoe and the closest stretcher. It is indicated that the bark used is jatobá, which is problematic, as this bark is too thick to roll in on itself at the edges in such a marked manner. However, it should be remembered that the sketch is based on a model (fig. 45), and therefore not on a survey carried out in the field, so the bark undoubtedly does not correspond to that of the original tree species. We have no formal description of the method for removing the bark. J. STEERE (1903, p. 369 and 385) simply mentions that the tree is unfelled. But it probably took place by connecting with a vertical slit two circular ones, one at the base of the trunk and one at the top, at a height corresponding to the length of the canoe. Once the bark had been placed on the ground, the angles of the removed cylinder would have been beaten away (fig. 47). Finally, the bark would have been shaped by heating it to make it flexible. R. SOUTHEY (1819, vol. 3, p. 350) notes that the Múra loaded their canoes with stones at night before sinking them so that they could not be stolen. C. DOMVILLE-FIFE (1925, p. 174) mentions that the canoes were hidden in the vegetation along the river banks. And finally, according to C. MARKHAM (1895, p. 258), the canoes were just large enough to transport five to six people. In his work, A. CÂMARA (1888, fig. p. 74) illustrates such an example (fig. 46).

Fig. 46 Large canoe with apical lashings (CÂMARA 1888, fig. p. 74).

Fig. 47 Shape of the bark sheet used to manufacture a canoe with apical lashings (STEERE 1903, fig. 13; see fig. 19).

30 Bark-canoes with pressed and tied ends As we have previously mentioned, no parallel can be made between the canoe described and illustrated by J. CREVAUX (1883a, fig. p. 216) and any other example analysed/observed in Amazonia or the Guianas.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 29 This canoe did not present the triangular cutouts at the base of the ends found in the woodskin, nor lashed gunwale poles. It was characterised by ends where the sides, which were less extensive, were pressed against each other and maintained in place by a solid lashing, which is the reason we have included it in a class described as bark-canoes with pressed and tied ends (fig. 48). It is thus significantly different from the canoes of North America, which are characterised by their tips well-developed pressed against each other over the whole height of the canoe. In addition, these latter are linked by sewing generally using single or double running stitch and/or overcast stitch.

The bark was removed in the form of a large sheet: this could be rectangular (see fig. 49) or oval (in the text, CREVAUX 1883a, p. 216). It was 5-6 m long. The work was facilitated by the use of scaffolding. The separation of the sides was maintained by four poles, but the published drawing illustrates the use of small planks, which seems to be more problematic. This drawing must therefore be approached with caution, because the relatively thin bark of the hull would not long resist the installation of a bench that was not linked to/suspended from the gunwale poles, thereby redistributing the forces across the whole of the structure (see, for example fig. 52). We are not certain of the tree species employed, but it may be that used for the woodskin and the canoes with apical lashings, in other words the jutahy. This observation is supported by the remark by J. CREVAUX (1883a, p. 313) regarding the later construction of two new canoes from jatobá bark, in which he specifically emphasises that the bark was very thick. However, we have no detailed information regarding the form of these canoes, and in particular whether they were of simple type, or similar to those observed by O. COUDREAU (1901; see fig. 59). This tied bark-canoe, which took four hours to construct, was observed in the area upstream of the rio Jari basin, on the banks of the Rouapir. This basin is located at the far east of the Guiana Highlands and was colonised at a late date by the Tupinambá (see p. 22). This explains why the construction method is significantly different to that of the woodskin while still being similar to that of the canoes with apical lashings.

Fig. 48 Diagram of the end of a canoe with pressed and tied ends.

Fig. 49 Removal, on the banks of the Rouapir River (fig. 25/165; Appendix 1/48), of bark to manufacture a bark- canoe with pressed and tied ends, using scaffolding (CREVAUX 1883, fig. p. 216).

31 Woodskin type canoes The woodskin type canoes were located in the Guiana Highlands and more particularly in Guyana, formerly British Guiana, and in the area upstream of the Orinoco and rio Branco. Particular attention has been paid to these canoes as a result of their highly developed structure in comparison to other examples present in Amazonia, which enables a more detailed description to be made (fig. 50), but also as a result of the subdivision of Guiana into a number of colonies, leading to territorial fragmentation, a reduced distance to the various capitals and finally as a result of a greater density of ethnologists and explorers. The principle employed in raising the ends of the woodskin canoes is completely different from that of the canoes with apical lashings, which as we have seen is based on geometrical constraints resulting from the apical lashing closest to the central body and the width of the stretcher located at the base of the relevant end. For the woodskin canoes, this was achieved by creating slits part of the way through the bark at the top of the sides, at the point where each end angled upwards, creating a V shape and constituting the key element (fig. 23). This double slit resulted in the removal of a triangle from the outside of the bark representing only half of the total thickness of the material. The flexible internal part could thus be shaped into an S or Z fold, making it possible to raise the end of the craft, but also to

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 30 maintain the natural watertightness of the hull, as we can observe in a large model originating from the area of the upper waters of the Cuyuni (fig. 51). In this context, we can note the triangles illustrated on fig. 52, which in fact do not pierce the whole thickness of the bark, as specified in the text description by the author of the drawing (WORCESTER 1956, p, 250). However, a simple slit through the entire thickness of the bark is sometimes also present on some canoes. This arrangement can be observed on an example collected in around 1876 (see fig. 65). In order to ensure a good overlap of the lips of the slit, no bark triangle has been removed here. In this case, the deep slit only affects the upper part of the side. In the case of the thõmorõ of the upper Orinoco Basin (see fig. 71), the slit affects the entire height of the side and the chine, enabling the end to be raised in a very marked manner, as the slit is close to the end of the hull (woodskin with raised ends).

Fig. 50 Open-ended woodskin, used on the Mazaruni River (fig. 24/£18; Appendix 1/64; LAVARRE 1919, fig. opposite p. 124).

Fig. 52 Open-ended woodskin, used on the Pomeroon River (fig. 24/£21; Appendix 1/67); length 5.5-6 m (WORCESTER 1956, fig. 1).

32 A third slit type can be observed, for example on a woodskin collected in 1862 (fig. 53 and 69). A single slit has been made, affecting the external and central part of the bark. A large chamfer has been cut in one of the lips, over which the other one slides. On the latter, the internal part of the bark has been released over some distance, in order to create a fold that enables the end of the canoe to be raised while ensuring that this location remains watertight (fig. 54). In order to raise the ends, a system of tensioners had to be employed on each side (fig. 55). This consisted of a set of ropes straddling the slit area. In three cases we have been able to observe a sophisticated lashing of overlapping oblong cross stitch with a length of three units (fig. 56; ARNOLD 2015, p. 50-51) consolidated the part of the tensioner located in the central area of the hull (fig. 55, 61 and 62).

Fig. 53 Z fold based on local release of one of the lips (open-ended woodskin collected in 1862).

Fig. 54 Z fold based on a partial slit of the bark (a) and local release of the internal bark from one of the lips. Pressure employed to create the fold (1) and raise the relevant end (2).

Fig. 55 Sophisticated stop for tensioner intended to raise one of the ends, at the triangle removed from part of the thickness of the bark, based on an overlapping oblong cross stitch type lashing, with a length of three units (open- ended woodskin model collected by E. im Thurn).

33 Compared to a helicoidal arrangement or one employing a half cross stitch, this lashing system had the advantage of avoiding monodirectional tension and balancing the forces in two directions (fig. 56). The assembly was also reinforced by systematic covering of the previously applied loop. This slit area was generally reinforced by a gunwale pole lashed to the top of each side, on the inside of the canoe (fig. 21 and 52). It also provided the attachment point for the ropes supporting a bench

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 31 at the point where each end angled upwards. Finally, two ties were attached to prevent the sides from separating and to stabilise the benches which were suspended from the gunwale poles. In one case (fig. 57), this arrangement has been simply been replaced by two lashing points piercing the superimposed sections which have been released by a slit cut right through the side, and associated with a gunwale pole sewn onto each side and the insertion of three stretchers (DE GOEJE 1908, p. 4). Mention is made in particular of the use of the bark of the jutahy or purpleheart tree (Copaifera pubiflora; SCHOMBURGK 1848, vol. 2, p. 472; FARABEE 1918, p. 74) also known as the mora tree (WORCESTER 1956, p. 250), mararen or maran. The baramalli (Castostemma commune), makaratalli or bullet tree (Chrysophyllum sp.) were occasionally used, and finally the simiri (SCHOMBURGK 1842, p. 184; ROTH 1924, p. 616; COPPENS 1974)13. Other tree species mentioned include thõmorõ (Tabebuia guayacan; LIZOT 1974, p. 26; RESNIK 2009, p. 208), marana (Hymenaea corbaril), pirepíre, arapari or páaru (Macrolobium acaciifolium) and tarápa (YDE 1965, p. 241), tacamahaca and curucai (CODAZZI 1841, p. 101), species for which we do not generally have the binomial names. The bark was removed by cutting two circular slits around the trunk, with the distance between them corresponding to the length of the canoe. These were linked by a third vertical slit, the length of which corresponds to that of the canoe. The bark was released using wedges (SCHOMBURGK 1841a, p. 92). This produced a kind of split cylinder (WORCESTER 1956, p. 250). Sometimes the tree was felled before the bark was removed (fig. 72b). The jatobá (tirikir) is sometimes mentioned (FARABEE 1918, p. 74), but the thickness of the bark of this tree species would have made it problematical from a mechanical viewpoint to manufacture a standard woodskin with folds or slits partway through the bark. In this context, however, W. C. FARABEE (1918, p. 74) mentions the use of two vertical slits employed in removing the bark (see also fig. 72b), associated with horizontal incisions at the top and bottom, which is a technique that would be well adapted to the thick bark of the jatobá. The diameter of the tree involved was 0.76 m. When the canoe was not in use, it was submerged to avoid shrinking of the material and cracking due to prolonged exposure to the sun (IM THURN 1883, p. 296; FARABEE 1918, p. 74). Finally, care had to be taken with this kind of canoe, as when the bark was saturated with water the craft became extremely heavy and sank if suffering a collision. J. CHAFFANJON (1889, p. 199) emphasises that bark-canoes were only used once, which is perhaps something of an exaggeration if we expand this comment to the more general level, but it does emphasise the reduced duration of use of these canoes.

Finally we will examine three types of woodskin: those characterised by open ends or in a crescent shape (fig. 50) or split tube (see fig. 63), the canoes with raised ends (fig. 57), and those with sides consisting of rolled bark (fig. 73).

13) RIVIERE ed. 2006, p. 184 - note 3: marianara (murianara in SCHOMBURGK 1837, p. 308; mariwayani in BRETT 1868, p. 267), mararen or maran (Copaifera publiflora, C. langsdorfii, C. guianensis); baramalli (Catostemma commune, C. altsonii, C. fragrans, Scleronema guianense); makaratalli or bullet tree (Chrysophyllum sp.); simiri (Hymenaea oblongifolia).

Fig. 57 The Trió (fig. 24/169; Appendix 1/53) maintained the overlapping areas of a woodskin with raised ends by two stitches of lashing (DE GOEJE 1908, fig. 1).

34 Open-ended woodskins The open-ended woodskins (the ends of which are also moderately raised) were essentially manufactured from jutahy bark on the rivers Corantÿn, Mazaruni, Pomeroon and the upstream section of the Berbice, by the Akawai, Arawak and Arecuna (SCHOMBURGK 1837, p. 308; ROTH 1924, p. 615; WORCESTER 1956; see fig. 50, 52 and 57). Among the Warrau (fig. 21), on the river Barama (ROTH 1924,

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 32 p. 616, fig. 336), these canoes were called pakasse (SCHOMBURGK 1841a, p. 92-93), and among the Taulipáng ye:ipipé apénzag (KOCH-GRÜNBERG 1928, vol. 4, p. 22). In general, the photographs illustrating these canoes present examples characterised by a very open section where the edges of the bark either do not roll in on themselves (fig. 58), or do so only very slightly (fig. 59). The geometry here is based on the removal of a complete cylinder of bark and thus on the very specific selection of the diameter of the tree, employing a single vertical slit. The width of the section of the ends was therefore more or less superimposed on the initial form of the bark. If this had not been the case, it would have been necessary to insert a series of ties or stretchers in this location in order to maintain the crescent section. The edges of the split cylinder were thus separated in the central area by the stretchers and benches (fig. 60), often associated with a tie, in order to maintain the open section of the canoe and give it some transverse stability while increasing its load carrying capacity. The removal of triangles to halfway through the bark at the point where the ends begin to angle upwards played only a minor role in shaping the central part of the canoe: above all this made it possible to slightly raise the opening of the ends and maintain it above the flotation line. If the load to be carried was heavy, the U-shaped ends were temporarily plugged with a small ‘wall’ of clay or using a mixture of plants and wax (LAVARRE 1919, p. 125).

Fig. 58 Open-ended woodskin, used on the Mazaruni River (fig. 24/176; Appendix 1/56; ROTH 1924, pl. 177A).

Fig. 60 Open-ended woodskin, Kashuyéna, in 1957, upstream of the rio Trombetas (fig. 24/£11; Appendix 1/57; POLYKRATES 1957, fig. 3).

35 No bark-canoes were observed in the 1950s among the Waiwái in the upstream area of the Essequibo River by J. YDE (1965, p. 241). He states that their use came to an end shortly before this date. They were known as yíshchiputǘre or kanáwayíshchiputǘre, which can be translated as “a boat which was once a tree”. Once the tree was felled, slits were cut in the bark in order to remove it. It was then beaten using sticks, which were later used as levers to remove the bark. Three types of tree were used: the pirepíre (selected preferentially), the páaru (Macrolobium acaciifolium) and the tarápa. Once on the ground, the angles of the rectangular bark sheet were removed. Slits around 20-25 cm long were cut from the edge of the sheet halfway through the thickness of the bark in order to be able to compress the lips of the slits together and raise the ends of the canoe. Lianas of arapapíto (Heteropsis yenmani) maintained this compression, running through holes created in the top of the sides. These were made using a heated metal point or by rotating a section of liana between two hands (ibid., p. 241). Other holes enabled the attachment of the gunwale poles with similar lianas. Finally, stretchers ensured the separation of the sides. The example preserved in the Pitt River Museum, Oxford (fig. 63), is characterised by its small dimensions (length: 3.73 m). It has two stretchers between which the bark has a tendency to fold in on itself, to the point that at the ends it presents a circular section, or a tube shape.

Fig. 61 Woodskin from Walter Roth Museum of Anthropology (Georgetown), with a tensioner consolidated by a short lashing of overlapping oblong cross stitch (central part of the canoe on the left).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 33 Fig. 63 Open-ended woodskin, tube-shaped, from the Mazaruni River (fig. 24/£18; Appendix 1/64), collected in 1951-1952 from the Akawai: length 3.73 m, width 0.46 m; tree species used Copaifera pubiflora (museum accession sheet).

36 No gunwale pole was used on this canoe, in order to make the edges of the bark a little more rectilinear, as is confirmed by the absence of holes in the top of the sides which would have enabled such elements to be lashed in place. The tensioners raising the ends are reinforced in the centre of the canoe by a lashing of basic overlapping oblong cross stitch type, in other words of three units (fig. 62). The open-ended woodskin in the Walter Roth Museum of Anthropology (Georgetown) also presents tensioners on one of its ends, consolidated by an overlapping oblong cross stitch type lashing (fig. 61). The canoe in the National Museum of Natural History, Washington (MITMAN 1923, p. 224), collected in around 1876, is characterised by its open ends, which are only slightly raised (fig. 64). Here, all of the ropes in organic material have disappeared, both the tensioners and those holding the gunwale poles in place. The ropes once ran through small mortises of square section. Those located on either side of the slits are rectangular and considerably larger in order to enable the additional insertion of the tensioners. The slits pierce the entire thickness of the bark, and have a V shaped profile, with opposing bevelled edges. The lips display a substantial overlap, and thus no triangle of material has been removed (fig. 65).

Fig. 65 Slit completely piercing the bark, with bevelled edges and lips with a substantial overlap. Here, they are partially broken and the edges are emphasised by a white line.

37 Another example is preserved in the collections of the Instituto Caribe de Antropologia y Sociologia (Caracas). It was recorded in 1994 as having been collected from the Pemón (RESNIK 2009, p. 196-197), but the data are vague. The canoe is compared with the tõmorõ of the Yanomami or Yanoama (see p. 39), but this must be inaccurate because this is a canoe with long open ends, each corresponding to a third of the total length of the canoe. On one photograph, it is still possible to discern the presence of three stretchers and gunwale poles (fig. 66), but above all of a series of relatively slender and closely spaced ribs (ibid., fig. 1 and 2). On a drawing illustrating another canoe, we note the presence, in the bottom, of two longitudinal poles (ibid., fig. 8). The manufacture of a similar canoe was observed in around 1970 on the rio Paragua (fig. 24/£24) by W. COPPENS (1974; see also RESNIK 2009, fig. 9). The tree, a marana (Hymenaea courbaril), was first felled and then two circular slits were cut into the bark, separated by 3.85 m (corresponding to the length of the canoe). These were linked by a vertical slit. The point at which the ends begin to angle upwards was marked by a slit at the top of the sides, which enabled the final part of the ends to be raised. A series of fine bent ribs stabilised the transverse geometry of the canoe, while gunwale poles did the same longitudinally. The Nationalmuseet of Denmark, in Copenhagen, possesses an open-ended woodskin collected in 1862, on the Waini River. Observing this canoe was somewhat problematic as it is located between two boards positioned very close together and displaying a series of canoes (fig. 67), making it impossible to

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 34 draw up a plan of the craft. It is 3.66 m long (3.70 on the accession sheet), 0.605 m wide and with a depth of 0.175 m. The bark is 7-9 mm thick and its original surface is preserved. At the top of each side, a gunwale pole (diameter 1.5 cm) is lashed to the inside using ropes made from some kind of liana running through holes 5 mm in diameter. On each side of the canoe, the gunwale poles is reinforced by a longitudinal pole (diameter 2 cm) suspended from it (fig. 68). These poles support pairs of split sticks, the rounded part of which faces upwards (width 6 cm, height 2 cm). A rope on either side of the pair of sticks suspends and maintains them in place.

Fig. 66 Open-ended woodskin fitted with ribs, produced by the Pemón in the Orinoco Basin (fig. 24/£24; Appendix 1/70; RESNIK 2009, fig. 2).

Fig. 67 Woodskin from 1862 in its rather cramped setting.

38 A pair of these is present in the centre of the canoe, and four pieces – corresponding thus to two pairs – rest on the bottom. These have undoubtedly constituted two benches, located at the point where the end of the canoe begins to angle upwards, as is indicated by the presence of pairs of suspension ropes at these points. Finally, four curved rods in a broad U-shape also rest on the bottom of the canoe. It appears that these were ribs, inserted under pressure and now separated from the hull. These have a circular section of around 1.5 cm in diameter. The slits enabling the ends of the canoe to be raised have been cut three-quarters of the way through the thickness of the bark. On one of the lips we note the presence of a significant inclined plane (3-3.5 cm wide), presenting cup-shaped marks very probably left by tools fitted with a lithic blade. The other lip overlaps this chamfer, removing a fine layer of the inside of the bark over a certain length. This layer is approximately ~2 mm thick and forms folds on either side of the canoe – Z-shaped on one side and S-shaped on the other (fig. 53 and 69). In other words, there is no triangle of removed bark. A number of tensioners are still present, consisting of a rope, possibly made from some kind of liana, which passes four or five times through the bark, but these are not consolidated by any sewing over the edges of the bark. They pass through holes larger than those intended for lashing the gunwale poles and have a rectangular section. Slightly separated from the rectangular hole, towards the centre of the canoe, we note a cylindrical hole 1.3-1.5 cm in diameter. This type of hole was sometimes used for ropes to attach the gunwale poles. Below this, a second cylindrical hole is present, plugged by a shaved peg level with the surface of the bark and apparently without function.

Woodskins with raised ends The Waiwái and Taruma shaped their woodskins, known as yikchibitiri, from the bark of the simiri (see note 13; ROTH 1929, p. 99-100). The slits are particularly well developed, and the interval separating one opposing pair at the bottom of the canoe is only 5 cm. This situation enables the ends to be significantly raised (fig. 70). The overlapped bark on these two parts is then pierced in order to insert a rope to consolidate the area. The exaggeratedly raised section of the ends is removed down to the height of the remainder of the canoe and thus terminates in an ogive shape (fig. 70). Holes are then pierced along the top of the bark in order to attach the gunwale poles on the inside of the hull. Benches are inserted under pressure, at the point where the ends begin to angle upwards, and suspended from the gunwale poles by short, slender stems. Finally, a tie is employed in the centre of the canoe in order to maintain the

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 35 separation of the sides. It is still possible to observe, in the bottom of the canoe, a mat consisting of long stems lashed together, probably intended to consolidate the bottom and protect the bark itself. The Wapisiána made canoes with pointed ends (fig. 22), called attamanmad (FARABEE 1918, p. 74). They also used the bark of the jutahy, but also apparently the jatobá (known as tirikir). As we have mentioned above, the use of this tree species must be regarded with some reservations – unless these were individual examples possessing particularly thin bark for the species.

Fig. 69 Woodskin from 1862: S-shaped fold created by locally releasing the internal bark.

Fig. 70 Woodskin with raised ends constructed by the Waiwái (fig. 24/£14; Appendix 1/60), known as yikchibitiri, with ogival ends (ROTH 1929, fig. 90 b-d).

39 Once the triangles cut partway through the bark had been removed, the ends were heated using a fire inside the canoe or by inverting it over a fire on the ground (ibid., p. 75). The bark at the base of the triangular slits was rendered flexible and could thus be folded back on itself. The insertion of stretchers enabled the tops of the sides to be separated, while another series of stretchers ensured that the correct geometry was maintained in the bottom of the canoe. The top of the sides is here also reinforced by a gunwale pole (ibid., p. 76; this element is not yet included on the drawing in fig. 22). A small wooden block acts as a seat (ibid., p. 76). It is worth noting that similar craft were used by the Trió (DE GOEJE 1908; see fig. 57). The shape of these latter was stabilised by the use of a gunwale pole located at the top of each side, together with the insertion of three stretchers.

A study of the technology employed by the Yanomami residing along the rio Manaviche (upper Orinoco Basin; fig. 24/£25) for removing bark from trees enabled J. LIZOT (1974, p. 26) to state that they did not construct bark-canoes before 1945. This was a cultural element appropriated from the Lechosa, who had themselves acquired it from the Ocamo, who had in turn learned the technology from the Yanomami in Padamo, or from the Ocamo. These canoes, known as thõmorõ, were primarily constructed during aggressive operations or to descend a river – in other words for interventions of very short duration (FUENTES 1980, p. 56). The bark used is that of the tree known as thõmorõ (Tabebuia guayacan), which is also the name of the resulting canoe (LIZOT 1974, p. 26; FUENTES 1980, fig. 14-15). These canoes, which have an extensive slit through the entire thickness of the bark of the sides (and are therefore woodskins) and in immediate proximity to the ends, were characterised by the start and end of the bottom being completely separate from the sides (fig. 71b). These sections were around 40-50 cm long and could thus be raised by 45° for the prow and 30° for the stern, after the thickness of the bark had been locally reduced and softened by the action of fire (LIZOT 1974, p. 30). They were maintained in place by lianas passed through holes punched in the superimposed areas of the sides located on either side of the slit. Shavings were forced between the superimposed areas of the ends in order to make this location watertight (ibid., p. 27). A rigid upper structural support consolidated the top of the sides (ibid., p. 31). On the published photographs (FUENTES 1980, fig. 14-15), the gunwale poles appear relatively slender and they are very minimally lashed to the upper edge of the bark (fig. 71a). We also note the use of a number of stretchers (LIZOT 1974, p. 32). These raised parts are therefore of small extension but significant width, making it possible to cope with fast currents or even rapids while taking on a minimal amount of water. The geometry of the whole was therefore very different to that of the three other types of woodskin, where the opening of the ends was particularly close to the water level. For the removal of the bark, a rectilinear tree was selected with a diameter of at least 50 cm and a useful height of 5-7 m. A “window” was first made at the base of the trunk in order to check that the bark

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 36 would correctly release from the underlying wood. Scaffolding was then erected in order to cut a vertical slit delimited by two other, circular, slits which defined the future length of the canoe. The bark was then released, initially using the blade of a machete and then with a rod around 1 m long formed from a liana (Cydista sp.), with one end bevelled (ibid., fig. 6). Another more slender liana surrounded the upper part of the bark in order to ensure that it could be lowered smoothly to the ground.

(40)-41 A series of photographs taken in 1952 depicts the creation of a woodskin with raised ends on the rio Coeroeni (fig. 72). The tree is first felled, then the pointed end of the future canoe is shaped from the bark (a, left). The bark is then released from the trunk by means of two longitudinal parallel slits, resulting in the removal of a gutter-shaped sheet rather than a split cylinder (b). The shape of the longitudinal edges is then modified into a continuous curved line between the central area and the pointed ends (c). The canoe is then assembled. The separation of the hull is controlled, at the slits, by opposing stakes inserted in the ground, the tops of which are connected (d; BRUIJNING and LICHTVELD 1957, p. 21). The end is then raised. No photograph illustrates the possible softening of the bark by heating it. The curve of the ends is maintained by tensioners arranged to straddle the slits (e). Finally, gunwale poles are fixed to the top of the bark sheet, to which in turn are attached small stems that support the benches and stretchers (e). There are three benches, consisting of a number of rods placed together.

Fig. 72 A pointed-ended woodskin being created in 1952 by the Trió (rio Coeroeni, Surinam; fig. 24/£16; Appendix 1/62).

42 Rolled bark woodskins Two examples were collected in 1957 from the Kashuyéna. One is preserved in the Nationalmuseet in Denmark (HANSEN and MADSEN 1981, p. 8), the other in the British Museum (p. 44). The former enables a particularly interesting analysis of this type of canoe, which is difficult to understand solely on the basis of previously published photographs (fig. 74-75). Like those mentioned above, the 1957 woodskins are characterised by pointed ends and exceptionally shallow depth (0.10 m) resulting from the fact that the edges of the sheet have naturally rolled in on themselves to a significant extent as they dried (fig. 73 and 79). The tree species used has not been specified, but is probably a tree from the Annonaceae family14. By graphically simulating the sides of the example in the Nationalmuseet, as they would have appeared before drying, we observe that the depth following construction was around 0.25 m, and that this has therefore reduced secondarily and naturally to 0.10 m (top of fig. 73). The width has remained the same (0.58 m) as a result of the transverse elements (two benches and one stretcher), which have literally been kept under pressure. The use of ties would therefore be completely irrelevant.

14) We would like to thank Carlos Alberto Silva and Pedro Viana, from the botanical depatement of the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (Belém), for this identification.

Fig. 73 Rolled bark woodskin collected in 1957 by G. Polykrates and Ch. Søderberg from the Kashuyéna (museum accession sheet), with two benches and one stretcher (fig. 24/£12; Appendix 1/63). The prow is probably on the left. Transverse section from above: condition before and after drying, and the top of the edges rolled in on themselves. Length 3.71 m; width 0.58 m; depth 0.10 m, thickness of the bark 8-10 mm. Scale 1:25.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 37 Fig. 74 Rolled bark woodskin, used by the Macusí on the Rupununi River (fig. 24/175; Appendix 1/55; ROTH 1924, pl. 179A).

Fig. 75 Rolled bark woodskin, used by the Akawai (Akawoi) on the Mazaruni River; length 4.70 m, width 1.30 m (fig. 24/£17; Appendix 1/63; BRINDLEY 1924, fig. 4).

43 As it dried – in other words probably in the two to three days following removal of the bark – the top of the bark has thus rolled towards the inside around the gunwale pole, forming a kind of extensively split cylinder around 5 cm in diameter. The slits, reinforced by tensioners, are also involved in this movement, thus masking the top of the Z or S folds (fig. 54). The natural creation on each side of this kind of cylinder, presenting an approximately inverted U section, would certainly considerably reduce the depth of the canoe, but would above all give it a geometry that significantly reinforced its longitudinal rigidity (fig. 76). In this way, the longitudinal profile of the canoe would not deform still further when one or two people embarked, rendering the craft functional despite its very reduced depth and very wide transverse section. The length of the canoe is 3.71 m (3.80 m on the accession sheet from the Nationalmuseet). The ends are not lashed, but the width of the sheet is gradually reduced from the point at which each end angles upwards. Additional bark has been removed over the last 30 cm. The bark thickness is 8-10 mm. The exterior of the bark, which has not been removed, presents a spotted appearance. It has a series of V shaped notches cut into the external surface of the sides and bottom (fig. 76). In these locations, they present a convex line at the base of the notch, showing that the notches were created before the bark dried. The diameter of the gunwale poles is 10-15 mm. At the ends we note the presence of a stem loosely wrapped in helicoidal fashion around each gunwale pole as far as the nearest bench, if we are to base our observations on the example in the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (see fig. 83). Beneath the latter, at the point where each end angles upwards and in the centre of the craft, a pair of vertical ropes support a short, slender stem upon which rest a pair of split pieces of bamboo acting as a bench (fig. 76) and, in the centre, a single piece which is comparable to a stretcher (fig. 77). Each bamboo element is 4-5.5 cm wide and 1.5-2.5 cm high. The sharp edges have been removed. It is also during this stage that a slit to half – or rather three-quarters – of the way through the bark has been cut from the outside, in order to form the Z or S fold. It was only possible to observe the latter in one location, where a significant space is present between the two lips (fig. 78). The tops of the slits are inaccessible, as we have previously mentioned, because they are rolled in on themselves. In summary, these apparently rather rustic canoes are the results of a wealth of know-how based on a thorough understanding of the intrinsic properties of natural products.

Fig. 76 Woodskin from 1957, with notched sides rolled in on themselves and which thus provide significant additional rigidity to the entire hull.

