## The Project Gutenberg eBook of Types of canoes on Puget Sound

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Types of canoes on Puget Sound

Author: T. T. Waterman

Geraldine Coffin

Release date: June 5, 2015 [eBook #49144]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Charlene Taylor, Bryan Ness, Chuck Greif and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/American
Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TYPES OF CANOES ON PUGET SOUND ***

Contents. In certain versions of this etext, in certain browsers, clicking on this symbol will bring up a larger version of the illustration. (etext transcriber's note)

INDIAN NOTES
AND MONOGRAPHS
A SERIES OF PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES
TYPES OF CANOES ON PUGET SOUND
BY
T.T. WATERMAN
AND
GERALDINE COFFIN
———
NEW YORK
MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN
HEYE FOUNDATION
1920
———
Publications of the Museum of the
American Indian, Heye Foundation
THE GEORGE G. HEYE EXPEDITION CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOUTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Vol. 1

The Antiquities of Manabi, Ecuador: A Preliminary Report. By Marshall H. Saville. 1907. $25.00.

Vol. 2

The Antiquities of Manabi, Ecuador: Final Report. By Marshall H. Saville. 1910. $25.00.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION

Vol. 1

No. 1: Lucayan Artifacts from the Bahamas. By Theodoor de Booy. Reprinted from Amer. Anthropol., Vol. 15, 1913, No. 1. 50c.

No. 2: Precolumbian Decoration of the Teeth in Ecuador, with some Account of the Occurrence of the Custom in other parts of North and South America. By Marshall H. Saville. Reprinted from Amer. Anthropol., Vol. 15, 1913, No. 3. 50c.

No. 3: Certain Kitchen-middens in Jamaica. By Theodoor de Booy. Reprinted from Amer. Anthropol., Vol. 15, 1913, No. 3. (Reprinted, 1919.) 50c.

No. 4: Porto Rican Elbow-stones in the Heye Museum, with discussion of similar objects elsewhere. By J. Walter Fewkes. Reprinted from Amer Anthropol., Vol. 15, 1913, No. 3. 50c.

No. 5: Note on the Archaeology of Chiriqui. By George Grant MacCurdy. Reprinted from Amer. Anthropol., Vol. 15, 1913, No. 4. 50c.

No. 6: Petroglyphs of Saint Vincent, British West Indies, By Thomas Huckerby. Reprinted from Amer. Anthropol., Vol. 16, 1914, No. 2. 50c.

No. 7: Prehistoric Objects from a Shell-heap at Erin Bay, Trinidad. By J. Walter Fewkes. Reprinted from Amer. Anthropol., Vol. 16, 1914, No. 2. 50c.

No. 8: Relations of Aboriginal Culture and Environment in the Lesser Antilles, By J. Walter Fewkes. Reprinted from Bull. Amer. Geogr. Soc., Vol. 46, 1914, No. 9. 50c.

No. 9: Pottery from Certain Caves in Eastern Santo Domingo, West Indies. By Theodoor de Booy. Reprinted from Amer. Anthropol., Vol. 17, 1915, No. 1. 50c.

Vol. 2

No. 1: Exploration of a Munsee Cemetery near Montague, New Jersey. By George G. Heye and George H. Pepper. 1915. $1.00.

No. 2: Engraved Celts from the Antilles. By J. Walter Fewkes. 1915. 50c.

No. 3: Certain West Indian Superstitions Pertaining to Celts. By Theodoor de Booy. Reprinted from Journ. Amer. Folk-Lore, Vol. 28, No. 107, 1915. 50c.

No. 4: The Nanticoke Community of Delaware. By Frank G. Speck. 1915. $1.00.

No. 5: Notes on the Archeology of Margarita Island, Venezuela. By Theodoor de Booy. 1916. 50c.

No. 6: Monolithic Axes and their Distribution in Ancient America. By Marshall H. Saville. 1916. 50c.

Vol. 3

Physical Anthropology of the Lenape or Delawares, and of the Eastern Indians in General. By Aleš Hrdlička. (Bur. of Amer. Ethnol., Bull. 62, 1916, with added title-page and cover.) $1.00.

Vol. 4

No. 1: The Technique of Porcupine-Quill Decoration among the North American Indians. By William C. Orchard. 1916. $1.00.

No. 2: Certain Archeological Investigations in Trinidad, British West Indies. By Theodoor de Booy. Reprinted from Amer. Anthropol., Vol. 19, 1917, No. 4. 50c.

No. 3: The Nacoochee Mound in Georgia. By George G. Heye, F. W. Hodge, and George H. Pepper. 1918. $1.50.

Vol. 5

No. 1: A Letter of Pedro de Alvarado Relating to his Expedition to Ecuador 1534. By Marshall H. Saville. 1917. 50c.

No. 2: The Diegueño Ceremony of the Death-Images. By E. H. Davis. 1919. 50c.

No. 3: Certain Mounds in Haywood County, North Carolina. By George G. Heye. Reprinted from Holmes Anniversary Volume, 1916. 1919. 50c.

No. 4: Exploration of Aboriginal Sites at Throgs Neck and Clasons Point, New York City. By Alanson Skinner. 1919. $1.00.

