Introduction to Java Programming Comprehensive

Version 10th Edition Liang Solutions Manual

install download

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-java-programming-
comprehensive-version-10th-edition-liang-solutions-manual/

Download more testbank from https://testbankfan.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit testbankfan.com
to discover even more!

Introduction to Java Programming Comprehensive Version

10th Edition Liang Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-java-programming-
comprehensive-version-10th-edition-liang-test-bank/

Introduction to Java Programming Comprehensive Version

9th Edition Liang Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-java-programming-
comprehensive-version-9th-edition-liang-test-bank/

Introduction to Java Programming Brief Version 10th

Edition Liang Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-java-programming-
brief-version-10th-edition-liang-test-bank/

Comprehensive Introduction to Object Oriented

Programming with Java 1st Edition Wu Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/comprehensive-introduction-to-
object-oriented-programming-with-java-1st-edition-wu-solutions-
manual/
Introduction to C++ Programming and Data Structures 4th
Edition Liang Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-c-programming-
and-data-structures-4th-edition-liang-solutions-manual/

Introduction to Programming with C++ 3rd Edition Liang

Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-programming-
with-c-3rd-edition-liang-test-bank/

Introduction to Programming with Java 2nd Edition Dean

Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-programming-with-
java-2nd-edition-dean-solutions-manual/

Introduction to Programming Using Visual Basic 10th

Edition Schneider Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-programming-
using-visual-basic-10th-edition-schneider-solutions-manual/

Java Programming 9th Edition Farrell Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/java-programming-9th-edition-
farrell-solutions-manual/
Student Name: __________________
Class and Section __________________
Total Points (10 pts) __________________
Due: September 8, 2010 before the class

Project: The Circle2D Class

CSCI 1302 Advanced Programming Principles
Armstrong Atlantic State University

Problem Description:
Define the Circle2D class that contains:
• Two double data fields named x and y that specify the
center of the circle with get methods.
• A data field radius with a get method.
• A no-arg constructor that creates a default circle
with (0, 0) for (x, y) and 1 for radius.
• A constructor that creates a circle with the specified
x, y, and radius.
• A method getArea() that returns the area of the
circle.
• A method getPerimeter() that returns the perimeter of
the circle.
• A method contains(double x, double y) that returns
true if the specified point (x, y) is inside this
circle. See Figure 10.14(a).
• A method contains(Circle2D circle) that returns true
if the specified circle is inside this circle. See
Figure 10.14(b).
• A method overlaps(Circle2D circle) that returns true
if the specified circle overlaps with this circle. See
the figure below.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
(a) A point is inside the circle. (b) A circle is
inside another circle. (c) A circle overlaps another
circle.

Draw the UML diagram for the class. Implement the

class. Write a test program that creates a Circle2D
object c1 (new Circle2D(2, 2, 5.5)), displays its area
1
 and perimeter, and displays the result of
c1.contains(3, 3), c1.contains(new Circle2D(4, 5,
10.5)), and c1.overlaps(new Circle2D(3, 5, 2.3)).

Design:
Draw the UML class diagram here

Circle2D

Coding: (Copy and Paste Source Code here. Format your code using Courier 10pts)

public class Exercise10_11 {

public static void main(String[] args) {
Circle2D c1 = new Circle2D(2, 2, 5.5);
System.out.println("Area is " + c1.getArea());
System.out.println("Perimeter is " + c1.getPerimeter());
System.out.println(c1.contains(3, 3));
System.out.println(c1.contains(new Circle2D(4, 5, 10.5)));
System.out.println(c1.overlaps(new Circle2D(3, 5, 2.3)));
}
}

class Circle2D {
// Implement your class here
}

2
Submit the following items:

1. Print this Word file and Submit to me before the class on the due day.

2. Compile, Run, and Submit to LiveLab (you must submit the program regardless
whether it complete or incomplete, correct or incorrect)

3
Solution Code:

public class Exercise10_11 {

public static void main(String[] args) {
Circle2D c1 = new Circle2D(2, 2, 5.5);
System.out.println("Area is " + c1.getArea());
System.out.println("Perimeter is " + c1.getPerimeter());
System.out.println(c1.contains(3, 3));
System.out.println(c1.contains(new Circle2D(4, 5, 10.5)));
System.out.println(c1.overlaps(new Circle2D(3, 5, 2.3)));
}
}

class Circle2D {
private double x, y;
private double radius;

public Circle2D() {
x = 0;
y = 0;
radius = 1;
}

public Circle2D(double x, double y, double radius) {

this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.radius = radius;
}

public double getX() {

return x;
}

public void setX(double x) {

this.x = x;
}

public double getY() {

return y;
}

public void setY(double y) {

this.y = y;
}

public double getRadius() {

return radius;
}

public void setRadius(double radius) {

this.radius = radius;
}

public double getPerimeter() {

return 2 * radius * Math.PI;
}

public double getArea() {

4
 return radius * radius * Math.PI;
}

public boolean contains(double x, double y) {

// MyPoint is defined in Exercise9_4
double d = distance(x, y, this.x, this.y) ;
return d <= radius;
}

public boolean contains(Circle2D circle) {

return contains(circle.x - circle.radius, circle.y) &&
contains(circle.x + circle.radius, circle.y) &&
contains(circle.x, circle.y - circle.radius) &&
contains(circle.x, circle.y + circle.radius);
}

public boolean overlaps(Circle2D circle) {

// Two circles overlap if the distance between the two centers
// are less than or equal to this.radius + circle.radius
// MyPoint is defined in Exercise9_4
return distance(this.x, this.y, circle.x, circle.y)
<= radius + circle.radius;
}

private static double distance(double x1, double y1,

double x2, double y2) {
return Math.sqrt((x1 - x2) * (x1 - x2) + (y1 - y2) * (y1 - y2));
}
}

