Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:40:52 -0800 (PST)
From: wolfgang brinck <nativewater@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: baidarka reply, variability
To: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net
Ve,
What I offered in the way of theory of baidarka evolution was purely
speculative and not based on anything more than looking at recent
baidarkas and baidaras (umiaks) and comparing their features. As I
understand it, baidarkas are perhaps 2000 years old and baidaras
perhaps 9000 years old. The age of baidaras is deduced from the fact
that certain sites were inhabited as long as 9000 years ago and were
surrounded by water at the time they were populated. The implication
is that people could only have gotten there by boat. As far as I know,
no intact baidarka skeletons of any antiquity have been found.
Consequently, any theories of early baidarka evolution are purely
speculative.
The second question is how much the design of Western Alaskan kayaks
influenced the design of baidarkas. Again I don’t know. Obviously,
there is similarity between Kodiak Island designs and Aleut designs
but less similarity to Western Alaskan designs. I don’t have any
references, but I believe that the Aleutian Islands were settled in a
different migration from Western Alaska. So it is quite possible that
the two cultures never had much contact. Even if they are two branches
of the same migration, once they split thousands of years ago, they
developed independently. Another factor that needs to be considered is
that the aquatic environment and hunting conditions in the Aleutians
and Western Alaska were different and so encouraged different design
evolution.
Finally, most of the kayak frames that we have were collected after
contact with European culture. This forces us to ask the question, how
much impact did European shipping have on cross cultural exchange?
In conclusion, I have few answers and many questions. So feel free to
speculate along with the rest of us.
Wolfgang
---Ve Smith <ve_hengda_smith@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Wolfgang,
>
> Somehow I never got around to replying to your remarks on baidarka
> evolution.
>
> I have to admit not having thought of the altogether plausible idea
> that the bifid ( does this mean "two fids"?) bow and the stern plate
> that characterize baidarkas developed directly from umiaks. If
> baidarkas developed in place, it would explain the features that are
> atypical of the kayaks to which they seem most closely related, in
> particular, the conventional sheer, with the gunwales lower amidship
> than at the ends. I had assumed that the baidarka had developed from
> West Alaskan types, and the reverse sheer was jetisoned to acheive a
> better paddling position.
>
> Is it your view that the baidarka developed independantly of the West
> Alaskan types and that structural similarities were imported, or that
> the West Alaskan types evolved from the baidarka? I'd very much like
> to hear a further explication of your ideas on this subject, along
> with any archeological or ethnographic info that would indicate one
> path rather than another.
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com