Address:

Museum of the American Indian, Heye
Foundation,
Broadway at 155th St.,
New York City

INDIAN NOTES
AND MONOGRAPHS
A SERIES OF PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES
TYPES OF CANOES ON PUGET SOUND
BY
T.T. WATERMAN
AND
GERALDINE COFFIN
———
NEW YORK
MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN
HEYE FOUNDATION
1920

THIS series of Indian Notes and Monographs is devoted primarily to the publication of the results of studies by members of the staff of the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, and is uniform with Hispanic Notes and Monographs, published by the Hispanic Society of America, with which organization this Museum is in cordial coöperation.

# TYPES OF CANOES ON
PUGET SOUND

BY
T.T. WATERMAN
AND
GERALDINE COFFIN

## CONTENTS

| PAGE
Introduction | 7
Specialization of the North Pacific Canoe into Different Models | 10
Points of Interest in the Various Types | 14
The War Canoe | 14
The “Freight Canoe” | 17
The “Trolling Canoe” | 18
The “Shovel-nose Canoe” | 19
The “One-man Canoe” | 21
The “Children’s Canoe” | 22
Native Terms for the Parts of the Canoe | 23
Distribution of the Various Types | 29
Conclusions | 36
Bibliography | 39
Notes | 42

## TYPES OF CANOES ON PUGET SOUND

By
T.T. Waterman and Geraldine Coffin

## INTRODUCTION

he canoes and the canoe manufacture of the North Pacific area have already received a fair amount of attention in ethnographical literature.[1] Many sizes and shapes of craft are in use, most of which have not been described in detail. All North Pacific canoes from Mount St Elias in Alaska to Eel river in northern California are, to quote the Handbook, [2] of a dugout type. The area of Puget sound lies in a general way toward the center of this region, and in this vicinity the largest variety of canoes seems to be in use. Our present purpose is to describe the types of canoes found at the present time on Puget sound proper, and then to outline, so far as is possible on the basis of scanty information, the distribution of these types into other regions.

The specimens on which this discussion is based were collected for the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, in the immediate vicinity of Seattle. The native terms for the various models and for the parts of the canoes are in the “Duwamish” dialect of Salish. The sounds occurring in this and the other Salish dialects spoken on the upper part of Puget sound are represented in the following tabulation.

VOWELS
i, | ι |  |  |  | u, | υ
| e, | ε |  | o, | ↄ |
|  |  | Δ |  |  |
| α |  |  | a |  |

i, as in machine ι, as in pin e, as in fête ε, as in met α, as in hat | u, as in rule υ, as in full o, as in note ↄ, as ou in ought a, as in bar
Δ, as in but

DIPHTHONGS
ai, as in aisle | oi, as in boil
SEMIVOWELS
w, y, substantially as in English

CONSONANTS
Stop | Labialized stop | Continuant | Affricative | Lateral | Affricative lateral
| Surd | Sonant | Fortis | Surd | Fortis | Surd | Surd | Fortis | Surd | Sonant | Surd | Fortis
Labial | p | b | p’ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Dental | t | d | t’ |  |  | s | ts | ts’ | L | l | tL | tL’
Alveolar |  |  |  |  |  | c | tc | tc’ |  |  |  |
Palatal | k | g | g’ | kw | kw’ |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Velar | q | γ | q’ | qw | qw’ |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Glottal | ’ |  |  |  |  | h,´ |  |  |  |  |  |

Of these sounds the following need, for the casual reader, some explanation. Surd l (written L) is an l produced without the help of the vocal cords. The symbol c has approximately the value of sh in she. The digraph tc is sounded like ch in church. The symbols in those columns which are headed “fortis” represent exploded or cracked consonants, produced with hard pressure of the tongue, followed by an abrupt release. The sound is quite sharp, markedly different from anything in English. The “velar” sounds likewise seem quite strange to English-speaking people; they are produced by making contact between the tongue and the back part of the palate (the velum). The glottal stop (’) represents a catch which checks the breath in the throat (larynx). Two sounds resembling English h seem to exist, one of them very weak, represented here by c. Superior letters represent whispered or weakly articulated sounds.

## SPECIALIZATION OF THE NORTH
PACIFIC CANOE INTO DIFFERENT
MODELS

In the year 1806 Lewis and Clark noted that the Indians on Columbia river possessed a number of different types or models of canoes.[3] Among more recent authors, Boas,[4] Gibbs,[5] Swan,[6] Niblack,[7] and Curtis,[8] have made observations to a similar effect. It may be relied on, therefore, that in the whole area which lies between Columbia river and southern Alaska, the canoe has

WATERMAN—CANOES PL. I
DIAGRAM REPRESENTING THE SIX TYPES OF CANOES ON PUGET SOUND
(a, the “war canoe”; b, the “freight canoe;” c, the “trolling canoe”; d, the “shovel-nose canoe”; e, the “one-man canoe”; f, the “children’s canoe,” used by children and as a knockabout.)