5
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
"mark of Chief Neptune" (Passamaquoddy)

"mark of Louis Paul"

"canoe was finished on new moon" (Joe Ellis)

"mark of old Solomon Paul"

Figure 77
End Decorations, Passamaquoddy Canoe built by Tomah Joseph.
In duplicating a design, the Malecite apparently used a pattern, or stencil,
which was preserved to allow duplication over a long period of time. The
stencil was usually cut from birch bark, apparently an old practice, although
whether it was done in prehistoric times cannot be determined. The long
contact of the Malecites with Europeans is a factor to be considered in such
matters. This is sometimes shown in picture-writing on a canoe; one, for
instance, showed a white man fishing with rod and line from a canoe with an
Indian guide. On the opposite side was the representation of an Indian camp
beside two trees, a kettle over the fire and the brave sitting cross-legged
smoking his pipe, indicating, of course, "comfort and contentment."
Asking old Indians to identify or give the names of decorations, Adney
recorded statements which indicate their thought in regard to such matters.
There were used, for example, two forms of the half-moon or crescent; one
was quite open at the points which plainly indicated a half-moon, but the

other was more nearly closed: Mrs. Billy Ellis, widow of Frank Francis,
a Malecite, said of them, "Old Indian earrings, that is only what I can call
them. Also in nose. Wild Indian made them of silver or moose-bone, I guess
he thought he looked nice; it looked like the devil." Joe Ellis, an old canoe
builder, also called this form "earrings" and when asked why an Indian would
put these on a canoe, replied "He will think what he will put on here. He
might have seen his wife at bow of canoe, and put it on [there]." Shown the
right-triangle-in-series design, Mrs. Ellis said "I fergit it but I will remember;
what you lift with your hand, we call it that—camp door" (referring to the
cloth or hide hung over a camp door, and raised at one corner to enter, so
that the opening is then divided diagonally).
In a later period, the Malecite usually confined decoration to the wulegessis
and to the pieced-out bark amidships, the panel formed on each side. The
wulegessis was of various forms; its bottom was sometimes shaped like a
cupid's bow, sometimes it was rectangular. A common form was one
representing the profile of a canoe. Being of winter bark, it was red or brown,
with the part where the design was scraped showing white or yellow. The
center panel was also of winter bark, and the design on it showed a similar
contrast in color. Even when the bark cover was not pieced out, the panel was
formed by scraping all the cover except a panel amidships on each side. Old
models indicate that the early Malecite canoes may have used decoration all
over above the waterline (see p. 81) far more frequently than has been the
recent custom. The decorations were a fiddlehead design in a complicated
sequence so that it bore a faint resemblance to the hyanthus in a formal
scroll, but the design apparently had no ceremonial significance; it was used
for the same reason given Adney for so many forms of bark decoration, "it
looked nice."
Figure 78
End Decorations, Passamaquoddy Canoe built by Tomah Joseph.