Fig. 77 Small, slender stem suspended from the gunwale pole and supporting a stretcher which, after drying, almost rests on the bottom of the craft.

Fig. 78 Fold visible between the two lips, here widely separated from each other.

44 The second example, similar in all points to that described above, and resulting from the same expedition, is therefore preserved in the British Museum (fig. 79-80). This canoe is slightly smaller (length 3.58 m, width 0.50-0.57 m), and the external face of the bark is also covered with notches (fig. 81- 82). The bark is also 8-10 mm thick. The depth of the canoe, at 0.13 m, is 2-3 cm too deep as a result of

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 38 the insertion of a central longitudinal museographical element in the form of a long plank. There are no tensioners at the base of one of the ends.

Fig. 79 Rolled bark woodskin collected from the Kashuyéna in 1957, on the rio Cashorro (museum register; fig. 24/£12; Appendix 1/58), by G. Polykrates and Ch. Søderberg. It possesses two benches and one stretcher. The central longitudinal element is a museographical addition. Length 3.58 m, width 0.50-0.57 m, current depth 0.13 m, thickness of the bark 8-10 mm.

Fig. 80 Rolled bark woodskin in the British Museum.

Fig. 81 Texture of the bark.

Fig. 82 Notches on the lower face of one of the ends.

45 A larger example is present in the Museu Nacional in Rio de Janeiro (Appendix 2/11). The bark of this canoe presents no notches, and the bottom is reinforced and kept flat by a set of bolted flat frames. A fourth rolled bark woodskin is preserved in the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, in Belém (fig. 83). Its very short length (2.20 m) and very thin bark (4.5 mm), together with its different texture (fig. 84) from the examples in Copenhagen and London, necessitate a few comments. The bark of these two assemblages therefore results from different tree species. This very short length and the presence of a central tear covering three-quarters of this area (fig. 83), and associated with two benches and a central stretcher all of excessive length, indicate instead an exceptionally small canoe specially constructed so that the Otto Schulz-Kampfhenkel expedition (1935-1937) would not have to transport too bulky an object (SCHULZ-KAMPFHENKEL 1938). The Aparaí would thus not have had enough practical experience to manage the tensions induced by the rolling of a bark unlike that normally used and characterised by a greatly reduced thickness (and thus certainly not a jatobá as is indicated in the museum accession sheet). The transverse elements (benches and stretcher) have been made too long, and the canoe must have split relatively quickly after construction, when the bark began to dry out. It was therefore probably never possible to use this canoe on the water. Width at the point at which the non-split end begins to angle upwards: 42 cm, with a depth of 11.5 cm. The too-wide bench has also induced significant torsion at this point. The bark does not bear any superficial notches. In two cases, the slits are cut halfway through the bark (fig. 54 and 85), and in four partial or complete slits, caulking has been inserted between the lips (fig. 86).

Fig. 84 Texture of the bark.

Fig. 85 Fold in bark slit to half way through the thickness.

Fig. 86 Caulking between the lips of the slit.

46 Bark and structural diversity Beneath their apparent homogeneity, the bark-canoes from the Amazonia/Guiana region present a remarkable diversity, resulting in particular from the type of bark used; in other words, its thickness and intrinsic rigidity. The most obvious difference is the lack of bark sheets added to the base element, and therefore an absence of long seams employed to assemble them. We also note that the bark is never inverted, so its external face always remains in contact with the water. The very thick bark of the jatobá (Hymenaea courbaril), with thicknesses of up to 37 mm, with its consequent intrinsic rigidity, favours the production of simple bark-canoes. These are characterised by

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 39 minimal shaping and the insertion of a number of stretchers in order to maintain the separation of the sides. The ends are slightly raised after being softened by fire. The same is true for the canoes with one folded end, but as indicated by the name we have chosen to employ for these craft, they are characterised by an end that, once heated, is raised in the centre of its width using a lever, in order to close the stern (and occasionally the prow; see also fig. 18 and description by H. Staden, fig. 15). The terminal part of the end therefore takes on a W-shape. These canoes measure 6.5-9 m in length, and require the installation of scaffolding around the selected tree in order to remove the bark, which is carried out by cutting out the required shape, then carefully lowering the heavy bark sheet to the ground. The bark of the jutahy (Copaifera pubiflora) is much thinner – between 1 and 2 cm thick – and thus less rigid. Canoes made from this bark rarely exceed 6 m in length. In fact, this value varies and is often between 3.5 and 4.5 m, which does not automatically involve the employment of scaffolding, particularly as the removed bark sheet is much lighter. The typical canoe is that with apical lashings which are associated with a stretcher to raise the ends. These latter thus somewhat resemble the spout of a teapot. It is probably also this tree species that was used to produce a canoe with pressed and tied tips, the only described example of which came from the border area between French Guiana and Brazil. The height of the tips was lowered significantly, then they were pressed against each other and maintained by a strong lashing, and not by sewing as is the case in the North American canoes. The medium thickness bark, around 1 cm thick, results from a range of different tree species (including the jutahy; see p. 33), and was removed for the construction of canoes in the Guiana Highlands. These canoes are known as woodskins and are characterised by the presence of a slit in each side at the point where the ends begin to angle upwards. These can thus be raised slightly above the waterline, and this curve is maintained with the use of tensioners straddling the slits. These tensioners are sometimes consolidated using a complex lashing of overlapping oblong cross stitch types. These, and the relative thinness of the bark, make necessary the use of gunwale poles which also serve as a suspension point for the benches and for the attachment of the stretchers. The general shape is occasionally stabilised by the insertion of a number of bent ribs (particularly in the Orinoco Basin). These slits sometimes only reach part of the way through the bark, with the remainder being folded into an S or Z shape in order to raise the end. When the slit completely pierces the bark, the lips are superimposed and caulked. With the insertion of an upper structural support (gunwale poles, stretchers, ties), sometimes supplemented by bent ribs, and given the medium thickness of the bark and its relative intrinsic rigidity, the resulting canoes significantly resemble the majority of canoes used in East Africa, South-East Asia and Australia (ARNOLD 2014 and 2015). They differ above all in the presence of slits made at the point where the ends begin to angle upwards. The ends of these woodskins can be very long and take up around one third of the total length of the canoe: open-ended woodskins. They can also be very short and strongly raised, with highly developed slits through the whole thickness of the bark: these are the woodskins with raised ends. The rolled bark woodskins constitute a final assemblage characterised by a very specific bark (we have not been able to determine the name of the species). This bark rolls back very tightly on itself as it dries. This therefore reduces by more than half the initial depth of the canoe, but provides exceptional rigidity to the sides and thus to the entire structure of the canoe.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 40 47 Paxiuba or palmboats The canoes known as paxiuba are made from palm trees; in other words from monocotyledons that do not form secondary tissue (secondary growth). The growth of this tissue from the cambium in dicotyledons creates annual rings and thus gradually increases the diameter of the axial element (the trunk) and also constitutes the bark. However, this is not the case with palm trees, where the axial support retains more or less the same diameter throughout its growth. It consists of a fill of parenchyma, through which run fibrous bundles associated with sap vessels (fibrovascular bundles). How these fibres are distributed plays a strategic role in the construction of canoes (see fig. 92). The whole is surrounded by a succession of interlocking elements consisting of the base of the leaves (which make up the cortex). The presence of these unusual canoes made from palm trees is mentioned on several occasions in relation to the Amazon Basin, but with very brief descriptions. Two tree species are used: the mirity or burity (Mauritia flexuosa), and the paxiuba itself (Iriartea ventricosa). Both have a prominent bulge at the top of the axial element, into which the paxiuba canoes are cut. The distribution map for these species (fig. 25) superimposes over that showing the occurrences of the canoes (fig. 24/P), to wit the eastern foot of the Andes; in other words the Montaña. This type of craft was also known as awa-safiný by the Manetenéry (CHANDLESS 1869, p. 305 and 311; ROOP 1942, p. 413) and sḙná by the Mayorúna (TESSMANN 1930, p. 371). These canoes could be produced in 1-2 hours (WHIFFEN 1915, p. 101) and were generally considered as makeshift constructions created very rapidly to be used only for a very short time (UP DE GRAFF 1923, p. 78), as they were abandoned at the water’s edge when no longer required (WHIFFEN 1915, p. 101). The production of these canoes is based on the removal of a longitudinal cap from the bulge (fig. 87). The particularly soft interior was then hollowed out very quickly. It could even be scraped out with the fingers (ibid., p. 101). The ends coincided with the areas where the diameter of the axial support was reduced on either end of the bulge. The ends could then be closed using a plug of clay. By inserting stretchers into the distal section of the hollowed out part, the ends lifted automatically. Documentation is limited to a series of images captured on the rio Mutum-Paraná and published by a number of authors (fig. 88-89). On one of these images (fig. 88), a step located behind the bench on which the last but one occupant is sitting may indicate that this is indeed a canoe cut from a palm tree.

Fig. 87 Early stage of shaping a paxiuba (ROOP 1942, pl. at the end of the volume).

Fig. 88 Paxiuba on the rio Mutum-Paraná (DOMVILLE-FIFE 1925, fig. opposite p. 64; for the location, see fig. 25/P-71; Appendix 1/78).

48 Finally, we should note that it is not possible to remove only the external part of a palm tree, unlike several other tree species. It is therefore necessary to obtain the epidermis, the cortex, by removing the material inside: “The interior must be removed, rather than the bark peeled off” (ROOP 1942, p. 399). With such a description, these canoes should rather be included in the logboat group, but the integrity of the craft is based on the peripheral skin of the palm tree, which must thus in principle be preserved. This particularity means that the external face of canoes made from this type of palm tree cannot be cut. The craft are therefore located in structural terms between logboats, which are characterised by the hollowing out of a relatively uniform trunk and the shaping of the exterior by reduction, and bark- canoes where the entire structure is based on the preservation of the peripheral envelope15. The latter cannot be removed in an independent manner in the case of palm trees, in particular those of Type 3 (fig. 90). By analogy to the logboats, we can therefore call these craft palmboats.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 41 However, this is subject to one reservation: some species of palm trees (of Type 1) also have considerable quantities of fibrous bundles in the central part of the axial support, providing good cohesion and making them similar to trunks with growth rings. It should also be noted that some trees belonging to the dicotyledons, and therefore with continuous expansion of the trunk in the form of rings, also present a local swelling. These generally belong to the Bombacaceae family (fig. 91)16. This bulge in the trunk of some dicotyledons is often relatively soft and was sometimes used to make canoes, like those called yuchán by the Mataco in the north of Argentina (Jujuy province). They were made from Ceiba chodatii, Chorisia insignis and Samuha eriodendron (FRIEDERICI 1907, p. 41). On the Brazilian coast, the presence of similar canoes made from Ficus doliaria is mentioned from the late 16th century at Ilhéos and on the Rio Grande (SOARES DE SOUSA 1879, p. 355; STEWARD ed. 1948, vol. 3, p. 109). The structure of these trunks, with their concentric rings, thus has nothing in common with the axial support of palm trees; in other words the monocotyledons.

15) This problem had already attracted the attention of FRIEDERICI 1907 (p. 41) and ROOP 1942 (p. 414). 16) This family includes, for example, the baobab (fig. 91), the kapok tree, the balsa and above all trees of the genus Ceiba and Chorisa.

Fig. 89 Paxiuba on the rio Mutum-Paraná (SAVAGE-LANDOR 1913, vol. 2, opposite p. 41).

Fig. 90 Cross-section of a palm tree (Type 3) with a peripheral ring of lignified fibres – the ultimate indication of the petiole base – followed by a compact subcortical cylinder of fibrovascular bundles (in dark brown), surrounding a soft mass of parenchyma permeated by a dispersed group of fibrous bundles (near Khulna, Bangladesh; November 2010).

Fig. 91 Cross section of a baobab trunk, characterised by its soft texture and concentric circles: this is therefore not a palm tree (Belo-sur-Mer, Madagascar; July 2003).

49 The stipe or false trunk of the palm tree The axial element of palm trees, allowing them a tree-like bearing, is a robust ligneous stem called the stipe. Unlike tree trunks, stipes contain no wood; in other words, no secondary tissue17. The axial element of the palm tree is edged by the cortex, formed by the superimposition and successive interlocking of leaf sheaths – the bases of the leaves (petioles) – which build up year after year. The base of the petiole then disappears, leaving only a peripheral scar of fibres which lignifies and sometimes makes rigid the entire axial structure, constituting an envelope around one centimetre thick (see fig. 94). It thus forms a protective layer. As the bases of the leaves fall, the stipe is left naked, sometimes smooth and sometimes with distinct and prominent rings or with rough ridges, spines etc. The elasticity of the whole is the result of the central fill of the stipe with a parenchyma through which run a number of fibrovascular bundles. These vascular vessels supply the apical bud that produces new leaves. The distribution of these vessels and support fibres play a fundamental role in the construction of palmboats. Type 1 (VON MOHL 1849), or Cocos-Type A (THOMAS 2011) is characterised by fibres present in large quantities throughout the stipe, making it compact and homogeneous (fig. 92). Type 2 (or Corypha-Type) is characterised by a gradual reduction in the density of the fibrovascular bundles in the subcortical zone (SZ) towards the central zone (CZ) of the stipe, and thus by the presence of a transition zone (TZ) which can vary significantly in extent, as can be observed in Borassus flabellifer palm trees (see fig. 98). Type 3 (or Mauritia-Type B; fig. 92) demonstrates a significant peripheral concentration of fibrovascular bundles (in the subcortical zone (SZ)), ensuring the rigidity and elasticity of the stipe. This zone is surrounded by the cortex (CT). Within the compact subcortical zone is a large central zone (CZ)

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 42 where occasional fibres are surrounded by a homogeneous mass of soft parenchyma, such as in the Borassus aethiopum palm trees.

Palmboats The use of palm trees for the construction of canoes is rarely mentioned in the sources, despite being found in eastern India and the neighbouring regions, such as Bangladesh (HORNELL 1924, p. 177- 178, and 1946, p. 190-191) and Cambodia, but also in East Africa (ARNOLD 2014, p. 8-12) and, as we have seen above with the paxiuba, in the west of the Amazon Basin. The tree species Mauritia flexuosa and Iriartea ventricosa, used for the paxiuba, are of Type 3 (fig. 92-Mauritia Type B), enabling straightforward extraction of the central material of the stipe, while still possessing a compact peripheral ring (CT+SZ). The countless migoma which we observed on lakes Nyagamoma and Sagara (north west Tanzania; fig. 93-94), are cut from the apical bulge of the stipe of a Borassus aethiopum or African Palmyra palm, retaining only an exceptionally thin wall, with the cortex (CT) here playing an essential role (ARNOLD 2014, p. 8-12). The ends are cut on an oblique angle and are also extremely thin, clearly constituting the weak point of these palm tree canoes. On many examples, this problem has been partially resolved by raising the ends by retaining the whole of the epidermis in the form of a ring. It is thus possible to replace the central part, when it has been destroyed, by plugging this space with a mass of clay mixed with grass stems, compressed laterally by the cortex ring.

17) The data presented below are based on the work of JONES 2000, and above all on the thesis by THOMAS 2011. See also THOMAS and FRANCESCHI 2012 and 2013.

50 In contemporary craft, repairs to this area are frequently carried out by nailing on the base of a plastic bucket. Clearly, the stipe is of Type 3, as we have previously mentioned. In East Africa, use is sometimes made of a long section of palm tree consisting of a large diameter stipe (White Nile, Sudan; HORNELL 1946, pl. XXVII-A). These canoes have ends with very thick walls, to compensate for the fragility of the material at this point. Sometimes a bench is cut out of this area (fig. 95). The Asian Palmyra palm (Borassus flabellifer) is characterised by a hard, very slim stipe with a broad base. It is used in Bengal to make the canoes called donga (fig. 96). These are 3.4-4.0 m long and have a width at the base of 0.75-0.8 m, which is reduced to around 0.25 m halfway along the stipe (HORNELL 1924, p. 178). J. HORNELL (1920, p. 176, 1924, p. 177-178) also mentions the presence, on the Godavari River (which flows into the western part of the Gulf of Bengal) of canoes known as sangādam, consisting of two donga-type elements linked by transverse poles (fig. 97). These Borassus flabellifer palm trees represent a Type 2 stipe characterised by a very wide transition zone (fig. 98). This compact structure thus enables the donga to be shaped according to principles very similar to logboats in terms of hollowing out. In addition, on the Oxford example (fig. 98), we note the complete removal of all of the cortex present from the stipe. Finally, the marks left by the tools are not abraded on this example suggesting the presence of a piece perhaps not yet used. The almost circular cross-section of this element leads to extremely low transverse stability, leading to the conclusion that this element may have been part of a linked pair such as a ferry which was never finalised, as no

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 43 apical perforation has been observed to which the transverse assembly poles could have been attached (fig. 97).

Fig. 94 A migoma created by hollowing out a palm tree with a wide, oval-bladed adze; the structure of the stipe is here smooth and the scars left by the leaves and the petiole are clearly visible (Munbara, on Lake Sagara; Tanzania, July 2013).

Fig. 95 Canoe shaped from a large diameter stipe, with very solid ends, one of which has been made into a bench (Púnguè River, to the north-east of Dondo; Mozambique, July 2013).

51 In conclusion, the concept of the palmboat is fully justified by the major constraints imposed by the raw material during the shaping of the canoe, particularly with palm tree stipes of Type 3 or B, where the only resistant part of the palm tree is its cortex (CT) and subcortical zone (SZ). The techniques used for hollowing out and shaping the curve of the canoe are directly derived from techniques used on other types of craft. Only a small number of palm trees with a peripheral zone of support fibres extended by an extensive transition zone (TZ) offer the possibility of less constrained shaping of the exterior of the canoe, enabling the removal of the cortex. However, the palm tree must in all cases have a sufficient stipe diameter or be characterised, at least locally, by the presence of a central or apical bulge or an enlarged base and a transition zone in which the support fibres are concentrated.

Fig. 96 A donga shaped from the lower part of a Borassus flabellifer, extended by a narrow stipe (between Dhaka and Palashpur; Bangladesh, November 2010).

Fig. 97 A sangādam, a ferry used in the delta of Godavari (east coast of India; HORNELL 1920, fig. 21, 1924, fig. 4).

Fig. 98 Prow of a donga cut from the solid base of an Asian Palmyra palm (Borassus flabellifer), belonging to Type 2 (Lake Kolleru, Andhra Pradesh). The cut support fibres are visible as dark spots.

52 Fig. 99 Far from Amazonia: the icy landscapes of Tierra del Fuego (the Piá glacier, in the southern spring, near the Beagle Channel; November 2016).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 44 53 The anan and yeni canoes of Tierra del Fuego Tierra del Fuego and the Strait of Magellan enter into history in 1520, with the first circumnavigation undertaken by Fernand de Magellan and his ships (1519-1522). When Magellan first saw the many fires lit by the indigenous inhabitants on the rocks and in the boats of this area, he named it the “Land of Fire” – “Tierra del Fuego”. Detailed information was first collected a little later by Miguel de Goiçueta18, when he accompanied Francisco de Ulloa (1553), Juan Fernandez de Ladrillero and Francisco de Cortés Hojea (1557-1558) on their voyages. These expeditions were intended to explore the labyrinth of channels along the western coast of Patagonia and the coast of Tierra del Fuego itself. During these visits, Goiçueta noted the presence of bark-canoes with elements fastened together by whalebone, with waterproofing provided by the inclusion of plant fibres into the system of seams (Anuario 1879, p. 484). He also emphasised the form of the ends, which were raised and arched into fine points. Shortly afterwards, in 1578, Francis Drake made the same observations. These observers were followed, among others, by the voyages of Thomas Cavendish (1587) and Sebald de Weert (1598-1599). The account of the latter voyage was written by the ship’s doctor, Barent Jansz Potgieter (fig. 100), but additional information was provided by Adolph Decker, the leader of the soldiers aboard the ships. These accounts were published in Volume 9 of the series Americae by Theodor de Bry, accompanied by a number of fine engravings (DE BRY ed. 1601, pl. XXII and XXIII), emphasising the emotional observations of the actors, sometimes coloured by a world of legends in which appear giants 3 m tall (fig. 100). A year later, the account of the expedition undertaken by Olivier de Noort in 1599 was added in the form of an addendum to Volume 9. These encounters, which were very short and often of a conflictual nature, always took place with the Alacaluf, who occupied both banks of the Strait of Magellan.

18) In: Anuario hidrográfico de la Marina de Chile, año V, 1879 (p. 484, 519), año VI, 1880 (p. 465, 473, 484, 490). See also COOPER 1917, p. 92-93, 103-104; EDWARDS 1965, p. 21.

54 It was only in 1616 that Jacob Le Maire and Willem Schouten discovered Cape Horn. They were the first people to take the Drake Passage, which separates South America from the Antarctic. The crescent moon shape of the canoes present along the south coast of Tierra del Fuego – in other words, in the territory of the Yahgan – was also emphasised by Jacques L’Hermite (1623-1625). He compared the form of these craft to that of Venetian gondolas (VAN WALBEECK 1626, p. 46). The curve of the ends was maintained by a string, as can be observed on the drawing of the examples he incorporated into one of his rare plates (fig. 101). In the background we observe the presence of a canoe undergoing construction, the structure of which is surrounded by a number of props, “reminiscent of the construction of Dutch boats in shipyards” (ibid., p. 46; fig. 102). Finally, he states that these canoes were 3.6 to 4.9 m long and around 0.6 m wide. They could transport 7-8 people (ibid., p. 46). The territory of the Yahgan was delimited to the north by the Beagle Channel, which was only discovered two centuries later during the expeditions led by Philip Parker King and Robert Fitz-Roy (1826-1836).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 45 nocturnal massacre by the Yahgan, in February 1624, of 17 of the 19 members of his team who had come ashore and were forced to remain on land by unfavourable weather conditions. A little further away, we observe a canoe being constructed on a beach. Finally, in the background, we see the Nassau fleet commanded by Jacques L’Hermite.

Fig. 102 Assembling the bark sheets into a canoe (VAN WALBEECK 1626; background of the figure presented above).

55 Yahgan and Alacaluf Two populations of fishermen-hunter-gatherers – authentic maritime nomads – used these bark- canoes. These were the Yahgan or Yamana, who inhabited the coast of Tierra del Fuego adjacent to and south of the Beagle Channel, and the Alacaluf, particularly along the Strait of Magellan, and to the north; they are also called the Halakwulup or Kaweskar. The territory of the latter extended along the Pacific coast up to the Gulf of Penas (fig. 103). The area occupied by these two populations thus extended over a linear distance of around 1000 km. Still further to the north, up to the island of Chiloé, was the territory of the Chonos, who used craft consisting initially of three, then of five, planks assembled by sewing; the dalca (fig. 104). These craft gradually replaced the bark-canoes of the Alcaluf, which disappeared during the first quarter of the 20th century (BIRD 1946, p. 67; GUSINDE 1974, p. 229). From the late 19th century onwards, the use of logboats also developed, with these craft finally being replaced by wooden plank boats of European influence. However, the canoes of the Yahgan were not replaced by the dalca, but directly by logboats, the first of which dated to 1880 (see p. 67 and fig. 112; LOTHROP 1928, p. 145). Just like the bark-canoes, these too disappeared definitively in the 1920s. Particular – and, sadly, extremely unfavourable – interest was then rapidly given to the Yahgan and Alcaluf as a result of their cultural development, without understanding how remarkable their adaptation was in view of such a hostile environment, in which the average southern winter temperature is 0-5°C – and the average summer temperature 5-10°C.

56 Their clothing was limited to a cape made of seal or otter skin, leaving the rest of the body unclad. The canoe constituted the most important item of equipment for these tribes, as they spent the majority of the time in the craft, in family groups. They came ashore only in the evening to construct shelters made of a framework of branches covered with seal skin and bark sheets, and with a hearth in the centre. Three summary works serve as principal sources here; those of J. COOPER (1917, p. 195-203) and C. EDWARDS (1965, p. 21-34), to which can be added the authoritative work by M. GUSINDE (1931, 1937, 1974). J. COOPER (1917, p. 197-198) emphasises that the Alacaluf constructed canoes 7-9 m long (or even a little more), which were thus rather longer than those of the Yahgan, which measured 4-6 m. However, M. GUSINDE (1937, p. 448) states that, contrary to what other authors have written, it was not possible to separate the canoes of the Yahgan from those of the Alacaluf by size alone. It should be

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 46 remembered that Gusinde’s observations were made at a relatively late date for the Alacaluf, between 1923 and 1924, and that by this time they perhaps no longer constructed particularly large canoes, which had been replaced for a number of decades by dalca. The canoes of the Alacaluf preserved in museums in Bern and Punta Arenas are respectively 4.5 m and 2.8 m long. They were collected a few years after 1900 (Appendix 2). In any case, the dimensions must have been sufficient to transport a family with its few belongings; in other words at least 4 m long. The larger examples could have been occupied by 9-10 people. As for the canoes used by the Yahgan, in a space where the dalca had not been introduced, intensive use of these craft continued for a little longer. One of the last examples was probably that used by M. Gusinde in 1920 (ibid., p. 453). Initially 4.1 m long, it is now exhibited in the museum in Santiago, Chile (see fig. 113). The canoe in Rome was collected in 1893, and is 5.25 m long. C. EDWARDS (1965, p. 24) states that the canoes of the Alacaluf were called yeni; R. ZELLER (1909, pl. 1), referring to the report by H. Wiederecht (see p. 72), mentions the term of pel-larkál. The canoes of the Yahgan were named aunan by P. DESPARD (1863, p. 679) and anan by Th. Bridges (around 1860; LOTHROP 1932, p. 251, note 4: hacua for the summer canoe and een-anan for the canoe used in the southern spring), and ánan by M. GUSINDE (1937, p. 440). Finally, G. BOVE (1883, p. 145) and G. COLINI (1884, p. 11) mention the names of anam and palulana. For the purposes of this study, we will retain the name of anan for the canoes of the Yahgan, and yeni for those of the Alacaluf. This diversity of names for the canoes used by the Yahgan also demonstrates that almost all of the detailed studies in the late 19th century (and the early 20th) were focused on this population.

Scientific expeditions and first detailed observations A century and a half after the expedition by J. L’Hermite, some complementary information was collected during the voyages of exploration carried out by Captain James Cook (1768-1779). G. FORSTER (1777, vol. 2, p. 498) thus describes, in addition to the presence of a large number of ribs, how the gunwale was covered by a set of bark sheets. The function of this feature was described later by P. Hyades: “The surface of the gunwale was rough, so it was covered by sheets of young bark which, once dried, contracted strongly and thus formed a rounded and soft surface upon which the arms of the rowers rested”; in fact these would have been paddlers (HYADES and DENIKER 1891, p. 352). One line written by J. HAWKESWORTH (1773, vol. 1, p. 79) mentions the observation made by an officer of a canoe with lashed tips; in other words with the faces of the tips pressed against each other at the end of the canoe. This was an isolated observation which may, according to J. COOPER (1917, p. 196-197), equally well apply to a three-piece sewn bark-canoe. Shortly afterwards, in 1785-1786, Antonio de Córdoba explored the Strait of Magellan aboard the frigate S. M. Santa María de la Cabeza. The observations made during this voyage were summarised, and J. VARGAS Y PONCE (1788, p. 343-346) published a detailed description of the bark-canoes19. This was in fact the most comprehensive study of canoes of the Alacaluf (GUSINDE 1974, p. 230). The thickness of the bark used does not exceed 25 mm (VARGAS Y PONCE 1788, p. 343), which is already considerable and even exceptional, if compared to the bark used to manufacture canoes on the other continents. In the case of the example in the museum in Bern, it is around 20 mm thick. To remove the pieces of bark, incisions were made “around the trunk at each end, and then one from top to bottom which joins them” (EDWARDS 1965, p. 22, quoting VARGAS Y PONCE 1788). The removal from the trunk of such a split cylinder, which would have been exceptionally thick and rigid, must have been problematic at least, if not all but impossible20. In this context, we have referred to the description by P. DESPARD (1863, p. 679), who spent several years among the Yahgan.

19) For the translation of these pages into English, see EDWARDS 1965, p. 22-23. 20) We will not here take into consideration the experiments carried out by VAIRO 2002; on this subject see the critical commentary by HOLTZMAN 2011.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 47 57 The latter describes how the indigenous inhabitants make two vertical incisions, separated from each other by 75 cm, before joining the ends of these incisions by two horizontal slits – thus obtaining a long sheet which was not very wide. This observation was supported by M. GUSINDE (1937, p. 441), as we will see below. These data agree with the considerable thickness of this bark, which makes it difficult to shape it by direct bending, particularly if the aim was to try to press the tips against each other. Conceptually, we are therefore very close to the dalca, with the shaping of the planks here replaced by the removal of long, relatively narrow sheets, consisting of a very thick bark; in other words a type of bark “plank”, as described by R. LATCHAM (1930, p. 68). J. VARGAS Y PONCE (1788, p. 344) also specifies that these canoes, consisting of three bark sheets assembled together, measured 7.3-7.9 m long, 1.2 m wide and with a depth of 0.6-0.9 m. He supplements this information by emphasising that the curve of the bottom was achieved by stabilising it by means of heaps of stones. It was then left to dry for 2-3 days. Then the lateral sheets were put in place and attached by means of a rope consisting of a “dry cane”. Waterproofing was ensured by a mixture of straw and clay. The interior was then reinforced by means of bent ribs, inserted alongside each other and held in place by the gunwale poles. A series of stretchers ensured the separation of the sides. The interior was then covered in bark sheets placed transversely, rising as far as the gunwale poles and curved by heating them over a fire (ibid., p. 344). A small space was reserved in the centre, so that any water taken on could be scooped out. The use of a sail by the Alacaluf has already been mentioned, in 1698 (MARCEL 1892, p. 492). J. COOPER (1917, p. 200), suggests that the use of a sail was not necessarily the result of exogenous influence of European origin. However, M. GUSINDE (1974, p. 241) casts doubt on an endogenous origin due to the lack of any arrangement specifically intended to support the mast and sail. In the first half of the 19th century, increasing numbers of voyages of exploration were undertaken by a variety of nations, and brief notes often emphasised the presence of bark-canoes21. For example, J. WEDDELL (1825, p. 162-163) mentions the use of the shells as blades, and of fine bent ribs with a semi-circular section, the flat face being pressed against the hull. However, it was necessary to wait for another few decades to obtain new data of the same quality as that published by J. VARGAS Y PONCE in 1788 (for example, DESPARD 1863).