been evolved into a number of highly specialized forms. Various writers, however, classify canoes in somewhat different ways. Gibbs, and Lewis and Clark seem to imagine that the various forms are characteristic of different tribes. With Curtis and Niblack the essential thing in classification seems to be a matter of size. Boas alone has given the proper weight to differences in form.[9] On Puget sound at the present time there are six types of canoes in use, which are distinguished by the Indians not on account of their size but by differences in the shape of the hull. The variation in shape is very wide. On these waters one type of canoe is built for going to sea, and the lines of the hull are designed with the idea of enabling the craft to ride waves without shipping water. Every inch of the model is carefully calculated to keep it “dry.” No better craft for rough water, by the way, has ever been devised. The canoe rides the combers better than the white ma1’s boat. This was noted by Lewis and Clark[10] more than a hundred years ago, and similar comments are made today, even by men who follow the sea. A second type of canoe is designed for use on rivers and lakes. The bow and stern of this second model are cut off square, making the craft very convenient for poling. In spearing salmon in the streams, also, a spearsman can ride on the extreme tip of the bow and strike fish almost under his feet, while a companion paddles. This canoe is of little use in open waters. The salt-water villagers take the fish by means of nets and traps only. Each of the types in this way has its own particular uses. The series as a whole is an example of high specialization in a seafaring mode of existence.

Characteristic specimens of each of the six types used on Puget sound are illustrated in the accompanying diagram (pl. I). In order to bring out differences in outline, the drawings have been reduced to one length.

In actual practice each model of canoe is made in a large range of sizes, a matter which can hardly be presented in a diagram. Specimens of model a (pl. I) exist which are, for example, only 16 ft. long, while one other specimen of the same model exists which

WATERMAN—CANOES PL. II
DIAGRAM SHOWING (a) THE SHOVEL-NOSE CANOE USED ON PUGET SOUND, AND (b) THE CANOE USED BY THE YUROK OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

has a length of 80 ft. Model b in the diagram is usually made of fairly good size, in the neighborhood of 22 ft. long; but there is great variation in specimens. Model c is always small, and model f is never very large. We have not examined a large enough number of canoes to make it worth while to publish the measurements taken. The specimens from which the drawings were made were collected in the immediate neighborhood of Seattle and are in the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation.

Fig. 1.—Diagram showing the outline of the “Alaska” canoe, used by the Kwakiutl, Tsimshian, and Haida. It is occasionally seen on Puget sound. (After a diagram in Boas, 1909.)

An additional type, the great “Alaska” canoe, called by the Salish tsaba´xad, is sometimes seen on the sound. Such canoes came down from the north, manned usually by Haida from the Queen Charlotte islands, or by Nootka from the west coast of Vancouver island; occasionally by people of other tribes. These canoes were not used by the Puget Sound people, and were looked on with some curiosity. Their outline is shown in fig. 1 (after Boas).

## POINTS OF INTEREST IN THE VARIOUS TYPES

### A.—The “War Canoe” (αο´τος)

The Songish about Victoria, B. C., have this model, which they call a´tqEs.[11] Its most characteristic features, both there and here, are a prominent and lofty bow and stern. These consist, on Puget sound, of separate sections hewn out of cedar and fitted carefully into their places on the hull. They are fastened there by pegs of cedar (st’Δ´stΔd, the word now applied to nails) and lashings of twisted cedar withes (sti´dΔgwΔt), and the joint is watertight without being “pitched” (see Swan, 1868, for the method of fitting). Artistically, the shape of the prow strongly suggests an anima1’s head, and gives the canoe (which is exquisite in design) an air of alertness, as though it were moving of its

WATERMAN—CANOES PL. III
TWO SUQUAMISH “WAR CANOES” LASHED TOGETHER AND CARRYING A PLATFORM OF POLES
This device was used in transporting house-planks and for moving large quantities of effects from one site to another. (Photographed at Suquamish, Washington, 1913.)

own accord. From the practical standpoint these elevated additions to the hull are designed to throw aside the seas. The naked hull without these bow and stern pieces would soon fill in rough water. The pieces seem so slender and inadequate that an observer would doubt their effectiveness for such a practical end. The answer is that in the course of generations they have been reduced to the most slender proportions which will give the necessary protection, and they are wonderfully effective in aiding the actual navigation of the canoe. Many Indians and whites who have followed the sea tell us that this type of canoe ships less water in a storm than any craft in the world. If we are looking for a catchword, we may call this the “ocean-going canoe.”

A number of other terms have been applied to this class of vessel. A popular term in the Northwest is the word “Chinook.” We find, for example, the “Chinook” wind, the “Chinook” jargon, and “Chinook” salmon. “Chinook” is also applied by Indians and whites to the type of hull just described, and appears in that sense in the works of Swan and Boas. The term, bearing in mind, of course, that it is used in a general sense and is not necessarily to be associated with the Chinook tribe proper, living at the mouth of the Columbia, is distinctive, and has the advantage of usage behind it. Locally, on Puget sound, the model goes commonly by this name. This same type of hull is found in use by all the tribes from Columbia river northward to the Quatsino, living at the northern end of Vancouver island.[12] North of this area, among the Kwakuitl and Tsimshian, Haida and Tlingit, the sea-going canoe is different, and is of the type illustrated in fig. 1. Niblack[13] and Boas[14] have noted the distinction between the sea-going canoes of the south and those of the north, and Niblack illustrates it with a somewhat misleading figure. Niblack calls this northern model the “north coast type,” while Boas styles it the “Tsimshian” model. The terms “Tsimshian” and “Chinook” might well be used as catchwords to mark the distinction between the two varieties: one found along the coast of Alaska and British Columbia, the other

WATERMAN—CANOES PL. IV
BOW OF THE HULL SHOWN IN PLATE V, VIEWED FROM THE SIDE, WITH THE MAKE1’S WIFE, MARY ADAMS (TAI´PΔS) SEATED BESIDE IT
(Photograph by J. D. Leechman.)

occurring on the west coast of Vancouver island and southward as far, at least, as Columbia river.

