Belt ax or 'tommyhawk'

[Robert Braun]

Rich said:

FWIW,
I have an original tomahawk that came off a farm near Mt. Horeb.
I can't say how it got to Mt. Horeb, but it does look just like the common repro forged tomahawk: folded iron with a forged-in piece of steel.

Compare with Jas. Towsends's TH-54

Mine is just a little more beat up and rusty, and has a rounded knob on the end of the handle. OK, really beat up and rusty.

It is probably 1763-1815+ (British period).



P.S. in order to use a painting as a source, you need to look at a large volume of that artist's work, to judge how well he/she depicts objects in general. Some have very poor details (like Catlin), while others are extremely accurate.

Rich... does the axhead in your collection straight across at the top, or is the blade slightly "flared" like the Townsend sample mentioned in your note?

Thanks... Bob.

[richw]

The head flares on the upper side slightly, though not as much as modern repros. The flare on the modern repros may be by design, but may also be from the use of power hammers. I suspect the old-time smith had more control over where the metal spread during the shaping/welding process.

Of course, when I'm at my forge, I have little control over anything.

;D

[Robert Braun]

Rich said:

The head flares on the upper side slightly, though not as much as modern repros. The flare on the modern repros may be by design, but may also be from the use of power hammers. I suspect the old-time smith had more control over where the metal spread during the shaping/welding process.

Of course, when I'm at my forge, I have little control over anything.

;D

Rich, thanks for your response. I have long suspected that repop "tomahawk" heads are modified for modern throwing; meaning they are not reproductions and certainly not replicas of artifact heads. That is... the clear majority of artifact tomahawk and belt ax heads seen in publications and museum/private collections do not show this modification.

Most repop 'hawks are cast, not forged. This means that the flared design seen on nearly every repop 'hawk out there is done deliberately. The historical purpose was as a tool and on rare occasions as a weapon. Today, they are little more than toys for grown-ups.

Regards, Bob.

[richw]

Bob,
I have come up with a working hypothesis, regarding flared-top vs. flat-top axe heads: the few originals I have seen of the flared variety are earlier and/or French made. The flat-tops are English made, and later, from what I have seen.

So far, I cant say that the English styles is also the American style, but it is a good guess (see Sloan's Museum of Early American Tools).

The problem with reproductions is that they are sold for many or all periods, when specific periods and regions should have different styles. The repro prototypes are also frequently not representative of the commonest originals.

On a related tangent, one of my pet peeves is Diderot's Encyclopedia. In it are shown, very accurately, _French_ tools, techniques, and finished goods. Many of these are the same as in the Anglo-American tradition, many are most certainly different.

Even within France, there was a strong regional pattern in tool form. Another problem, of course, is that Diderot represents tools, trades, and goods of the 3rd quarter of the 18th century, not multiple periods. True, European tool forms tended to be more static than those made in America, but we are concerned with what was found in America!

This leads into another problem: American regional patterns. But that can wait for another discussion.

[Robert Braun]

Rich said:

Bob,
I have come up with a working hypothesis, regarding flared-top vs. flat-top axe heads: the few originals I have seen of the flared variety are earlier and/or French made. The flat-tops are English made, and later, from what I have seen.

So far, I cant say that the English styles is also the American style, but it is a good guess (see Sloan's Museum of Early American Tools).

The problem with reproductions is that they are sold for many or all periods, when specific periods and regions should have different styles. The repro prototypes are also frequently not representative of the commonest originals.

On a related tangent, one of my pet peeves is Diderot's Encyclopedia. In it are shown, very accurately, _French_ tools, techniques, and finished goods. Many of these are the same as in the Anglo-American tradition, many are most certainly different.

Even within France, there was a strong regional pattern in tool form. Another problem, of course, is that Diderot represents tools, trades, and goods of the 3rd quarter of the 18th century, not multiple periods. True, European tool forms tended to be more static than those made in America, but we are concerned with what was found in America!

This leads into another problem: American regional patterns. But that can wait for another discussion.

Rich: good thesis... I agree.

If such was the case, the "English light infantry ax" offered by many vedonrs whoud not be flared like it is. But it is.

Maybe it should be a French light infantry ax... eh?

Bob.

[richw]

Bob,
is a light infantry axe the same thing as a trade axe/tomahawk?

I would call this an apples and oranges comparison

You know, like 1840's mountain men taking up an 1880's lumberjack hobby (throwing axes).

There's an idea--an apple throwing contest! That way you don't throw away a perfectly good weapon. I wonder if flared-top apples throw better? I think there is a plate in Diderot...

Well, I should stop here, before things get way too silly.