Extended visits by the Anglican missionaries among the Yahgan The following phase was marked, towards the middle of the 19th century, by the arrival of missions, particularly Anglican ones, aimed at Christianising the local population, and more particularly the Yahgan, and therefore by extended contact with the native peoples. This resulted in progressive sedentism among these populations and them being gathered together in a limited number of places – which exposed them even more to the diseases brought by the Westerners. By the late 20th century, these populations could be considered to have all but disappeared. In 1856, the Reverend P. Despard set off to spend a number of years supporting a mission in difficulties among the Yahgan, and he published a number of observations on their habits (DESPARD 1863). Shortly afterwards, his adopted son, Th. Bridges, drew up an impressive dictionary of the Yahgan language, which was for a long time unpublished (COOPER 1917, p. 72-74). These observations were considerably enhanced in the 20th century by M. GUSINDE (1931, 1937 and 1974). P. Despard notes, for example, that it was essentially the women who propelled the canoes, using paddles. These were characterised by a rounded blade as long as the handle (GUSINDE 1937, p. 449). They were slightly more rectangular among the Alacaluf (GUSINDE 1974, p. 240, fig. 16). The women thus possessed extremely well developed shoulders (LOTHROP 1928, p. 148). It was also the women who took care of the canoe. However, the men were responsible for building it and were present in the front of the canoe with their harpoons within reach. Once they arrived at the bank, the men and children disembarked. A woman then anchored the canoe a few cables out from shore, returning to dry land by swimming (DESPARD 1863, p. 696)22.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 48 21) KING, FITZ-ROY and DARWIN 1839 (KING 1839, vol. 1, p. 137, 429; FITZ-ROY 1839, vol. 2, p. 140, 199); SNOW 1857, vol. 1, p. 338; WEBSTER 1834, vol. 1, p. 183-184; WILKES 1845, vol. 1, p. 123. 22) The same observations are made by BRIDGES 1869 (p.115-116) regarding the distribution of tasks between men and women.

58 The canoe was occasionally removed from the water, for example in order to carry out repairs. A trail was first created by removing the large stones from the ground. This trail was then covered by damp seaweed, which facilitated the movement of the canoe and protected its bottom (ibid., p. 697). It is worth noting that the 4.5 m long Bern canoe weighed 103 kg. The accounts from the late 19th and early 20th centuries seem to indicate a significant reduction in the frequency with which canoes were anchored at sea. The space inside the canoe was subdivided by stretchers. The central area, where the active hearth was present, was occupied by the children. The front was the men’s area, and the back the women’s. J. WEDDELL (1825, p. 163) mentions more specific subdivisions: in the first section was the equipment for fishing and the huntsman, in the next a woman (his second wife), wielding the front paddle, while in the third was the hearth. A sump in the following section made it possible to remove any water taken on. Weddell also mentions the presence of a man (the eldest son or a guest). In the fifth section, a woman wielded the rear paddle (his first wife, who also controlled the movement of the canoe). Finally, the valuable objects were placed in the rearmost section. This must unquestionably have been a very big canoe occupied by a large family (fig. 105-106). To remove the bark from the tree, one man and three assistants formed a team. As we have previously mentioned, P. Despard states that they removed long narrow sheets about 75 cm wide, released by means of two vertical slits. The tool to make these slits has a characteristic curved shape. It was made from a whale bone. The edges of the bark were then lifted using levers (which were very thin, as noted by GUSINDE 1937, p. 442), then one man insinuated himself between the bark and the trunk, back pressed against the trunk. Using his hands and feet, he then released the rest of the bark, starting at the top (DESPARD 1863, p. 679). A further two similar pieces were then collected.

59 Particular attention was paid to lowering the bark sheets to the ground in a controlled manner to prevent them from breaking or splitting (HYADES and DENIKER 1891, p. 350). They were relatively heavy and were carried to a spot close to the water where the canoe was to be constructed. There they were immersed in running water, where they were held down using large stones. The bark sheets were then carefully flattened with large stones and left to dry for 2-3 days. The team was careful to prevent the bark from drying too much, as the form could no longer be modified once the bark had completely dried. The rough parts were smoothed out and the final shape of the bark sheet cut, with its two ends shaped into a point (DESPARD 1863, p. 679). The bark sheets were assembled by means of sewing with fine ribbons extracted by splitting the outer part of the trunk of a young birch tree. These strips were made more flexible by heating them over a fire. They also surrounded a roll of plant fibres over the joints on the inside of the hull (ibid., p. 679). This roll was intended to act as a waterproofing material, but also to prevent the bark from being chafed. It played the role of a shock absorber, not only to protect the assembly ties, as was the case with the sewn boats consisting of wooden planks (ARNOLD 2004, p. 87), but also to protect the material of which the planks of these canoes were made; in other words, the bark. According to L.-F. MARTIAL (1888, p. 190), these ties generally consist of tendon, rushes or whalebone.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 49 As previously mentioned, a number of fine split branches constituted the ribs, or frame sticks, which were placed alongside each other. Finally, the separation of the sides was ensured by stretchers. The ends of the bark sheets constituting the bottom were extended by two pieces of bark cut into a triangular shape. According to the sketch by H. Wiederecht (see fig. 123/Abb. II) or on the Rome canoe (see fig. 120), these could be quite large. The ends of these protruded above the gunwale poles by a little more than 20 cm; they were maintained in place using a rope, a kind of shroud, attached to the first or second stretcher (DESPARD 1863, p. 679). This arrangement was also present on the drawings published to accompany the accounts of the voyages of the Adventure and Beagle (see fig. 109).

Fig. 106 Photograph of a Fuegian canoe by the “French scientific mission to Cape Horn” (1882-1883).

60-(61) The canoes of the Yahgan were constructed during the southern spring; in other words in October or November, when the sap was flowing abundantly, and until February (BRIDGES 1874, p. 156; LOVISATO 1884-1885, p. 134). However, M. GUSINDE (1937, p. 443) emphasises that this is far too long an interval: instead he specifies a period from mid-September to late October. After this, the bark became very brittle and cracked, and it was much more difficult to work. These sheets were systematically shaped from the bark of the evergreen beech (Nothofagus betuloides)23, in other words Magellan’s beech or guindo, as highlighted by the authors following the work of G. BOVE (1883, p. 130) and P. HYADES and J. DENIKER (1891, p. 350). The data below were collected by S. LOTHROP (1932, p. 251-252), in the personal journal of Th. Bridges (ibid, p. 251, notes 2 and 4). The lifespan of such a canoe was only 6 months (BRIDGES 1869, p. 115). In other words, two canoes were required per year for a family: the summer canoe was called hacua, and the canoe used in the southern spring was called een-anan. The materials were often collected for three canoes so that any damaged canoes could be replaced, because the survival of the family depended upon them24. However, while conscious of contradicting Th. Bridges and P. Hyades, M. GUSINDE (1937, p. 455) proposes a lifespan of a year or sometimes even two. In this context, it is worth noting that the observations made by M. Gusinde relate to the last canoes used by the Yahgan, and that they were above all based on comments by Alacaluf elders. It is therefore not impossible that some idealisation of the canoes gradually took place in parallel with them becoming rarer and disappearing.

The external side of the bark was then roughly scraped to flatten it. For the pieces to be used immediately, the internal side of the bark was also carefully scraped using a shell in order to remove the “fat inner bark”, also described as “sugary matter” (DESPARD 1863, p. 679; LOTHROP 1928, p. 144): probably the cambium. As mentioned above, the other bark sheets were immediately immersed in a stream until they were required for the construction of a new canoe (ibid., p. 144). The waterproofing rolls were maintained in place by ropes cut from whalebone, or strips of sapwood from young Fagus or Nothofagus antarctica (HYADES and DENIKER 1891, p. 351). The narrow rectangular section was then obtained by means of scraping and polishing. There were normally five stretchers, cut from the “maitén” or “leña dura” (Maytenus magellanica). There may sometimes have been slightly more of them, as indicated by M. GUSINDE (1937, p. 445), and a number of photographs also confirm this (10 elements on the Bern canoe, 12 on the Rome canoe, 11 on that illustrated in fig. 107). The layer of bark placed on the gunwale poles comes from the Maytenus magellanica (ibid., p. 446)25. In 1882-1883, the “French scientific mission to Cape Horn” produced a set of extremely important photographic documentation (fig. 105, 106, see also fig. 110; VAIRO 2002, p. 14 and 26)26. This was supplemented by the publication of the first “plan” of such a craft (fig. 107), but also by accurate drawings of various tools (fig. 108); for example chisels consisting of sharpened mussel shells tied to a stone handle, and a number of complementary observations (HYADES and DENIKER 1891, p. 350-352,

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 50 pl. XXXI-XXXIII). These include a cylindrical bark scoop (fig. 108e). This was made from the bark of Drimys winteri or Maytenus magellanica (GUSINDE 1974, p. 242). Mention is also made of reinforcement of the bottom of the canoe by the addition of bark sheets arranged transversely and the use of a type of work glove made of seal skin to shape the paddles (fig. 108b).

23) Formerly Fagus betuloides. 24) GUSINDE 1937, p. 455, also states that the summer canoes were produced with much less care, as they would be replaced in the southern spring with new canoes using top quality bark. 25) However, the bark of Drimys winteri has been used for the canoe in Bern. 26) The drawing published by RATZEL 1886 (vol. 2, fig. p. 669), reused by NISHIMURA 1931 (pl. XXV), MCGRAIL 2001 (p. 411) and others, with a canoe displaying two parallel stems, probably corresponds to an incorrect interpretation of a photograph of the type of that published in MARTIAL 1888, vol. 1, pl. VI (see our fig. 105), representing two canoes side by side.

62 Construction of a bark-canoe among the Yahgan, by Martin Gusinde The description written by M. GUSINDE (1937, p. 440-448) of the construction of a bark-canoe by the Yahgan or Yamana is unquestionably the most fully developed, particularly regarding the process of assembling the bark sheets. Unless otherwise stated, all data presented below result from this study. For the method used to remove the bark, Gusinde relies on previous publications, and in particular that by Reverend P. DESPARD (1863, p. 679). To remove the bark of a Nothofagus betuloides, a rope was passed around a main branch and a man – generally the youngest – was attached to the one end. He thus had both hands free for working. He was lifted up to the point where he would begin the vertical cut, which he would then expand down to the ground. His teammates, on the other end of the rope, gradually lowered him down as he worked. He was then raised once again, cutting a circular slit level with the top of the first vertical cut. A second vertical slit was then created. Only three authors have described the method for the removal of the bark sheets: J. VARGAS Y PONCE (1788, p. 343) refers to a circular incision at the top of the piece of bark and a vertical slit; as we have mentioned above, P. DESPARD (1863, p. 679) emphasises the presence of two vertical slits in order to remove a long, relatively narrow rectangular panel. Finally M. GUSINDE (1937, p. 440-441) states that a vertical cut was first made, then a circular one at the top, and finally a second vertical slit, with the whole process thus producing at least two long rectangular panels. This cutting of the panels was, in fact, virtually imposed by the thickness of the raw material and its tendency to crack (in other words, a lack of elasticity). It is therefore not impossible that J. Vargas y Ponce did not have the opportunity to observe the cutting of a second vertical slit, or more precisely that this fact was not reported to him. We deduce, with some presumption, that the removal of long rectangular panels, the width of which equated to the height of the sides or the width of the bottom of the canoe, was virtually imposed by the nature of the raw material itself. As it was mechanically impossible to obtain a split cylinder, pressing the tips against each other and consolidating them with a vertical seam inevitably resulted in the manufacture of craft with sharp chines, using three bark sheets and with pyramidal ends. If the sides had to join to constitute a prow or stern post, the sheets forming the sides must be significantly wider at these points, which posed a problem with the sizes of the sheets obtained from these trees. If the aim was to achieve a minimum level of freeboard (and for sea-going craft this is essential) and limit the number of longitudinal seams (in other words, a single one for each chine), the general form of the canoe was virtually imposed, like the three-piece sewn bark-canoes used in Australia (ARNOLD 2015, p. 53-55); in other words, the ends of the bottom had to be raised and must more or less end in a point.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 51 Fig. 108 Objects associated with the construction and use of canoes: a, bone wedge for removing bark (length 9.6 cm); b, work glove used for cutting the wooden paddles; c, chisel with a sharpened shell blade and a stone for the handle (length 14.4 cm); d, recent iron chisel, with a stone for the handle (length 22.1 cm); e, bark bailer (height 26.5 cm); HYADES and DENIKER 1891, pl. XXXII and XXXIII.

63 Once the circumference of the sheet had been loosened, the bark was prised away from the trunk using bone wedges inserted using a stone hammer, between the bark and the wood (fig. 108a). The work was continued with a kind of extremely fine chisel made from a whale rib. This was around 60 cm long with a thickness of only around 7 mm (GUSINDE 1937, p. 442, fig. 27). This was used to make small lateral movements. When sufficient space had been released for the insertion of a foot, a man used the weight of his body to increasingly separate the bark from the trunk, up to the point where he could completely slide into the space himself; a procedure which we have already mentioned, and one described by Reverend P. DESPARD (1863, p. 679). The correct season for removing bark in fact only extends from mid-September to late October (GUSINDE 1937, p. 443). For the actual construction of the canoe, three very wide pieces of bark were selected; one for each side, and a third very thick piece for the bottom27. The partially detached fibres on the inside were scraped (no mention is made here of the excess of sap to eliminate from the cambium), then the exterior of the bark was flattened by removing fragments of cork using a stone-handled chisel with a sharpened shell for a blade (fig. 108c); the shell was sometimes replaced at a later date by a metal blade among populations living close to the missions (fig. 108d). These bark sheets were then softened by heating them regularly over a long area of embers, with each element being moved so that all parts of both sides were regularly heated without burning. The form sought was then cut by eye into each bark sheet. Unfortunately this account does not explicitly state when these rectangular sheets were obtained: during the removal – which is probably the case – when the two vertical grooves were cut because the bark was exceptionally thick, or once it was on the ground to facilitate transport and avoid cracking a bark sheet that was too wide, and which in any case must be recut or split into two elongated rectangular panels. As for the extended submersion in the water, it would be much more difficult to maintain a cylinder underwater by means of stones than it would be for a narrow bark sheet. Each end third of the sheet making up the bottom was cut into a point. This last part generally ended in a horizontal stop around 10-20 cm long or a little more, which acted as the base for the setting up of a terminal triangle of bark. The lateral sheets were then shaped, with the upper edge being more or less horizontal. The other edge, reaching the bottom, had a curved shape in order to give each end a pyramidal shape. The use of small heaps of stones to maintain the longitudinal curve of the bottom sheet has been mentioned (VARGAS Y PONCE 1788, p. 344). The sides were then adjusted against the bottom bark sheet and slightly recut as a consequence. Each lateral sheet was maintained in position by a dozen stakes inserted in the ground (GUSINDE 1937, p. 444). This support structure has never been photographed. However, it can be seen in the background of the engraving published in 1626 by VAN WALBEECK (pl. face p. 47; see fig. 102). It is further developed in the analysis by H. Wiederecht (see fig. 123). Although not mentioned in any text, on a number of drawings we can observe the presence of short incisions at the top of the sides in order to adjust the curve (three slits in HYADES and DENIKER 1891, pl. XXXI/1; two slits in GUSINDE 1937, fig. 25; see fig. 107 and 111a) 28. A long stem, the gunwale pole, was then sewn against the edge of the bark that constituted the top of the sides. The sewing follows a helicoidal path, and consists of a strip of narrow section (1 by 3 mm) extracted from the outer part of the wood of a tree trunk, in other words from the sapwood of a Nothofagus antarctica (GUSINDE 1937, p. 444). The advantage of this tree species is that, even dried, these strips remain supple and do not break. However, as emphasised by P. Hyades (HYADES and DENIKER 1891, p. 351), long pieces of whalebone were preferred, which were shaped by means of scraping with a broken shell. Before sewing the three sheets together, the separation of the top of the

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 52 sides was stabilised by means of a series of stretchers (often eight in number, or even more), of about the thickness of a thumb. These were made from branches of Maytenus magellanica, the bark of which was scraped and the ends notched so that they ended in a bulge (GUSINDE 1937, p. 445).

27) For the central part of the hull, the authors only agree on the use of three bark sheets. Oddly, LOTHROP 1932, p. 252 adds “three, five or more slender cigar-shaped pieces”, an observation that in fact applies to the side planks of recent dalca. 28) A series of opposing slits is present on the sheet constituting the bottom of the London canoe (fig. 122), and that in Rome (fig. 156).

64 This part was used to maintain the lashing area against the gunwale poles. They thus also acted as ties. The upper structural support was thus completed. M. GUSINDE (1937, p. 445) specifies that the canoe was maintained upside down or placed on one side. However, he does not indicate whether the bottom was temporarily maintained against the sides by lashings. In any case, the bark sheet of the bottom was then removed in order to cut a long rabbet on each edge. A similar arrangement was created in the curved edge of the side pieces. In this sophisticated assembly, the significant thickness of the bottom sheet clearly played an essential role29. The latter was then reinstalled and the bark sheets were maintained together by sewing carried out using a strip of Nothofagus antarctica or whalebone, passed through holes punched in the bark with an awl. Among the Alacaluf (GUSINDE 1974, p. 236), the strips were made from cypress wood and were softened by prolonged immersion in water. They were also carefully trimmed. The thickness of the strip was roughly reduced using the thumbnail, then one end was held in the teeth while the other was held in the left hand. Movements were then made towards the base with the right hand holding a shell in order to reduce the thickness of the strip and polish it. This sewing process was normally carried out by women (ibid, p. 236). Before tightening the strip, the Yahgan insert a sealing material based on moss and stems (particularly those of wild celery), mixed with clay (BRIDGES 1869, p. 38; HYADES and DENIKER 1891, p. 351)30, and red algae (GUSINDE 1937, p. 445). Sometimes moist ash and fibres of Nothofagus betuloides were used, the latter of which were softened in advance by hammering them between two stones (GUSINDE 1974, p. 236). P. Hyades (HYADES and DENIKER 1891, p. 351) describes another process for perfecting the assembly of the bark sheets: he states that the lower edge of the lateral bark sheets and those of the bottom sheet have a number of slits around 8-10 cm long, which fit into each other31. But he points out that the bark sheets themselves do not overlap, which is normal from a mechanical point of view with such thick bark32. As we mentioned in note 29, it has not been possible to identify, on the accessible parts of the preserved Fuegian canoes, such sophisticated assemblages in relation to the chines. The ends of the central sheet were then extended, as we have previously mentioned, by the addition of an overlapping triangular piece of bark. The indigenous inhabitants stated that this system was considerably more solid than attempting to unite the three bark sheets into a point at a single location (GUSINDE 1937, p. 446). As we can see on the example in Bern (see fig. 142), this device also makes it possible to adjust the total length of the craft by further inserting the triangle of the end section if the bark sheet constituting the bottom was too short, or by cutting the latter into a distal triangle if it was long enough. Finally, a rope – a kind of shroud – made from a Marsippospermum grandiflorum was attached to the first or second stretcher to consolidate the end of the triangle (fig. 109). The structure of the envelope was then reinforced by inserting a network of frame sticks under pressure (fig. 110). This consisted of an almost continuous set of frame sticks created from fine stems of Drimys winteri or Nothofagus, initially around 2 m long and split longitudinally.

29) However, such shaping of the edges has not been identified on the observable areas of the examples preserved in the museums. 30) See also p. 71 and The Illustrated London News 1868, 8 August, p. 133.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 53 31) These slits are not identifiable on the published plate (HYADES and DENIKER 1891, pl. XXXI/1; see our fig. 107). However, it is possible to observe a similar arrangement on the top of the sides. On this subject, see the Rome canoe (fig. 156). 32) The situation is, of course, completely different in the three-piece sewn bark-canoes of Australia, which were constructed from much finer bark and assembled in an overlapping manner (ARNOLD 2015, p. 53-55, fig. 82).

Fig. 109 Narrow end consisting of a small triangle of bark supported by a rope, a kind of shroud, attached to the first or second tie (KING, FITZ-ROY and DARWIN 1839, vol. 2, opposite title page).

65 Their ends were cut into a slight bevel. Before they were definitively wedged beneath the gunwale poles, the spaces between the bark and the ribs were filled with moss, algae and grasses (GUSINDE 1937, p. 445). At the end of the ribs, the fill was instead more likely to be beech branches, which augmented the rigidity of the hull at this point (see fig. 136). The ends of the ribs were sometimes attached to the top of the envelope by means of a small wooden peg, about 2 cm long, inserted through a punched hole (GUSINDE 1974, p. 237) 33. The gunwale poles between the ties were then covered by half-cylinders of bark from Maytenus magellanica which tightened around them as it dried. These pieces were called tétaka and reinforced areas weakened by repeated embarkations and disembarkations; they also covered the initial roughness of these areas, where the paddlers rested their arms (GUSINDE 1937, p. 446). In the case of the Alacaluf canoes, mention is sometimes made of the 4-6 longitudinal poles around 5-8 cm in diameter and 3-4 m in lenght which were placed in advance on the framework in order to better spread the load on the bottom of the canoe (GUSINDE 1974, p. 237). They are illustrated on the diagrams of H. Wiederecht (see fig. 123/Abb. III), but are not present on the canoe that he brought back to Switzerland. These can, however, be observed on the Rome canoe (see fig. 156c and 158). The bottom of the canoe was reinforced still further by the insertion of a set of longitudinal bark sheets (iḽax), covering the framework and the longitudinal poles34. A second series (lṹka) was inserted transversely, with the rough side smoothed and turned upwards (GUSINDE 1937, p. 447). The roughness of this side of the bark thus facilitated movements within the canoe. These elements were pressed against each other. In the central area, a space was set aside to create a permanent opening, enabling water taken on to be removed with a scoop. It was thus possible to sit on the bottom of the canoe without getting wet. A hearth was then created in the centre of the canoe. The base of this consisted of a number of small slabs carefully juxtaposed, sometimes covered by a layer of gravel and broken shells. Finally, on top of this was laid a clod of earth with the roots upwards, which helped to conserve the fire (GUSINDE 1937, p. 449-450; 1974, p. 237).

33) This observation is unusual, as the bark was never pierced by pegs to attach the elements of the framework, which would tear the bark, unless it was sandwiched between two gunwale poles, as in the canoes from North America. 34) However, two layers of bark are mentioned only by M. Gusinde. They are not found on the Bern, Rome or Santiago canoes.

Fig. 110 Canoe with its network of frame sticks covered, on the right, by bark sheets placed transversely.

66 It took approximately 2-3 weeks of continuous work for one man to produce such a canoe. This operation always took place in the shade in order to minimise the desiccation of the bark (ibid., p. 447). The dimensions of the canoe depended on the size of the family, but according to M. Gusinde the length rarely exceeded 5 m (fig. 111a).

Construction of a bark-canoe among the Alacaluf, by Martin Gusinde The original manuscript by M. Gusinde, dedicated to the Alacaluf or Halakwulup, was destroyed during the Second World War. Following this, he devoted his time to other tasks before returning to the subject in his retirement. He saw only the first few pages of the rough draft, and his work later required a

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 54 number of corrections (W. Saake, in GUSINDE 1974, p. V-VI). It should be remembered that one of the best descriptions, specifically relating to the Alacaluf canoes, is that of J. VARGAS Y PONCE (1788, p. 343-346) who we presented at the start of this chapter dedicated to the canoes of Tierra del Fuego. M. GUSINDE (1974, p. 229) emphasises that he saw not a single bark-canoe in use by the Alacaluf during his expedition of 1923-1924, and J. BIRD (1946, p. 67) mentions the use of the final example in 1927. These canoes were replaced by the dalca of the Chonos, consisting of planks assembled by sewing.

67 This change began in the early 17th or early 18th century (COOPER 1917, p. 199; GUSINDE 1974, p. 217). It was largely facilitated by the introduction of iron tools by the Westerners, but also because the northern space of the Alacaluf was considerably more temperate, permitting the growth of new tree species, particularly two species of cypress (Fitzroya patagonica and Libocedrus tetragona), characterised by good fissibility (LOTHROP 1932, p. 244). In the early 20th century, the dalca were partially replaced by canoes with a monoxylous base, topped by one or two washstrakes (GUSINDE 1974, p. 225), and later by wooden plank boats of European influence. However, the dalca were not present among the Yahgan. Their bark-canoes were directly replaced by logboats, the first dating from 1880 (fig. 112; LOTHROP 1928, p. 145). Here, the sides of the canoes were also topped by a washstrake. They were also gradually abandoned in favour of wooden plank boats of European design. In this context, the work of M. Gusinde is essentially based on two Alacaluf canoes preserved in museums, one at Punta Arenas, collected in 1903 (EDWARDS 1965, p. 24), and the other in Bern, arriving a few years later (GUSINDE 1974, pl. 30). This latter is 4.5 m long35 and was incorporated into the collections of the Musée d’Histoire in Bern in 1908 (see ZELLER 1909). To this can be added the memories of his investigations among Alacaluf elders, which enabled some complementary information to be added to his observations on the canoes of the Yahgan, published in 1937. There was very little difference in the material culture of the Yahgan and Alacaluf, including as regards bark-canoes (fig. 111). The work of M. GUSINDE (1974) thus corresponds to his data published in 1937. However, he has not included in his study the names of the Alacaluf canoes mentioned by C. EDWARDS (1965, p. 24), in other words yeni, or that of pel-larkál, mentioned by R. ZELLER (1909, pl. I) based on notes by H. Wiederecht. Finally, we must note that the search for Nothofacus betuloides was significantly facilitated for the Alacaluf as the further north one moves from the Strait of Magellan the more clement the climate becomes, permitting the growth of much larger and more rectilinear specimens in valleys sheltered from the wind. In the northern part of their territory, the Alacaluf also used cypresses, such as Libocedrus tetragona (GUSINDE 1974, p. 233). The paddles were of very different form to those of the Yahgan, being longer and highly tapered. The paddles used by the woman presented a marked angular step between the blade and the handle (ibid., p. 240, fig. 16b).

35) The length of 4.45 m mentioned by GUSINDE 1974 (p. 239) corresponds to the example on which a terminal section is broken (fig. 131); however, the large terminal triangle is still intact (ibid., pl. 30); see fig. 125-126. For the complete example, see fig. 124.

Fig. 112 Logboat of the Yahgan, equipped with a washstrake (a) raising the sides (LOTHROP 1932, fig. 2).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 55 68 Analysis of some Fuegian canoes The analysis of the Fuegian canoes preserved in museums is particularly complex, as a result of the superimposition of a number of structural layers inserted inside the hull itself. With the exception of the last, which is entirely visible, the others are increasingly masked as we approach the bottom of the canoe. It is therefore only through discontinuities present in the different layers that we can hope to understand the method used for constructing the canoe. Each damaged area of the hull therefore often corresponds to a kind of “window”, enabling us to understand the structure of the deeper layers. However, it is often very difficult to specify the extent of these structures. In this context, the texts written by ethnologists working in the field always remain of fundamental value in identifying the key features, even if their relevance has not always been immediately detected. However, studying objects preserved in museums enables us to determine other points which have sometimes not been mentioned, such as the methods used for assembly, waterproofing procedures etc. Conversely, they also enable us to clarify or support the relevance of earlier observations. Analysis of the tree species used can also be undertaken, provided that sampling is permitted by museum authorities and that a botanist thoroughly qualified in identifying Patagonian flora is responsible for the analyses. In this context, the example preserved in the Museum of Bern, collected from the Alacaluf and 4.5 m in length, corresponds to an unusual case as a result not only of the written observations and diagrams carried out in the field when the canoe was collected, but also as a result of the possibility later granted to take samples and have them analysed by a highly experienced botanist. Three canoes produced by the Yahgan are preserved in museums (in Santiago, Rome and London), and two others have been collected from the Alacaluf (in Punta Arenas and Bern)36.

The Yahgan canoe in the Museum of Santiago We will begin our analysis with the example used in 1920 by M. Gusinde, which now forms part of the collections of the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural in Santiago. This is the last example constructed in the Beagle Channel – in other words in the territory of the Yahgan – by expert hands, in this case an old man named Pedro, in 1920 (fig. 113). The canoe is 4.10 m long and 1.03 m wide (GUSINDE 1937, p. 453). The measurements carried out at a later date, when it was restored in 1987, describe it as 3.77 m long, 0.93 m wide and with a depth of 0.51 m (ACEVEDO and AZOCAR 1992)37, or 3.78 m, 0.96 m and 0.42 m respectively (VAIRO 2002, fig. p. 50). These very different values probably result, for the length, from the fact that the two triangular ends have been partially broken (fig. 115). The width has been reduced by the installation, during the last restoration, of straps of synthetic material surrounding the hull at each stretcher in order to relieve the pressure on the lashings attaching them.

