Trade axe/tomahawk NE America 18th c.

[Jim McDougall]

Regarding the terminology,
"...as you look at the many shapes and sizes of the material called 'tomahawk'it becomes apparent that we cannot separate items into 'tool' or 'weapon' categories".
p.1 "Tomahawks Illustrated" , Robert Kuck, 1977.

"...Indians must have realized the possibilities of the iron hatchet, not only ad a camp tool but a weapon as well, so the very earliest iron tomahawks were simply trade hatchets used in warfare".
Kuck, op.cit. p.5

I am puzzled by the consternation over the character of the metal in this axe head being carbon steel suggesting it cannot be over 100 years old. While not a metallurgist, it does seem that 'cast steel' has been around since 1730s in England (Im sure the schooling on the differences between cast steel and carbon steel will follow).
In my OP, the example of 'ROUND POLL CAMP AXE' 1700-1800 is described as French, and is virtually identical to mine, the measurements and weight the same as well as the features and shape.
So it would seem mine was cast perhaps from a mold of one of these early axes? but this could not have been achieved in the 1800s? Cast steel was being used for cutlery and chisels by late 18th c. but not for axes?

The four petal stamped mark is in the manner and position on head in accord with these typically so marked, and these marks are not deemed to any particular maker nor guild etc., the meaning remains unknown. In most axes in North American context there seems to be only about 32 consistently seen. I have been under the impression that by 20th century most tools etc. typically had the maker or firm name impressed.
The round eye seems more to older axe head styles from what I have read.

The four letter initials do not seem like a persons initials, more like an acronym for a group, firm, much as balemarks on company property.

[C4RL]

Can I ask when you say the "Round poll camp axe" 1700~1800 is virtually identical to your example, what is different?

When I say carbon steel I understand that can be nearly anything, what I mean is your hatchet's steel looks quite refined & uniform, it doesn't look like wrought or a welded bit & it doesn't look particularly old. I suspect it's a single piece of hardenable steel which would make it more recent if that is the case.

The first image I posted shows three hatchets I picked up in Portugal, it's a very popular pattern there with many (possibly hundreds) of different stamps. I've seen many examples & yours looks identical to that style & in very good condition.
All these hatchets have round eyes, that isn't in the slightest bit rare amongst "slip fit" handles of many styles.

The initials look like they have been stamped using a cold chisel one line at a time, the sort of thing someone does to mark their initials.

Of course this is just my opinion, it could simply be coincidence that that these hatchet's look alike & I could be completely wrong, I'm no expert.
Could you post the reference "Round poll camp axe", I'd be interested to see it.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by C4RL

Can I ask when you say the "Round poll camp axe" 1700~1800 is virtually identical to your example, what is different?

When I say carbon steel I understand that can be nearly anything, what I mean is your hatchet's steel looks quite refined & uniform, it doesn't look like wrought or a welded bit & it doesn't look particularly old. I suspect it's a single piece of hardenable steel which would make it more recent if that is the case.

The first image I posted shows three hatchets I picked up in Portugal, it's a very popular pattern there with many (possibly hundreds) of different stamps. I've seen many examples & yours looks identical to that style & in very good condition.
All these hatchets have round eyes, that isn't in the slightest bit rare amongst "slip fit" handles of many styles.

The initials look like they have been stamped using a cold chisel one line at a time, the sort of thing someone does to mark their initials.

Of course this is just my opinion, it could simply be coincidence that that these hatchet's look alike & I could be completely wrong, I'm no expert.
Could you post the reference "Round poll camp axe", I'd be interested to see it.

I have gotten the Nuemann book (1973) to post the illustration, where the description is as I have previously noted. It is described as French, and of course southern France along with the Basque regions in north of Spain are included in the Biscayan sphere, which is the more common term describing items and people of these areas.

