Bark Canoe and Skin Kayak Items at L.C. Bates Museum

Although founded in the early 20th century, the L.C. Bates Museum, in Hinckley, Maine, is a throwback to an even earlier time, when many museums were more or less random collections of oddities. Here you will find biological specimens, works of art, and anthropological artifacts side by side, many of them labeled poorly or not at all and too many deteriorating from a lack of care due, apparently, to a paucity of funds.

Nevertheless, it's a fun place to browse on a short visit, it's cheap ($3 for adults), it's on the way to good canoeing and rafting in northern Maine, and it contains a couple exhibits of interest to us. One is about Native American (primarily Maine) birchbark technology; the other displays Greenland Inuit artifacts from the first decade of the 20th century.

This bark canoe model is over 3' long. It's decorated with hundreds of dyed porcupine quills, both ends of which are tucked into small holes pre-punched in the bark. Although the exhibit card says that it's "likely mid-west in origin," the ends are exaggerated representations of those on Canadian fur trade canoes. 

From the exhibit card: "This old, well-made model is an example of the thousands sold to Maine tourists in the late 19th and early 20th century (sic). This canoe shows how heated tree resin was used to seal and waterproof the birch bark joints. The word for canoe in all Abenaki languages in Aquiden."
Below the canoe model is a moose call, also made of birch bark.

An Abenaki canoe paddle, "of a size suited for teaching a young person the art of propelling a canoe."

A 19th century box with hinged covers, probably Penobscot, probably made for the tourist trade and intended for use as a picnic hamper. The crossed paddles and tepee designs -- of poorer quality than the box itself -- are incised in the bark in the same manner that canoes were decorated. 

Perspective view of the same box, with a round covered box, also of birch bark, behind.

The exhibit card identifies the miniature kayaks in this and the following photo as toys, made for indigenous children. This may be incorrect: except for the wooden one (above, right), they were probably made for the tourist trade and/or upon the request of researchers or collectors. The one above left is ivory, and the kayaker's hand is made to hold the harpoon that rests across the cockpit coaming.  

Two nicely authentic skin-on-frame kayak models.

The Greenland kayak was essentially a hunting tool, used primarily in the pursuit of seals and walruses. The main hunting weapon was a harpoon with a detachable head or foreshaft. The largest of these bone harpoon points and fragments are only about 4" long. 

Related Posts:

Tweet

Nice Nicaragua Dugout and a Few North American Canoes

Yesterday I received training in first aid and CPR at Three Rivers Whitewater in The Forks, Maine. (The town is named for the confluence of the Kennebec and Dead rivers.) This whitewater raft trip outfitter runs The Boatman's Bar & Grill, the interior of which is decorated with several interesting boats, prime among them a 20th century dugout canoe from Nicaragua.

The boats are displayed on walls and ceiling. I've rotated the photos for the most logical view of the boats, but the context may appear confusing for that reason. 

We'll begin with three full-length photos of the dugout. We're looking at the bow here. The sides of the boat are thin -- about 1" thick. The ends only appear to be thick and heavy, and what we're seeing here is actually an overhang beyond the buoyant section of the hull.

View from the stern. The hull is carved from the trunk of a conifer that is known in Nicaragua as a spruce, but it is a far harder wood than northern spruces.

I estimate overall length at 16', and maximum beam around 14".

The bow shows substantial overhang. The hull bottom is somewhat flattened, but the sections are quite round overall. With its narrow beam, this must be a rather tippy boat. And given its extreme length:beam ratio, it would be fast but very difficult to turn. Definitely a craft for protected waters only.

Top view of the bow, showing the stem decoration.

Top view of the stern. The sharply-pointed shape of the carved interior contrasts nicely with the rounded end of hull's exterior form. As at the bow, the apparently heavy stern is actually an overhang, and the stern itself is not much thicker than the sides.

Side view of the stern, showing the round hull and overhang.

Hanging just above the dugout is this canvas-on-frame double-paddle canoe. It was built by a member of Rhode Island's Haffenreffer family, famous as the brewers of Narrangansett Beer and benefactors of the Haffenreffer Museum, Brown University's museum of anthropology (which, by the way, possesses some excellent, very old Inuit kayaks).