The canoe is now exhibited in a sort of small room with two glazed walls, inside which access is not permitted (fig. 116a). All of the documentation has therefore been carried out at some distance, using photographs. These images have made it possible to estimate at 94 the number of ribs or frame sticks, cut from fine stems split lengthways. There may perhaps be a maximum of two or three elements in addition to this number. The photograph from 1980 (fig. 114) emphasises the presence of severely damaged ribs at the ends of the canoe, a situation which has now been corrected. For obvious reasons, it has not been possible to measure the thickness of the bark. The hull consists of three main bark sheets. The sheet constituting the bottom stops at the point where the ends begin to angle upwards (fig. 116c). It is extended on one side by a large triangular piece, and probably also on the other side – but it was not possible for us to see beneath the canoe to formally confirm the presence of the second piece. The bark sheets are assembled by helicoidal sewing, carried out with ropes made from whalebone (fig. 119). This is the only preserved canoe demonstrating the large-scale use of this type of rope (fig. 117-118)38, a technique that was commonly observed in the 18th and 19th centuries. The stitches are arranged alternately in two rows in order to reduce the risk of

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 56 splitting the edges of the bark (fig. 117-118; see also fig. 110). The hearth itself is not present in the canoe, and no trace of charcoal powder is visible. In place of the hearth, a mound of earth has been added with its roots upwards.

36) The example in the Kunstkamera in Saint Petersburg, mentioned by VAIRO 2002 (p. 46), does not come from Tierra del Fuego, but was instead collected in East Africa, almost certainly in Mozambique (see Appendix 2/22). 37) The first line on page 5 should state “3.77 m” instead of “2.77 m”. 38) Whalebone has also been used locally on the canoe in Rome, particularly where the bark has been notched.

69 Fig. 113 An anan manufactured by the Yahgan in around 1920, collected and used by M. Gusinde: condition in around 1930.

Fig. 114 Condition of the canoe in 1980, before restoration. The framework has separated the gunwale poles of the hull at several points (ACEVEDO and AZOCAR 1992, fig. 2).

70 Fig. 116 Current condition of M. Gusinde’s canoe, in the permanent exhibition of the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural (Santiago, Chile).

Fig. 117 Ropes made from whalebone (some of these are from the most recent conservation work).

Fig. 118 Ropes made from whalebone. The row of holes drilled beneath is from a museographical consolidation prior to 1980 which has since been removed.

Fig. 119 Striated structure corresponding to the agglomeration of “hair” to build up the whalebone here placed horizontally. In this case, the ropes will be cut horizontally.

71 The Yahgan canoe in the Museum of London This canoe was donated in 1868 to the Royal Geographical Society in London, according to The Illustrated London News of 8 August 1868 (p. 133; see also fig. 167 and BRIDGES 1869, p. 37-38 with figure). It now forms part of the collections of the British Museum (Am.6246). On the old handwritten sheet that accompanies the canoe, the date of 1870 is therefore incorrect. According to the London News, this was a small canoe 2.44 m long, 0.56 m wide and 0.46-0.51 m deep. The current measurements give a length of 2.37 m, with the two broken ends (fig. 120). One of these, unconnected with the main section, extends the latter by at least 18-20 cm. The measured width of the canoe is 0.48 m, which must be extended to 0.56 m in view of the longest of the nine preserved stretchers. Measured depth: 0.32 m, on the basis of a width of 0.48 m, a value which it is clearly necessary to reduce a little if the width is in fact 0.56 m. There are around 130 frame sticks, produced from stems split in half and only 10-12 mm wide, which are almost all stored in a separate box. The quadrangular gunwale poles (12 by 18 mm in the central area) are maintained in place by helicoidal sewing. All of the ropes consist of a relatively narrow ribbon of wood. According to the magazine mentioned above, this canoe was acquired from a group of indigenous people living in the north-west of Navarino Island – in other words a group of Yahgan. It was manoeuvred close to the vessel by a girl of eight, who was thus of an appropriate size for the greatly reduced dimensions of the canoe. It is specified that the canoe was constructed using bark from

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 57 “deciduous beech”, but this cannot have been Nothofagus betuloides as a result of the extreme thinness of the bark used (6-8 mm) and the texture of its surface. Watertightness has been achieved using stems of wild celery with the addition of clay, information undoubtedly resulting from contemporary observations by TH. BRIDGES (1869, p. 38). The current absence of ribs has enabled us to observe that the watertight bundles, attached with ribbons made from wood, are covered by a large quantity of plant fibres filling the angular section of the chine, in order to create a regular curve in the minuscule ribs bent under pressure and wedged under the gunwale poles, the imprint of which is still clearly visible in this fill (fig. 121). The sheet constituting the bottom of the canoe displays eight slits cut perpendicular to the edge of the bark, arranged more or less opposite each other (fig. 122). Among the isolated fragments is a small piece of bark from the covering of the gunwales.

Fig. 120. Small canoe from Tierra del Fuego, London. Preserved length 2.37 m; width 0.56 m; depth ~ 0.30 m; thickness 6-8 mm.

Fig. 121 Mass of plant fibres filling the chine, marked by the imprint of frame sticks.

Fig. 122 Bottom bark sheet: slits more or less opposite each other (a fourth pair is located at the other end).

72 The Alacaluf canoe in the Museum of Bern The canoe present since 1908 in the Museum of Bern (BHM) came from the collection of Henri Wiederecht39, who described the construction of such canoes in a hand-written note40, accompanied by three diagrams (fig. 123). H. Wiederecht stated that this canoe, known as pel-larkál, was constructed by the Alacaluf. The bark was removed using large bones shaped into the form of a cutlass, which were even at that date often replaced by metal blades. Following this, 8-10 stakes per side were inserted into the ground at regular intervals (fig. 123/Abb. I-a), consolidated by a horizontal stem lashed to each side that would later constitute the gunwale pole (Abb. I-b). The exterior of the bark sheet making up each side (Abb. I-c) was then pressed against these stakes and lashed to the gunwale pole which would later border it. The relatively large bark triangles (Abb. II-d and d'), constituting the front and rear, were then inserted. These were sewn to the bottom of the sides using slender wooden strips which, on the inside, encircled a bundle of grass stems incorporated into a matrix of algae, earth and blood. The stretchers (Abb. II-e)41 were then lashed in place using sea lion or guanaco tendons, or later using ropes. The stakes were then removed and the hull turned, enabling the large bark sheet constituting the bottom to be inserted (ZELLER 1909, p. 79). This passage is not very clear and it is not stated whether isolated lashings maintained the bottom or whether the boat was turned so that it rested on one of its sides in order for the seam between the bottom and the opposite side to be completed, incorporating waterproofing materials. Once the bottom had been attached, the canoe was then placed upright. A large number of sticks split longitudinally were then inserted transversely, constituting a framework (Abb. III-f). Two discontinuous series of long poles were then placed on the bottom along the longitudinal axis (Abb. III-g). These would be covered by wide bark sheets placed transversely (Abb. III-h). Whether they were lashed to the framework (acting as stringers) or simply placed into the structure is not specified. There were no bark sheets placed longitudinally on the long poles. A free space was used to create a sump. On the Bern example, such poles are not visible in the places where the bark of the bottom has been destroyed, nor at the non-contiguous spaces of the transverse bark sheets (fig. 127). A layer of grass 5-10 cm thick was placed locally on the bottom of the sheets placed transversely, on which lay the slabs constituting the base of a permanently active hearth. Small pieces of bark reinforced the top of the gunwale. Finally, a tendon, a kind of shroud, consolidated the point of the ends by linking them to the first or last stretcher (Abb. II-k). Everything indicates that the canoe observed during construction is not that transported to Bern, which does not possess longitudinal poles reinforcing the bottom.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 58

39) The vessel arrived in Hamburg in February 1908 (BHM archives); ZELLER 1909, 66-67. 40) We would like to thank Martin Schultz for having transcribed these notes, which were particularly illegible. The comments of ZELLER 1909 were largely extracted from this report. 41) The stretchers, the external support stakes, the ribs (but also the longitudinal poles) were noted by H. Wiederecht as having been extracted from leña dura (Maytenus magellanica) trees. The analyses carried out later by botanist Edmundo Pisano systematically emphasise that the wood used is from the canelo tree; in other words, Drimys winteri.

Fig. 123 Sketches by H. Wiederecht (Abb. I-III) intended to illustrate his description of the construction of a pel-larkál canoe by the Alacaluf.

73 Fig. 124 Canoe of the Alacaluf, called pel-larkál, upon arrival at the Museum of Bern, with its two ends and no museographical reinforcement intended to maintain the framework. Length 4.50 m, width 1.01 m, depth 0.57 m. Preserved thickness of the bark: 18 mm.

Fig. 125 The Bern canoe. The end on the right was probably broken (see fig. 124) when the canoe was turned over to take the photographs enabling the condition of the bottom of the canoe to be analysed. The end on the left was broken at an earlier date. We also note the presence of a set of museographical reinforcements on the inside and outside of the sides, intended to maintain the framework.

74 The weight of the canoe is 103 kg (BHM archives). In complete condition, it measured 4.5 m long with a total width of 1 m, and a depth in the central area of 0.55 m. The bark triangle constituting the stem (see fig. 124) increased the latter to 0.95 m (ZELLER 1909, p. 81). However, the triangular section of the other end consists of the bark sheet forming the bottom (ibid., p. 79). This end is partly broken (at least it was in 1974; fig. 126), and was remedied at a later date (fig. 131). A rope – a shroud – around 35 cm long still links this point to the first stretcher. On the photograph published by M. GUSINDE (1974, pl. 30)42, a pole is attached to the middle of the face of the two sides (fig. 126). Indeed, on each side we have one piece on the outside and one piece on the inside, attached together with iron wire passing through the bark by means of bored holes. These are intended to stabilise the elements added to the inside of the canoe, and particularly the frame sticks. The latter are no longer maintained in place by pressure, because the three bark sheets constituting the hull are torn at the chines, considerably enlarging the transverse structure of the canoe and reducing the initial pressure that maintained the network of frame sticks (fig. 125).

42) See also VAIRO 2002, fig. p. 124.

Fig. 126 The Bern canoe (GUSINDE 1974, pl. 30). The initial total length was 4.5 m.

Fig. 127 The horizontal structure of the bottom has been reinforced by a series of flat frames (*) which are thicker than the frame sticks.

75 It is thus due to these two pairs of poles that the canoe has not completely disintegrated at a later stage (fig. 128). Iron wire has also been used, secondarily, to maintain in place the bark sheets covering the gunwales. Perpendicular slits in the edges of the sheets, enabling the obtention of a more curved shape in the sides, are not present. The broken part of the bark constituting the bottom enables observation of the presence of flat frames for the bottom (stems which are not split) which reinforce the transverse, non-curved shape of the latter (fig. 127), unlike the frame sticks. A detailed botanical analysis of the remains was carried out in 198743. The three sheets constituting the hull were cut from the bark of a Nothofagus betuloides; Magellan’s beech or guindo. The

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 59 most cracked parts of the outer area of the bark, located on the outside of the hull, have been regularised using a wide-bladed iron axe (more than 10 cm wide; fig. 129). The part removed can be evaluated as having been around 2-3 mm thick. However, the thickness remaining is still 18 mm, with the exception of the edges of the sheets where it has been reduced to 9-10 mm in order to facilitate the punching of holes intended for the strips maintaining the gunwale poles in place. The initial thickness of this bark, at 20 mm, is thus largely equivalent to that used for the simple bark-canoes of the Murray and Darling rivers in the State of Victoria in Australia (ARNOLD 2015, p. 17-20, fig.14), or for the canoes with one folded end from the Amazon. The internal face of the bark, in contact with the wood itself, has not been modified, which is an observation universally applicable to the bark used to construct canoes. Regarding cleaning of the cambium, it has not been possible to correlate any mark with such an action, particularly on the limited observable surfaces (see fig. 132 and 142). The bark sheets are assembled using strips of wood from the Drimys winteri or canelo tree (fig. 134-135)44. Similar strips are used to attach the gunwale poles, but also to repair longitudinal splits present in the sheets constituting the hull. All of these strips were significantly reduced in thickness, ultimately taking on a rectangular section of around 1-2 mm by 3-4 mm (fig. 133 and 138).

43) The material was collected by Gilles Fortineau in 1976, and analysed in 1987 by Edmundo Pisano (Laboratorio de Botánica del Instituto de la Patagonia, Chile); BHM archives. 44) P. Hyades (HYADES and DENIKER 1891, p. 351) and M. GUSINDE (1937, p. 444) mention the use of Nothofagus antarctica or ñire. In this context, it is worth noting that in addition to whalebone, R. ZELLER 1909 (p. 78) mentioned (probably on the basis of the 1891 publication), the use of strips of sapwood from N. antarctica and N. betuloides, which were collected from just beneath the bark.

Fig. 128 On the inside and outside of the sides, four longitudinal poles have been added for museographical purposes to consolidate the framework.

76 These are sewn in a helicoidal seam or with an overcast stitch around a watertight bundle located on the inside of the chines. This bundle consists of a mass of fibres from the stems and leaves of Hierochloe redolens, also known as “sweetgrass” (fig. 130 and 134)45. The edge is cut perpendicular to the surface of the bark sheets; an observation carried out at the raised areas, where the joint of the chines has been partially broken (fig. 134). However, it was not possible to observe the damaged areas of the bottom (fig. 125) as the fragile craft could not be rotated again. When there was a large space between the bark sheets, a rope consisting of twisted fibres was inserted between the two edges (fig. 134). Above, on the inside, an additional mass has been inserted, consisting of mud, twigs and leaves (fig. 134, see also fig. 130). This also provides support for the slender ribs bent against the angular part of the chine. These support this hollow element, while the insertion under pressure of the ribs reinforces their curved form. Finally, they are inserted between the envelope of the canoe and the gunwale poles. This networt of frame sticks, of which 135 elements have been counted, consists of split stems of Drimys winteri (ZELLER 1909, p. 79; see also note 40), with the flat surface pressed against the hull (fig. 131). These elements have a diameter of around 2 cm. Their ends were cut into a bevel. The raised part of the sides, between the hull and the framework, contains a number of Nothofagus betuloides branches and leaves (fig. 136). These are so few in number that they have an almost symbolic function here. In principle, they would have served to press outwards the sheet forming

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 60 the side and to maintain the curved form of the end of the ribs. These branches, together with the second bundle located at the chine, therefore play no role as regards the watertightness of the envelope, but instead serve to support the curved form of the ribs and the angular transverse profile of the canoe at the chines.

45) All of the Latin or binomial names in this chapter, such as the stems and leaves of Hierochloe redolens, result from Edmundo Pisano’s analyses.

Fig. 130 Watertight bundle located at the joint between two bark sheets (bottom) over a slit (top), and plant fibre padding covering the whole (right) in order to compensate for the hollow inside the chine.

Fig. 131 Watertight bundles beneath the frame sticks and end broken in the past.

Fig. 132 Triangle of added bark, constituting one of the ends (for its position, see fig. 142).

77 Fig. 133 White structure of the bark, in hollow areas which have not been smoothed out. Top right, start of a new strip held in place by a knot.

Fig. 135 Lashing between the bottom and a lateral bark sheet displaying a significant longitudinal split caulked on the inside.

Fig. 136 Branches of Nothofagus betuloides used for padding, with leaves.

Fig. 137 Lashing of a stretcher, carried out using a plait of plant fibres.

Fig. 138 Start of a new strip held in place by a knot and strips cut from the sapwood of Drimys winteri.

78 Above this network of frame sticks, 11 large sheets of bark from Nothofagus betuloides are arranged perpendicular to the axis of canoe, together with a small piece, probably in Drimys winteri. These enable the slender bent ribs to be maintained in place, particularly when a person walked on the bottom of the canoe. The width of the large pieces varies between 18 and 28 cm. The exterior of the bark faces upwards. In the central part of the four pieces of bark located in the middle of the canoe, the remains of powdered charcoal can be observed (fig. 139-*). These are the final indicators of a hearth removed in order to facilitate transport of the canoe to Europe. Although the surface of the bark has not been regularised, the thicknesses here are less than those of the hull; between 8 and 10 mm. On some pieces they are even as little as 5-6 mm. No specific location has been identified that can be associated with a sump intended for removing the water taken aboard. It has not been possible to observe any longitudinal reinforcement of the bottom, for example in the form of stringers (see fig. 127, but also fig. 139). There are ten stretchers, the first and last being characterised by a considerably smaller cross- section. A number of stretchers have a more or less quadrangular cross-section, shaped using an axe (or possibly an adze) with an iron blade. The gunwale poles where the covering bark sheets have disappeared also demonstrate marks from being shaped with a similar tool. Like the gunwale poles, the stretchers were cut from stems of Drimys winteri (ZELLER 1909, p. 79; see also note 40). A deep notch has been cut in each end in order to lash them to the gunwale poles (fig. 141).

Fig. 139 The 135 frame sticks are covered by large bark sheets, four of which (*) demonstrate charcoal residues; final traces of the hearth initially present in the craft.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 61 79 The stretchers also act as ties. The two stretchers at the ends of the canoe are tied using plaited plant fibre ropes (fig. 137). In the central area, however, straps of leather are used (fig. 129). Where these pass through the bark, this displays a rough mortice (fig. 129 and 137). The wooden strips used to assemble the bark sheets and gunwale poles may pass through holes punched in the bark without the use of a needle, given their structural rigidity. The pieces constituting these strips are not attached one behind the other, but are independent. The start of each strip is held in place by a knot which is then pulled tightly against the envelope (fig. 133, 137-138). A similar arrangement is used for the strips made from whalebone (Santiago canoe; fig. 117, right). Between the stretchers, sections of bark from Drimys winteri surround the gunwale to protect it during every day embarkations and disembarkations, but also in order to protect the arms of the paddlers. The surface of this bark is naturally smooth (fig. 140-141), unlike that of the bark used for the hull and the transverse bark sheets on the inside (fig. 139 and 143).

Fig. 140 Gunwales of one end, covered by bark with a smooth surface.

Fig. 141 Stretcher displaying a deep slit, enabling this element to also act as a tie.

Fig. 142 Structure of the inside of the bark at the larger end, currently also broken.

Fig. 143 Inside of the canoe with the bark sheets arranged transversely.

80 The Alacaluf canoe in the Museum of Punta Arenas The canoe in the Museo Salesiano Maggiorno Borgatello was transported in April 1903 to Punta Arenas by natives of Carlos III Island, located in the middle of the Strait of Magellan, and thus in the territory of the Alacaluf (fig. 144 and 163; see also fig. 111b). This canoe is a yeni, according to the label which accompanies it (EDWARDS 1965, p. 24). This is a small example, measuring 2.78 m long, 0.75 m wide and 0.65 deep (VAIRO 2002, fig. p. 50). Here too, the frame sticks consist of rods 12-15 mm in diameter, split lengthways. There are currently 67 of these. In this canoe the arrangement of the ribs is severely disrupted at the ends of the canoe as a result of a significant tear in the bark sheet constituting the bottom of the craft, and the absence of the transverse bark pieces normally present on the framework. This has also led to the absence of a hearth which, in any case, may not have ever been present in view of the reduced dimensions of the canoe. The hull consists of three bark sheets. The sheet constituting the bottom of the craft terminates at each end in a point; in other words, there is no supplementary triangle. The outer part of the bark constituting the sides has not been removed over large areas, presenting a smooth texture with transverse striations. This is a different appearance from the granular bark of canoes made with bark from Nothofagus betuloides, which had to be regularised with an axe (for example the canoes in Santiago and Bern). Finally, its total thickness (less than 10 mm) is considerably thinner than that of the previously mentioned canoes, even when the bark in these has been regularised. Three small sheets of bark (probably from Drimys winteri) surround the gunwale on one of the sides. The other pieces of bark rest in the bottom of the canoe (fig. 145). The canoe is exhibited in a large display case perfectly adapted to its dimensions (fig. 163), making it possible to observe the craft from all angles, including the external surface of the interior. At the tear in the sheet forming the bottom, it is possible to make out the plane along which the slender stems constituting the ribs are split, together with the twisted cord inserted between the bark sheets to ensure watertightness (fig. 147). This latter is maintained in place by helicoidal ropes threaded through punched holes in the bark (fig. 146). Finally, a pad of plant fibres covers the whole, ensuring a curved shape in the ribs at the sharp chines and preventing these from breaking at this angular location (fig. 147). The ropes

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 62 consist of fine strips of wood around 3 mm wide (fig. 148), which is a similar structure to those of the Bern canoe.

Fig. 144 Yeni canoe produced by the Alacaluf, and collected in 1903. Length 2.78 m, width 0.75 m, depth 0.65 m. Thickness a little less than 10 mm.

81 Another museum display, primarily occupied by a logboat with sharp chines and flat, smooth sides, also contains, on the bottom of the display, a small and rather rustic canoe, perhaps constructed by a child and in any case used by one (fig. 149). The bark used for the sides of this craft comes from two different tree species. There are no transverse bark sheets. A little further on is a large, probably quite old model canoe. This is characterised by a fill, located between the bark and the top of the network of frame sticks, consisting of leafy branches of Nothofagus betuloides (fig. 150).

Fig. 146 Bundle of fibres intended for caulking, and strips passed through punched holes.

Fig. 148 Close up of the wooden strips. One of these, adjacent to the stretcher, is partially broken.

Fig. 149 Small, relatively rustic canoe, used by a child, who probably also constructed it.

Fig. 150 Large model with padding made of branches, still with their leaves (Nothofagus betuloides), located between the upper part of the ribs and the hull.

82 The Yahgan canoe in the Museum of Rome The Rome canoe (fig. 151 and 155) was collected in 1893 from a family of Yahgan navigating between the Wollaston Islands and False Cape Horn. It was given to Prince Luigi Amedeo, Duke of the Abruzzi, who in 1896 donated it in turn to the Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico Luigi Pigorini of de Rome (PIANA and ORQUERA 1998, p. 428; VIETRI 2006, p. 274-279, 290-292). It was analysed in 1994 by E. L. PIANA (1995 and 2002; see also PIANA and ORQUERA 1998). The canoe is 5.20 m long (5.25 if we include the ends of the gunwale poles) and 0.95 m wide (PIANA 2002, p. 176). It consists of three sheets of bark, the external face of which is in contact with the water. The bark has been regularised using metal tools during the construction phase (fig. 160). E. L. PIANA (2002, p. 173) specifies that the bark used is either Nothofagus betuloides or N. pumilio. The ends of the sheet constituting the bottom are extended on each side by a large triangular piece (fig. 152). These pieces overlap the underlying sheet, and as we have been able to observe demonstrate two pairs of opposing slits at right angles to the edge of the bark sheet (fig. 151). The large central area in the bottom of the canoe bears three pairs of opposing slits and two separate slits (fig. 156). There are also two additional slits at the top of the sides, as shown on early diagrams (fig. 107, fig. 111a), and one at the base. Despite very thin bark of only 10-12 mm, these slits emphasise the constructor’s desire to obtain a high quality line for this canoe. This reduced thickness would indicate the use of a Nothofagus pumilio. The canoe has undergone major museographical alterations, as can be seen in the fabric glued to large parts of the interior surface of the bark envelope (fig. 154 and 161). This operation has required the temporary removal of the framework, and thus of the bark installed transversely. The absence of ribs

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 63 beneath part of one of these (fig. 156b) is probably the result of the fact that these ribs have been installed later, much too close together, at the ends. We were able to count 205 pieces from longitudinally split stems, 1.2-1.5 cm in diameter, and battens also obtained by splitting stems then shaping them into pieces with similar dimensions but with a rectilinear section. According to E. L. PIANA (2002, p. 174-175), the widest of these are at the ends and are made from Nothofagus, probably N. betuloides. In the central area, it is more commonly stems of Berberis that have been used (the species is not specified). It is likely that the padding of plant fibres usually located between the ribs and the envelope of the canoe, at the sharp chines and the top of the sides, has been removed during reinforcement of the envelope with the applied fabric. Contrary to what is indicated by E. L. PIANA (2002, p. 177), there is no layer of bark installed longitudinally. However, it is possible to observe, in the gaps between the transverse sheets, five split longitudinal poles of relatively large section (3-3.5 cm in diameter) located between the ribs and the bark sheets (fig. 156c and 158). According to E. L. PIANA (2002, p. 177), these are stems of Nothofagus. A sixth, probably relatively short, pole protrudes slightly from the area covered by the transverse pieces of bark. These are locally separated by short planks resulting from the restoration phase, as is demonstrated, in places, by the presence of a shiny black paint which is found elsewhere locally on the external face of the hull, where it has since been subject to scratches, probably as a result of its glossy finish (fig. 161). This substance appears to have been applied during the initial restoration sequences.

Fig. 151 Triangular sheet forming one of the raised ends of the bottom, with two pairs of opposing slits.

83 It is also to this phase that we can attribute the sewing carried out using long stranded cords, passed through pierced holes, distinguished from the initial phase in which the holes were punched through the fresh bark (fig. 161). The same technique has been used to museographically fix/consolidate the gunwale poles using a helicoidal stitch – in other words an overcast stitch (fig. 155), and to consolidate the top of the transverse sheets with a running stitch (top of fig. 158). The original sewing was carried out using polished, trimmed strips of wood, extracted (according to PIANA 2002, p. 173) from young Nothofagus (fig. 153) and occasionally using whalebone (fig. 153 and 162). The gunwale poles, made from Nothofagus, are facetted like the shafts of harpoons (ibid, p. 174) and present a quadrangular section which becomes more slender towards the ends. No hearth is present, but traces of carbonisation have been observed by E. L. PIANA (2002, p. 177) on the transverse sheets. These seem to indicate the earlier presence of a hearth, which was probably removed in order to make the canoe lighter prior to its transport to Italy. We were able to note the presence of a large area in which the upper layer of the bark had been flattened or polished (fig. 156a and 158). This is located in one of the two longest reserved zones between the stretchers. This was probably the location of the hearth, as the other such zone is located in an area presenting the greatest depth in the hull (fig. 156), and therefore likely to bear the maximum load – generally consisting of the children and young adults, who would be occupied with maintaining the fire as the canoe moved. This canoe possesses 12 stretchers, 2.5-3 cm in diameter. Eight of these are made from Berberis, two from Nothofagus betuloides, and two from a tree species which it has not been possible to identify (ibid., p. 175). The ends of these stretchers are shaped in such a way as to form a bulge facilitating their lashing to the gunwale poles, enabling them to act as both stretcher and tie. The gunwale between the latter is covered by a thin sheet of bark extracted from a young tree or a branch of Nothofagus betuloides, whose bark has a naturally smooth external surface, and which has shrunk to surround the gunwale pole as it dried (ibid., p. 176). This canoe is thus characterised by the presence of longitudinal split poles reinforcing the bottom, but above all by an assemblage of short transverse slits in the bark sheets constituting the bottom of the craft, intended to create a hull with an optimal line (fig. 156).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 64

Fig. 152 The sheet forming the base is extended by a piece of bark in the form of a triangle, attached in an overlapping position.

Fig. 153 Offset sewing, in order to avoid tearing the edge of the bark, of a gunwale pole by means of a plant strip. Vertically, strip extracted from a piece of whalebone.

Fig. 154 Beneath the ribs or frame sticks, a piece of glued canvas indicates previous and complete museographical dismantling of the canoe.

84-(85) Fig. 155 Anan canoe of the Yahgan or Yamana, exhibited in Rome.

86 Fig. 157 Closely positioned network of frame sticks covered by wide curved sheets of bark.

Fig. 158 Area characterised by locally flattened bark, probably in relation to the presence of a hearth.

Fig. 159 Longitudinal reinforcement poles positioned on the ribs are visible between two transverse sheets.

Fig. 160 Marks of the tools used when shaping the outside of the bark.

Fig. 161 Various restorations: glossy black encrustation still partially present, long stranded cord and yellow canvas (in this case not painted grey).

Fig. 162 Horizontally: seam carried out with a strip of wood covered on the right with varnish. Vertically: seam carried out using whalebone.

87 Materials employed In view of the complexity of these canoes and the diversity of tree species employed, we have chosen to combine here the data presented throughout the chapter dedicated to the Fuegian canoes. In summary, it should be noted that the authors of the written sources state that the bark sheets used to construct the hull itself are almost always extracted from Nothofagus betuloides (guindo, Magellan’s beech or “evergreen beech” because of its evergreen leaves). But the example in London is not made with such bark. For the Rome canoe, the use of N. betuloides or N. pumilio is mentioned: this is also the only time that reference is made to use of this latter tree species, and given the reduced thickness of its bark, it may indeed be this tree species. Only the Alacaluf inhabiting the northern part of their territory, characterised by a more temperate climate and thus in a region of slightly different vegetation, occasionally employed Libocedrus tetragona; a cypress tree species (GUSINDE 1974, p. 233). The observable tops of the bark sheets of preserved canoes, except those in Rome and London, do not present perpendicular slits, unlike those described in the 19th-20th centuries (fig. 107 and 111a). Finally, the dimensions of the preserved examples indicate that two types of canoe were used: the large ones to transport a family – in other words those generally mentioned by the early authors (canoes in Bern 4.50 m, Rome 5.25 m and Santiago 4.10 m), and the small canoes of less than 3-3.5 m, intended to be used by one or two people, without either a hearth or transverse sheets (canoes in London, preserved length 2.37 m, and Punta Arenas 2.78 m). In general, mention is made of two triangular pieces of bark extending the sheet constituting the bottom (for example, the Rome canoe and, quite probably, that of Santiago); sometimes there is only one (the Bern example) or even none (the small canoes in London and Punta Arenas).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 65 The end of the bottom – in general the triangular point of the added piece of bark – is attached to the first/last stretcher by a small shroud made from Marsippospermum grandiflorum; in other words from stems of cane plaited together. The frame stick elements were cut from split stems of Drimys winteri (canelo or “Winter’s bark”), another evergreen tree, used for example on the Bern canoe, or Nothofagus, probably N. betuloides in the Rome example, and Berberis for the central area of the latter (PIANA 2002, p. 175). The number of elements is 67 for the canoe in Punta Arenas (2.78 m long), 94 for that in Santiago (initial length 4.10 m), 130 for that in London (preserved length 2.37 m) and 135 for the example in Bern (4.50 m long), which still has a number of transverse rectilinear, non-split stems constituting some flat frames for the floor (fig. 127). For the Rome example (5.25 m long), there are at least 205 frame sticks. The ribs are inserted under pressure and their curved form is emphasised by the addition, between the ribs and the hull, of a mass of fibres at the sharp chines (Bern, fig. 130; London, fig. 121; Punta Arenas, fig. 147), and a number of branches of Nothofagus betuloides, still bearing their leaves, below the gunwale poles (Bern, fig. 136; large model exhibited in Punta Arenas, fig. 150). Five longitudinal beams in Nothofagus have been placed on the framework located at the bottom of the Rome example; a structure also present on the diagram by H. Wiederecht (fig. 123). The bark sheets placed transversely across the framework were also extracted from Nothofagus betuloides, with probably one piece of Drimys winteri for the Bern canoe. In the case of the Rome, canoe, E. PIANA (2002, p. 177) refers to the presence of an additional layer of bark sheets placed longitudinally between the ribs and the transverse bark sheets, but this is not the case. The occasional existence of this layer is, however, fully established, as it bears a specific name (iḽax; see p. 65). These canoes are distinguished from the other examples observed throughout the world by here internal structure, which consists of a lining made of large transverse bark sheets (fig. 143) and the significant thickness of the bark used for the hull. This thickness should indicate the initial solidity of the hull. However, this is not the case. On the contrary, these transverse additions, sometimes supplemented by longitudinal pieces, reveal the great fragility of the materials used to constitute the hull; a fragility here resulting from the marked natural tendency of these types of bark to split longitudinally. This characteristic is emphasised by the removal method imposed in the form of long, narrow bark sheets. When they are mentioned, the notched stretchers are cut from stems of Maytenus magellanica (maitén, leña dura; GUSINDE 1937, p. 445). According to the early publications, there are 5 or possibly slightly more of these, but we can see 11 on the sketch made in 1882-1883 (fig. 107). On the preserved canoes, there are 9 on the Punta Arenas canoe, 10 on that in Bern and 12 on the canoe in Rome; finally, 9 are preserved on the London canoe.