Figure 79
Passamaquoddy Decorated Canoe built by Tomah Joseph.
The drawings and plans on pages 71 to 87 will serve better than words to
show these characteristic designs and decorations. It is doubtful that color,
paint or pigment, was used in decorating the Malecite bark canoes before the
coming of Europeans, but it was employed occasionally in the last half of the
19th century. The beauty of the Malecite canoe designs lay not in the barbaric
display of color characteristic of the large fur-traders' canoes, but in the
tasteful distribution of the scraped winter bark decoration along the sides of
the hull. The workmanship exhibited by the Malecite in the construction of
their canoes was generally very fine; indeed, they were perhaps the most
finished craftsmen among Indian canoe-builders.
 St. Francis
The tribal composition of the Abnaki Indians is somewhat uncertain. The
group was certainly made up of a portion of the old Malecite group, the
Kennebec and Penobscot, but later also included the whole or parts of the
refugee Indians of other New England tribes who were forced to flee before
the advancing white settlers. It is probable that among the refugees were the
Cowassek (Coosuc), Pennacook, and the Ossipee. There were also some
Maine tribes among these—the Sokoki, Androscoggin, (Arosaguntacook),
Wewenoc, Taconnet, and Pequawket. It is probable that the tribal groups from
southern and central New England were mere fragments and that the largest
number to make up the Abnaki were Malecite. The latter in turn were driven
out of their old homes on the lower Maine coast and drifted northwestward
into the old hunting grounds of the Kennebec and Penobscot, northwestern
Maine and eastern Quebec as far as the St. Lawrence. The chief settlement
was finally on the St. Francis River in Quebec, hence the Abnaki were also
known as the "St. Francis Indians." These tribesmen held a deep-seated
grudge against the New Englanders and, by the middle of the 18th century,
they had made themselves thoroughly hated in New England. Siding with the
French, the St. Francis raided the Connecticut Valley and eastward, taking
white children and women home with them after a successful raid, and as a
result the later St. Francis had much white blood. They were generally
enterprising and progressive.
Little is known about the canoes of these Abnaki during the period of their
retreat northwestward. It is obvious that the Penobscot, at least, used the old
form of the Malecite canoe. What the canoes of the other tribal groups were
like cannot be stated. However, by the middle of the 19th century the St.
Francis Indians had produced a very fine birch-bark canoe of distinctive
design and excellent workmanship. These they began to sell to sportsmen,
with the result that the type of canoe became a standard one for hunting and
fishing in Quebec. When other tribal groups discovered the market for canoes,
they were forced to copy the St. Francis model and appearance to a very
marked degree in order to be assured of ready sales. It is obvious, from what
is now known, that the St. Francis had adapted some ideas in canoe building
from Indians west of the St. Lawrence, with whom they had come into close
contact. However, they had also retained much of the building technique of
their Malecite relatives. Hence, the St. Francis canoes usually represent a
blend of building techniques as well as of models.
The St. Francis canoe of the last half of the 19th century had high-peaked
ends, with a quick upsweep of the sheer at bow and stern. The end profile
was almost vertical, with a short radius where it faired into the bottom. The
rocker of the bottom took place in the last 18 or 24 inches of the ends, the
remaining portion of the bottom being usually straight. The amount of rocker
varied a good deal; apparently some canoes had only an inch or so while
others had as much as four or five. A few canoes had a projecting "chin" end-
profile; the top portion where it met the sheer was usually a straight line.
The midsection was slightly wall-sided, with a rather quick turn of the bilge.
The bottom was nearly flat across, with very slight rounding until close to the
bilges. The end sections were a U-shape that approached the V owing to the
very quick turn at the centerline. The ends of the canoe were very sharp,
coming in practically straight at the gunwale and at level lines below it. The
gunwales were longer than the bottom and so the St. Francis canoes were
commonly built with a building-frame which was nearly as wide amidships as
the gunwales but shorter in length.
At least one St. Francis canoe, built on Lake Memphremagog, was constructed
with a tumble-home amidships the same as that of some Malecite canoes.
The rocker of the bottom at each end started at the first thwart on each side
of the middle and gradually increased toward the ends, which faired into the
bottom without any break in the curves. The end profiles projected with a
chin that was full and round up to the peaked stem heads. The sheer swept
up sharply near the ends to the stem heads. This particular canoe represented
a hybrid design not developed for sale to sportsmen, and the sole example, a
full-size canoe formerly in The American Museum of Natural History at New
York and measured by Adney in 1890, is now missing and probably has been
broken up.
Figure 80
St. Francis 2-Fathom Canoe of About 1865, with upright stems. Built for
forest travel, this form ranged in size from 12 feet 6 inches overall
and 26½-inch beam, to 16 feet overall and 34-inch beam.
The St. Francis canoes were usually small, being commonly between 12 and
16 feet overall; the 15-foot length usually was preferred by sportsmen. The
width amidships was from 32 to 35 inches and the depth 12 to 14 inches. The
14-foot canoe usually had a beam of about 32 inches and was nearly 14
inches deep; if built for portaging the ends were somewhat lower than if the
canoe was to be used in open waters. Canoes built for hunting might be as
short as 10 or 11 feet and of only 26 to 28 inches beam; these were the true
woods canoes of the St. Francis.
The gunwale structure of the St. Francis canoes followed Malecite design; it
was often of slightly smaller cross section than that of a Malecite canoe of
equal length, but both outwale and cap were of somewhat larger cross
section. The stem-pieces were split and laminated in the same manner, but
occasionally the lamination was at the bottom, due to the hard curve required
where the stem faired into the bottom. Many such canoes had no headboards,
the heavy outwales being carried to the sides of the stem pieces and secured
there to support the main gunwales. If the headboard was used, it was quite
narrow and was bellied toward the ends of the canoe. In some St. Francis
canoes the bark cover in the rockered bottom near the ends showed a marked
V. In the canoe examined by Adney at the American Museum of Natural
History, the ribs inside toward the end showed no signs of being "broken," so
it is evident that the V was formed either by use of a shaped keel-piece in the
sheathing or by an additional batten shaped to give this V-form under the
center strake. Since the V began where the rocker in the canoe started, in an
almost angular break in the bottom, it is likely that a shaped batten had been
used to form it. He could not verify this, however, as the area was covered by
the frames and sheathing.