Looking at the bow of the Haffenreffer canoe. This looks like a handy, stable, fun boat for exploring tiny streams and backwaters.

A square-sterned "Grand Laker" canoe is hanging upside-down from the ceiling of the dining room. Probably from eastern Maine (i.e., "down east"), the cedar hull was once covered with a canvas skin. It looks to be in good condition. 

The Grand Laker has rather square sections amidships, half-ribs between every rib, a full-length keelson over the ribs, and four nicely-proportioned thwarts with a subtle arch.

Another canvas-on-cedar canoe, this one a double-ended solo boat with nice heart-shaped decks (unfortunately painted, not varnished). The presence of a seat in the stern is surprising, as a paddler sitting there would make the boat extremely stern-heavy. It's probably less than 12' long, so it's unlikely that it was used for extended tripping with loads of gear in the bow to level out the trim. The starboard gunwale is cracked amidships, giving the boat a sharply-angled outline. 

Related Posts:

Tweet

Maya Canoes

The Maya, whose civilization was based in the southern Mexico (including the densely forested Yucatan Peninsula) and parts of Central America depended heavily upon waterborne transport to supply goods to their several urban centers. Within Mayan territory, goods traveled by river from the interior to coastal areas, and from the coast inland as well. Coastwise trade also occurred both among Maya and with neighboring peoples.

Christopher Columbus encountered the Maya in the Yucatan on his fourth voyage to the New World. His son Ferdinand wrote:

"...there arrived at that time a canoe long as a galley and eight feet [2.5m] wide, made of a single tree trunk like the other Indian canoes; it was freighted with merchandise from the western regions around New Spain. Amidships it had a palm-leaf awning like that which the Venetian gondolas carry; this gave complete protection against the rain and waves. Under this awning were the children and women and all the baggage and merchandise. There were twenty-five paddlers...."

The cargo in this single canoe included clothing, tools, weapons, foodstuffs, wine and luxury items. Obsidian was also an important import. The reported width of 8 feet seems unlikely for a logboat.

Although no Mayan boats have been recovered, there is ample evidence that dugout canoes were the standard means of transportation. Aside from the matter of size -- we can safely assume that river craft were smaller than seagoing boats -- Maya canoes took several forms. Incised illustrations appearing on bones found in a royal burial in Tikal depict some of these variants. Mayan illustration showed most objects in profile, which limits our understanding of the canoe designs to that view, but shows some clear differences in sheerline, end decoration, and in the forms of the stem and stern.

Paddler gods and animal deities vigorously transport a passenger -- probably the royal individual buried in the tomb in which this carving was found -- beneath the surface of the water, possibly into the underworld of death. The canoe accommodates several paddlers and passengers, and the stern is high and decorative. (Click any image to enlarge.)

This canoe has an even more elaborate raised stem, shown in perspective overlapping two other fancy canoe bows.

Two gods fishing from a canoe. The straight sheer and overhanging end platforms are less ceremonial, more appropriate to a workboat.

Found in Maya territory on Moho Cay, off the coast of Belize, this canoe model agrees with the previous image, including the straight sheer and the overhanging platform ends. The model, possibly a child's toy, was made from manatee rib. It's not clear if the tapered shape is an accurate representation of the canoe form, or if it was necessitated by the taper of the bone from which it was carved.

Stingray god and Jaguar god paddle another straight-sheered canoe in an image from a temple in Tikal. The stern is similar to the two previous images, but the bow is more vertical, with less overhang. The paddle blades are entirely to one side of the shafts, which have no end-grips: the upper hand grasps the shaft several inches below the end, and the lower hand several inches above the decorated blade. (Similar paddles can be vaguely made out in images #1 and #3 above.) Stingray appears to be sitting at about the level of the sheerline, possibly on the stern platform, with his feet inside the hull, while Jaguar appears to be sitting cross-legged on the bow platform. (Stingray appears anxious, and Jaguar resigned. We can imagine the conversation: "Jaggy, are you sure you shut off the stove before we left?" "Yes, dear.")