88 For the stretchers and gunwale poles of the Rome canoe, the use of Berberis is mentioned, together with a few Nothofagus betuloides; and for that of Bern above all of Drimys winteri. To cover the gunwales, the smooth bark of Maytenus magellanica is used. In the case of the Rome example, however, Nothofagus betuloides is mentioned. For the Bern canoe it is rather the use of the bark of young Drimys winteri that is observed. The watertight bundles have a very varied composition. Mention is made of the use of Hierochloe redolens, or “sweet grass” (Bern canoe; E. Pisano), straw and clay (VARGAS Y PONCE 1788, p. 344), a mixture of wild celery, grass, moss and clay (BRIDGES 1869, p. 38); the addition of red algae is also mentioned (GUSINDE 1937, p. 445), as are damp ash and fibres of Nothofagus betuloides obtained by beating the stems (GUSINDE 1974, p. 236), and even blood (p. 72: H. Wiederecht; ZELLER 1909, p. 79). The ropes intended to assemble the sheets making up the hull, by surrounding the watertight bundles, also present considerable variation. From the early 16th century, references are made to the extraction of these from whalebones (see note 18), which is a material (fig. 119) often mentioned in later

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 66 sources. Only the canoe preserved in Santiago is currently assembled using such ropes (fig. 117), together with parts of the example in Rome, particularly in the aera of the slits. In later sources, the ropes are more often described as taking the form of long, fine strips of wood, made flexible by heating. They were extracted from the sapwood of Drimys winteri (Bern canoe), Nothofagus (Rome canoe) and cypress (GUSINDE 1974, p. 236). These strips can be observed in the Bern, Rome and Punta Arenas canoes. A number of authors also refer to the use of tendons (MARTIAL 1888, p. 190), but this is more for lashing the stretchers to the gunwale poles. Straps of leather are observed in use for this purpose on the Bern canoe, and in places on those in Punta Arenas and Rome.

Fig. 163 For a little less than a century all Fuegian three-piece sewn bark-canoes have been present only in museums.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 67 89 In conclusion: what is the origin of the Fuegian canoes? Analysis of the bark-canoes of South America is focused on two areas; that of the Amazonia/Guianas complex and that of Tierra del Fuego, in the broadest sense (in other words, including the south and south west of Patagonia). They are marked by the extinction of numerous tribes spread across a desert in terms of the regions’ very low population densities per km2: a green desert for Amazonia and a frozen desert for Tierra del Fuego. These two spaces are separated by almost 2000 km.

From a typological viewpoint, we have therefore classified the bark-canoes of South America in the following manner (see fig. 164/1-7):

Simple bark-canoes (Amazon Basin and Guiana Highlands) Simple bark-canoes Simple bark-canoes with raised sides 1 Simple bark-canoes with lowered sides Canoes with one folded end 2 Canoes with apical lashings 6 Canoes with pressed and tied ends 7 Woodskin type canoes Open-ended woodskins 3 Woodskins with raised ends 4 Rolled bark woodskins 5

Multi sheet bark-canoes (Tierra del Fuego and south of Patagonia) Three-piece sewn bark-canoes

Palmboats (Montaña) Paxiuba palmboats

The data relating to these canoes are disseminated to a large extent through early sources that describe the exploration of the Americas in detail. These are often rare works, to which access was extremely problematic prior to the digital revolution; now these publications are available in the form of freely downloadable files. Finally, a number of summary works, such as those of G. FRIEDERICI (1907), H. SUDER (1930), M. GUSINDE (1931-1974), W. ROOP (1942) or C. EDWARDS (1965), have been fundamental to our work.

Fig. 164 Methods for folding the bark sheets in order to create the ends of the canoe, Amazonia/Guianas region.

90 While the bark-canoes of Australia are characterised by the diversity of the sewing techniques and stitch types employed (ARNOLD 2015, p. 30-31), those of the Amazonia/Guianas complex are instead defined by the development of folding methods, the main purpose of which is to avoid resolving problems of watertightness, particularly for closing the ends, whatever the thickness of the bark used (fig. 164). Such folding methods also come to a peak of complexity in the bark-canoes canoes still currently used in Mozambique (ARNOLD, in prep.). Here the aim is to close a kind of “gutter”, not by means of a vertical seam (in other words, by pressing the two tips against each other; see fig. 166), but, for example, by using a series of lashings to

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 68 join the upper parts of the end of the gutter (fig. 164/6). In this case, by inserting under pressure a stretcher of a specific length, the end of the bottom will automatically rise upwards through simple geometry (canoe with apical lashings). Sometimes, with very thick bark, the sides of an end of the gutter are only slightly brought together and raised (fig. 164/1), after they have been softened by heating the bark over fire (simple bark-canoe with raised sides). This procedure is thus compatible above all with thick bark types, like the jatobá (Hymenaea courbaril), with significant initial structural resistance. Another technique, also used with very thick bark, consists of slightly raising the central longitudinal axis of the end of the gutter by forcing this part towards the inside of the volume defined by the segment of cylinder removed, giving it a V or W-shaped cross section: canoe with one folded end (fig. 164/2). One possibility, observed once (fig. 20), with a medium to thin bark, consists of pressing together the sides of one end, and holding these in place by surrounding them with a rope (fig. 164/7), then inserting a stretcher at the top of the sides to raise the end by geometry (canoe with pressed and tied ends). A final process consists of creating, at the base of each raised section, on each side, a triangular S or Z-shaped fold, or a deep slit. These are the woodskin canoes (fig. 164/3). In the former case, two V shaped slits are made to half way through the bark. A triangle of the external layer is then removed (fig. 23). Alternatively a single slit is made to three-quarters of the bark thickness and the remaining internal part released locally on one of the lips in order to create a fold while preserving watertightness (fig. 54). In another case, the slit runs through the entire thickness of the bark and there is no S or Z-shaped fold. The lips are thus no longer linked by part of the bark, but only superimposed. This area must then be made watertight. Finally, the presence of tensioners made out of plant material at the top of the sides facilitates and reinforces the raising of the ends. In a final case, the opposing slits, located close to the terminal area of the ends, finished cose to the central axis. These enable the end of the canoe to be strongly raised by significantly overlapping the lips of the slit. These are the woodskins with raised ends (fig. 164/4), characterised by a silhouette which differentiates them from the other woodskins, characterised by long ends which are only slightly raised, each corresponding to around one third of the length of the canoe.

Fig. 165 Distribution of canoe types in South America (for details, see fig. 24): 1) canoe with one folded end; 2) canoe with apical lashings; 3) woodskin; 4) palmboat (paxiuba: P); 5) three-piece sewn bark-canoe.

91 With these folding concepts, it is not necessary to be acquainted with the techniques required for the creation of logboat, based on the concepts of the reduction and sculpture of a volume, with the possibility to cut the ends into a range of forms. Finally, this type of wooden canoe possesses good initial rigidity, both transverse and longitudinal.

These folding processes, for the types of canoe frequently mentioned, can be subdivided into three main groups, which can also be superimposed over geographical areas (fig. 24 and 165). The first group includes the canoes with one folded end (fig. 164/2). Sometimes both ends are folded. These are essentially present in the Upper Xingú (fig. 165/1). The principal tree species used is the jatobá (Hymenaea courbaril), characterised by its particularly thick bark. The second group consists of the canoes with apical lashings (fig. 164/6). This group is located in the Purús/Madeira area (fig. 165/2). The primary tree species employed is the jutahy (Copaifera pubiflora). The final group includes the woodskins and relates particularly to Guyana (fig. 165/3), former British Guiana; in other words the central northern basin of the Guiana Highlands, to which can be added, in the south, the central and upper basins of the rio Trombetas and rio Branco, which feed the Amazon,

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 69 and the upper Orinoco Basin. The woodskins were the most complex canoes in the Amazonia/Guianas region (fig. 164/3), particularly those where the base of the tensioners – the ropes enabling the ends to be raised – was consolidated by a seam with an overlapping oblong cross stitch (fig. 56). The use of many different tree species is mentioned (p. 33), in particular the jutahy. This type of canoe also demonstrates the use of an upper structural support (gunwale poles, stretchers and ties). The rolled bark woodskins are a specific case (fig. 164/5), because the folding techniques employed are made possible by excessive bending of the bark which, as it dries, naturally creates lowered cylindrical sides that provide significant reinforcement to the longitudinal rigidity of the canoe. Other than these three main groups, the descriptions are few and generally vague. However, they demonstrate that bark-canoes were also used locally in the lower basins of the Xingú and Tapajos. Among the rare specific data, three new canoe types can be described: simple bark-canoes on the rio Biá, a tributary of the Jutaí, the woodskins with raised ends in the upper Orinoco Basin and in Guyana, and the bark-canoes with pressed and tied ends in the upper Jari Basin, near the border between French Guiana and Brazil. Finally, it is worth noting the absence of pressed and sewn tip canoes, which are the only bark- canoes constructed in North America (fig. 166). These latter are characterised by the use of a particularly thin bark, that of the paper birch (Betula papyrifera), which in the majority of cases requires the use of highly specialised construction techniques based on the installation of a set of external supports, numerous slits in the envelope, additional sheets employed to raise the sides of the central section, the development of complex sewing techniques and the employment of highly developed waterproofing methods, on the slits and pressed tips.

It should be remembered that the paxiuba or palmboats constitute a final group. These are located in the basin of the Upper Solimões, and thus in the Montaña (fig. 165/4). The specific anatomical structure of the “trunk” or false trunk of the palm tree, the stipe, often led to the construction of canoes structurally situated between the bark-canoes and logboats.

The removal of thick bark from the jatobá was carried out by cutting a bark sheet in an ogive shape into the bark of the unfelled tree. For the other tree species, removal generally took place in the form of a split cylinder. By using very thick bark, the buoyancy of the hull could be significantly increased if it sank, which was particularly important when travelling at sea or on a very wide river; in other words in the absence of a bank to which it was possible to swim in order to bail out the canoe. Finally, the use of fire to soften the bark (as for a thin wooden hull) became fundamental in ensuring the shaping of the examples constructed from particularly thick bark.

Fig. 166 Canoe with pressed and sewned tips from North America.

92 The rapidity with which a canoe could be constructed is also of interest: half to one day for removing the bark and the same again for the manufacture of the canoe. In North America, with the paper birch or Betula papyrifera, the data are completely different, and a completely different logic is observed in terms of the construction and use periods. The lifespan of these South American canoes was also very short, from a few days to a few months, or possibly up to one year (or a little more). This short-lived consumer product was not the subject of any ritual actions (with the exception of the canoes intended for sea-borne war raids; p. 14). Conversely, the manufacture of a logboat required the felling of a forest giant together with a long process of hollowing and shaping. These craft had a long lifespan, and their construction, on a number of continents, was therefore frequently accompanied by ritual offerings and ceremonies.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 70 We therefore have no common point between the canoes from the Amazonia/Guianas area and those of Tierra del Fuego and the south of Patagonia, where the hull consists of three lenticular sheets of bark sewn together (fig. 163). These canoes present a compact form with raised sides and were considerably better adapted to coastal navigation. Here we move from the technique of folding to that of assembly. Here too, the bark used for the hull was very thick, but with one particularity that made its use – or rather its removal – more difficult; the absence of transverse elasticity, giving it a marked tendency to split. Finally, the trees in this region are much smaller than the giants of the Amazonian forest. As a consequence, bark could be removed only in the form of sheets. Although these were relatively long, they were also rather narrow. This form automatically made it necessary to assemble the sheets by sewing, and thus to make these sections watertight while reinforcing the overall structure by inserting gunwale poles and stretchers. The latter also acted as ties. In this context, a separate, external support structure was required in order to assemble the sheets (fig. 102 and 123/Abb. I). Finally, a large number of fine bent ribs, doubled by a transverse layer of wide bark sheets, consolidated the bottom and stabilised the hull geometry. The hull was therefore naturally (in other words as a minimum) constituted of three thick bark sheets cut in the form of elongated lenses, enabling the canoe to be given considerable depth, with the two ends raised in a pyramid shape (three-piece sewn bark-canoes). For the sheet forming the bottom, these were generally extended by an additional triangular piece.

The whole design thus resulted directly from the constraints imposed by the rigidity of the raw material, its low elasticity and its marked tendency to split. The lifetime of these canoes was also very short: six months to a year, perhaps two. It took considerably longer to construct them than those produced in the Amazon Basin; around 2-3 weeks for one man.

The primary invention here is unquestionably the concept of sealing, associated with a simple sewing technique (in the form of helicoidal stitching or overcast stitch) and the development of procedures appropriate for this issue. Fundamentally, logboats require the implementation of a much narrower range of concepts and techniques. To fell and hollow out a tree, only the most basic tools are required, particularly if fire is used to facilitate the work. There are no problems of watertightness, nor longitudinal or transverse rigidity, nor assembly of the different elements. In our opinion, the major problem to overcome in producing larger logboats was the psychological challenge of felling a giant tree in the forest (ARNOLD 2003). The remainder was ultimately only a question of time. The original populations of this region could also have opted for the concept of a logboat topped by a washstrake, particularly in the area of the island of Chiloé, but this was not the technology selected. They could also have chosen to use skins stretched over a groundwork, like the populations living in the Arctic regions, but this solution was not chosen either, particularly as this would have required absolute mastery of the preparation and assembly of skins. Only the construction of the balse, along the desert coast of the north of Chile, corresponds to a minor development in this direction, but based on the principle of inflated skins (fig. 10). As for the implementation of a watertight seam to assemble the skins, this is of a unique type – in other words one not used on any other known boat (fig. 11).

93 By the time of the arrival of the first Europeans, the structure of bark-canoes had long been established. They were identical among the Yahgan and the Alacaluf, even though these populations spoke different languages. As for the area further to the north, particularly around the island of Chiloé, this was occupied by the Chonos who used similar canoes the dalca, but where the raw material constituting the hull was formed by wood, with a considerably greater durability and less likelihood of splitting.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 71

In this context, although it would be difficult to explain the initial endogenous use of large planks of wood for the construction of such craft, the same cannot be said for the bark of the local tree species. This bark is easy to remove in the form of elongated panels with a limited width, using stone axes or equivalent bone tools, but impossible to remove as a split cylinder. This has inevitably led to the construction of canoes from three panels of bark.

What origin can we identify for these strange craft with three sheets of bark assembled by sewing? With the dalca, are we faced by bark-canoes in which the raw material was later replaced, further to the north, by wood? And conversely, what is the source of the development of the concept of a construction made exclusively using three large planks of wood rather than a construction based on a logboat topped with a washstrake attached by sewing?

If we envisage the original principle for the use of bark to construct canoes, the available raw material – thick and prone to splitting – would have automatically resulted in “bark planks”, almost inevitably leading to the production of canoes using three bark sheets and assembled by sewing, with the construction involving the inclusion of watertight bundles in the lashing/sewing system. And it would then be only secondarily, and further to the north, in a less rigorous climatic context that made possible the development of other ligneous tree species, that the bark would have been replaced by wood characterised by good fissibility. In other words, with an anatomical structure well adapted to obtaining planks using wedges. This also assumes that the population concerned was already widely using wood in its material culture. This transition from craft constructed of sewn wooden planks would of course have taken place in a Pre-Columbian period. Proving that these bark-canoes predated the plank craft by means of archaeological data is, naturally, almost impossible. However, by examining the mechanical properties of the raw material, characterised by its low elasticity and thus a tendency to split when removed from the tree, the reasoning proposed above – based on an initial use of locally present bark – offers a coherent argument for the endogenous development of these strange craft in Tierra del Fuego and the south and south-west of Patagonia. At a later date, in a climatic zone favourable to the development of other tree species, the bark was simply replaced secondarily by wood. There is therefore no need for these three-piece sewn bark- canoes to evoke “alien” acculturations from the eastern Pacific or Pharaonic Egypt, as suggested by E. SMITH (1916) in his exceedingly diffusionist discourse, reiterated at a later date by other authors. Between diffusionism and evolutionism, an analysis of the biological or physical characteristics of the materials available and the technology level of the tools used often provides new, more rational approaches based on fact.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 72 94 Appendix 1 Inventory of canoes of Amazonia and the Guianas, with their location (fig. 24)

21: inventory number in ROOP 1942 (p. 435-452). S(abc)-: STEWARD ed. 1948, vol. 3; Sa- (vol. 1); Sb- (vol. 2); Sc- (vol. 3). £: not mentioned in the inventory in ROOP 1942. S: SCHMIDT 1913, p. 1062 (number of notes). N: NORDENSKIÖLD 1924, p. 182 (table map 22). M: MÉTRAUX 1928, p. 295/tab. 5 (columns numbered 1-17 from the left). [K-]: after the plan by W. Krickeberg, in BUSCHAN ed. 1922, vol. 1, around p. 224.

▲ : canoe with one folded end, usually made from jatobá bark : canoe with apical lashings, usually made from jutahy bark : woodskin type canoe ▬ : simple bark-canoe, made from jatobá bark : canoe with pressed and tied ends : bark-canoe, without details P : paxiuba

If necessary, the location of the rio is specified, particularly if it is not indicated on the maps in the 1975 National Geographic Atlas (p. 76-79).

The two main tree species whose bark is used, the jatobá and the jutahy (p. 18), are characterised by their very different thicknesses, resulting in removal methods which are equally dissimilar (sheets or split cylinders) and in the construction of typologically distinct canoes. In some publications, reference is made to the jatahy (or “jatahy, Hymenaea sp.”), which corresponds to the jatobá. The potential confusion, with a single letter distinguishing it from the jutahy, has meant that we have not used the term “jatahy” in the text of our monograph except in this Appendix, by strictly reporting the denomination employed in the original publication.

Eastern coastal area

1) ▲ £1/S5/N38/M1 Coastal Tupi, Tupinambá [K-6]. STADEN 1557 (part 2, ch. 25), THEVET 1558 (p. 75), DE LÉRY 1578 (p. 228, 360), DE MONTOYA 1639 (p. 173-174): fleets of large canoes of ygat type. Canoes longer than 10 m, transporting thirty or more warriors, used along the coastal area during the first century after the European discovery of the Americas, then disappearing. Location: see plan by SCHMIDT 1913 (p. 1043/fig. 3). (fig. 16)

2) £2 Botocudo. MARTIUS 1867 (p. 324) mentions the occasional use of: “kleine Kähne […] aus Baumrinde zusammengebunden”, which would correspond to tied bark-canoes. Location (ibid., p. 313): between the rio Contas and rio Doce.

To the east of the Amazon Basin

3) £3 SCHMIDT 1913 (p. 1043/fig. 3) mentions, on the plan, the presence of canoes at the confluence of the rio Parnaíba, Gurguéira, Piauí etc., but gives no further details in the text. Location: rio Parnaíba.

4) 02/N305 Apinagé (Apinayé). SAMPAIO 1913 (p. 201): bark-canoe at the confluence of the Tocantin and the Araguaya. The lower part of these two river systems is characterised by an almost complete absence of means

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 73 of navigation, with occasional mention of a few rafts, and still more rarely of logboats (ROOP 1942, p. 407). Location (SAMPAIO 1913, map around p. 206): confluence of the Tocantin and the Araguaya.

Upper Xingú

5) ▲ 21/S15/M11 Auetó (Auetí). VON DEN STEINEN 1894 (pl. X): drawing of a canoe with two folded ends and four stretchers, created from the bark of a jatobá or locust tree (Hymenaea courbaril). Location (SCHMIDT 1905, plan after title page): rio Kulisehu or Culiseu (Auetó village). (cover and fig. 18)

6) ▲ 22/S19/N28 Bakairí (Bakirí). VON DEN STEINEN 1894 (p. 46, 234 and 235, pl. XI): jatobá, scaffolding to remove the bark, use of a fire to soften the bark and shape the stern; prow cut into a point; canoe constructed in a single day. Example 8.0 m long, width at the top of the centre 0.64 m, at the bottom 0.56 m; depth 0.24 m; thickness of the bark 11-21 mm (cf. also 1884, p. 241). Location (VON DEN STEINEN 1894, at the bottom of the “Flusses Kulisehu” map; see SCHMIDT 1905, plan after title page): rio Kulisehu. (fig. 33)

95 7) ▲ 25/S16 Mehináku (Mehinácu). VON DEN STEINEN 1894 (p. 234): example similar to 22/S19/N28, but longer and significantly wider. Photographs E. Giacomazzi (jatobá; rio Kuluène). Location (ibid., centre of the “Flusses Kulisehu” map): rio Kulisehu (or Culiseu) and Kuluène. (fig. 36)

8) ▲ 26 Nahuquá (Nafuquá) [K-92]. DE LIMA 1950 (pl. 12). Location (VON DEN STEINEN 1894, towards the bottom of the “Flusses Kulisehu” map): rio Kulisehu. (fig. 39)

9) ▲ 27/S26 Suyá [K-102]. VON DEN STEINEN 1886 (p. 218): seeking out a jatobá. Length 9.0 m; width at the top of the centre 0.65 m, at the bottom 0.54 m; depth 0.33m; width of stern 0.59 m; bark thickness 19 mm (ibid., p. 241). Location: basin upstream of the Xingú.

10) ▲ 28/S18 Trumái. VON DEN STEINEN 1886 (p. 196): here we see three canoes similar to those of the Bakairí, and thus made from jatobá bark. Length 7.70 m; width at the top of the centre 0.53 m, at the bottom 0.39 m; depth 0.27 m; width of stern 0.57 m; bark thickness 16 mm (p. 241). Location (see SCHMIDT 1905, plan after title page): rio Kulisehu.

11) ▲ 29/S17 Yaulapití (Iaualapití). VON DEN STEINEN 1894 (p. 234): similar example to 22/S19/N28, and thus made from jatobá, but the edge is slightly curved into the inside. STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 329, pl. 27). Location (VON DEN STEINEN 1894, towards the top of the “Flusses Kulisehu” map; see SCHMIDT 1905, plan after title page): rio Kulisehu.

12) ▲ 33 VON DEN STEINEN 1886 (p. 145-146, fig. p. 145): removal of an ogive shaped piece of jatobá bark, installation of the scaffolding, use of a fire to shape the ends in order to raise them. Length 6.70 m; width at the top of the centre 0.70 m, at the bottom 0.56 m; width of stern 0.67 m; depth 0.275 m; bark thickness 37 mm (ibid., p. 241). Location (see SCHMIDT 1905, plan after title page): rio Batovy.

13) ▲ 34 DYOTT 1929 (opposite p. 525, 532, 540): photographs of canoes with one folded end. Location (ibid., p. 518): rio Kulisehu (Kuluseu). (fig. 40)

14) ▲ 47/S20/N20 Paressí (Parecí) [K-60]. VON DEN STEINEN 1894 (p. 433): canoes made from jatobá bark. Location (ibid., p. 427): rio Santa Anna, in the Diamantino district.

15) ▲ £4 Mehináku (Mehinácu) [K-61]. DE LIMA 1950: detailed description of the construction of canoes using jatobá bark. Location: rio Kurisevo, tributary of the rio Kuluène. (fig. 37 and 38)

16) Sa-01 Suyá [K-102]. STEWARD ed. 1946 (vol. 1, p. 385): they have only bark-canoes. Location (ibid., p. 478): downstream of the confluence of the network of watercourses in the basin upstream of the Xingú.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 74 17) ▲ Sc-01 STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 329): canoes 8 m or more long, in jatobá; stern folded towards the inside, pointed prow; cracks closed with beeswax and clay; one day’s work and launched the following day. Location: basin upstream of the Xingú.

18) Sc-02 Kayabí (Cayabí). STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 309 and 894): ends with lashings, canoe made from the bark of a cajui (Anacardium microcarpum). Location (ibid., map 3): rio Paranatinga.

Transitional area of the basins of the Tapajos, Guaporé and Lower Xingú.

19) ▲ £5 Kayabí (Cayabí). GRÜNBERG 1967 (p. 32): canoe in jatobá, by default in the bark of the Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa). Installation of scaffolding, bark released using wedges and finally a fire is lit at the base of the trunk to complete the removal. Ends folded against the inside. Length 3.0-6.0 m; width 0.6-1.2 m; depth 0.3 m; thickness 2-3 cm. Location: rio dos Peixes.

20) 23/M07 Chipaya (Shipaya) [K-13]. SNETHLAGE 1921 (p. 413-414): the Chipaya are considered to be good canoe constructors, unlike the Curuaya. Location (ibid., p. 413): Iriri-Curuá area.

21) 24/N90 Curuaya (Kuruáya) [K-13]. SNETHLAGE 1921 (p. 414, 424): the bark-canoes are makeshift craft. Observed zone (ibid., p. 424; NORDENSKIÖLD 1924, map 22/90): Iriri-Curuá area.

22) 35 Curuaya (Kuruáya) [K-13]. SNETHLAGE 1910 (p. 618-619): scaffolding for the removal of a sheet 5 m x 2 m, secured by a rope and softened by fire. Edges raised, ends pressed together and consolidated by a liana, gunwale poles and stretchers; construction carried out in a single day. Location (ibid., p. 618): rio Jamanchim or Jamanxim.

23) 41/M12 Apiaká (Apiacá) [K-17]. FLORENCE 1875 (p. 276): bark-canoe; MÉTRAUX 1928 (p. 208, note 7c). Location: ROOP 1942 (p. 438).

24) 44/S24/N-3P/M14 Maué (Mawé) [K-14]. MARTIUS 1867 (p. 404-405): canoes in jatahy (Hymenaea sp.) bark. Observed zone: NORDENSKIÖLD 1924, map 22/3P.

96 25) 45/M13 Mundurucú (Mundurukú) [K-15]. COUDREAU 1897 (p. 75): bark-canoe. Location (ibid., p. 75): towards the waterfall of Santa Iria, on the rio Juruena.

26) Sc-03 Maué (Mawé) [K-14]. STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 248): jutahy bark. Location: ibid., p. 245, map 3.

27) Sc-04 Curuaya (Kuruáya) [K-13]. STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 230): jutahy bark. Location (ibid., p. 230): between the rios Curuá and Jamanxim (or Jamanchim).

28) Sc-05 Apiaká (Apiacá) [K-17]. STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 315): large canoe in jatobá bark, ends with lashings, stretchers and ties; could transport 38 people. Location: ibid., p. 312-313, map 3.

29) Sc-06 Parnauat. STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 296): bark canoe. Location (ibid., p. 296): zone downstream of the rio Sangue.

30) Sc-07 Tupí-Cawahíb (Kawahíb). STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 302 and 894): the canoes are created from a large sheet of bark. Location: ibid., p. 299.

31) Sc-08 Huanyam (Pakaanóva). STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 401): they formerly had bark- canoes. Location (ibid., p. 398): towards the rio San Miguel, which flows into the Guaporé.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 75 Madeira/ Purús area

32) 52+(51)/N42+(S13) Caripúna (Karipúna) and Arára. Their canoes were similar. KELLER 1875 (p. XVI, fig. p. 144): canoe made from bark with the thickness of a finger, able to transport four people, stretchers in the central area, ends with apical lashings. Location: towards the Caldeirão do Inferno rapids, upstream of Porto Velho (ibid., p. 143). See also KELLER-LEUZINGER 1874a (fig. p. 101), 1874b (fig. p. 409). (fig. 12)

33) 55/S22 Ipuriná (Hypuriná). STEERE 1903 (p. 369): jutahy bark, open ends closed with clay; canoes of less good quality than those of the Jamamadí. Location: ibid., p. 366, 374; see also 62/S23/N-XI.

34) 59/S12/N-1S Múra (Murá). SOUTHEY 1819 (vol. 3, p. 350): the bark-canoes were sunk in order to preserve them from theft or destruction. MARTIUS 1867 (p. 408) mentions the presence of canoes with lashings. Location (NORDENSKIÖLD 1924, map 22/1S): end of the rio Madeira.