Figure 81
St. Francis Canoe of About 1910, with narrow, rockered bottom, a
model popular with guides and sportsmen for forest travel.
The sheathing was in short lengths with rounded ends which overlapped, and
it was laid irregularly in the "thrown in" style found in many western birch-
bark canoes. The ribs were commonly about 2 inches wide and nearly ⅜ inch
thick, the width tapering to roughly 1¾ inches under the gunwales. The ends
of the ribs were then sharply reduced in width to a chisel point about 1 inch
wide; the sides of the sharply reduced taper being beveled, as well as the
end. A 15-foot canoe usually had 46 to 50 ribs.
The thwarts, unlike those of the Micmac and some Malecite canoes, in which
the thwarts were unequally spaced, were equally spaced according to a
builder's formula. The ends of the thwarts, or crossbars, were tenoned into
the main gunwales and lashed in place through the three lashing holes in the
ends of each thwart, except the end ones, which usually had but two. In
some small canoes, however, two lashing holes were placed in all thwart ends.
The design of the St. Francis thwart was as a rule very plain, gradually
increasing in width from the center outwards to the tenon at the gunwale in
plan and decreasing in thickness in elevation in the same direction. The ends
of the main gunwales were of the half-arrowhead form, and were covered
with a bark wulegessis, but the flaps below the outwales were sometimes cut
off, or they might be formed in some graceful outline.
The bark cover was sometimes in one piece; when it was pieced out for
width, the harness-stitch was used. In most canoes, the bark along the
gunwale was doubled by adding a long narrow strip, often left hanging free
below the gunwales and stopping just short of the wulegessis, which it
resembled. It was sometimes decorated. A few St. Francis canoes with nailed
gunwales omitted this doubling piece. When used, the doubling piece, as well
as the end cover, were folded down on top of the gunwale before being sewn
into place. The decoration of the St. Francis canoes seems to have been scant
and wholly confined to a narrow band along the gunwale, or to the doubling
pieces. The marking of the wulegessis had ceased long before Adney
investigated this type of canoe and no living Indian knew of any old marks, if
any ever had been used.
Figure 82
Low-Ended St. Francis Canoe with V-form end sections made with short,
V-shaped keel battens outside the sheathing at each end. Note the
unusual form of headboard, seen in some St. Francis canoes.
The ends were commonly lashed with a spiral or crossed stitch, but some
builders used a series of short-to-long stitches that made groups generally
triangular in appearance. The gunwale lashing was in groups about 2½ inches
long, each having 5 to 7 turns through the bark. The groups were about 1½
to 1¼ inches apart near the ends and about 2 inches apart elsewhere. The
groups were not independent but were made by bringing the last turn of each
group over the top and inside the main gunwale in a long diagonal pass so as
to come through the bark from the inside for the first pass of the new group.
The caps were originally pegged, with a few lashings at the ends.
The ribs were bent green. After the bark cover had been sewn to the
gunwales, the green ribs were fitted roughly inside the bark, with their ends
standing above the gunwales, and were then forced into the desired shape
and held there, usually by two wide battens pressed against them by 7 to 10
temporary cross struts. After being allowed to dry in place, the ribs were then
removed, the sheathing was put into place, and the ribs, after a final fitting,
were driven into their proper positions. Some builders put in the ribs by pairs
in the shaping stage, one on top of the other, as this made easier the job of
fitting the temporary battens. The forcing of the ribs to shape also served to
shape the bark cover, and the canoe was placed on horses during the
operation, so that the shape of the bottom could be observed while the bark
was being moulded. Some builders used very thin longitudinal battens
between the bark and the green ribs to avoid danger of bursting the bark.
The canoe was built on a level building bed, in most instances apparently,
with the ends of the building frame blocked up about an inch. It seems
possible, however, that narrow bottom canoes may have been built with the
bed raised 2 or 3 inches in the middle, rather than employing a narrow
building frame. The construction of the building frame was the same as
among the western Indians and as described in Chapter 3.

Figure 83
St. Francis-Abnaki Canoe for Open Water, a type that became extinct
before 1890. From Adney's drawings of a canoe formerly in the
Museum of Natural History, New York. Details of Abnaki canoes are
also shown.
In preparing the ribs, a common practice was the following: Assume, for
example, that there are 10 ribs from the center to the first thwart forward;
these are laid out on the ground edge-to-edge with the rib under the center
thwart to the left and the rib under the first thwart to the right. On the rib to
the left the middle thwart is laid so that its center coincides with that of the
rib, and the ends of the thwart are marked on the rib. The same is done to
the rib on the far right, over which the first thwart is laid as the measure. On
each side of the centerline the points marking the ends of the thwarts are
then joined by a line across the ribs, as they lie together, to mark the
approximate taper of the canoe toward the ends, at the turn of the bilge.
Each rib is taken in turn from the panel and with it is placed another from the
stock on hand to be set in a matching position on the other side of the middle
thwart, toward the stern; the pair, placed flat sides together, are then bent
over the knee at, or outside of, the marks or lines. The ribs in the next portion
of the canoe's length are shaped in the same manner, using the lengths of the
first and second thwarts as guides. Thus, the ribs are given a rough,
preliminary bend before being fitted inside the bark cover and stayed into
place to season. This method allowed the bilge of the canoe to be rather
precisely determined and formed during the first stages of construction. At the
ends, of course, the ribs are sharply bent only in the middle. Since the full
thwart length makes a wide bottom, by setting the length of the rib perhaps a
hand's width less than that of the whole thwart, the narrow bottom is formed.
The rough length of the ribs was twice the length of the thwarts nearest
them. Hackmatack was used for thwarts by the St. Francis Indians, rock
maple being considered next best. Cedar was first choice for ribs, then
spruce, and then balsam fir. Longitudinals were cedar or spruce. All canoe
measurements were made by hand, finger, and arm measurements. Basket
ash strips were often used in transferring measurements.