### B.—The “Freight Canoe” (sti´waL)

The freight canoe differs in several respects from the foregoing. It never reaches the great size which the first-mentioned type sometimes attains, though specimens exist which are as much as 40 ft. in length. The cutwater in this type is vertical, or nearly so. This is the point mentioned by the Indian informants as the characteristic thing. The Songish term for this craft, sti´uwaitatl, is translated by Boas as “having a square bow.” I can find no reason for this peculiarity, nor advantage in it. An extra piece of cedar is carved and fitted with dowels on the prow of this craft also, “lifting” the lines of the hull somewhat. This piece differs greatly from the pieces fitted on the ocean-going canoe. The stern is modeled out of the original log. The tip of the prow is shaped into a “notch” resembling an open mouth. This type of canoe is used for journeys with household possessions in quiet waters. In a storm it is not particularly safe.

### C.—The “Trolling Canoe” (sdΔ´χωιL)

This craft has a very narrow hull, and the bow has more lift than in the preceding model.[15] Specimens of this type are usually relatively small, designed to carry only two or three men. This was the vessel used for hunting, for harpooning porpoise and otter, and in trolling for fish. The model exhibits some elegance of design. We may perhaps follow Boas in calling this craft the fishing or trolling canoe. A very large canoe of this model was called sdΔxwi´lūs. For hunting the porpoise a very swift canoe was needed, for the animal was alert, and hard to harpoon. Boas gives a complete account of the pursuit, as carried on by the Kwakiutl. The term for porpoise-hunting on Puget sound is ca´sab. The canoe intended for this purpose was called casa´bhwlL. It was of the type being discussed, but a fine, “clear” model and had to be fast.

WATERMAN—CANOES PL. V
INTERIOR VIEW OF THE HULL OF A SUQUAMISH “HUNTING CANOE” IN PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE
Made by Jack Adams (Xa´bsus), near Suquamish, Washington, in March, 1920.
(Photograph by J. D. Leechman.)

### D.—The “Shovel-nose Canoe” (τL´αι)

This type of canoe is called the “shovel-nose” because it is cut off square at bow and stern and the hull scoops forward like a shovel. The Songish visited by Boas have the same term, t1’lai, but the model pictured by Boas has a configuration somewhat different in certain details from the Puget Sound specimens seen. On the sound, the boat is hewn from one piece, while the Songish are said to add on the flattened end in the form of a separate plank. In spite of its shape the “shovel-nose” is in appearance anything but clumsy. It is excellently designed for a special purpose. A man may stand at the tip-end of bow or stern, and push with a pole, in shallow water. The people also who live up the rivers depend on this type of canoe for the spearing of salmon. When the fish are running in the rivers, one man paddles in the stern while a companion stands at ease out on the extreme end of the prow, with his spear poised ready for fish. His position there is ideal for striking salmon, since he lunges at fish almost directly under his feet. The bow-end of this boat is more slender than the stern. This type of boat is useful only in quiet waters. A characteristic piece of equipment is the canoe pole, he´Δqalsιd. Such a canoe is fine for sandbanks and shoals where the heavy Chinook type, with its features designed for protection against waves, is largely useless. Far up the rivers no canoes other than the shovel-nose are seen. The “salt-water” people, or “xwaldja´bc,” relate with amusement that “forest-dwellers,” or La´labιw, that is, the people living up the rivers, have only one word for canoe. “If it is a sdΔ´χωιL, or if it is a sti´waL, or even if it is a big αο´τχς, they call it a ‘shovel-nose,’ just the same.”

Some of these “fresh-water” Indians some years ago came voyaging down to Port Washington inlet, near the navy yard at Bremerton, in a shovel-nose canoe. In trying to negotiate the channel during a breeze and a change of tide, their canoe, which was not designed for such operations, filled and sank under their feet, and they lost their lives.

WATERMAN—CANOES PL. VI
THE FINISHED HULL OF THE CANOE SHOWN IN PLATES IV AND V
To the left in the photograph is the bow, which in this case lacks the “notch” found in many specimens. The “lift” of the boa1’s lines toward the prow may be plainly seen. This enables it to ride the waves.
(Photograph by J. D. Leechman.)

### E.—The “One-man Canoe” (di´twiL)

This is a very diminutive vessel, the smallest of all the Northwestern canoes. The term is grammatically the diminutive of sdΔ´wiL (c in the diagram, pl. I). Nevertheless, as a glance at the drawing will show, its hull differs somewhat in shape from that of its larger namesake. The di´twiL will carry only one person; but it is often very beautifully made. Specimens capsize very easily, but so long as they remain right-side up, they may be driven at high speed, and are light enough to be easily lifted and carried from place to place. They were used for fishing, and, following the introduction of firearms, for hunting ducks. Firing a shotgun over the side, however, turns the craft over. Bow and stern are finished off with very small carved pieces, which are set in place with the usual cedar pegs, and the bow carries the “notch” characteristic of the larger type. The canoe is rigged with thwarts, but the huntsman sits, not on these, but flat on the bottom of the boat. We may perhaps speak of this type as “the one-man canoe.”