35) 60+(64)/N-5H/M15 Parintintín and Itogapúk. DOMVILLE-FIFE 1925 (p. 174): ends closed by the use of a “gourd”, in other words a kind of calabash, and thus the presence of ends with lashings. NIMUENDAJU 1924 (p. 256), STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 288 and 894): canoes 5.0-7.0 m long, 0.5 m wide, made from the bark of a jutahy (“jutahy (Hymenaea sp.)”: jutahy does not correspond to the binomen stated). Stretchers also serving as seats, ties, gunwale poles, duckboard on the bottom of the craft. Location: NIMUENDAJU 1924 (fig. 1), STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, map 3 around p. 284).

36) 61/S21/N-8P Paumarí. MARTIUS 1867 (p. 421): small bark-canoe with lashings. Location: NORDENSKIÖLD 1924 (map 22/8P).

37) 62/S23/N-XI Jamamadí (Yamamadí). STEERE 1903 (p. 385-386): canoes made from jutahy bark. Ends closed by apical lashings. Length 4.9 m; width 0.9 m. Location (ibid., p. 380): rio Marmoreá Mirí, a tributary of the Purús. See also STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 671, map 5). (fig. 19, 41 and 47)

38) 83/N62 Chacobo (Chácobo). NORDENSKIÖLD 1922 (p. 104, 198-199): canoes similar to those of the Caripúna (52/N42), and thus with apical lashings. Location on the map at the end of the volume.

39) 89/N43 Huanyam (Pakaanóva). NORDENSKIÖLD 1924 (p. 182): bark-canoe. Location: no. 43 is located, on map 22, towards the rio Jiparaná, but STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 398) locates this tribe rather towards the end of the rio Guaporé.

40) £6 Jacaré. HERNDON and GIBBON 1854 (vol. 2, p. 287): canoe 6.1 m long and 1.2 m wide. Ends closed by lashings. Duckboard on the bottom, and stretchers. Location (ibid., p. 288): end of the rio Beni. (fig. 43)

41) £7/N69 Ipuriná (Ipurinã). EHRENREICH 1891 (p. 60): aată, canoe in jatobá, but the pointed form of the ends is incompatible with the thickness of the bark of this species (and thus dubious identification of the species). Probable length and width: 6.71 m and 1.02 m respectively. Two stretchers, no end lashings but two distal ties. An axial pole serves to support two stays. For the location (ibid., p. 58), we have used point 69 on map 22 by NORDENSKIÖLD 1924. (fig. 44 and 45)

42) Sc-09 Múra (Murá). STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 260 and 891): canoe 6.6 m long, 1.1 m wide and 0.44 m deep. Stored under the water. Ends maintained in place by a series of lashings. Location: ibid., map 3.

97 43) Sc-10 Caripúna (Karipúna), Pacaguará (Pacanuara). MATHEWS 1879 (p. 59-60, fig. p. 60): cascara, canoe with apical lashings and stretchers. Length 4.6-4.9 m; bark thickness 13-19 mm. Generally a hearth at one of the ends. Location (ibid., p. 58, 60): rio Très Irmãos; see also STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 451, map 4). (fig. 42)

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 76 Between the Purús and southern Guiana

44) 144/N190 Makú-Guariba. TASTEVIN 1923 (p. 100): a canoe in arapari (Macrolobium acaciifolium) bark. Location (CREVAUX 1883b, pl. Yapura-9): Lake Guariba, flowing into the rio Japurá.

45) £8 Kanamarí on the rio Juruá. TASTEVIN 1919 (p. 151): canoe in jutahy bark. Location (ibid., p. 147-148): Jutaí-Juruázinho-Juruá-Tarauacá.

46) ▬ £9 Katukína. LIMA and PY-DANIEL 2008 (p. 106): simple bark-canoes, called pudak or peedak, made from a sheet of jatobá bark. Location (ibid., p. 51): rio Biá. (fig. 30-32)

47) £10 Aparaí (Apalaí). Small rolled bark woodskin (see Appendix 2/5), preserved in the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (Belém). Lengh 2.20 m. Location (inventory record): rio Jari. (fig. 83-86)

48) 165/M17 Oyampí (Oyanpík). CREVAUX 1883a (p. 216 with fig.): scaffolding 5.0-6.0 m high to remove the bark. Four rods act as stretchers (benches are added on the drawing). Ends maintained in place by ropes surrounding the assemblage. Location (ibid., situation map opposite p. 140): rio Rouapir, a tributary of the rio Jari. (fig. 20 and 49)

Guiana Highlands (central and northern basins), central and upper basins of the Trombetas and Branco.

49) 161/S9 Arecuna (Arekuna). KOCH-GRÜNBERG 1923 (vol. 3, p. 77): bark-canoes similar to those of the Taulipáng (and thus similar to fig. 22). Location: basin of the rio Mazaruni.

50) 166/N304 Piánacotó (Pianokotó). COUDREAU 1901 (Cuminá, p. 76, 163, fig. p. 161): open-ended woodskin; the tree species employed is the jutahy. Location (ibid., map 11): igarapé do Poanna, flowing into the Cuminá. (fig. 59)

51) 167/S8c/N133 Yanoama (Kirishána). SCHOMBURGK 1841b (p. 417): construction of small bark-canoes, with reference to the use of fire. Location (ibid., p. 416-417): rios Kawanna and Inikiari, flowing into the Parima/Uraricoera (map end of vol. 10/2 of the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, 1840).

52) 168 Taulipáng (Arekuna). KOCH-GRÜNBERG 1923 (vol. 3, p. 76-77, fig. 5): woodskin with raised ends (similar to fig. 22), cut from the bark of a jatahy (Hymenaea sp.). The articulation of the ends is carried out by removing a triangle cut half way through the bark. It is occupied by one man. Location (ibid., p. 77): on the upper course of the Kukenáng, which flows into the rio Caroní.

53) 169/S6/N31 Trió (Tiriyó). DE GOEJE 1908 (p. 4, fig. 1): a deep slit has been made in the sides, at the start of each end. The slit sections are superimposed and maintained in place by two lashings. The strongly raised end enables this canoe to be attributed to the group of woodskins with raised ends. Gunwale poles 2 cm in diameter; three stretchers. Use of a sheet of jatobá bark around 1 cm thick. Location (ibid., p. 4): on the Corantÿn, where only bark- canoes seem to be manufactured. (fig. 57)

54) 170/N-2M Wapisiána (Wapishána). FARABEE 1918 (p. 74-76, fig. 8): woodskin with raised ends called attamanmad. Ends cut into points. At the base of each end, a triangle of the outer part of the bark is removed in order to raise the end. Lashing of the gunwale poles. A small block of wood serves as a seat. The bark of the jutahy and jatobá is used. Location: KOCH-GRÜNBERG 1923 (vol. 5, map at the end of the volume). (fig. 22)

55) 175/S8b Macusí (Makushí). ROTH 1924 (p. 616, pl. 179/AB): rolled bark woodskin with triangular cutouts at the base of the pointed ends. Location: rio Rupununi. (fig. 74)

56) 176/S11 Akawai (Akawáio). ROTH 1924 (p. 615-616, fig. 335, pl. 177/A): Akawai and Arecuna on the rio Berbice. Raised ends enabled by the removal of triangles of bark from the jutahy (known as the murianara), cut half way through the bark. Open-ended woodskin, gunwale poles, stretchers and suspended benches. The same

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 77 observations by IM THURN 1883 (p. 296) and, for the Akawai and Arawak, by SCHOMBURGK 1837 (p. 308). Location (ibid., map at the end of the article): rio Mazaruni and the upper course of the rio Berbice. (fig. 21, 23 and 58)

57) £11 Kashuyéna. POLYKRATES 1957 (p. 136, fig. 3): open-ended woodskin, still in use in 1957, made from the bark of a jatobá. Location (ibid., fig. 1): rio Trombetas (between the villages of Tiago and Sauiá). (fig. 60)

98 58) £12 Kashuyéna. HANSEN and MADSEN 1981 (p. 8, canoe on the right): rolled bark woodskin, collected in 1957 and preserved in the Nationalmuseet of Denmark, in Copenhagen (H.4689). Length 3.70 m. For a second example, preserved in the British Museum (London, Am1958,01.67), also collected in 1957 (inventory record): see Appendix 2/8. Location (after POLYKRATES 1957, fig. 1): rio Trombetas, rio Cashorro. (fig. 73, 76- 82)

59) £13 Waiwái. YDE 1965 (p. 241): kanáwayíshchiputǘre, yíshchiputǘre. One example observed in 1958. Location (ibid., map opposite p. 319): rio Hishkaruyéna.

60) £14 Waiwái and Taruma. ROTH 1929 (p. 99-100, fig. 90): yikchibitiri, a woodskin with raised ends, cut from the bark of a simiri (Hymenaea oblongifolia). Location (ibid., p. X): close to the rios Kassikaityu and Kamoa (Camoa), at the sources of the rio Essequibo. (fig. 70)

61) £15/S10 Maopityan (Mapidian). SCHOMBURGK 1848 (vol. 2, p. 472): jutahy bark. Two canoes can be made from one trunk. Length 10.67 m; width 1.34 m. Location (ibid., p. 472, coordinates): towards the rio Caphiwuin.

62) £16 Trió (Tiriyó). Photographic sequence of the construction of a woodskin with raised ends. Location: rio Coeroeni (south of the rio Lucie), flowing into the rio Corantÿn. (fig. 72)

63) £17 Akawai (Akawáio). BRINDLEY 1924 (p. 125, fig. 4): a rolled bark woodskin, 4.7 m long and 1.3 m wide. Location (ibid., p. 124-125): end of the rio Mazaruni. (fig. 75)

64) £18 Akawai (Akawáio). Example in the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, and LAVARRE 1919 (p. 123-125, fig. opposite p. 124): open-ended woodskin. In the latter case, the bark was removed from a felled tree. Location: rio Mazaruni. (fig. 50 and 62-63)

65) £19 Arawak. Model 200836.000 in the NMAI (National Museum of the American Indian, Washington). Museum inventory record: collected from the Arawak. Location: upper course of the rio Cuyuni, a tributary of the rio Essequibo. (fig. 51)

66) £20/S8e Warrau. ROTH 1924 (p. 616, fig. 336): open-ended woodskin, with gunwale poles and benches. Bark of the baramalli (Catostemma commune). Location: Barama River. (fig. 21)

67) £21/S8d/N-7S Arawak. WORCESTER 1956 (p. 250, fig. 1): open-ended woodskin, length 5.5-6.1 m. Bark of a “mora tree” (jutahy) removed from the felled tree. Location: rio Pomeroon. (fig. 52)

68) £22 HANSEN and MADSEN 1981 (p. 8, canoe on the left): open-ended woodskin , collected in around 1862 (Nationalmuseet of Denmark, Copenhagen; Hb.203). Location: rio Waini (or Wainie). (fig. 67-68)

Orinoco Basin

69) £23 Yanoama (Guaharibo). CODAZZI 1841 (p. 101-102, 273, 333), ALVARADO 1956 (p. 61- 62): the bark-canoes are made from tacamahaca and curucai bark, and are called conchas. Bark thickness 8 mm. Location: in the Orinoco Basin; CODAZZI 1841 (p. 101) locates them in the States of Sucre and Monagas, and STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 862) on the rio Matacuni.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 78 70) £24 Pemón (Parukoto). COPPENS 1974, RESNIK 2009 (p. 197 and 212, fig. 1, 2, 9): open-ended woodskin, collected in around 1970 (Fundación La Salle museum, Caracas). Stretchers, gunwale poles and, exceptionally, bent ribs. Length 3.85 m. Location: rio Paragua. (fig. 66)

71) £25 Yanoama (Yanomami). LIZOT 1974 (p. 26-31), FUENTES 1980 (p. 56-58): woodskin with raised ends still in use, called thõmorõ. Bark of the Tabebuia guayacan. Location (LIZOT 1974, p. 26, map opposite p. 16): rio Manaviche. (fig. 71)

72) £26/S7/N-X3 Piaróa. CHAFFANJON 1889 (p. 199): the canoes are made from bark and used only once. Location: downstream of the rio Vichada.

From Maracaibo to Panama

73) £27 ALVARADO 1956 (p. 62), RESNIK 2009 (p. 205): in the 16th century, Juan de Castellanos mentions the presence of bark-canoes on the western bank of Lake Maracaibo.

74) £28 Guaymí. COCKBURN 1735 (p. 229-230): bark-canoe, pointed at both ends, 9.1 m long and 0.9 m wide. Location (ibid., map opposite title page): Chiriqui Delta.

99 Eastern edge of the Andes

75) P 57 Manetenéry (Manitenéri). ROOP 1942 (p. 413). CHANDLESS 1869 (p. 305): a “paxiuba- canoe” can transport no more than 6-8 people. In the arauá (arawá) language, the “bark” canoe is called awa-safiný (ibid., p. 311). Location (ibid., p. 305, folding map): on the rio Juruá, between the Gregorio and Mu tributaries.

76) P 58 Mayorúna. TESSMANN 1930 (p. 371): canoe made from Iriartea ventricosa and called sḙná. See also STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 553). Location (TESSMANN 1930, situation map of the tribes): towards the rio Javari.

77) P 68 ROOP 1942 (p. 441/68): paxiuba on the rio Acquiry or Acre.

78) P 71 Caripúna (Karipúna). DOMVILLE-FIFE 1925 (fig. opposite p. 64): paxiuba type canoe. SAVAGE-LANDOR 1913 (vol. 2, opposite p. 41): canoe made from a “burity palm”. IBARRA GRASSO 1949 (fig. p. 88). Location (DOMVILLE-FIFE 1925, p. 159): rio Mutum-Paraná. (fig. 88-89)

79) P 149 Yumbo. UP DE GRAFF 1923 (p. 78): makeshift canoe created very rapidly and used only briefly. The centre is very soft. The ends are closed with a mass of clay. Very heavy canoes, with a reduced freeboard. Location (ibid., p. 78; ROOP 1942, p. 448/149): rio Napo.

80) P 152 WHIFFEN 1915 (p. 29 and 101): Iriartea ventricosa palm tree. The bulge of the trunk is sufficiently large for a canoe to be hollowed out of it in 1-2 hours, and soft enough to be worked with the fingers. However, the “bark” – in other words the outer layer – is very hard. The ends are “rigidified” – in other words, closed with clay. Makeshift craft which is abandoned at the water’s edge when no longer required. Location (ibid., p. 101, map opposite p. 2): rio Japurá/Caquetá and Issa/igara Paraná.

81) P £29 Auhishiri (Awishiri). SIMSON 1886 (p. 199): canoes excavated from “bombona” palm trees, the ends of which are closed with clay. They can transport two people. See also STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 642). Location (SIMSON 1886, p. 198): towards Santa Maria on the rio Napo.

82) P £30 Kanamarí. LIMA and PY-DANIEL 2008 (p. 106): the canoes used by the Kanamarí are made from paxiubão (while the Katukína use canoes made from a single piece of bark; £9). Location (ibid., p. 106): rio Tarauacá and Itucumã.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 79 83) P Sc-11 Tucuna (Tukano). STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 715): formerly they manufactured small primitive canoes cut from paxiuba palm tree. Location (ibid., p. 713, map 5 opposite p. 508): between and before the confluence of the Solimões and the rio Içá.

84) P Sc-12 Witotoan. STEWARD ed. 1948 (vol. 3, p. 754): canoes used occasionally, cut from palm trees with a bulge on the stipe. Location (STEWARD ed. 1948, vol. 3, p. 749, map 5 opposite p. 508): upper course of the rio Putumayo and rio Caquetá.

Fig. 167 THE ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS dated 8 August 1868, p. 133 (see Appendix 2/16).

100 Appendix 2 Inventory of the canoes observed

Canoes with one folded end Cut from the bark of the jatobá.

1) Rio de Janeiro, Museu Nacional. Canoe from the Xingú Basin. Canoe 4a in DE LIMA 1950 (p. 376): length 5.90 m; width 0.60 m; depth 0.27 m; thickness 20 mm. We were unable to obtain authorisation to analyse this canoe, inventoried in 1948. Inventory number: 35464.

2) Comment: São Paulo, Museu Paulista. DE LIMA 1950 (p. 376): canôa dos Kamayurá. Length 7.21 m; average width 0.75 m; depth 0.29 m; thickness 23 mm. It was transferred to the Museu Republicano in Itu (Solange Ferraz de Lima and Maria Aparecida de Menezes Borrego, pers. comm.); however, the preserved example that we were able to observe corresponds to the open end of a logboat characterised by a large oval section. It has a bench and a transverse ridge in low relief on the bottom of the craft, both cut out of the solid wood.

Canoes with apical lashings Cut from jutahy bark.

3) Washington, National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution). Model of a canoe donated by J. Steere, collected in 1901-1902 on the rio Marmoreá Miri, a tributary of the Purús (fig. 24/62). Length 43.2 cm; width 10.2 cm. Inventory number: E216006-0. (fig. 19 and 41)

4) Washington, National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution). Model inventoried in 1895 (fig. 24/£7), having served as the basis for the drawing by EHRENREICH 1891, fig. 37. Length 86.4 cm; width 12.7 cm. According to the inventory record, the reported data of 6.71 m and 1.02 m may correspond to the dimensions of the original canoe. Inventory number: E160350. (fig. 44-45)

Woodskins

5) Belém, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (Coleção Etnográfica Reserva Técnica Curt Nimuendaju). Small rolled bark woodskin 2.20 m long, collected on the rio Jari (fig. 24/£10). Major central split. Thickness of the bark 4.5 mm (and therefore not a jatobá, as indicated in the inventory record). Inventory number: 205. (fig. 83-86)

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 80 6) Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet (HANSEN and MADSEN 1981, p. 8, canoe on the left). Open-ended woodskin, acquired in 1862 on the Wainie or Waini River (fig. 24/£22). Length 3.66 m (3.70 m on the inventory record); width 60.5 cm; depth 17.5 cm; thickness 7-9 mm. At the top of each side, a gunwale pole supports a longitudinal pole on which rest three pairs of split sticks constituting the benches; two ties; four bent ribs, now separated from the hull. Inventory number: Hb.203. (fig. 67-69)

7) Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet (HANSEN and MADSEN 1981, p. 8, canoe on the right). Rolled bark woodskin (1957a) from the Kashuyéna (fig. 24/£12), collected in 1957. Length 3.71 m (3.80 m on the inventory record); width 0.58 m; depth 0.10 m. Bark significantly rolled in on itself, 8-10 mm thick. One stretcher and two benches consisting of a double stem. Inventory number: H.4689. (fig. 73, 76-78)

8) London, British Museum. Rolled bark woodskin (1957b) of the Kashuyéna, collected by G. Polykrates and Ch. Søderberg in 1957 (museum inventory record), at the same time as that in Copenhagen. Preserved length 3.58 m; width 0.50-0.57 m; thickness 8-10 mm. There are no tensioners at the base of one of the ends. Provenance (POLYKRATES 1957, fig. 1; museum register): rio Cashorro (fig. 24/£12). Inventory number: Am1958,01.67. (see fig. 79-82)

9) Oxford, Pitt Rivers Museum (University of Oxford). Open-ended woodskin from Guyana, collected in 1951- 1952 from the Akawáio present on the Mazaruni River (fig. 24/£18). Length 3.73 m; maximum width 0.46 m; tree species used Copaifera pubiflora (museum inventory record). Inventory number: 1954.2.1 (fig. 62-63)

10) Oxford, Pitt Rivers Museum (University of Oxford). Model 66.4 cm long of an open-ended woodskin of the Arawak, collected by E. im Thurn. It was donated to the museum in 1901 (museum accession sheet). No gunwale poles. Two benches inserted beneath the tensioners reinforced by a lashing of basic overlapping oblong cross stitch (in other words of three units). Inventory number: 1901.19.1.2 (fig. 55)

101 11) Rio de Janeiro, Museu Nacional. Large rolled bark woodskin. Flat frames bolted to the floor (of museographical origin?), gunwale poles, no stretchers. The bark does not bear any superficial notches. We were not given authorisation to analyse this canoe. Inventory number: - .

12) Washington, National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution). Open-ended woodskin collected in around 1876. Length 6.39 m; width 0.70-0.76 m; depth 0.30 m; thickness 10-11 mm (the measurements stated by MITMAN 1923, p. 224, are too short). Three slits out of four cannot be observed as they are located behind the synthetic support blocks. The slits are complete in the upper part of the cylinder. Location of collection: not stated. Inventory number: E160359-0. (fig. 64-65)

13) Washington, National Museum of the American Indian (Smithsonian Institution). Model of an open-ended woodskin, inventoried in 1938. It was collected on the upper course of the River Cuyuni (fig. 24/£19), from the Arawak (museum inventory record). Two stretchers are associated with a system of lashings corresponding to ties. A gunwale pole is sewn against the top edge of the bark sheet, on each side, supporting a system to hold two benches; eight bent ribs. Inventory number: 200836.000. (fig. 51)

14) Comment: Georgetown, Walter Roth Museum of Anthropology. Open-ended woodskin, exhibited in 2013. Description based on two photographs (Google: Walter Roth Museum of Anthropology tripadvisor.fr all photos): canoe with four tensioners, no gunwale poles. The pair of tensioners located on one of the ends has been consolidated by means of a lashing of basic overlapping oblong cross stitch – in other words with a length of three units. Inventory number: -. (fig. 61)

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 81 Canoes of Tierra del Fuego

15) Bern, Museum of Bern (BHM). Pel-larkál (or yeni) canoe used by the Alacaluf (1908). Length 4.50 m; width 1.01 m; depth 0.57 m. Thickness of the bark in the hull after reduction: 18 mm. Inventory number: 1908.444.0057 (fig. 124-143)

16) London, British Museum. Canoe used by the Yahgan (1868). Data measured: length 2.37 m, with the two ends broken; width 0.48 m, which must be extended to 0.56 m given the largest of the preserved stretchers; measured depth 0.32 m, which must be reduced to ~0.30 m on the basis of the largest of the preserved stretchers. Inventory number: Am.6246. (fig. 120-122, 167)

17) Punta Arenas, Museo Salesiano Maggiorino Borgatello. Canoe used by the Alacaluf, known as yeni (according to its label). It was used in the region of Carlos III Island and collected in 1903 (EDWARDS 1965, p. 24). The example presented in the permanent exhibition has the following dimensions: length 2.78 m; width 0.75 m; depth 0.65 m (VAIRO 2002, p. 47, fig. p. 50). Inventory number: (B)R.79.3.15. (fig. 144-148, 163)

18) Location not specified: one example, collected from the Alacaluf in around 1904, and with was preserved in Punta Arenas (Salesian Museum). It has the following dimensions: length 4 m; width 0.67 m; depth 0.50 m (BIRD 1946, p. 67). It is composed of three bark sheets sewn together using whalebone and has eight stretchers arranged at intervals of 25-37 cm.

19) Rome, Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico Luigi Pigorini. Anan canoe used by the Yahgan (1896). Length 5.25 m; width 0.95 m; depth 0.62 m. Inventory number: IN-56168. (fig. 151-162)

20) Santiago, Chile, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural. Anan canoe, made in 1920 by an elderly Yahgan. It was collected by M. Gusinde. It originally measured 4.10 m long and 1.03 m wide (GUSINDE 1937, p. 453). After 1980- 1987, N. ACEVEDO and M. A. AZOCAR (1992, p. 5) indicate a length of 3.77 m, a width of 0.93 m and a depth of 0.51 m. C. VAIRO (2002, fig. p. 50) gives the values of 3.78 m, 0.96 m and 0.42 m respectively. Inventory number: N-9692. (fig. 113-118)

21) Comment: Paris. E. RIVIERE (1884, p. 389) mentions the presence of two canoes in the 1884 exhibition at the Palais de l’Industrie, dedicated to the “Mission scientifique française au Cap Horne, 1882-1883”. However, according to Paz Núñez-Regueiro, conservator and curator of the Americas collections at the Musée du quai Branly- Jacques Chirac: “These two canoes were not registered in the inventory of the Musée d’Ethnographie du Trocadéro on arrival in Paris, and all trace of them was lost at a relatively early stage”. We are grateful for this information.

22) Comment: Saint Petersburg, Kunstkamera (Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography): contrary to what is stated by PIANA and ORQUERA 1998 (p. 428) and VAIRO 2002 (p. 46), this canoe does not come from Tierra del Fuego, but from East Africa and almost certainly from Mozambique (ARNOLD, in prep.).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 82 102-108 Bibliography

Access to early works has been considerably facilitated by digitisation and free access as they are no longer protected by copyright. The hosting sites that we have used have been added at the end of the work referenced. We have chosen to use the site https://archive.org, as it generally provides an OCRd version, which facilitates keyword research.

ACEVEDO Nieves and AZOCAR Miguel Angel - 1992 Canoa de corteza, vegetal de la Colección Gusinde: una restauración necesaria. Museos (Coordinacion Nacional de Museos, Chile), 1992-12, pp. 3-6.

ALVARADO Lisandro - 1956 Datos etnográficos de Venezuela. Caracas (Obras completas de Lisandro Alvarado, vol. 4); 509 p.

Anuario - 1879 Viaje del Capitán Juan Ladrillero al descubrimiento del Estrecho de Magallanes (1557-1558). Anuario hidrográfico de la Marina de Chile, V (1879), pp. 482-520. http://www.memoriachilena.cl/602/w3-article-70492.html - 1880 Relación del viaje al Estrecho de Magallanes, escrita por Juan Ladrillero. In: Espedicion de Juan Ladrillero (1557- 1559). Anuario hidrográfico de la Marina de Chile, VI (1880), pp. 456-519. http://www.memoriachilena.cl/602/w3-article-70491.html

ARNOLD Béat - 2003 Les haches en pierre, en bronze et en fer: abattage expérimental de gros chênes destinés, en particulier, à la construction des pirogues. Archéologie suisse, 26/4, pp. 43-45. - 2004 Dover to Bevaix, from the Middle Bronze Age to Gallo-Roman times, from lashing to nailing: a page of naval archaeology illustrated by the evolution of techniques, tools and the discovery of new materials. In: CLARK P. (ed.), The Dover Bronze Age boat in context: society and water transport in prehistoric Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Books, pp. 82-89. - 2014 Les pirogues kapepe, l’espace nautique du bassin de la rivière Malagarasi (Tanzanie) et quelques observations sur les pirogues en écorce d’Afrique orientale. Le Locle, Editions G d’Encre (Le tour du monde en 80 pirogues, fascicule 1); 68 p. (English translation of the text: www.editions-gdencre.ch/collections/79-les-pirogues-kapepe-9782940501274.html). - 2015 Canoës en écorce d’Australie et d’Asie du Sud-Est. Le Locle, Editions G d’Encre (Le tour du monde en 80 pirogues, fascicule 2); 89 p. (English translation of the text: www.editions-gdencre.ch/beat-arnold/103-canoe-ecorce-australie- 978240501465.html). - in prep. Canoës en écorce du Mozambique: méthodes de construction, diversités structurelles et typologie. Le Locle, Editions G d’Encre (Le tour du monde en 80 pirogues, fascicule 4).

ARNOLD Jeanne E. - 2007 Credit where credit is due: the history of the Chumash oceangoing plank canoe. American Antiquity, 72/2, pp. 196-209. the history of the chumash oceangoing plank canoe

Atlas scolaire suisse - 1948 Atlas scolaire suisse pour l’enseignement secondaire (8th edition, Edition du jubilé 1898-1948). Lausanne, Payot; 8 p., 144 pl.

BENZONI Girolamo - 1572 La historia del Mondo nuovo. Venetia, Tini; 180 double pages. http://books.google.ch/books?id=Etlmh2F9VucC&hl=fr&source=gbs_similarbooks [Aperçu du livre »]

BIRD Julius B. - 1946 The Alacaluf. In: STEWARD J. (ed.), Handbook of South American Indian. Washington, Smithsonian Institution (Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143, I), pp. 55-79. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/37959#/summary

BOVE Giacomo - 1883 Patagonia, Terra del Fuoco, mari australi. Rapporto al Comitato centrale per le esplorazioni antartiche. Part 1. Genova, Tipografia del Istituto Sordo-Muti; 150 p. http://www.sardoa.eu/repository/3437/libro/3437

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 83 BRETT William Henry - 1868 The Indian Tribes of Guiana: their condition and habits; with researches into their past history, superstitions, legends, antiquities, languages, etc. London, Bell and Daldy; 572 p. https://archive.org/details/indiantribesofgu00bret

BRIDGES Thomas - 1869 Bark canoe from Tierra del Fuego; Fireland and its people. The South American Missionary Magazine (London), vol. 3, pp. 37-38 and 113-119. - 1874 Tierra del Fuego, Ushuwia. The South American Missionary Magazine (London), vol. 8, pp.154-160. https://www.britishonlinearchives.co.uk/group.php?cat=&sid=&cid=9781851172009&date_option=equal&pid=72009-mag

BRINDLEY Maud D. - 1924 The canoes of British Guiana. The Mariner’s Mirror, 10/2, pp. 124-132.

BRUIJNING C. F. A. and LICHTVELD Liou - 1957 Surinam: neues Leben auf alter Erde. Frankfurt am Main, Fischer; 165 p.

BRY Theodor de (ed.) - 1593 Dritte Buch Americae, darinn Brasilia: durch Johann Staden von Homberg auss Hessen, auss eigener Erfahrung in Teutsch beschrieben. Item Historia der Schiffart Ioannis Lerij in Brasilien,… Frankfurt am Main, Theodori de Bry; 285 p. https://archive.org/details/drittebuchameric00stad - 1601 Neundter und letzter Theil Americae. Darin gehandelt wird, von Gelegenheit der Elementen, Natur, Art und Eigenschafft der Newen Welt... Frankfurt am Main, Wolfgang Richter; 399 p., 25 pl. http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb11056202_00001.html https://archive.org/details/americaenonapost00theo

BUSCHAN Georg (ed.) - 1922-1923 Illustrierte Völkerkunde in zwei Bändern. Stuttgart, Strecker und Schröder, 3rd edition (vol. 1, 1922, 686 p., 19 pl.; vol. 2, 1923, 1078 p., 48 pl.). https://archive.org/details/illustriertev01busc https://archive.org/details/p1illustriertevl02busc

CALVI G. Battista - 1925 La civiltà nelle regioni Magellaniche e i Missionari Salesiani. Torino, Società Editrice Internazionale; 91 p.