A paddle discovered at a Mayan saltworks on Punta Ycacos Lagoon on the Yucatan Peninsula in Belize agrees almost perfectly with those in the image above. The paddle does have a very narrow bit of blade opposite the main part of the blade. Total length is 1.43m. The shaft is round, 5cm diameter. The association of the paddle and the saltworks indicates waterborne trade in salt. 

A temple fresco from Chichen Itza shows three canoes traveling coastwise, each carrying two warriors. The canoe ends are high and similar to image #1. The single "paddler" in each boat appears to be using his long-shafted paddle to pole from the bow. The paddles have conventional symmetrical blades.

So important was coastwise trade that the Maya established aids to navigation. Marks were erected on trees, and even the massive citadel of Tulum appears to have served at least in part as a lighthouse. 

At Tulum, two windows in the thick stone walls of El Castillo's upper level face directly toward the harbor entrance. When illuminated from within, the lights would be clearly visible only when a canoe is properly lined up to pass safely through the gap in the protecting coral reef.

Sources

• With one exception, all content is from "The Earliest Watercraft: From Rafts to Viking Ships" by Margaret E. Leshikar, in Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas: A History Based on Underwater Archaeology, George F. Bass, Editor, Thames & Hudson, NY, 1988.
• The content about the Punta Ycacos paddle is from "Finds in Belize document Late Classic Maya salt making and canoe transport," Heather McKillop, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol.102, #15.

Related Posts:

Tweet

ARCHAMBAULT A13

This is one of the boats I am waiting with more expectations  and I confess that I was a little worried not to have any news about its development, but yes they are making the boat that will be launched till this summer.

There are some good reasons for my expectations: The Archambault are just great performance cruisers, the A31 continues to win races and the "new" 35 is beating everything on the water, including the new SF 3600 and JPK 1080, not only in compensated but in real time, but the truth is that even if we can cruise on those boats their interior storage space and tanking is limited and either the cruising is really spartan or long range cruising is not really an option.

Contrary to those the A13 has the space and the buoyancy to have all the load needed  for long range cruising, assuming a moderately sportive kind of approach. Anyway other kind of cruising would not make sense in that type of  boat and the boat can become the only real competitor on the Pogo 12.50 market. They are studding  a swing keel and that's one of the big advantages of Pogo, but not everybody wants a Swing keel that, if not needed, would only make the boat more expensive and with increased maintenance. Anyway the announced 2.60m draft will be too much for many in what regards cruising. I bet they will end up with a version with a keel similar to the one on  the Pogo.

They saw this cruising potential on Archambault and contrary to the other boats this one will have several interiors, from the stripped out interior of an offshore racer, passing by the usual interior that they use on their boats, to a really nice and comfortable cruising interior. The drawings that they have released are very convincing and I find the boat beautiful, a Joubert/Nivelt desig, like the other Archambault.

Comparing to the Pogo this boat would have advantages to all that want to do regattas or offshore racing: Contrary to the Pogo this one will be competitive not only in real time but in compensated time and it will be a much better boat for crewed regattas. It will probably also be an easy boat to sail solo, but in this case the Pogo will have an advantage in easiness that will be translated in downwind speed.

 Upwind the A13 should be better, with crew or solo. Comparing with other fast boats, for instance the Sydney 43 GTS  (now made by Salona) the A13 should not only have a better interior (even if the one from Sydney is quite good) but the completely different type of transom will allow it a much easier sail downwind making it a boat much more suited for cruising or solo/short crew racing. Why do I say this:

Looking at the transom design type the differences are not many between the Pogo 12.50 and the A13. We can see that both have a soft curve that will make for sailing without too much heel and that a big resistance will be offered to high angles of heel but while the Pogo has a hard chine that will increase resistance to heel at that point but will create drag if sailed over, on the A13 even if the overall shape is not very different, that chine does not exist and the boat can be heeled more, pushed upwind in racing conditions (or for fun), taking advantage of the ballast (that almost for sure it will be bigger than on the Pogo), without creating so much drag.