### F.—The “Children’s Canoe” (qe´lbιd)

The canoe pointed out under this name is a “double-ended” type. The Indians describe it as a craft with two sterns. Its ends, which are identical in shape, are finished off to resemble the stern of the big war-canoe shown in pl. I, a. This craft, while not of great length, is very heavy, since the sides are relatively thick, and it is also very wide in the beam. It was used for the commonest purposes. Children got their first knowledge of the handling of canoes by “practising” with it. While the sides are not adzed down to the thinness which characterizes the hunte1’s craft, the vessel is nevertheless well designed in its own way and is much lighter and more manageable than a white-ma1’s boat. It is worth noting that the word qe´lbιd, given as the term for this type of boat, is the general word for canoe. The term dl1’e´dwlL was also applied to this type. We may perhaps speak of this form of craft as the “children’s canoe.”

WATERMAN—CANOES PL. VII
A “SHOVEL-NOSE” CANOE IN ACTION
Scene on the upper waters of Quinault river, coast of Washington.
(Photograph by J. H. Weir, of “The Mountaineers.”)

## NATIVE TERMS FOR THE PARTS OF THE CANOE

1. Bow, cεdst.

2. Stern, i´laaq.

3. Side, sila´lgwil.

A steam vessel is called u´dalgwil, “burning sides.”

4. Gunwale, sbΔtctca´lgwil.

5. Additional piece or section, hewn out separately, set on the bow, and fastened in place with pegs and lashing of twisted cedar, stL’a´lu.

It is fastened in place with dowels or pegs of cedar (No. 6), and lashings of twisted cedar-twigs (No. 7).

6. Dowels or pegs used as above, st’Δ´stΔd.

This word is now used for iron nails.

7. Cedar withes, sti´dagwΔt.

Used in fastening on the bow and stern sections, and in closing up cracks.

8. Stern-piece, stL’a´lalΔp.

Seated in place like the bow-piece, mentioned above.

On the Exterior of the Hull

9. Narrow piece projecting forward at the tip of the prow, bΔ´qsιd.

The shape of the forward part of the bow-piece strongly suggests the head of some living creature. The projection would correspond to a snout or beak. The Indians say the resemblance is accidental.

10. A knob or projection on the neck of the canoe, about two feet below the preceding feature, bla´lgwa’.

This word means “navel.” The Makah call this projection the boa1’s uvula.

11. Ornamentation consisting of parallel lines, incised with a special tool, like a reamer, on the side of the neck, astcι´1’absub.

This is incised with a special tool, in the old days made of flint, resembling a reamer. This ornamentation is found also on the top surface of the bow-piece.

12. Curved line of the prow, cli´bus.

13. Cutwater, tL’kwa´psΔb.

14. A bulge or raised strip at the gunwale, stLaa´gwΔp.

A corresponding excavation on the inside of the hull is mentioned below (No. 23).

15. Bottom, 1’a´tsΔp.

16. Where the bottom turns up toward the gunwale to form the sides, cΔxdt1’a´ladi.

17. Sharp blade or half-keel, under the cano1’s forefoot, st’ιtci´bιt.

This acts as a “muffler.” It cuts into the waves as the canoe forges ahead, without splashing. The canoe moves silently.

18. Forward extremity of the half-keel, 1’ilqs.

On the Interior of the Hull

19. Interior of the canoe, xuxta´ts.

20. Where the bottom turns up to form the sides, wila´ladiL.

21. Offset where the canoe widens at the gunwale, stpu´tsid.

This corresponds to the stLaa´gwΔp (No. 14 above).

22. Side of the canoe, i´lalgwιL.

23. Trench leading sternward from the tip of the prow, sxwο´qbus.

24. Vertical line of the hull at the stern, stLkwa´·lap.

Additional Fittings

25. Thwarts, cxalwi´ld.

These are round poles instead of flat benches, as in the canoes of Alaska and in our own boats. When on a trip the Indians pad them with an old mat, folded.

26. Withes of twisted cedar limbs, which fasten the thwarts, cli´dclidgΔs.

They are rove through a perforation in the thwart, and then through perforations in the side of the boat. Similar withes are used for mending cracks and in fastening the bow and stern sections in place (see No. 7 above). The present word refers to the way in which they are manipulated in fastening thwarts in place.

27. Strip of wood along the gunwale, stL’a´lalgwιL.

This is pegged to the top surface of the gunwale, to where the paddles rub, to prevent the sides of the canoe from being worn.

28. Painter, or boat rope, LΔdgwi´lad.

Used for mooring the boat, or anchoring it.

29. Crack in the hull, actcΔ´x.

30. Knot-hole, st1’a´ctalus (knot, stcact).

31. “Patched place,” stΔka´lgwιL.

When the side of a canoe is broken, a section is cut out bodily, a piece of plank being carefully shaped to fit in the space. This plank is fastened in place with cedar pegs and by “sewing” with cedar withes.