In the 18th and early 19th centuries, materials to colonial regions, later America and Mexico, came in the trade vessels, and included were barrels of these kinds of axe heads (or 'hatchets' if you will). As mentioned, these characteristic deep stamped marks (the clover in this case) seem to have been some sort of bale mark rather than to any maker or guild. While no documentation exists that would identify the probable users of specific of these marks, there does appear to be consistency in the manner and location of placement on the axe head.

When I say my example is 'virtually' identical to the 'round poll camp axe' shown in Neumann (1973), what I mean is that it is considered prudent not to make adamant assertions that will invariably be contested in the inevitable micro-examinations of others particularly 'experts'. As I noted in my OP, I am by no means any sort of authority on these, but I am intent in research and open to suggestions in proper identification as always. While you clearly have more experience in this field, I appreciate you noting that in these kinds of situations, there are always exceptions and no assessment is necessarily absolute.

With my use of the Neumann example, I have had the honor of personal discussions with him on the weaponry included in his venerable reference,
and while we did not discuss axes, his expertise overall on the arms we did focus on was entirely beyond reproach, I have never seen any weapon description from his book questioned, so I feel confident his identification is correct.
My example is again, virtually, identical...its dimensions in accord with the Nuemann example as the appearance....the date range 1700-1800.

So why would this 'old' form of camp axe (hatchet, whatever) still be produced in the 20th century. In analogy, a bit like Ford continuing to build Model A cars in the 1950s in the old way.
I am pretty familiar with patination on swords, which is more my field, and this condition is consistent (as far as I can see) with very old examples, especially into the 1700s. The nature of the patination depends on the conditions of the items placement and period in situ. If this had been in the ground, the interior corrosion would have forced outward leading to the surface of an orange effect. While one seam on the bottom of the head remains apparent, no others appear, suggesting some sort of finishing further concealed by darkening of age.

[Interested Party]

The difference in the angle of the edge relative to the eyes in these two axes is interesting. One would have to stand in a different location to fell a tree. Neumann's example might be better for a downward limbing application. In physical conflict this might be important, shrug.

[C4RL]

Firstly an appology as I've never seen such an example, the physical hatchet heads this side of the pond being the only things I have to go off, some being near identical in shape.

And what I've written I'm happy to be proved wrong. Is there any information on the manufacture method of the pictured axe head? Your head still looks more modern to me, or should I say it would be considered that if I picked it up here, in the firt image I posted the three axe heads I bought in a single visit to Portugal (I've seen the same in Spain) I'd consider them older than yours, again only my opinion & very likely methods developed differently in different areas.

The shape down the inner edge of your head suggests to me cast or more likely stamped factory production, something I only see on (relatively) more recent heads, I imagine it could have been ground to that shape but why, why the effort? I have some stamped or cast heads not in the same style as this head but show similar shapes around the edges.

Now, I know nothing of the U.S manufacturing techniques of the period 1700~1800. Would that period be production line or Blacksmith made ? Maybe I'm wrong.

[CutlassCollector]

Another thing that occurs to me about your axe, Jim, apart from the clean lines is its lack of use. Many swords may have survived in fairly pristine condition having not seen much action and been well cared for, but this is a common tool that would have been used almost every day. It's owner/owners over a hundred years+ would have used it for kindling wood, dressing game, digging latrine holes, homestead jobs, even, no doubt, used it as a hammer despite the round poll.

I know it's hard to tell from photographs but compared to the other examples, this axe does not looked lived in at all.

I believe most axes in the period that you are suggesting were made with wrap around iron with an inserted steel bit - the method is illustrated in Neumann.

As C4RL suggests - it could be dated if it was made of iron but unfortunately, unless anyone knows different, it is very hard to tell the difference between iron and steel without lab testing. Grinding produces different colour sparks but obviously that has limitations!

[C4RL]

Here's a brand new one, posted to show it is a (similar) Portuguese style, though not as common as it once was.
Note the round eye.
http://www.verdugo.pt/detalhe/pt/15