But the real difference is beam: The Pogo 12,50 compared with the A13 is a smaller boat with a LOA of 12.50m versus 13.10m, but with considerable more beam, 4.50m, versus 4.15m. The Pogo is lighter, with 5500/6000kg versus 6400/6700kg but should have more ballast weight (as it is normal on the two different design types) and both boats will have a big draft, the Pogo 3,0m with the swing keel down and 2.20m with the fixed keel, the A13 with 2.60m with the fixed keel.

The A13 is a   very interesting mix for the ones that want a very fast cruiser a boat more comfortable and faster upwind than the Pogo, a boat more suitable for regattas, with a good solo sailing potential. Of course in what regards voyage or racing on the trade winds (Transat and circumnavigation) the Pogo will be a better and more suited boat but for the ones that sail on the Med and coastal areas with variable and weaker winds, the A13 would be  faster and more adequate.

Regarding price I believe it will be very difficult for a boat of this type to approach the Pogo price (they point to 320 000 euros without VAT). The two boats are complementary in the kind of performances they offer. I cannot wait to see a comparative test sail with the two boats on the water ;-)

Related Posts:

Tweet

MR PELICANO ON THE J70

This weekend will be two days of practice in the J/70. I had my very first sail in the boat last Sunday, in about 12-18 knots, with some larger puffs, in light chop and a few small waves. There is nothing particularly remarkable about the J/70 but it performs well on all points of sail. Due to its greater displacement, it goes upwind quicker and with less pounding than the Melges 24 and Melges 20, although the class restrictions against "extreme hiking" prevent it from going even faster, in a breeze. Off the wind, it's quite stable but takes more wind to get on a plane and stay there; the driver and trimmers have to be very focused to maintain the pace. The Melges 24, by contrast, gets on the plane very quickly and will stay there provided the crew weight is positioned responsively.

Ultimately, the major appeal of the boat is that the fleets at major U.S. regattas have been huge - nearly 80 boats at Charleston Race Week this year (going on as I type), with pretty decent quality, including Category 3 professionals. That was my own motivation in agreeing to crew on the locally-based #404 this season, rather than race my Laser or the Swan 42. I'll still race my Laser in a few events, including the North American Masters, and I have a few Farr 30 events on the schedule, just for fun (love the Farr 30), but mostly it will be the J/70.

Next year... I'll have to wait and see. Big boat racing is nearly dead in the U.S. right now (only 4 boats in HPR at Charleston Race Week - 3 Carkeek 40's and a Farr 400) so maybe I'll have to consider switching to multihulls or something.

Hi!, great post as usual, thanks. As you know in what regards market the J70 is a different boat compared with the other monohull racers you named, well at least in Europe since in the States it seems the boat is used practically only for racing. In fact around here the boat is described by J composites (that builds it) as:

"The J-70 is a sportboat that will satisfy the ones looking for strong sensation while allowing a family use. Indeed, the retractable J 70  keel and ballast witll  gives it  the stiffness that allows sailing with children without the need of  hiking to keep the boat balance. This makes the J-70 a safe and reliable small sportboat."

This is a translation from what they say in French but if you go to the same page in English you will see that the way they promote the boat is quite different :

"The J/70 Speedster is J/Boats' first ramp-launchable keelboat, designed to fulfill the growing need for an accessible, high performance one-design that is exciting to sail, as well as being stable enough for family outings and built to last. The J/70 is a reliable and safe sportsboat."

Family use passes to a foot note while the boat passes from one able to deliver strong sensations to a high performance one-design :-)

I posted this because it is a very good example of something I have been saying: Performance sailboats are looked in a different way in Europe and in the US. While there they are looked as race boats, here are looked as dual purpose performance boats. To that vision corresponds different markets and sales and that is the reason why performance cruisers are almost nonexistent  in the US  or why on the US they call performance cruisers to boats like the Sun Odyssey 409 or Tartan 4000 and race boats to the J122.

As a high levell race boat, as you pointed out, the boat will leave much to be desired, because it is not one, but a dual purpose boat and a very good one.  That explains why the boat beat on the 2013 European boat of the year another great boat, the Seascape 27 (that being also a dual boat is not designed for the same type of sailing). 