Figure 84
Model of a St. Francis-Abnaki Canoe Under Construction, showing method
of moulding ribs inside the assembled bark cover.
From what has been said, it will be seen that the construction practice of the
St. Francis did not follow in all details that of their Malecite relatives. The
intrusion of western practices into this group probably took place some time
after the group's final settlement at St. Francis. As they gradually came into
more intimate relations with their western neighbors and drifted into western
Quebec, beyond the St. Lawrence, their canoe building technique became
influenced by what they saw to the westward. As would be expected, the St.
Francis Abnaki began early to use nails in canoe building, but, being expert
workmen, they retained the good features of the old sewn construction to a
marked degree up to the very end of birch-bark canoe construction in
southern Quebec, probably about 1915. It should perhaps be noted that what
has been discovered about the St. Francis Abnaki canoes refers necessarily to
only the last half of the 19th century, since no earlier canoe of this group has
been discovered. The changes that took place between the decline of the
Penobscot style of canoe and that of the later Abnaki remain a matter of
speculation.

s: Figure 85
St. Francis-Abnaki Canoe.
 Beothuk
The fourth group of Indians, classed here as belonging to the eastern
maritime area, are the Beothuk of Newfoundland. Historically, perhaps, these
Indians should have been discussed first, as they were probably the first of all
North American Indians to come into contact with the white man. However, so
little is known about their canoes that it has seemed better to place them last,
since practically all that can be said is the result of reconstruction,
speculation, and logic founded upon rather unsatisfactory evidence. The tribal
origin of the Beothuk has long been a matter of argument; they are known to
have used red pigment on their weapons, equipment, clothes, and persons. A
prehistoric group that once inhabited Maine and the Maritime Provinces
appears to have had a similar custom; these are known as the "Red Paint
People," and it may be that the Beothuk were a survival of this earlier culture.
But all that can be said with certainty is that the Beothuk inhabited
Newfoundland and perhaps some of the Labrador coast when the white man
began to frequent those parts. The Beothuk made a nuisance of themselves
by stealing gear from the European fishermen, and by occasionally murdering
individuals or small groups of white men. Late in the 17th century, the French
imported some Micmac warriors and began a war of extermination against the
Beothuk. By the middle of the 18th century the Newfoundland tribe was
reduced to a few very small groups, and the Beothuk became extinct early in
the 19th century, before careful investigation of their culture could be made.
Their canoes were made to a distinctive model quite different from that of the
canoes of other North American Indians. The descriptions available are far
from complete and, as a result, many important details are left to speculation.
Some parts of the more complete descriptions are obscure and do not appear
to agree with one another. In spite of these difficulties, however, some
information on the canoes is rather specific; by using this, together with a
knowledge of the requirements of birch-bark canoe construction, and by
reference to some toy canoes found in 1869 in the grave of a Beothuk boy, a
reasonably accurate reconstruction of a canoe is possible.
Captain Richard Whitbourne had come with Sir Humphrey Gilbert to
Newfoundland in 1580 and revisited the island a number of times afterward.
In 1612 he wrote that the Beothuk canoes were shaped "like the wherries of
the River Thames," apparently referring to the humped sheer of both; in the
wherry the sheer swept up sharply to the height of the oar tholes, in profile,
and flared outward, in cross section.
John Gay, a member of the Company of Newfoundland Plantation, wrote in
1612 that Beothuk canoes were about 20 feet long and 4½ feet wide "in the
middle and aloft," that the ribs were like laths, and that the birch-bark cover
was sewn with roots. The canoes carried four persons and weighed less than
a hundredweight. They had a short, light staff set in each end by which the
canoes could be lifted ashore. "In the middle the canoa is higher a great
deale, than at the bowe and quarter." He also says of their cross section:
"They be all bearing from the keel to portlesse, not with any circular, but with
a straight, line."
Joann de Laet, writing about 1633, speaks of the crescent shape of the
canoes, of their "sharp keel" and need of ballast to keep them upright; he also
states that the canoes were not over 20 feet long and could carry up to five
persons.
The most complete description of the Beothuk canoe was in the manuscript of
Lt. John Cartwright, R.N., who was on the coast of Newfoundland in 1767-
1768 as Lieutenant of H.B.M. Ship Guernsey. However, some portions are
either in error or the description was over-simplified. For example, Cartwright
says that the gunwales were formed with a distinct angle made by joining two
lengths of the main gunwale members at the elevated middle of the sheer.
This hardly seems correct since such a connection would not produce the
rigidity that such structural parts require, given the methods used by Indians
to build bark canoes. The three grave models show that the sheer was
actually curved along its elevated middle. It is possible that Cartwright saw a
damaged canoe in which the lashings of the scarf of the gunwales had
slackened so that the line of sheer "broke" there. Cartwright is perhaps
misleading in his description of the rocker of the keel as being "nearly, if not
exactly, the half of an ellipse, longitudinally divided." The models show the
keel to have been straight along the length of the canoe and turned up
sharply at the ends to form bow and stern. Cartwright also states the keel
piece was "about the size of the handle of a common hatchet" amidships, or
perhaps 1 inch thick and 1½ inches wide, and tapered toward the ends,
which were about ¾ inch wide and about equally thick. The height of the
sheer amidships was perhaps two-thirds the height of the ends.
Figure 86
A 15-Foot Beothuk Canoe of Newfoundland with 42½-inch beam, inside
measurement, turned on side for use as a camp. It gives headroom
clearance of about 3 feet, double that of an 18-foot Malecite canoe
with high ends. When the ends were not high enough to provide
maximum clearance, small upright sticks were lashed to bow and
stern. The shape of the gunwales would permit the canoe to be
heeled to an angle (more than 35°) which would swamp a canoe of
ordinary sheer and depth. (Sketch by Adney.)
Nearly all observers, Cartwright included, noted the almost perfect V-form
cross section of these canoes, with the apexes rounded off slightly and the
wings slightly curved. From an interpretation of Cartwright's statements, it
appears that after the bark cover had been laced to the gunwales, the latter
were forced apart to insert the thwarts, as in some western Indian canoe-
building techniques. The three thwarts are described as being about two