CÂMARA Antônio Alves - 1888 Ensaio sobre as construcções navaes indigenas do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro, Leuzinger e Filhos; 209 p. https://archive.org/details/ensaiosobreasco00camagoog

CHAFFANJON Jean - 1889 L’Orénoque et le Caura: relation de voyages exécutés en 1886 et 1887. Paris, Hachette; 351 p. https://archive.org/details/lornoqueetlecau01chafgoog

CHANDLESS William - 1869 Notes of a journey up the River Juruá. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, 39, pp. 296-311. https://archive.org/details/jstor-1798554

COCKBURN John - 1735 A journey over land from the Gulf of Honduras to the great South-Sea. London, Rivington; 349 p. https://archive.org/details/journeyoverlandf00cock

CODAZZI Agustin - 1841 Resúmen de la geografía de Venezuela. Paris, Fournier; 648 p. https://archive.org/details/resmendelageogr01codagoog

COLINI Giuseppe Angelo - 1884 Cronaca del Museo preistorico ed etnografico di Roma, Anno 1-1884. Roma Stabilimento Giuseppe Civelli; 49 p. https://archive.org/details/cronacadelmuseo00coligoog

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 84 COOPER John M. - 1917 Analytical and critical bibliography of the tribes of Tierra del Fuego and adjacent territory. Washington, Smithsonian Institution (Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 63); 233 p. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/88179#page/7/mode/1up

COPPENS Walter - 1974 La fabricación de una curiara de corteza los indios Pemón. Revista El Farol (La calidad de la vida; Creole Petroleum Corporation, Caracas), 246 (1974/2), pp. 6-9.

COUDREAU Henri - 1897 Voyage au Tapajoz, 28 juillet 1895 – 7 janvier 1896. Paris, Lahure; 213 p. https://archive.org/details/voyageautapajoz01coudgoog

COUDREAU Octavie - 1901 Voyage au Cuminá, 20 avril 1900 – 7 septembre 1900. Paris, Lahure; 250 p. https://archive.org/details/voyageaucuminav00coudgoog

CREVAUX Jules - 1883a Voyages dans l’Amérique du Sud. Paris, Hachette; 635 p. https://archive.org/details/voyagesdanslam00crevuoft - 1883b Fleuves de l’Amérique du Sud 1877-1879. Paris, Société de Géographie; 5 p., 54 pl. http://bvpb.mcu.es/en/consulta/registro.cmd?id=434526

DAVIDSON Daniel S. - 1935 The chronology of Australian watercraft. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 44, no. 173 (pp. 1-16), no. 174 (pp. 69-84), no. 175 (pp. 137-152), no. 176 (pp. 193-207). http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/browse.php

DESPARD G. Pakenham - 1863 Tierra del Fuego. Sunday at home (London), 10, pp. 676-680, 696-698, 716-718, 731-734, 744-748. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101076871449;view=thumb;seq=9

DOMVILLE-FIFE Charles W. - 1925 Among wild tribes of the Amazons; an account of exploration and adventure on the mighty Amazon and its confluents, with descriptions of the savage head-hunting and anthropophagous tribes inhabiting their banks. Philadelphia, Lippincott; 282 p.

DYOTT George M. - 1929 The search for Colonel Fawcett. The Geographical Journal, 74/6 (December 1929), pp. 513-542, 8 pl. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1785161?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

EDWARDS Clinton R. - 1965 Aboriginal watercraft of the Pacific coast of South America. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press (Ibero-Americana, 47); 138 p., 21 pl.

EHRENREICH Paul - 1891 Beiträge zur Völkerkunde Brasiliens. Veröffentlichungen aus dem königlichen Museum für Völkerkunde (Berlin), 2/1-2, pp. 1-80. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012324079

FARABEE William Curtis - 1918 The Central Arawaks. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Anthropological Publications (vol. 9; Canoes, pp. 72-77); 288 p. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106000741931;view=1up;seq=9

FLORENCE Hercules - 1875-1876 Esboço da viagem feita pelo Sr. de Langsdorff no interior do Brasil, desde Setembro de 1825 até Março de 1839. Transl. Alfredo D’Escargnolle Taunay. Revista Trimensal do Instituto Historico Geographico e Ethnographico do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro), 38/1 (1875), pp. 355-441; 38/2 (1875), pp. 231-301; 39/2 (1876), pp. 157-182. [PDF]Esboço da viagem feita pelo Sr. de Langsdorff no interior do ... biblio.wdfiles.com/.../florence-1875-esboco/florence_...

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 85 FORSTER George - 1777 A voyage round the world, in his Britannic Majesty’s sloop, Resolution, commanded by Capt. James Cook, during the Years 1772, 3, 4, and 5. London, White (2 vol.); 602 and 607 p. http://digital.lb-oldenburg.de/brandes/fg/content/titleinfo/52328 http://digital.lb-oldenburg.de/brandes/fg/content/titleinfo/53296

FRÉZIER Amédée-François - 1716 Relation du voyage de la mer du Sud aux côtes du Chily et du Perou, fait pendant les années 1712, 1713 & 1714... Paris, Nyon, Ganeau et Quillau; 298 p., 37 pl. http://books.google.ch/books?id=2m3iBczLKI0C&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false

FRIEDERICI Georg - 1907 Die Schiffahrt der Indianer. Stuttgart, Strecker und Schröder; 130 p. https://archive.org/stream/dieschiffahrtder00frieuoft#page/n3/mode/2up

FUENTES Emilio - 1980 Los Yanomami y las plantas silvestris. Revista Antropológica (Fundación La Salle De Ciencias Naturales, Caracas), 54, pp. 3-138. http://www.fundacionlasalle.org.ve/Fondo%20Editorial/REVISTA%20ANTROPOL%C3%93GICA%20(N%C2%B0114- %20N%C2%B0%2001)/Antropol%C3%B3gica%2054%201980

GOEJE Claudius Henricus de -1908 Beiträge zur Völkerkunde von Surinam. Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie (Leiden), 19; 32 p., 20 pl. https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_F7wTAAAAYAAJ#page/n1/mode/2up

GRAFF Fritz W. Up de - 1923 Head hunters of the Amazon: seven years of exploration and adventure. New York, Garden City Publishing; 337 p. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001465450

GRÜNBERG Friedl and Georg - 1967 Die materielle Kultur der Kayabí-Indianer. Bearbeitung einer ethnographischen Sammlung. Archiv für Völkerkunde (Wien), 21, pp. 27-94.

GUSINDE Martin - 1931 Die Feuerland-Indianer, Ergebnisse meiner vier Forschungsreisen in den Jahren 1918 bis 1924, unternommen im Auftrage des Ministerio de Instruccion Publica de Chile. Band I, Die Selk’nam; vom Leben und Denken eines Jägervolkes auf der Grossen Feuerlandinsel. Mödling bei Wien, Verlag der internationalen Zeitschrift “Anthropos”; 1176 p. - 1937 Die Feuerland-Indianer, Ergebnisse meiner vier Forschungsreisen in den Jahren 1918 bis 1924, unternommen im Auftrage des Ministerio de Instruccion Publica de Chile. Band II, Die Yamana; vom Leben und Denken der Wassernomaden am Kap Hoorn. Mödling bei Wien, Verlag der internationalen Zeitschrift “Anthropos”; 1498 p. - 1974 Die Feuerland-Indianer, Ergebnisse meiner vier Forschungsreisen in den Jahren 1918 bis 1924, unternommen im Auftrage des Ministerio de Instruccion Publica de Chile. Band III/1, Die Halakwulup; vom Leben und Denken der Wassernomaden in West-Patagonien. Mödling bei Wien, Verlag St. Gabriel; 683 p.

HANSEN Keld and MADSEN Jan Skamby - 1981 Barkbåde. In: Barkbåde. Roskilde, Vikingeskibshallen (exhibition catalogue), pp. 3-16.

HAWKESWORTH John - 1773 An account of the voyages undertaken by the order of his Present Majesty for making discoveries in the Southern Hemisphere […]. London, Strahan and Cadell (3 vol.; first voyage of Captain J. Cook). http://archive.org/details/accountofvoyages01hawk

HEIZER Robert F. - 1940 The frameless plank canoe of the California coast. Primitive Man, 13/3-4, pp. 80-89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3316181?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents - 1966 Plank canoes of South and North America. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, 35, pp. 22-39. http://dpg.lib.berkeley.edu/webdb/anthpubs/search?all=&volumeid=158&item=5

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 86 HERNDON Lewis and GIBBON Lardner - 1854 Exploration of the valley of the Amazon, made under the direction of the Navy Department. Washington, Armstrong and Nicholson (2 vol.); 414 p., 339 p. https://archive.org/details/valleyoftheamazo01hern https://archive.org/details/valleyoftheamazo02hern

HOLTZMAN Robert - 2011 Indigenous Boats. Small craft outside the western tradition. The Yamana bark canoe. In: http://indigenousboats.blogspot.ch/2011/01/yamana-bark-canoe.html

HORNELL James - 1920 The origins and ethnological significance of Indian boat designs. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 7/3, pp. 139-256. https://archive.org/details/memoirsofasiat7191823asia - 1924 The boats of the Ganges. The fishing methods of the Ganges. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 8/3, pp. 171-238. - 1941 The Pelota or Hide-balsa of South America. MAN (A Monthly Record of Anthropological Science, The Royal Anthropological Institute, London), 41 (1941), 16 (4 p.). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2791412 - 1946 Water transport. Origins and early evolution. Cambridge, University Press; 307 p., 45 pl.

HUDSON Travis, TIMBROOK Janice and REMPE Melissa (ed.) - 1978 Tomol: Chumash watercraft as described in the ethnographic notes of John P. Harrington. Bellena Press (Anthropological Papers, 9); 190 p.

HYADES Paul and DENIKER Joseph - 1891 Mission scientifique du cap Horn, 1882-1883. Tome 7: Anthropologie, Ethnographie. Paris, Gauthier-Villars; 422 p., 34 pl.

IBARRA GRASSO Dick E. and Julio A. - 1949 Historia de la navegación primitiva. Buenos Aires, Livelari; 463 p.

JENNINGS John - 2004 Bark canoes: the art and obsession of Tappan Adney. Richmond Hill, Firefly Books; 152 p.

JONES David L. - 2000 Palmiers du monde. Cologne, Könemann; 410 p.

JONES Terry L. and KLAR Kathryn A. - 2005 Diffusionism reconsidered: linguistic and archaeological evidence for prehistoric Polynesian contact with Southern California. American Antiquity, 70/3, pp. 457-484. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40035309?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

KELLER Franz - 1875 The Amazon and Madeira Rivers. Sketches and descriptions from the note-book of an explorer. Philadelphia, Lippincott (new edition); 210 p. http://www.wdl.org/en/item/211/ [https://archive.org/details/amazonandmadeir00kellgoog ]

KELLER-LEUZINGER Franz - 1874a Vom Amazonas und Madeira. Skizzen und Beschreibungen aus dem Tagebuche einer Explorationsreise. Stuttgart, Kröner; 150 p. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_0f41AQAAMAAJ - 1874b Voyage d’exploration sur l’Amazone et le Madeira. Le Tour du Monde, Nouveau Journal des Voyages (Paris, Hachette), 1874-2e semestre (28), pp. 369-416. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k34402b.image

KING Philip Parker, FITZ-ROY Robert and DARWIN Charles - 1839 Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty’s Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle’s circumnavigation of the globe. London, Henry Colburn (KING, vol. 1; FITZ-ROY, vol. 2; DARWIN, vol. 3).

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 87 https://archive.org/details/narrativeofsurve01king https://archive.org/details/narrativeofsurve02king https://archive.org/details/narrativeofsurve03king

KOCH Gerd (ed.) - 1984 Boote aus aller Welt. Berlin, Frölich and Kaufmann (exhibition catalogue); 328 p., 26 pl.

KOCH-GRÜNBERG Theodor - 1917-1928 Vom Roroima zum Orinoco. Ergebnisse einer Reise in Nordbrasilien und Venezuela in den Jahren 1911- 1913. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer, Stuttgart, Strecker und Schröder (5 vol.); 406 p. (vol. 1, 1917); 313 p. (vol. 2, 1924); 446 p. (vol. 3, 1923); 357 p. (vol. 4, 1928); 27 p. and 180 pl. (vol. 5, 1923). http://www.brasiliana.usp.br/search?filtertype=*&filter=koch-gr%C3%BCnberg&submit_search-filter-controls_add=Buscar 1) http://www.brasiliana.usp.br/bbd/handle/1918/01011110#page/1/mode/1up 2) http://www.brasiliana.usp.br/bbd/handle/1918/01011120#page/1/mode/1up 3) http://www.brasiliana.usp.br/bbd/handle/1918/01011130#page/1/mode/1up 4) http://www.brasiliana.usp.br/bbd/handle/1918/01011140#page/1/mode/1up 5) http://www.brasiliana.usp.br/bbd/handle/1918/01011150#page/1/mode/1up

LATCHAM Ricardo E. - 1930 La dalca de Chiloé y los canales patagónicos. Boletín del Museo Nacional (Santiago de Chile), 13, pp. 63-72. http://publicaciones.mnhn.cl/668/w3-article-63454.html

LAVALLÉE Danièle - 1985 Contacts et échanges dans les Andes. Le Grand atlas de l’archéologie, Encyclopaedia Universalis (France), pp. 366-367.

LAVARRE William - 1919 Up the Mazaruni for diamonds. Boston, Marshall Jones Company; 139 p. https://archive.org/details/upmazarunifordi00varrgoog

LÉRY Jean de - 1578 Histoire d’un voyage fait en la terre du Brésil, autrement dite Amérique. La Rochelle, Antoine Chuppin; 424 p. https://archive.org/details/histoiredunvoyag01lryj

LIMA Deborah and PY-DANIEL Victor - 2008 Levantamento Etnoecológico das Terras Indígenas do Complexo Kanamari Biá: Kanamari do Rio Juruá e Katukina do Rio Biá. Brasilia, Biblioteca, FUNAI/PPTAL/GTZ; 165 p. http://docplayer.com.br/9671798-Levantamento-etnoecologico-das-terras-indigenas-do-complexo-kanamari-bia-kanamari-do-rio- jurua-e-katukina-do-rio-bia.html

LIMA Pedro E. de - 1950 A canoa de casca de jatobá entre os Indios do Xingu. Revista do Museu Paulista (São Paulo), n.s. 4, pp. 369-380, 11 pl.

LIZOT Jacques - 1974 Contribution à l’étude de la technologie Yanomami. Le modelage de la poterie et l’écorçage des arbres. Revista Antropológica (Fundación La Salle De Ciencias Naturales, Caracas), 38, pp. 15-33. http://www.fundacionlasalle.org.ve/Fondo%20Editorial/REVISTA%20ANTROPOL%C3%93GICA%20(N%C2%B0114- %20N%C2%B0%2001)/Antropol%C3%B3gica%2038%201974

LOTHROP Samuel Kirkland - 1928 The Indians of Tierra del Fuego. New York, Heye Foundation, Museum of the American Indian; 244 p. https://archive.org/details/indiansoftierrad00loth - 1932 Aboriginal navigation off the West coast of South America. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute Great Britain and Ireland, 62, pp. 229-256, pl. XV-XXI. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2843956?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

LOVISATO Domenico - 1884-1885 Appunti etnografici con accenni geologici sulla Terra del Fuoco. Cosmos (Comunicazioni sui progressi più recenti e notevoli della geografia e delle scienze affini del prof. Guido Cora, Torino), 8 (1884-1885), pp. 97-108 and 129-151. https://archive.org/details/cosmoscommunicaz08cora

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 88 MCGRAIL Seán - 2001 Boats of the world: from the Stone Age to Medieval times. Oxford, University Press; 480 p.

MARCEL M. G. - 1892 Les Fuégiens à la fin du XVIIe siècle. Paris, Leroux (International Congress of Americanists, report of the 8th session, held in Paris in 1890), pp. 485-496. https://archive.org/details/congrsinternat00bayeuoft

MARKHAM Clements R. - 1895 A list of the tribes in the Valley of the Amazon, including those on the banks of the main stream, and of all its tributaries (2nd edition). The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 24, pp. 236-284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2842158

MARTIAL Louis-Ferdinand - 1888 Mission scientifique du cap Horn, 1882-1883. Tome 1, Histoire du voyage. Paris, Gauthier-Villars; 496 p. http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/titleinfo/5859924

MARTIUS Carl Friedrich Philip von - 1867 Beiträge zur Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerikas zumal Brasiliens. 1: Zur Ethnographie. Leipzig, Fleischer; 801 p. https://archive.org/details/martius_v1

MATHEWS Edward D. - 1879 Up the Amazon and Madeira rivers, through Bolivia and Peru. London, Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington; 434 p. https://archive.org/details/upamazonmadeirar00math

MÉTRAUX Alfred - 1928 La civilisation matérielle des tribus Tupi-Guarani. Paris, Geuthner; 331 p. etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local...civilisation/metraux_1928_civilisation_FaHCE.pdf

MITMAN Carl W. - 1923 Catalogue of the watercraft collection in the United States National Museum. Washington, Smithsonian Institution (Bulletin 127); 298 p. https://archive.org/stream/bulletinunitedst1271923unit#page/n7/mode/2up

MOHL Hugo von - 1849 On the structure of the palm-stem. In: HENFREY A. (ed.), Reports and papers on botany, English translation. London, Ray Society; 92 p. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210023452806;view=1up;seq=5

MONTOYA Antonio Ruiz de - 1639 Tresoro de la lengua guarani. Madrid, Iuan Sanchez; 407 double pages. https://archive.org/details/tesorodelalengua00ruiz

National Geographic Atlas - 1975 National Geographic Atlas of the World, 4th edition. Washington, National Geographic Society; 330 p.

NIMUENDAJU Curt - 1924 Os Indios Parintintin do rio Madeira. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris, ns 16, pp. 201-278. http://www.persee.fr/doc/jsa_0037-9174_1924_num_16_1_3768

NISHIMURA Shinji - 1931 Skin-boats. Tokyo, The Society of Naval Architects (A Study of Ancient Ships of Japan, Part IV); 248 p., 25 pl.

NORDENSKIÖLD Erland - 1922 Indianer und Weisse in Nordostbolivien. Stuttgart, Stecker und Schröder; 222 p. https://archive.org/details/indianerundweiss00nord - 1924 The ethnography of South-America seen from Mojos in Bolivia. Göteborg, Elanders (Comparative ethnographical studies, 3); 254 p. - 1930 Modifications in Indian culture through inventions and loans. Göteborg, Elanders (Comparative ethnographical studies, 8); 256 p.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 89 OLSON James S. - 1991 The Indian of Central and South America. An ethnohistorical dictionary. Westport, Greenwood Press, 515 p.

PÂRIS François-Edmond - (1843) Essai sur la construction navale des peuples extra-européens ou collection des navires et pirogues construits par les habitants de l’Asie, de la Malaisie, du Grand Océan et de l’Amérique. Paris, Arthus Bertrand (un volume, un atlas); 156 p., 132 pl. http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/4270825 http://archive.org/details/essaisurlaconstr01pris and http://archive.org/details/essaisurlaconstr02pris

PIANA Ernesto Luis - 1995 Informe sobre la canoa del Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico L. Pigorini de Rome. In: VAIRO C., Los Yamana. La tradición marítima de los aborígenes de Tierra del Fuego. Ushuaia, Zagier and Urruty, pp. 185-192. - 2002 Report on the canoe at the Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico L. Pigorini of Rome. In: VAIRO C., The Yamana canoe. The marine tradition of the Aborigines of Tierra del Fuego. Ushuaia, Zagier and Urruty (2nd edition 2007), pp. 173-181.

PIANA E. L. and ORQUERA L. A. - 1998 Canoe fuegine: etnografia storica e archeologia. L’esemplare del Museo “L. Pigorini”. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana, 89, pp. 397-445.

POLYKRATES Gottfried - 1957 Ein Besuch bei den Indianern am Rio Trombetas. Ethnos (Journal of Anthropology; The Ethnographical Museum of Sweden), 22/3-4, pp. 128-147. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00141844.1957.9980842

QUIRKE Terence T. - 1952 Canoes. The World Over. Urbana, The University of Illinois Press, 137 p.

RATZEL Friedrich (ed.) - 1885-1888 Völkerkunde. Leipzig, Verlag des Bibliographischen Instituts (3 vol.); 660 p. (1885), 815 p. (1888) and 778 p. (1888). https://archive.org/details/b24871953_0001 https://archive.org/details/b24871953_0002 https://archive.org/details/b24871953_0003

RESNIK Ana Maria - 2009 El viaje continental de una embarcación pemón de corteza. Breve revisión historiográfica de algunas fuentes especializadas. Anthropológica, 53, no. 111-112, pp. 195-222. http://www.fundacionlasalle.org.ve/Fondo%20Editorial/REVISTA%20ANTROPOL%C3%93GICA%20(N%C2%B0114- %20N%C2%B0%2001)/Antropol%C3%B3gica%20111-112%20ene%20-%20dic%202009

RIVIÈRE E. - 1884 Expédition scientifique du Cap Horn et son exposition. Revue scientifique (Paris), 21, 3rd series, 4th year, no. 13 (29 mars 1884), pp. 385-400. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2151022/f388.item.r=Revue%20Scientifique

RIVIERE Peter (ed.) - 2006 The Guiana travels of Robert Schomburgl 1835-1844. Volume 1: explorations on behalf of the Royal Geographical Society, 1835-1839. London, Hakluyt Society; 406 p. https://books.google.ch/books?id=cuqRdT8zlxYC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=makaratalli&source=bl&ots=7L5WuXlp- W&sig=Xk- ZzEqsc13Dj77wp1Nr2d0UIPg&hl=fr&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjNqZ77uYPLAhUDVRoKHVjmAXkQ6AEIRTAI#v=onep age&q=makaratalli&f=false

ROOP Wendell P. - 1935 Watercraft in Amazonia. Woodbury, New Jersey (unpublished manuscript); 154 p., 7 pl. - 1942 Watercraft in Amazonia. Revista del Instituto de Antropología de la Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 363-511.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 90 ROTH Walter E. - 1924 Travel by boats, rafts, etc. (pp. 611-619). In: An introductory study of the arts, crafts and customs of Guiana Indians. Washington, Government Printing Office (38. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1916-1917), pp. 25-745. https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu38smit - 1929 Additional studies of the arts, crafts and customs of the Guiana Indians, with special reference to those of Southern British Guiana. Washington, Smithsonian Institution (Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 91); 110 p. https://archive.org/details/bulletin911929smit

SALOMON Frank and SCHWARTZ Stuart B. (ed.) - 1999 The Cambridge history of the Native peoples of the Americas. Vol. 3, South America. Cambridge, University Press (Part 1-2); 1054 and 976 p.

SAMPAIO Theodoro - 1913 Os Kraôs do Rio Preto no Estado da Bahia. Revista do Instituto Historico e Geographico Brazileiro, 75/1 (1912), pp. 143-205. https://ihgb.org.br/publicacoes/revista-ihgb/item/107818-revista-ihgb-tomo-lxxv-parte-i.html

SAVAGE-LANDOR A. Henry - 1913 Across unknown South America. Boston, Little Brown (2 vol.); 377 and 429 p. https://archive.org/details/acrossunknownsou00land https://archive.org/details/acrossunknownso00landgoog

SCHMIDT Max - 1905 Indianerstudien in Zentralbrasilien. Erlebnisse und ethnologische Ergebnisse einer Reise in den Jahren 1900 bis 1901. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer; 456 p. https://archive.org/details/indianstudienin00schmgoog

SCHMIDT Wilhelm - 1913 Kulturkreise und Kulturschichten in Südamerika. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 45/6 (1913), pp. 1014-1130. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24240305

SCHOMBURGK Robert Hermann - 1837 Diary of an ascent of the River Berbice, in British Guayana, in 1836-7. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, 7, pp. 302-350. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1797530 - 1841a The natural history of the fishes of Guiana. Part 1. Edinburgh, W. H. Lizars; 263 p. https://archive.org/details/naturalhistoryof01scho - 1841b Robert Hermann Schomburgk’s Reisen in Guiana und am Orinoko während der Jahre 1835-1839. Nach seinen Berichten und Mittheilungen an die Geographische Gesellschaft in London. Leipzig, Georg Wigand; 510 p. https://books.google.ch/books?id=4k47AQAAIAAJ&hl=fr&source=gbs_similarbooks - 1842 Excursion up the Barima and Cuyuni Rivers, in British Guiana, in 1841. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, 12, pp. 178-196. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1797996 - 1847-1848 Reisen in Britisch-Guiana in den Jahren 1840-1844: nebst einer Fauna und Flora Guiana’s nach Vorlagen von Johannes Müller, Ehrenberg, Erichson, Klotzsch, Troschel, Cabanis und Andern. Leipzig, Weber (3 vol.); 469 p. (vol. 1), 1260 p. (vol. 2-3). https://archive.org/details/reiseninbritisch01scho https://archive.org/details/reiseninbritisch02scho https://archive.org/details/reiseninbritisch03scho

SCHULZ-KAMPFHENKEL Otto - 1938 Rätsel der Urwaldhölle. Berlin, Deutscher Verlag; 211 p.

SIMSON Alfred - 1886 Travel in the wilds of Ecuador and exploration of the Putumayo River. London, Low, Marston, Searle, Rivington; 330 p. https://archive.org/details/travelsinwildse00simsgoog

SMITH Elliot - 1916 Ships as evidence of the migrations of early culture. Manchester, University Press (Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society, 1915-1916, vol. 5), pp. 63-102.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 91 SNETHLAGE Emilie - 1910 Zur Ethnologie der Chipaya und Curuhé. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie (Berlin), 42, pp. 612-637. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23030710 - 1921 Die Indianerstämme am mittleren Xingú. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie (Berlin), 52-53 (1920-1921), pp. 395-427. https://archive.org/details/zeitschriftfre52berluoft

SNOW W. Parker - 1857 A two year’s cruise of Tierra del Fuego, the Falkland Islands, Patagonia and in the River Plate: a narrative of life in the Southern Seas. London, Longman (2 vol.); 376 and 368 p. https://archive.org/details/twoyearscruiseof01snow https://archive.org/details/twoyearscruiseof02snow

SOARES DE SOUZA Gabriel - 1879 Tratado descriptivo do Brazil em 1587. Rio de Janeiro, Ignacio da Silva (2nd edition); 382 p. https://archive.org/details/tratadodescriti00varngoog

SOUTHEY Robert - 1819 History of Brazil, Part the Third. London, Longman (vol. 3); 950 p. https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil03sout

SPIELBERGEN Joris van - 1620 Appendix dess eilfften Theils Americae, das ist: Warhafftige Beschreibung der wunderbahren Schifffahrt, so Georgius von Spielbergen ... durch die Magellanische Strasse, vnd in der Suder See, vom Iahr 1614 biss in das 1618. Iahr verrichtet. Oppenheim, Gallern (in: DE BRY (ed.), Appendix 11. Theil Americae); 38 p., 20 pl. https://archive.org/details/historischebesch00scho http://international.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbdk&fileName=d0322/rbdkd0322.db&recNum=1063

STADEN Hans - 1557 Warhaftige Historia und Beschreibung eyner Landtschafft der wilden, nacketen, grimmigen Menschfresser Leuthen, in der Newenwelt America gelegen, vor und nach Christi Geburt im Land zu Hessen unbekant, biß off disenechst vergangene Jar, da sie Hans Staden von Homberg auß Hessen durch sein eygne Erfarung erkant, und jetzo durch den Truck an Tag gibt. Marpurg, Andres Kolben; 176 p. https://archive.org/details/warhaftigehistor00stad http://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/view/staden_landschafft_1557?p=154

STEEGE Hans ter et al. - 2013 Hyperdominance in the Amazonian tree flora. Science (New York), 342, 18 October 2013, 1243092; PMID: 24136971. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1243092

STEERE Joseph B. - 1903 Narrative of a visit to Indian tribes of the Purus River, Brazil. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution-U.S. National Museum (for the year ending June 30, 1901), part 2, pp. 359-393. https://archive.org/details/narrativeavisit00steegoog https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/29874

STEINEN Karl von den - 1886 Durch Central-Brasilien. Expedition zur Erforschung des Schingú im Jahre 1884. Mit über 100 Text- und Separatbildern von Wilhelm von den Steinen, 12 Separatbildern von Johannes Gehrts, einer Specialkarte des Schingústroms von Otto Clauss, einer ethnographischen Kartenskizze und einer Übersich. Leipzig, Brockhaus; 372 p. https://archive.org/details/durchcentralbras00steiuoft - 1894 Unter den Naturvölkern Zentral-Brasiliens. Reiseschilderung und Ergebnisse der zweiten Schingú-Expedition, 1887- 1888. Berlin, D. Reimer; 570 p. https://archive.org/details/unterdennaturv00stei

STEWARD Julian H. (ed.) - 1946-1959 Handbook of South American Indians. Washington, Smithsonian Institution (Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143); 7 vol. 1-1946 http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/86063#page/5/mode/1up 2-1946 http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/113599#page/5/mode/1up 3-1948 http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/88011#page/5/mode/1up 4-1948 http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/88643#page/5/mode/1up 5-1949 http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/87338#page/5/mode/1up

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 92 6-1950 http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/87520#page/5/mode/1up 7-1959 http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/85091#page/5/mode/1up

SUDER Hans - 1930 Vom Einbaum und Floss zum Schiff. Die primitiven Wasserfahrzeuge. Berlin, Mittler (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Meereskunde, N.F., B. Heft 7); 143 p.