Now think of it not as a high level race boat but imagine yourself having one on the garage, to race occasionally but also to sail and have fun with the kids and the family on semi protected waters and I guess you will agree with me that it is a great boat for that dual intended use or even to race with the family. In Italy there is a father that is racing with its 8 and 10 year old son's. That's the spirit :-) (Look at the picture above).

MR PELICANO;

This is an interesting J/70 video insofar as it demonstrates the paradox about this boat which Paulo mentions in his discussion. Clearly it is highly stable in big breeze - note that the crew is not having much trouble keeping things under control upwind or under spinnaker. If not for all the surrounding boats, they could be out having a leisurely day sail on a windy afternoon. 

The flip side, of course, is that you can't win races in the J/70 sailing it like they are - i.e., in a leisurely manner. From my own brief experience in the boat, here's what I notice:

 1. With three on the boat, in breeze, two people need to be legs out hiking upwind, to the limits of what the class rules allow. The driver then needs to play the traveler and mainsheet aggressively, to minimize heel.

 2. Similarly, in heavy air the trimmer should be cross-sheeting the jib and easing it in puffs, with waves that large, to keep the boat driving upwind. This is something mentioned by leading J/70 skipper Tim Healy, from North Sails, in his videos. 

3. Downwind, the crew is not shifting their weight responsively enough. You literally have to keep moving fore and aft to maximize the planing potential of waves and keep the boat in the groove. The Perihelion crew moves a few times, but mostly sits comfortably on the rail, enjoying the ride. 4. The bowman needs to be trimming the jib downwind, in planing conditions, as well as the vang. He does neither on this boat, while the kite trimmer makes almost no adjustments to the spinnaker, just the occasional tweak. 

So, it is no surprise, then, that Perihelion finished 37th out of 38 boats at Key West Race Week in 2013. Perhaps they were only out to have some fun, which is terrific. Glad they made the trip. But if they want to be competitive in that class, they need to take advantage of every little trick to make the J/70 sail to its maximum potential. While it may not be as physically demanding as the Melges 24, it still requires you to work hard for every .10 of a knot. :)

 During our practice session today, we focused on spinnaker sets, since we are having some difficulty there. The triangle between the jib leech and the lower shrouds is rather narrow, so getting the tack of the spinnaker deployed takes a bit of muscle. Then it is crucial for the bowman to literally throw the head and body of the sail away from the boat, while someone else wails on the halyard, so the kite doesn't get caught in the spreader (which happened once today).

 We experimented with leading the tack line aft so it could be deployed by the driver (3-up) or the main trimmer (4-up), leaving the headsail trimmer to handle the pole and halyard. 

That seemed to work much better than having the headsail trimmer handle pole, tack and halyard. Take downs where not an issue, as I have a lot of experience from the Melges 24 and other small sprit boats. Upwind, we experimented with jib car settings and in-hauling the jib using the windward jib sheet (no separate in-hauler is allowed under class rules). 

The Quantum sail we're using likes to be trimmed very flat in over 8 knots, with significant in-haul in flat water conditions (like today). In chop, the sail needs more camber and the slot needs to be opened, so you can maintain power. As mentioned above, in big breeze, the trimmer can ease the jib in puffs and waves from the rail, then grind it back in via cross-sheeting on the windward winch. A lot of work, to be sure, but very fast. More of the same for us tomorrow, as we prepare for our first regatta of the 2014 season, at American Yacht Club Spring Series, two weeks from now.

Maybe they are following us and can learn something :-). Thanks again. Keep us posted on your season and see if you can have a Gopro aboard!!!  Those guys are not top sailors but they not only had fun as they made a nice movie :-)

Related Posts:

Tweet

ALESSANDRO COMUZZI 950 DAYSAILER

The name does not ring a bell? Probably not, it is a very young Italian NA that freshly out of Venezia University starts to be noticed, first with the boat that he designed for his thesis in Yacht Design, under the supervision of Maurizio Cossutti, the 11.90, a plywood/ epoxy/Carbon performance cruiser and now with a gorgeous daysailer in strip planking, the 950.

Both boats are beautiful, the cruiser managing to wide the chines needed on the plywood construction, using them functionally with a hull that in his transitions remembers the ones of the last monohull America's cup boats, beamier of course and the daysailer, that looks even more gorgeous. It has a narrowish hull, an inverted bow and the same type of hull with a more soft approach allowed by the construction method.