fingers in width and depth. It is stated that the gunwales were made up of an
inner and outer member and all were scarfed in the middle to taper each way
toward the ends, the outer member serving as an outwale or guard.
Cartwright also states that the inside of the bark cover was "lined" with
"sticks" 2 or 3 inches broad, cut flat and thin. He refers also to others of the
same sort which served as "timbers" so he is describing both the sheathing
and the ribs as being 2 or 3 inches wide. He does not say how the thwarts
were fitted to the gunwales, how high the ends were, how the ends of the
gunwales were formed, nor does he give any details of the sewing used.
However, the grave models suggest the form of sewing probably used and the
approximate proportions of sheer.
An old settler told James Howley that the Beothuk canoes could be "folded
together like a purse." Considering the construction required in birch-bark
canoes, this is manifestly impossible; perhaps what the settler had seen was a
canoe in construction with the bark secured to shaped gunwales, ready for
the latter to be sprung apart by thwarts, as in opening a purse. Howley also
obtained from a man who had seen Beothuk canoes a sketch which shows a
straight keel and peaked ends, confirmed in all respects by the grave models
or toys.
The toy canoes so often referred to here were found by Samuel Coffin in an
Indian burial cave on a small island in Pilley's Tickle, Notre Dame Bay (on the
east coast of Newfoundland), in 1869. Among the graves in the cave, one of a
child, evidently a boy, was found to contain a wooden image of a boy, toy
bows and arrows, two toy canoes and a fragment of a third, packages of
food, and some red ochre. With one of the canoes was a fragment of a
miniature paddle. One of the canoes was 32 inches long, height of ends 8
inches, height of side amidships 6 inches, straight portion of keel 26 inches
and beam 7 inches, as shown by Howley.
In Newfoundland there was very fine birch but no cedar. There was, however,
excellent spruce which would take the place of cedar. It seems certain, then,
that all the framework of the Beothuk canoes was of spruce. It seems likely
that they were never built of a single sheet of birch but were covered with a
number of sheets sewn together, as in other early Indian birch-bark canoes.
The canoe birch of Newfoundland grew to a diameter of 2 to 2½ feet at the
butt, which would produce a sheet of birch of 6 to 7 feet width; the length
would be decided by how far up the tree the Indian could climb to make the
upper cut. As has been stated, the prehistoric Indians seemingly made little
attempt to build birch-bark canoes of long lengths of bark, preferring to use
only the bark obtainable near the ground and above the height of the winter
snows.
The form of the Beothuk canoes, particularly the lack of bilge and the marked
V-form, has caused much speculation. One writer assumed that the form was
particularly suited for running rapids. Actually, the Beothuk appeared to have
used canoes for river travel very rarely, as few rivers in their country were
suited for navigation. Instead, they seem to have been coast dwellers and to
have used canoes for coastal travel and for voyages from island to island.
Their canoes were undoubtedly designed for open-water navigation, and the
V-form was particularly suitable for this. The draft aided in keeping the canoe
on its course with either broadside or quartering winds, and if the Beothuks
knew sail, the hull-form would have served them well. It is quite evident that
the Beothuk canoes used ballast in the form of stones or heavy cargo. Stones
would have been placed along the keel piece and covered with moss and
skins. The strongly hogged sheer was useful in protecting cargo amidships
from spray and, in picking up a seal or porpoise, the canoe could be sharply
heeled without taking in water. The V sections fore and aft were suitable for
rough-water navigation; because of its form and the weight of ballast, the
canoe would pass partly over and through the wave-top without pounding. If
a wave of such height as to overtop the gunwales just abaft the stem were
met, the strongly flaring sides would give reserve buoyancy, causing the
canoe to lift quickly as the wave reached up the sides.
The small sticks in the ends, mentioned by John Gay, served not only for
lifting the canoe but also as braces to support the canoe at a given angle
when turned over ashore to serve as a shelter. The Beothuk canoe, because
of its form, was not well suited for portaging, and it must be concluded that
little of this was done. In coastal voyages, the canoe would be unloaded and
brought ashore each night to serve as a shelter.
It is believed that the gunwale lashing of these canoes was in groups, as in
the Malecite. Howley questioned an old Micmac who had seen the Beothuk
lashing; he likened it to the continuous lashing used by his own people,
indicating some form of group wrapping, at least. It is probable that the group
lashings were let into the gunwales by shallow notching at each group, a
common Indian practice when no rail cap was used, to prevent abrasion from
the paddle or from loading and unloading the canoe. The lacing of the ends
appears to have been in the common spiral stitch, judging by the grave
models. These, however, show a continuous wrapping at the gunwales, a
common simplification found in Indian canoe models, representing either
group or continuously wrapped gunwales indiscriminately.
The paddle of the Beothuks had a long, narrow blade, probably with a pointed
tip and a ridged surface. The shape is nearly spatulate. The handle is missing
from the grave model but was perhaps of the usual "hoe-handled" form
without a top cross-grip.
From these descriptions and on the basis of common Indian techniques in
birch-bark canoe construction, the form and methods of building the Beothuk
canoe can be reconstructed. The drawing on page 97 shows the probable
shape and appearance of the finished canoe. It seems likely that a level
building bed was first prepared. The keel, probably rectangular in cross
section, was then formed of two poles placed butt-to-butt, worked to shape,
and scarfed. The fastening of the scarf was probably two or more lashings let
into the surface of the wood. These lashings are assumed to have been of
split-root material but may have been sinew. Possibly to strengthen the scarfs,
pegs were also used, a technique consistent with the state of Beothuk culture.
The keel probably had its ends split into laminae to allow the sharp bend
required to form the bow and stern pieces; and it was probably treated with
hot water and staked out to the desired profile. The main gunwales were
similarly made and worked to the predetermined sheer which, in staking out,
was hogged to a greater degree than was required in the finished canoe. The
ends of the gunwales were apparently split into laminae to allow the shaping
of the sharp upsweep of the sheer close to bow and stern. The outwales were
probably formed in the same manner, after which the three thwarts were
made and the material for ribs and sheathing prepared. The ribs were
apparently bent to the desired shape, using hot water, and were either staked
out or tied to hold them in form until needed.