32. A “long patch,” sΔp1’a´tsgwιL.

This term refers to a place where a longitudinal crack in the bottom of the hull has been closed by stitching it up with cedar withes.

33. Holes bored in making the canoe, to test the thickness of the sides, udtc’ι´stΔd.

These holes are later closed by plugging them with round pegs of maple, which swells greatly on being wet.

34. Mast, xputdale (cf. pu´tιd, sail).

Informants insist that masts and sails are aboriginal. Vancouver, writing in 1792, says they are not.

35. Step or socket for the mast, tcugwacα´gwΔp.

36. Sail, pu´tιd.

This was a “square” sail, of checker-work matting, and was hoisted only when the breeze happened to come directly over the stern.

37. Upper yard, taLa´Lqud.

38. Lower yard, tLi´dΔp.

39. Paddle, xobt.

Terms of Direction

40. Ahead, tudzi´qw.

41. Astern, tuxula´qw.

42. Starboard, or right side, dzaha´lgwisapΔp.

43. Port, or left side, kala´lgwisapΔp.

44. Forward, tuca´dst (cf. cεdst, bow).

45. Aft, tue´laq (cf. i´laaq, stern).

46. Amidships, o´dugwιL.

Linguistically there is evident similarly between certain of the words in this list, as shown by the following groups:

(5) Bow-piece, stL’a´lu.

(8) Stern-piece, stL’a´lalΔp.

(13) Cutwater, tL’kwa´psΔb (cf. especially No. 26 below).

(14) Raised strip along gunwale, stLaa´gwΔp.

(24) Vertical line at stern, stLkwa´·lap.

(27) Strip pegged to gunwale, stL’a´lalgwιL.

(6) Dowels, or pegs, st’Δ´stΔd.

(33) Holes bored to test the thickness of the hull, udtc’ι´stΔd.

One is inclined to suspect the presence of a common suffix in the following cases:

(12) Curved line of the prow, cli´bus.

(23) Trench leading backward from the prow, sxwο´qbus.

The presence of a suffix is obvious in the following cases:

(3) Side, sila´lgwil.

(4) Gunwale, sbΔtctca´lgwil.

(22) Side of the canoe (interior), i´lalgwιL.

(31) Section of plank used as a patch, stΔka´lgwιL.

(32) Closing of a crack by sewing, sΔp1’a´tsgwιL.

(11) Ornamental lines, astcι´1’absub.

(13) Cutwater, tL’kwa´psΔb.

(15) Bottom, 1’a´tsΔp.

Analysis of these expressions is not possible at the present time.

The terms in the above list apply especially to the sea-going canoe. Similar words are applied to the other types of canoes, except where the corresponding parts are missing.

The notch at the bow of the trolling canoe is simply called qa´dxu, “notch.”

## DISTRIBUTION OF THE VARIOUS TYPES

A situation with many points of interest exists in regard to the distribution of these forms of canoes. For example, on Puget sound we have the six types of dugout canoes, which have been described; in northern California we have only one. The question at once suggests itself, How far southward along the Pacific coast does the use of six types of canoes extend? And, again, as we travel southward, do all six of the Puget Sound types disappear from use at once, being replaced by new types of craft, or are certain of these Puget Sound types more widely distributed than the others? The last question, I think, is the more easily answered. The single type which is used on Klamath river and on Humboldt bay in northern California is probably a modification of one of the types used on Puget sound—the “shovel-nose” model described above (pl. I, d). The appended diagram (pl. II) shows these two craft side by side. There seems to be in a general way a marked similarity in these canoes. They are both dugouts, of a “square-ended” type, and in each case the model has reached a high degree of refinement. There is a skilful “pinching-in” of the lines of the craft toward the ends, and also a very graceful “lift” of the bottom at bow and stern. It may be asserted from experience that both craft are very light and easily handled. The California canoe has no gunwale-strips,[16] and, moreover, it has in the stern some foot-braces and a seat, hewn in one piece with the hull, which are absent in the Puget Sound boat. The California boat, on the other hand, has no thwarts. The most striking difference, however, is that the bow and the stern of the California craft are crowned up into a peak, and the bow is further graced with a removable carven ornament, shaped like an inverted V. These differences seem superficial and underneath them the present writers see almost identical lines in the two vessels.

So much for the general resemblance. The facts of distribution make the idea of relationship much more plausible. It is worthy of remark that in California south of Humboldt bay there are no dugout canoes at all. Northward, however, dugouts are in use among all tribes as far as Puget sound. Moreover, in the case of some, at least, of the intervening tribes the shovel-nose or square-ended type of dugout occurs. This is true of the tribes about Klamath lake, for instance, as shown by a specimen of their canoes collected by Dr Barrett, now in the Museum of the University of California. Information on this point is unsatisfactory, for in this intervening area few observers have taken the pains to note in detail what kinds of canoes were used. This is true of much of Oregon, even on the coast. Vancouver says of the Indians of Port Orford that “their canoes, calculated to carry about eight people, were rudely wrought out of a single tree; their shape much resembled a butche1’s tray, and seemed very unfit for a sea voyage or any distant expedition.”[17] This seems almost certainly to indicate that he saw craft of a shovel-nose type. We can find few other statements on this matter in the literature. On Columbia river, as shown by the statements of Boas,[18] on the coast of Washington as illustrated by the photographs of Curtis,[19] on Puget sound and northward to an unknown distance, as observed by the present writers, shovel-nose canoes are in general use. The bare facts, as we have them, seem to be most readily explained on the assumption that one type of dugout canoe, of wide distribution on the North Pacific, has spread also as far south as the Yurok and neighboring tribes in northern California. The increased complexity of the design as found among the Yurok and their neighbors, as shown especially in the ornamentation, is possibly explainable by the fact that these tribes exhibit a distinctly higher culture in many respects than do their neighbors to the south, the east, or the north. For some reason, in the region about the mouth of Klamath river a secondary center of high culture has developed. It is not unlikely that this has produced the peculiar traits of their canoe.