The 950 has a beam of 2.50m, a draft of 1.90m a ballast of 700kg, weights 1890kg and has 47m2 of sail area upwind.

The boat program was dificult and interesting. Comuzzi says about it:

"The shipowner has in fact expressed the need very clearly from the outset to be operated by only one person with specific mobility requirements.

The design of the boat allows the sailor to move freely without facing steps or the need to go on deck for mooring or setting the sails. This aspect characterizes the overall design of a boat that is developed with a well stretched up almost at the bow cockpit, interrupted only by the contrast of the self-tacking jib, which can be raised if necessary in two halves to allow passage (including navigation).

The maneuvers are of course all at your fingertips and are served exclusively by a single central winch . All lines are hidden for maximum clean look...

The hull is designed to have good stability and speed even with little wind. The boat is in fact designed for light winds in summer and has sail area of 41 m2, not exaggerated considering the use primarily in solo. It can use a gennaker or code zero.

The boat will be built of laminated mahogany and the internal structure will be made of marine plywood and epoxy resin. This provides great rigidity and lightness.

It will be installed inboard engine , a shower of fresh and salt water, fridge, autopilot, bathing ladder, and all those useful convenience for a day daysailer."

A movie showing the way the plywood cruiser is built:

It seems structurally very well designed and results in an incredibly light boat ( 4677kg). Probably all those bulhkheads have allowed a less thick hull allowing for enough strength and a lighter hull.

Related Posts:

Tweet

XC 35, A MODERN POCKET BLUEWATER CRUISER?

I am a big fan of X yacht. They have great boats on three different lines, one with racers that is in my opinion the less interesting and deserved to be reviewed with faster and more aggressive boats; a line of performance cruisers, the Xp line with fast boats with a great cruising potential that, if ordered with top specifications, can do well at top level in handicap racing; and a line of boats pointed more to bluewater cruising, heavier boats that maintain a good performance and that have a classic look, the Xc line.

The last boat to come out from X yachts was a 35ft to complete the XC line. I saw the boat in Dusseldorf and I was a bit puzzled. It is a nice boat but why have they chose to make a 35ft for the XC line? Given the narrowish hull the boat has not much interior space and given  the modern tendency to bigger cruising boats, it is a small one, even in what regards coastal cruising, so why proposing one on their bluewater line?

Who, with that kind of money,  will go bluewater on a 35ft boat? Certainly very few since a small boat is not only a boat with less load ability, less storage space, slower but also less comfortable in a sea way.

With the price that boat costs it is possible to buy a good  main market mass production 40ft equipped for offshore work. I confess that I don't understand very well to what market this boat points, but it is a very nice one for coastal cruising even if for me it is already too small. 

I could live with the Xc38, the 35 is just too small for have a decent storage for long range comfortable cruising, at least in what concerns a comfortable and less sportive type of cruising.

The boat is designed as usually by Niels Jeppesen, it has a classical looking hull, an "old" designed keel that needs more ballast for the same RM (probably the conservative clientele of this type of boats prefer it that way), a big spade ruder, a moderate beam ( 3.52m) and it is relatively heavy (6450kg). Just for comparison  a Dehler 38 weights 6600kg and a Salona 38, 6500kg.  

A the XC35b is a 35fter that costs the same as those boats, has less stability, is slower, probably has not a better sea motion, has less interior space, less load ability and storage space...but has a nicer interior finish, even if in what regards style that is disputable and I think that the Dehler 38 is the one with the better interior design.

But if you just love it as it is, has enough space and storage and you  have the money for it, go ahead, have one, it is a cute little boat, one that will remain classic, since it looks already a bit old looking :-) and certainly a very good sailboat. 

On this very nice movie by Yacht.de we can see the boat in detail (we can see briefly, at the beginning of the movie the other XC from the line). You can order the full test, if interested in the boat.

http://tv.yacht.de/video/Ostsee-Express%253A-XC-35-im-Test/d288fb1e086e93b6f1b1fcd1c8bd5a6b

Related Posts:

Tweet