Figure 87
Beothuk Canoe, Approximate Form and Construction
The keel was then laid on the bed and a series of stakes, perhaps 4½ feet
long, were driven into the bed on each side of the piece in opposing pairs at
intervals of perhaps 2 or 3 feet. The stakes and keel piece were then removed
and the bark cover laid over the bed. This may have been in two or three
lengths, with the edges overlapped so that the outside edge of the lap faced
away from what was to be the stern. The keel was then placed on the bark
and weighted down with a few stones or lashed at the stem heads to the end
stakes; then the bark was folded up on each side of the keel, and the stakes
slipped back into their holes in the bed and driven solidly into place, perhaps
with the tops angled slightly outward. The heads were then tied together
across the work and battens placed along the stakes and the outside of the
bark to form a "trough" against which the cover could be held with horizontal
inside battens. These were secured by "inside stakes" lashed to each outside
stake in the manner used in building eastern Indian canoes (see p. 45). The
bark cover now stood on the bed in a sharp V form, with the keel supported
on the bed, the ends of the bark supported by the end stakes, and both held
down by stones along the length of the keel. An alternative would have been
to fix heavy stakes at the extreme bow and stern of the keel and to lash the
stem-heads firmly to these in order to hold the keel down on the bark.
Next the main gunwales, prebent to the required form, were brought to the
building bed and their ends temporarily lashed to stem and stern. The bark
was brought up to these, trimmed, folded over their tops, and secured by a
few temporary lashings. Then the outwales were placed outside the bark with
their ends temporarily secured, and a few pegs were driven through outwale,
bark, and main gunwales, or a few permanent lashings were passed. The bark
cover was next securely lashed to the gunwales and outwales combined, all
along the sheer to a point near the ends. The excess bark was then trimmed
away at bow and stern and the cover was laced to the end pieces to form
bow and stern. This lacing must have passed through the laminations of the
stem and stern pieces in the usual manner, avoiding the spiral lashing that
held the laminae together. The ends of the gunwales and outwales were next
permanently lashed together with root or other material and to the stem and
stern pieces. This done, the gunwales were spread apart amidships, pressing
the stakes outward still more at the tops. At this point the tenons may have
then been cut in the main gunwales and the thwarts inserted. This method,
incidentally, was used in building some western Indian bark canoes.
The usual steps of completing a birch-bark canoe would then follow—the
insertion of sheathing, held in place by temporary ribs, and then the driving
home of the prebent ribs under the main gunwales, with their heads in the
spaces between the group lashings along the gunwales and against the lower
outboard corner of the main gunwale member, which was probably beveled as
in the Malecite canoe. The sheathing may have been in two or three lengths,
except close to the gunwale amidships where one length would serve. On
each side of the keel piece a sheathing strake was placed which was thick on
the edge against the keel but thin along the outboard edge, in order to fair
the sheathing into the keel piece.
At some point in this process, the bark cover was pieced out to make the
required width, and gores were cut in the usual manner. In spreading the
gunwales, the bow and stern would have to be freed from any stakes, as
these would tend to pull inboard slightly as the gunwales were spread in the
process of shaping the hull. The ribs could have been put in while green and
shaped in the bark cover by use of battens and cross braces inside, as were
those of the St. Francis canoes.
The sewing of the bark cover at panels and gores would take place before the
sheathing and ribs were placed, of course. A 15-foot canoe when completed
would have a girth amidships of about 65 to 68 inches if the beam at the
gunwales were 48 inches, and a bark cover of this width could be taken from
a tree of roughly 20 inches in diameter. Hence, there may have been little
piecing out of the bark for width. In the form of the Beothuk canoe as
reconstructed there is nothing that departs from what is possible by the
common Indian canoe-building techniques. The finished canoe would, in all
respects, agree with most of the descriptions that have been found and would