It is noticeable also that there seems to be a gradual modification of all types of canoes as we move southward toward California. On Puget sound, five canoes out of six show a lift in the gunwales toward bow and stern. On the coast south of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, as shown by the photographs of Curtis,[20] canoes other than the shovel-nose have an abrupt “raise” at the prow, but amidships and at the stern they are “flush,” the gunwales forming a straight horizontal line. Apparently this arrangement might be considered as an approach to the California type of canoe, where the gunwales are perfectly flat, without any lift at either end.

If our inference is correct, it is apparent that, as we travel southward from Columbia river, five of the North Pacific types become modified and finally cease to be used. It has not been possible to find any evidence in the literature that indicates the point where the distribution of any of these models ceases.

The use of dugout canoes extends, of course, up the rivers which flow toward the Northwest coast. Thus the Wishram at the falls of the Columbia use the “Chinook” model described in the present paper, and other dugout models besides. George Gibbs stated that the shovel-nose type is the only one used on the Columbia above The Dalles.[21] Curtis has one picture of a dugout canoe used by the Nez Percés.[22] It is of the shovel-nose type (though shockingly clumsy, heavy, and ill-made—merely a log roughly shaped and somewhat hollowed out). Chamberlain states[23] that the Kootenay have a dugout type of craft, of what shape we do not know. It seems to be impossible to trace in detail the distribution of the shovel-nose in this direction on the basis of any material now in print. We may speak with certainty, therefore, only of the region immediately about Seattle, where the present authors have had a chance to make observations. In this vicinity the only type of canoe used on the upper courses of the streams is the shovel-nose.

Concerning the distribution, in a northerly direction, of these types of canoes, little can be said at the present time. As remarked above, the Kwakiutl use in place of the αο´τχς, a great sea-going canoe of somewhat different and more complicated model, and much more elaborately ornamented.

The evolution of canoes probably took place among the people somewhat northward of Puget Sound peoples, whose general level of culture is higher. Going southward from the Kwakiutl, say, canoes are steadily less and less specialized, until we come to the tribes of northern California with their one model. South of the California tribes just mentioned, these influences are not apparent at all. Concerning the canoes of the coast north of the Kwakiutl, we can get at the present time no information. It is not known whether several types are in use, or only one. The pictures of Curtis, which might tell the story, are not nearly so useful as they are in other cases, since he photographed very few canoes in this area; possibly because he found so much else to picture.

## CONCLUSIONS

The situation as regards canoes in the area under discussion may be essentially like that respecting types of pottery in the Southwest, as presented by Nelson.[24] He has shown in a most interesting way that the archaic types of pottery are also the types with the widest distribution. As we pass from center to periphery of the cultural region which he discusses, we encounter types of pottery which are more and more primitive. One striking difference between Nelso1’s problem and the present one is that a great mass of evidence has been assembled in the Southwest, while in regard to canoes on the Northwest coast the data are largely lacking. Another difference is that Nelson carried out extensive investigations in the field, while the present discussion is based largely on scattered references in the literature. Nelso1’s conclusions, to be brief, are based on knowledge and facts, while our own must be in the last degree inferential.

The idea seems plausible, however, that the original type of canoe on the Northwest coast was the shovel-nose. Several considerations point in this direction. The shovel-nose is the simplest model. This raises a logical presumption that it may well be the oldest. It is associated with rivers, being of use only in streams and other quiet water. This also suggests that it may represent an early type. It may be regarded as certain that the first man or the first group who experimented with navigation on the North Pacific coast, experimented on the rivers, and not on the high seas. This would seem to imply that the river craft would be the first to reach perfection. The sea-going “Chinook” type, and models showing points of similarity to it, are in all human probability later in origin. When we consider the distribution of the various types of canoes, we emerge for a moment from the jungle of speculation into the field of evidence, though that evidence is scanty. It is a fact that the shovel-nose type of canoe is of wider distribution than the other types. It is the only type found in the marginal regions to the east and south of the area of typical North Pacific Coast culture. Thus is raised the presumption that it represents an older type of craft than do the other models.

The connection between northern California and the North Pacific area, which seems to be exemplified in the distribution of dugout canoes, is also a matter of some importance. Ultimately it will doubtless be proved by a careful comparison, in the two areas, of houses, geographical notions, money and financial institutions, and other matters, that the mode of life of the tribes in extreme northern California is a direct offshoot of the type of culture found in the Northwest.

## BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boas, Franz
1889 | First general report on the Indians of British Columbia. In Report of the Committee appointed for the purpose of investigating ... the northwestern tribes of the Dominion of Canada. Report of the Fifty-ninth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held ... in ... 1889, pp. 801-803. [Deals with the Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and Kootenay.]
1890 | Second general report on the Indians of British Columbia. Same series as above. Report of the Sixtieth meeting, held ... in ... 1890, pp. 562-715. [Deals with the Nootka, Salish, and Kwakiutl.]
1895 | Fifth report on the Indians of British Columbia. Same series as above. Report of the Sixty-fifth meeting, held ... in ... 1895, pp. 523-592. [Deals with the Tinneh of Nicola valley, Ts’Ets’ā´ut, and Nisk·a of Nass river.]
1896 | Sixth report on the Indians of British Columbia. Same series as above. Report of the Sixty-sixth meeting, held ... in ... 1896, pp. 569-591. [Deals with the Kwakiutl and Tsimshian.]
1909 | The Kwakiutl of Vancouver island. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. VIII, pt. 2 (reprint from Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. V, pt. 2).
Chamberlain, A. F.
1892 | Report on the Kootenay Indians of southeastern British Columbia. In Report of the Committee appointed to investigate ... the northwestern tribes of the Dominion of Canada. Report of the Sixty-second meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held ... in ... 1892, pp. 549-615.
Cook, James
1784 | A voyage to the Pacific ocean ... for making discoveries in the northern hemisphere ... performed by Captains Cook, Clarke, and Gore, in his Majest1’s ship the Resolution and Discovery, in the years 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779 and 1780. In three volumes (London).
Curtis, Edward S.
1907-1916 | The North American Indian ... being a series of volumes picturing and describing the Indians of the United States and Alaska. In twenty volumes. [Eleven volumes published up the present time.]
Gibbs, George
1855 | Report on the Indian tribes of the Territory of Washington. Pacific Railroad Report, vol. I, pp. 402-436, Washington, D. C.
1877 | Tribes of western Washington and northwestern Oregon. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region. Contributions to North American Ethnology, vol. I, pp. 103-241.
Lewis, Albert Buell
1906 | Tribes of the Columbia valley and the coast of Oregon and Washington. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, vol. I, pt. 2.
Lewis and Clark
1904 | Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition, 1804-1806, printed from the original manuscript.... Edited ... by Reuben Gold Thwaites, New York.
Nelson, N. C.
1919 | Human Culture. Natural History, New York, vol. XIX, no. 2, pp. 131-140.
Niblack, A. P.
1890 | The Coast Indians of southern Alaska and northern British Columbia. Smithsonian Institution, Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1888, Washington.
Swan, James G.
1857 | The Northwest coast; or, Three years residence in Washington Territory. New York. (Harper.)
1868 | The Indians of Cape Flattery at the entrance to the Strait of Fuca, Washington Territory. Smithsonian Institution, Contributions to Knowledge, No. 220.
Vancouver, George
1798 | A voyage of discovery to the North Pacific ocean and round the world ... performed in the years 1791-1792, 1793, 1794, and 1795 in the Discovery Sloop-of-War, and the armed tender Chatham.... In three volumes London.

## NOTES

1 Boas, 1888, 1890, 1905-1909; Swan, 1868; Niblack, 1890; Gibbs, 1855; Curtis, 1907-1916; vols. VIII-XI and folios. Of the earlier authors, Cook, 1784, vol. II, p. 327; Vancouver, 1798; and Lewis and Clark, 1904, vol. IV, give valuable data. For references, see the bibliography.

2. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 30.

3. 1904, vol. IV, pp. 31, 35.

4. 1889, p. 817; 1890, pp. 565, 566; also a remark quoted by A. B. Lewis, 1906, p. 163.

5. 1855, p. 430; 1877, p. 216.

6. 1857, pp. 79, 80.

7. 1890, p. 294.

8. 1907-1916, vol. IX, p. 60.

9. See especially 1890, p. 817, with figures.

10. 1904, p. 30.

11. Boas, 1890, p. 566.

12. Boas, 1890, p. 566; see also Curtis, 1907-1916, vol. X, Folio, pl. 345.

13. 1890, p. 295.

14. 1889, p. 817.

15. The corresponding class of craft is called snE´quatl among the Songish, and is styled by Boas the “small fishing canoe.”

16. See above, p. 26.

17. 1798, vol. I, p. 204.

18. Quoted by A. B. Lewis, 1906, p. 163, as noted above.

19. 1907-1916, vol. VIII.

20. For example, 1907-1916, vol. IX, p. 98.

21. 1877, p. 215.

22. 1907-1916, vol. VIII, p. 46.

23. 1892, p. 566.

24. 1919, pp. 113-136.

INDIAN NOTES
AND MONOGRAPHS
Edited by F. W. Hodge
A SERIES OF PUBLICATIONS
RELATING TO THE
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
HOW THE MAKAH OBTAINED
POSSESSION OF CAPE
FLATTERY
TOLD BY
ALBERT IRVINE
TRANSLATED BY
LUKE MARKISTUN
NEW YORK
MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN
HEYE FOUNDATION
1921

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TYPES OF CANOES ON PUGET SOUND ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.