TASTEVIN Constant - 1919 Quelques considérations sur les Indiens du Jurua. Bulletin et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 6th series, 10, pp. 144-154. http://www.persee.fr/doc/bmsap_0037-8984_1919_num_10_1_8875 - 1923 Les Makú du Japurá. Journal de la Société des Américanistes, 14/1 (1922), pp. 99-108. http://www.persee.fr/doc/jsa_0037-9174_1922_num_14_1_3994

TERNAUX Henri (translation by) - 1837 Voyages, relations et mémoires originaux pour servir à l’histoire de la découverte de l’Amérique, publiés pour la première fois en français par Henri Ternaux. Histoire d’un pays situé dans le Nouveau Monde, nommé Amérique par Hans Staden de Homberg, en Hesse. Marbourg, 1557. Paris, Arthus Bertrand, 335 p. https://archive.org/details/voyagesrelations03terniala

TESSMANN Günter - 1930 Die Indianer Nordost-Perus: grundlegende Forschungen für eine systematische Kulturkunde. Hamburg, Friederichsen, de Gruyter (Veröffentlichung der Harvey-Bassler-Stiftung, Völkerkunde, 2); 856 p.

The Illustrated London News - 1868 Bark canoe from Terra del Fuego. The Illustrated London News, vol. 53, 8 August 1868, p. 133. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101059280980;view=1up;seq=149

THE MARINERS’ MUSEUM, PARRY M. H., et al. - 2000 A Dictionary of the World’s Watercraft. From Aak to Zumbra. London, Chatham Publishing; 676 p.

THEVET André - 1558 Les singularités de la France antarctique, autrement nommée Amérique, et de plusieurs terres et isles découvertes de nostre temps. Paris, Maurice de la Porte; 167 double pages. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k109516t

THOMAS Northcote W. - 1905 Australian canoes and rafts. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 35, pp. 56-79, pl. 10-12. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2843117

THOMAS Romain - 2011 Anatomie comparée des palmiers - Identification assistée par ordinateur, applications en paléobotanique et en archéobotanique. Paris, Museum national d’histoire naturelle (thesis); 509 p. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00951106/

THOMAS Romain and FRANCESCHI Dario de - 2012 First evidence of fossil Cryosophileae (Arecaceae) outside the Americas (early Oligocene and late Miocene of France): anatomy, palaeobiogeography and evolutionary implications. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 171, pp. 27-39. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034666711001874 - 2013 Palm stem anatomy and computer-aided identification: The Coryphoideae (Arecaceae). American Journal of Botany 100(2), January 2013, pp. 289-313. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235370405_Palm_stem_anatomy_and_computer- aided_identification_The_Coryphoideae_Arecaceae

THURN Everard F. im - 1883 Among the Indians of Guiana; being sketches chiefly anthropologic from the interior of British Guiana. London, Kegan, Trench and Co.; 445 p. https://archive.org/details/amongindiansgui00thurgoog

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 93 VAIRO Carlos P. - 2002 The Yamana canoe. The marine tradition of the Aborigines of Tierra del Fuego. Ushuaia, Zagier and Urruty; 192 p.

VARGAS Y PONCE, José - 1788 Relación del último viage al Estrecho de Magallanes de la Fragata de S.M. Santa María de la Cabeza en los años de 1785 y 1786. Madrid, Viuda de Ibarra; 359+128 p. (1 vol.). https://books.google.ch/books/about/Relaci%C3%B3n_del_ultimo_viaje_al_estrecho_d.html?id=ObWk6noILbsC&redir_esc=y

VIETRI Luisa - 2006 Storia e microsorie. Le collezioni della Terra del Fuoco del Museo "Luigi Pigorini". In: SALERNO A. and TAGLIACOZZO A. (ed.), Finis Terrae. Viaggiatori, esploratori e missionari italiani nella Terra del Fuoco. Roma, Soprintendenza al Museo Nationale Preistorico Etnografico “Luigi Pigorini” (exhibiton catalogue), pp. 259-293.

WALBEECK, Johannes van (attributed to) - 1626 Journael vande Nassausche vloot, ofte beschryvingh vande voyagie om den gantschen aerdt-kloot, gedaen met elf schepen: onder 't beleydt vanden admirael Jaques l'Heremite, ende vice-admirael Geen Huygen Schapenham, inde iaren 1623, 1624, 1625, en 1626. Amsterdam, Hessel Gerritsz ende Jac. Pietersz Wachter; 99 p. https://books.google.ch/books/download/Journael_vande_Nassausche_vloot_ofte_Bes.pdf?id=K5BiAAAAcAAJ&hl=fr&capid=A FLRE73mlBobv0i_atgO2Qlr1kfcwY89WeHZWTdIFbOCA4c25gkkQ-0Gf- Wo4KqomYFPlbFWd27JOa9WOmcYE8JRv8Z6n2S1kg&continue=https://books.google.ch/books/download/Journael_vande_N assausche_vloot_ofte_Bes.pdf%3Fid%3DK5BiAAAAcAAJ%26hl%3Dfr%26output%3Dpdf

WEBSTER William Henry Bayley - 1834 Narrative of a voyage to the Southern Atlantic Ocean in the years 1828, 29, 30, performed in H.M. Sloop Chanticleer under the command of the Late Captain Henry Foster. London, Richard Bentley (2 vol.); 399 and 398 p. https://books.google.ch/books?id=ngljAAAAMAAJ&pg https://books.google.ch/books?id=YUNhAAAAcAAJ&pg

WEDDELL James - 1825 A Voyage towards the South Pole, performed in the years 1822-24,… and a visit to Tierra del Fuego… London, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green; 276 p. https://archive.org/details/avoyagetowardss01weddgoog

WHIFFEN Thomas W. - 1915 The north-west Amazons: notes of some months spent among cannibal tribes. New York, Duffield; 467 p., 54 pl. https://archive.org/details/northwestamazon01whifgoog

WILKES Charles - 1844-1874 United States exploring expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, under the command of C. Sherman. Philadelphia, C. Sherman (several volumes). http://biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/69333#/summary

WORCESTER George Raleigh Gray - 1956 Notes on the canoes of British Guiana. The Mariner's Mirror, 42/3, pp. 249-251.

YDE Jens - 1965 Material culture of the Waiwái. Copenhagen, Nationalmuseets Skrifter (Etnografisk Rœkke, 10); 318 p.

ZELLER Rudolph - 1909 Beiträge zur Ethnographie der Feuerländer. Jahresbericht des Historischen Museums in Bern, pro 1908, pp. 75-88, pl. 1-3; see also pp. 66-67. https://archive.org/details/jahresberichtdes1516bern

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 94 109-113 Index

The pages relating to the order in Appendices 1 and 2 are indicated in italic, and those for the captions to the figures in bold.

Tribes and indigenous names of the craft woodskin: see woodskin (the latter are in italics) Botocudo 94/2 bull-boat 13

caballito de totora 7-8, 10 aată 14, 16, 29, 29 Carib 16, 17, 20, 22 Akawai, Akawáio, Akawoi 34, 35, 42, 97/56, 98/63, 98/64, Caripúna, Karipúna 12, 16, 28, 96/32, 96/38, 97/43, 99/78 100/9 cascara 14, 16, 17, 28, 28, 97/43 Alacaluf 53, 53, 55, 55, 56, 57, 60, 64, 65, 66, 66, Cayabí 95/18, 95/19 67, 68, 72, 72, 73, 80, 80, 87, 88, 93, 101/15, Chacobo, Chácobo 96/38 101/17, 101/18 Chimú 10 almadie 14 Chipaya 95/20 anam 56 Chono(s) 55, 55, 66, 93 anan 13, 53, 56, 60-61, 66, 69, 84, 101/19, Chumash 6 101/20 conchas 16, 98/69 ánan 56 Curuaya, Kuruáya 95/20, 95/21, 95/22, 96/27 aunan 56 dalca 6, 13, 55, 55, 56, 57, 63, 66, 67, 93 Aparaí, Apalaí 97/47 Apiacá, Apiaká 95/23, 96/28 donga 50, 51 Apinagé, Apinayé 94/4 Dutch 53 Arapaí 45, 45 een-anan 56, 60 European 6, 7, 11, 15, 21, 24, 55, 57, 67, 93, 94/1 Arára 12, 96/32 arauá, arawá 99/75 Fuegian canoe/bark-canoe 5, 6, 59, 64, 68, 87, 88, 89 Arawak 22, 34, 97/56, 98/65, 98/67, 100/10, Guaharibo see Yanoama 101/13 Guarani 14, 22, 22 Arecuna, Arekuna 34, 97/49, 97/52, 97/56 Guaymí 98/74 attamanmad 14, 16, 17, 38, 97/54 gouarès 7, 7 Auetí, Auetó 94/5 hacua 56, 60 Auhishiri 99/81 Halakwulup see Alacaluf awa-safiný 47, 99/75 Huanyam, Wanam 96/31, 96/39 Awishiri 99/81 Hypuriná see Ipuriná Aztec 7 Iaualapití see Ylaupití Bakairí, Bakirí 24, 94/6, 95/10 igá, igára 14 balsa (Pacific coast) 7, 7 igat see ygat igáripé 14 balsa (Lake Titicaca) 10, 10, 11 iḽax 65 balse (Chilean coast) 11, 12, 13, 92 Inca 7 balsilla 7, 7 Ipuriná, Ipurinã 16, 29, 29, 96/33, 96/41 bark-canoe 5, 6, 11, 13, 13, 14, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, Itogapúk 96/35 21, 21, 22, 23, 33, 35, 38, 46, 48, 53, 55, 56, 57, Jacaré 96/40 66, 66, 67, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94/, 95/, 96/, 97/, 98/, Jamamadí 16, 17, 28, 96/33, 96/37 114 jamamadí 16, 17, 18, 28 with apical lashings 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, jatobá 16, 17, 18, 24 (see also as tree species) 28, 29, 30, 31, 46, 89, 90, 90, 91, 94, 96/34, 96/35, Kamayurá 100/2 96/36, 96/37, 96/38, 96/40, 96/42, 97/43, 100 Kanamarí 97/45, 99/82 with one folded end 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, kānāwā’ 16, 17, 28 24, 27, 46, 75, 89, 90, 90, 91, 94, 95/13, 100 kanáwayíshchiputǘre 16, 35, 98/59 with pressed and tied tips 17, 18, 19, 30, 30, 46, kapepe 25, 28 89, 90, 91, 94, 94/2 Karipúna see Caripúna pressed and sewn tip canoe 91, 91, 94 Kashuyéna 36, 34, 42, 44, 97/57, 98/58, 100/7, 100/8 multi sheet bark-canoe 89 Katukína 16, 23, 23, 97/46, 99/82 simple bark-canoe 14, 16, 19, 23, 23, 27, Kawahíb 96/30 30, 46, 75, 81, 89, 90, 91, 94, 97/46 Kaweskar see Alacaluf three-piece sewn bark-canoe 6, 13, 56, 62, 64, 88, Kayabí 95/18, 95/19 89, 90, 92, 93

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 95 Kirishána see Yanoama Trió 33, 39, 41, 97/53, 98/62 Kuruáya see Curuaya Trumái 95/10 Lambayeque 10 Tucuna, Tukano 99/83 Lechosa 39 Tupi 14, 22, 22, 94/1 (Tupían) lṹka 65 Tupí-Cawahíb 96/30 logboat 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 48, 50, Tupi-Guarani 21, 22 55, 67, 67, 81, 91, 92, 93, 94/4, 101/2 Tupían see Tupi Macusí 42, 97/55 Tupinambá 14, 21, 22, 22, 30, 94/1 (Tupi-Guarani) Makú-Guariba 97/44 ubá 16, 20 Makushí see Macusí umiak 5 Manetenéry, Manitenéri 47, 99/75 Waiwái 16, 35, 38, 38, 98/59, 98/60 Maopityan, Mapidian 98/61 Wapisiána, Wapishána 16, 17, 38, 97/54 Mataco 48 Warrau 34, 98/66 Maué, Mawé 95/24, 96/26 wepipyu’ara 16 Maya 7 Witotoan 99/84 Mayorúna 47, 99/76 woodskin(s) 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 30, 31, 31, 32, 33, 35, Mehinácu, Mehináku 95/7, 95/15 37, 38, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 89, 90, 90, 91, 94, 100 migoma 49, 50 open-ended woodskin 17, 18, 19, 31, 32, 33, Mochica 10 34, 34, 35, 36, 36, 37, 37, 46, 89, 97/50, 97/56, Mojo 22 97/57, 98/64, 98/66, 98/67, 98/68, 98/70, 100/6, monoxylous (base, craft) 7, 67 (see logboat) 100/9, 100/10, 101/12, 101/13, 101/14 Mundurucú, Mundurukú 96/25 rolled bark woodskin 18, 19, 33, 42, 42, 44, Múra, Murá 22, 29, 96/34, 96/42 45, 45, 46, 89, 91, 97/47, 97/55, 98/58, 98/63, Nafuquá, Nahuquá 95/8 100/5, 100/7, 100/8, 101/11 Ocamo 39 woodskin with raised ends 18, 19, 31, 33, 33, 38, Ona(s) 55 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 89, 90, 91, 97/52, 97/53, 98/60, Oyampí, Oyanpík 16, 17, 22, 97/48 98/62, 98/71 Pacaguará, Pacanuara 28, 97/43 Xingú 25 Pakaanóva 96/31, 96/39 Yahgan 54, 54, 55, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 60, 62, 64, pakasse 14, 16, 17, 34 66, 67, 67, 68, 69, 71, 82, 84, 93, 101/16, 101/19, palmboat 47, 48, 49, 51, 89, 90, 91 101/20 palulana 56 Yamamadí see Jamamadí Parecí, Paressí 95/14 Yamana see Yahgan Parintintín 96/35 Yanoama 16, 37, 39, 97/51, 98/69, 98/71 Parnauat 96/29 Yanomami see Yanoama Parukoto see Pemón Yaulapití 95/11 Paumarí 96/36 yeni 13, 53, 56, 66, 67, 80, 80, 101/15, 101/17 paxiuba 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 47, 47, 48, 49, 89, 90, ye:ipipé apénzag 16, 34 91, 94, 99/75, 99/77, 99/78, 99/83 yikchibitiri 14, 16, 38, 38, 98/60 paxiubão 99/82 yíshchiputǘre 16, 35, 98/59 peedak 16, 23, 23, 97/46 yuchán 48 pel-larkál 56, 67, 72, 72, 73, 101/15 Yumbo 99/79 pelota 13, 13, 19 ygat 14, 15, 15, 21, 24, 94/1 Pemón 37, 37, 98/70 Piánacotó, Pianokotó 97/50 Piaróa 98/72 pudak 16, 23, 97/46 raft 6, 7, 7, 10, 10, 13, 21, 22, 94/4 rama 7 sangādam 50, 51 Selk’nam see Ona(s) sḙná 47, 99/76 Shipaya 95/20 Spanish 7 Suyá 95/9, 95/16 Taruma 38, 98/60 Taulipáng 16, 34, 97/49, 97/52 tétaka 65 thõmorõ 16, 31, 37, 39, 98/71 Tiriyó 97/53, 98/62 tomol 6

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 96 Tree species Hymenaea courbaril 18, 20, 23, 24, 33, 37, 46, 90, 91, 94/5 (jatobá, marana, courbaril, locust tree) African Palmyra palm 49, 50 (Borassus aethiopum) Hymenaea oblongifolia 33, 98/60 (simiri) Anacardium microcarpum 28, 95/18 (cajui) Hymenaea sp. 94, 95/24, 96/35, 97/52 (jatahy) Annonaceae 42 Iriartea deltoidea 18 (palm tree) Antarctic beech 88 Iriartea ventricosa 18, 20, 20, 47, 49, 99/76, 99/80 arapapíto 35 (Heteropsis yenmani) (paxiuba) arapari 33, 97/44 (Macrolobium jatobá 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 25, acaciifolium) 28, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 46, 90, 91, 94, 94/5, 94/6, Asian Palmyra palm 50, 51 (Borassus flabellifer) 95/7, 95/9, 95/10, 95/11, 95/12, 95/14, 95/15, balsa 7, 48 95/17, 95/19, 96/28, 96/41, 97/46, 97/53, 97/54, bamboo 43 97/57, 100, 100/5 (also as name of boat) baobab 48, 48 jatahy 94, 95/24, 97/52 (Hymenaea) baramalli 33, 98/66 (Catostemma jutahy 18, 19, 20, 28, 30, 33, 38, 34, commune, Scleronema guianense) 46, 91, 94, 96/26, 96/27, 96/33, 96/35, 96/37, beech 65, 86 97/45, 97/50, 97/54, 97/56, 98/61, 98/67, 100 Berberis 82, 83, 87 (Copaifera pubiflora) Bertholletia excelsa 95/19 (Brazil nut) kapok tree 48 Betula papyrifera 91, 92 (paper birch) leña dura 60, 72, 87 (May. magellanica) birch 59 Libocedrus tetragona 67, 87 (cypress) Bombacaceae 48 locust tree 18, 23, 94/5 (jatobá) bombona 99/81 (palm tree) Macrolobium acaciifolium 33, 35, 97/44 (arapari, páaru) Borassus aethiopum 49, 50, (African Palmyra palm) Magellan’s beech 60, 75, 87 (N. betuloides) Borassus flabellifer 49, 50, 51(Asian Palmyra palm) maitén 60, 87 (Maytenus magellanica) Brazil nut 95/19 (Bertholletia excelsa) makaratalli 33 (bullet tree) bullet tree 33 (makaratalli) maran 33 (jutahy) burity 47, 99/78 (Mauritia flexuosa) marana 33, 37 (Hymenaea courbaril) cajui 28, 95/18 (Anacardium mararen 33 (jutahy) microcarpum) marianara 33 (muriana, mariwayani) canelo 72, 75, 87 (Drimys winteri) mariwayani 33 (muriana, marianara) Catostemma altsonii 33 (baramalli) Marsippospermum grandiflorum 64, 87 Catostemma commune 33, 98/66 (baramalli) Mauritia 49 (Mauritia-Type B) Catostemma fragans 33 (baramalli) Mauritia flexuosa 18, 47, 49 (mirity, burity) Ceiba 48 Maytenus magellanica 60, 63, 65, 72, 88 (maitén, leña Ceiba chodatii 48 dura) Chorisia 48 mirity 47 (Mauritia flexuosa) Chorisia insignis 48 monocotyledon 47, 48 Chrysophyllum sp. 33 (bullet tree, makaratalli) mora tree 33, 98/67 (jutahy) Cocos 49 (Cocos-Type A) murianara 33, 97/56 (marianara) Copaifera guianensis 33 (mararen, maran) ñire 75, 88 (Nothofagus antarctica) Copaifera langsdorffii 33 (mararen, maran) Nothofagus 64, 82, 83, 87, 88 Copaifera pubiflora 18, 20, 28, 33, 35, 46, 91, Nothofagus antarctica 60, 63, 64, 75, 88 (ñire, 100/9 (jutahy, mararen, purpleheart tree) Southern beech, Antarctic beech) Corypha 49 (Corypha-Type) Nothofagus betuloides 60, 60-61, 62, 64, 67, 71, 75, courbaril 18 (Hymenaea courbaril) 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88 (guindo, curucai 33, 98/69 Magellan’s beech, evergreen beech) Cydista sp. 39 (liana) Nothofagus pumilio 82, 87 cypress 64, 67, 87, 88 páaru 33, 35 (Macrolobium) dicotyledon 47, 48 palm 11, 18, 19, 20, 20, 26, 47, 48, Drimys winteri 60, 64, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 48, 49, 50, 50, 51, 51, 91, 99/80, 99/81, 99/84 80, 87, 88 (canelo, Winter’s bark) paper birch 91, 92 evergreen beech 60, 87 (Magellan’s beech) paxiuba 47, 99/83 (also as name of Fagus see Nothofagus boat) Fagus antarctica 60 (Nothofagus antarctica) paxiubão 99/82 Fagus betuloides 60 (Nothofagus betuloides) pirepíre 33, 35 Ficus doliaria 48 purpleheart tree 18, 28, 33 (jutahy) Fitzroya patagonica 67 (cypress) Samuha eriodendron 48 guindo 60, 75, 87 (N. betuloides) Scirpus sp. 8-9 Heteropsis yenmani 35 (arapapíto) Scleronema guianense 33 (baramalli) Hierochloe redolens 76, 88 (sweetgrass) simiri 33, 38, 98/60 (H. oblongifolia) sweetgrass 76, 88 (Hierochloe redolens)

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 97 Tabebuia guayacan 33, 39, 98/71 (thõmorõ) totora 8-9, 11 tacamahaca 33, 98/69 wild celery 64, 71, 88 taquara 26 (type of bamboo) Winter’s bark 75, 87 (Drimys winteri) tarápa 33, 35 yga-ywero 14 thõmorõ 33, 39 (Tabebuia guayacan, also as name of boat) tirikir 38 (jatobá)

Geographical names Caracas 37, 98/70 (we have retained the term rio for all rivers in Carlos III, island 80, 101/17 Caroní, rio 97/52 South America) Cashorro, rio 44, 98/58, 100/8 Chile 11, 12, 13, 56, 70, 75, 92, 101/20 Chiloé, island 55, 92, 93 Acquiry, Acre, rio 99/77 Chimbote 11, 11 Altiplano 6, 10 Chiriqui, rio 98/74 Amazon 6, 11, 13, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 47, 49, 75, Coeroeni, rio 41, 41, 98/62 89, 91, 92, 94 Colombia 11 Amazonia 5, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, Contas, rio 94/2 30, 31, 46, 52, 89, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94 Copenhagen 5, 37, 45, 98/58, 98/68, 100/6, 100/7, America(s) 5, 6, 14, 89, 94/1 100/8 Central America 5, 7, 20 Corantÿn, rio 34, 97/53, 98/62 North America 13, 30, 46, 64, 91, 91, 92 Culiseu, rio see Kulisehu South America 5, 6, 13, 13, 14, 16, 21, 21, 23, Cuminá, rio 34, 97/50 54, 89, 90, 92 Curuá, rio 95/20, 95/21, 96/27 Andes, Andean 5, 6, 7, 20, 47, 99 Cuyuni, rio 31, 31, 98/65, 100/13 Andhra Pradesh 51 Darling 75 Antarctic 5, 6, 54 Denmark 42 Araguaya, rio 21, 94/4 Desaguadero, rio 6 Arctic 92 Dhaka 51 Argentina 48 Diamantino 95/14 Atlantic 15, 21, 22, 24 Doce, rio 94/2 Australia 5, 16, 24, 46, 62, 64, 75, 90 Dondo 50 Bangladesh 48, 49, 51 Drake Passage 54 Barama, rio 16, 17, 34, 98/66 East Africa 5, 46, 49, 50, 68, 101/22 Batovy, rio 95/12 Ecuador 7, 7 Beagle Channel 52, 54, 55, 68 Egypt 93 Belém 5, 42, 45, 45, 97/47, 100/5 Essequibo, rio 35, 98/60, 98/65 Belo-sur-Mer 48 Europe 14, 78 Bengal 50 False Cape Horn 82 Beni, rio 28, 96/40 Georgetown 35, 36, 101/14 Berbice, rio 34, 97/56 Godavari 50, 51 Bern 5, 56, 58, 60, 65, 67, 68, 80, 72, 73, 74, Gran Chaco 6 87, 88, 101/15 Gregorio, rio 99/75 Biá, rio 23, 23, 91, 97/46 Guaporé, rio 95, 96/31, 96/39 Bolivia 10, 11, 12 Guariba, lake 97/44 Branly 101/21 Guayrá 14 Branco, rio 31, 91, 97 Gurguéira, rio 21, 94/3 Brazil 5, 12,13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 46, 48, 91 Guiana(s) 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 22, Caldeirão do Inferno 12, 96/32 23, 30, 31, 34, 46, 89, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 97 California 6 British Guiana see Guyana Cambodia 49 French Guiana 18, 22, 46, 91 Camoa, rio 98/60 (Kamoa) Guyana 20, 31, 36, 91, 100/9 (British Guiana) Caphiwuin, rio 98/61 Hamburg 72 Caquetá, rio 99/80, 99/84 Hawaii 6

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 98 Hishkaruyéna, rio 98/59 Mutum-Paraná, rio 47, 47, 48, 99/78 Horn, Cape 54, 59, 60, 101/21 Nahuquá 27 Huaca las Balsas 10 Napo, rio 99/79, 99/81 Huanchaco 8 Navarino, island 71 Huarina 10 Nyagamoma, lake 49 Huatajata 11 Orinoco 6, 13, 16, 21, 31, 37, 38, 46, 91, 98, Içá, rio 99/83 98/69 Igara, rio 99/80 Oxford 5, 35, 50, 98/64, 100/9, 100/10 Ilhéos 48 Pacific 7, 55, 93 India 49, 51 Padamo, rio 16, 39 Inikiari, rio 97/51 Paita 7 Iriri, rio 95/20, 95/21 Palashpur 51 Issa, rio 99/80 Panama 21, 98 Italy 83 Paragua, rio 37, 98/70 Itu 100/2 Paraguay, rio 6, 20 Itucumã, rio 99/82 Paraná, rio 20, 22, 99/80 Jamanchim , Jamanxim 95/22, 96/27 Paranatinga, rio 95/18 Japurá, rio 97/44, 99/80 Parima, rio 97/51 Jari, rio 30, 45, 91, 97/47, 97/48, 100/5 Paris 101/21 Javari, rio 99/76 Parnaíba, rio 21, 94/3 Jiparaná, rio 96/39 Patagonia 53, 68, 89, 92, 93 Jujuy 48 Peixes, rio dos 95/19 Juruá, rio 22, 97/45, 99/75 Penas 55 Juruázinho, rio 97/45 Peru 7, 7 Juruena, rio 96/25 Philippines 14 Jutaí, rio 91, 97/45 Piá 52 Kamoa, rio 98/60 (Camoa) Piauí, rio 21, 94/3 Kassikaityu, rio 98/60 Pimente 8-9 Kawanna, rio 97/51 Piura 7 Kolleru, lake 51 Poanna, igarapé do 34, 97/50 Khulna 48 Pomeroon, rio 31, 34, 98/67 Kukenáng, rio 97/52 Poopó, lake 6 Kulisehu, rio 24, 27, 94/5, 94/6, 95/7, 95/8, 95/10, Porto Velho 96/32 95/11, 95/13 (Kuluseu, Culiseu) Puerto Viejo 7 Kuluène, rio 95/7, 95/15 Púnguè 50 Kuluseu, rio see Kulisehu Punta Arenas 5, 56, 66, 67, 68, 80, 87, 88, 101/17 Kurisevo, rio 95/15 Purús, rio 15, 20, 22, 22, 28, 28, 91, 96, 96/37, 97, Lajarte, channel 58 100/3 Lima 11, 11 Putumayo, rio 99/84 London 5, 44, 45, 68, 71, 71, 87, 88, 98/58, Rio de Janeiro 14, 22, 24, 26, 45, 100/1, 101/11 100/8, 101/16 Rio Grande, rio 48 Lucie, rio 98/62 Rio Grande do Sul 13 Madagascar 48 Rome 5, 56, 59, 64, 65, 68, 82, 84, 87, 88, Madeira, rio 12, 15, 20, 22, 28, 91, 96, 96/34 101/19 Magellan, Strait of 53, 53, 55, 56, 67, 80 Rouapir, rio 30, 30, 97/48 Manaviche, rio 38, 98/71 Rupununi, rio 42, 97/55 Maracaibo, lake 98, 98/73 Russia 101/22 Marianas, islands 14 Sagara, lake 49, 50 Marmoreá Mirí, rio 17, 28, 96/37, 100/3 Saint Petersburg 5, 68, 101/22 Matacuni, rio 98/69 San Miguel, rio 96/31 Matipyphy 27 Saña, rio 11, 11 Matto Grosso 13 Sangue, rio 96/29 Mazaruni, rio 31, 34, 34, 35, 42, 97/49, 97/56, 98/63, Santa, rio 11, 11 98/64, 100/9 Santa Anna, rio 95/14 Meso-America 7 Santa Barbara 6 Monagas 98/69 Santa Iria 96/25 Montaña 20, 22, 47, 89, 91 Santa Maria 99/81 Mozambique 50, 68, 90, 101/22 Santiago (de Chile) 56, 65, 68, 70, 79, 80, 87, 88, Mu, rio 99/75 101/20 Munbara 50 São Francisco, rio 21 Murray 75 São Paulo 5, 14, 22, 24, 100/2

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 99 Sauiá 97/57 Trombetas, rio 34, 91, 97, 97/57, 98/58 Sechura Desert 7, 7 Trujillo 11, 11 Solimões, rio 91, 99/83 Túcune 10 South-East Asia 5, 46 Upper Purús see Purús Sucre 98/69 Upper Solimões see Solimões Sudan 50 Upper Xingú see Xingú Surinam 41 Uraricoera, rio 97/51 Switzerland 65 Venezuela 22 Tanzania 25, 28, 49, 50 Vichada, rio 98/72 Tapajos, rio 20, 22, 91, 95 Victoria, State of 75 Tarauacá, rio 97/45, 99/82 Waini, Wainie, rio 37, 98/68, 100/6 Tierra del Fuego 5, 6, 13, 13, 52, 53, 54, 54, 55, 66, 68, Washington 5, 36, 98/65, 100/3, 100/4, 101/12, 71, 89, 92, 93, 101, 101/22 101/13 Tiago 97/57 White Nile 50 Titicaca, lake 6, 10, 10, 11 Wollaston, islands 82 Tocantin, rio 22, 94/4 Xingú, rio 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 22, 24, 24, 91, Très Irmãos, rio 28, 97/43 94, 95, 95/9, 95/16, 95/17, 100/1 Trocadéro 101/21 Yasilia 7

114

Fig. 168. Technical terms used in this work to describe the different elements of a bark-canoe.

Béat Arnold, 2017. Bark-canoes of South America: from Amazonia to Tierra del Fuego (English text without illustrations). 100