be a practical craft in all the conditions under which it would be employed.
These were the only birch-bark canoes supposed to have made long runs in
the open sea clear of the land. In them the Beothuk are supposed to have
made voyages to the outlying islands, in which runs in open water of upward
of 60 miles would be necessary, and they probably crossed from
Newfoundland to Labrador.
The V-form used by the Beothuk canoe was the most extreme of all birch-
bark canoe models in North America, although, as has been mentioned, less
extreme V-bottoms were used elsewhere. The Beothuk canoe may have been
a development of some more ancient form of bark sea canoe also related to
the V-bottom canoes of the Passamaquoddy. The most marked structural
characteristic of the Beothuk canoe was the keel; the only other canoe in
which a true keel was employed was the temporary moosehide canoes of the
Malecite.
The Beothuk keel piece may have sometimes been nearly round in section like
the keel of the Malecite moosehide canoe (p. 214). The two garboard strakes
of the sheathing may have been shaped in cross section to fair the bark cover
from the thin sheathing above to the thick keel and at the same time allow
the ribs to hold the garboards in place. They could, in fact, be easily made,
since a radial split of a small tree would produce clapboard-like cross sections.
This construction would perhaps comply better with Cartwright's description of
the keel than that shown in the plan on page 97.
The sheer of the Beothuk canoe is an exaggerated form of the gunwale shape
of the Micmac rough-water canoe but this, of course, is no real indication of
any relationship between the two. Indeed, the probable scarfing of the
gunwales of the Beothuk canoe might be taken as evidence against such a
theory. On the other hand, the elm-bark and other temporary canoes of the
Malecite and Iroquois had crudely scarfed gunwale members, as did some
northwestern bark canoes.
Most of the building techniques employed by Indians throughout North
America are illustrated by these eastern bark canoes, yet marked variation in
construction details existed to the westward, as will be seen.
 Chapter Five
CENTRAL CANADA
The Indians inhabiting central Canada were expert builders of birch-bark
canoes and produced many distinctive types. The area includes not only what
are now the Provinces of Quebec (including Labrador), Ontario, Manitoba, and
the eastern part of Saskatchewan, but also the neighboring northern portions
of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota in the United States. The migrations of
tribal groups within this large area in historical times, as well as the influence
of a long-established fur trade, have produced many hybrid forms of bark
canoes and, in at least a few instances, the transfer of a canoe model from
one tribal group to another. It is this that makes it necessary to examine this
area as a single geographic unit, although a wide variation of tribal forms of
bark canoes existed within its confines.
The larger portion of the Indians inhabiting this area were of the great
Algonkian family. In the east during the 18th and 19th centuries, however,
some members of the Iroquois Confederacy were also found, and in the west,
from at least as early as the beginning of the French fur trade, groups of
Sioux, Dakota, Teton, and Assiniboin. From the fur trade as well as from
normal migratory movements there was much intermingling of the various
tribes, and it was long the practice in the fur trade, particularly in the days of
the Hudson's Bay Company, to employ eastern Indians as canoemen and as
canoe builders in the western areas. These apparently introduced canoe
models into sections where they were formerly unknown; as a result, the
tribal classification of bark canoes within the area under examination cannot
be very precise and the range of each form cannot be stated accurately. It
was in this area, too, that the historical canot du maître (also written maître
canot), or great canoe, of the fur trade was developed.
Most of central Canada, except toward the extreme north in Quebec and
toward the south below the Great Lakes, is in the area where the canoe birch
was plentiful and of large size. There the numerous inland waterways, the
Great Lakes, and the coastal waters of James and Hudson Bays make water
travel convenient, and natural conditions require a variety of canoe models.
Hence, when Europeans first appeared in this area they found already in
existence a highly developed method of canoe transportation. This they