|
Post by paranger on Aug 17, 2023 14:44:39 GMT -7
Copied this one from an original French spiked axe: The head is about 10.5" overall, featuring a 2.5" bit and a 4" beveled dagger style spike with an 18" hickory haft.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on Aug 18, 2023 7:29:10 GMT -7
Let me say something here… the work and consideration that JJ is putting into his new tomahawk journey is what we should all strive for in our crafting. Careful research of primary sources. I went down this rabbit hole along with JJ and let me say… a lot of what we call a tomahawk isn’t, and many of the trusted books have errors. Fakes are endemic in the relic market. This tomahawk and the spike hawk that JJ forged are based on known examples with rock solid provenance.
Which is important. If part of why we do this is to learn and understand - and that’s not necessarily the case for everyone… and that’s ok - the reproductions we make or purchase should be as accurate as possible. I’ll let the bladesmith comment on the balance and handling and what he’s learned thus far as these object as fighting tools. But that understanding wouldn’t be possible without the research and adhering to known objects. Handling an original or bench copy can be an important education.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Aug 18, 2023 7:37:25 GMT -7
.....and many of the trusted books have errors. ...... This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. I've been thinking of starting a topic threador threads of screenshots or photos of passages in some books I've been reading of things I found interesting or questionable. Just to out them there for discussion or debate.. Several of those things I found interesting because they are contradictory to what is often accepted as historical fact or historically accurate equipment. People seem to have a very hard time accepting new research and evidence that contradicts what older books said was true. Which leaves us with a dilemma, how do we proceed when these contradictions arise? How do we figure out which is the more accurate information?
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Aug 18, 2023 8:28:27 GMT -7
First of all, thanks to Ryan for the kind words - and more importantly the encouragement and research assistance along the way. He has been an integral part of my bladesmithing journey to date and I am both grateful and better for it.
Secondly, the thread that Ryan and Nock have hit upon is, I think a good one and worthy of discussion.
Historiography is important. Our understanding of all history (to include material culture) evolves over time - and it should. Resistance to revision is both human and endemic to all areas of study. That said, it is the questioning and revision (well grounded in primary sources, science, etc) that gives us the new understanding - progress, if you will - that most of us here seem to thrive on.
So, how do we go about it, if I may paraphrase Brockenock? One way is what I have heard called "experimental archeology." Loosely defined, I would call this the lessons we learn from recreating and using selected elements of material culture in documented (and perhaps sometimes undocumented) ways. This includes the fabrication and design of such objects, which I have found to be both a satisfying and illuminating pursuit.
For example, from this French axe, I learned much about the balance and handling of this form as a DEDICATED WEAPON. These were not multipurpose tools or tool/ weapons. Spike hawks - at least in Native culture - had one purpose, and the design reflects this. They are light and fast in action. The original head in this case weighs just under 8 oz. As such, I started with 8 oz of steel and attempted to replicate the shape of the original as closely as possible. Low and behold, the dimensions came out VERY close to the original, and the balance nearly perfect.
As Ryan said, there is much to be learned from careful study of the original forms, and some of it contradicts our 21st century sensibilities and expectations. I posted pictures of this axe on a dedicated Tomahawk group online and several comments focused on it looking "unbalanced (it is perfectly balanced) or too fragile. These were meant to split skulls or penetrate deeply into soft tissue, not split firewood repeatedly - yet another example of the influence of 21st c. "bushcraft" intruding upon historical accuracy, IMO.
Well that's probably enough for now. I would be interested in others observations.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on Aug 18, 2023 8:53:10 GMT -7
Buy this man a bushel of watermelons and a video camera.
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Aug 18, 2023 9:39:13 GMT -7
That's a nasty-looking tool - well done!
You've described what I advocate - replicate items using the materials and tools available (or as close as possible) with a period mindset. Some substitutions, such as a power drill instead of a brace and bit, are acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Aug 18, 2023 14:03:35 GMT -7
That's a nasty-looking tool - well done! You've described what I advocate - replicate items using the materials and tools available (or as close as possible) with a period mindset. Some substitutions, such as a power drill instead of a brace and bit, are acceptable. Well, there's the rub. Eh? That mindset. We can't match it. Our values are different. Our ethics are different. Our prejudices are different. We can take period clothing, tools, equipment and weapons, then be given a period task to accomplish while weaving the clothing and only using the period tools and weapons (made with period materials of course) and very likely go about accomplishing that task in a manner much different than we would have done it 200 to 250 years ago. We don't think the same. Our time isn't the same. The man making that tomahawk, or horn, or rifle, or shot pouch,,, had little if anything else to do. The guy using that stuff to explore then make a home and defend it on the frontier, only had those tasks to do,,,, and he better do them well. None of them had to worry about work the next day, or the wife who will be mad of he gets home late from his endeavors because she wants to go to some restaurant. I'm getting a little off tangent here,,, but hopefully my point is clear. We can say, "this is how I would do it with these tools of these materials," but, would they have done the same?
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Aug 18, 2023 14:26:30 GMT -7
In many respects, we will never know if we are doing it the way they did.
On the other hand, 200 years is not long enough for a paradigm shift in thinking - hell, we are hardly removed from our ancestors 100,000 - 200,000 years ago and how they did things. What can get in the way is the modern technological advances, but what we do in this hobby isn't really subject to this technology. We still sew, hunt, blacksmith, fish...(you get the idea) in a very similar way to the way it was done "back then"....
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Aug 18, 2023 15:46:07 GMT -7
I definitely see differences in our thinking regarding accomplishing a task and tool use. There is much less prejudice or cultural bias now, if a method or tool will get a job done more effectively or efficiently, people will generally accept it. I don't think that was true even 70 years ago, much less 150 or 200. I can almost hear someone my grandfather's or great grandfather's age/generation saying, "we don't do ____ that way, only d@☆n ______s do it that way." Never heard, "this is the way we ____, it's the way we've always done it and the way we always will do it."
But we're getting far from Paranger's outstanding craftsmanship.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Aug 18, 2023 15:56:59 GMT -7
I don't doubt what was said about the spike 'hawk being a unitask item,, it was a weapon, not a tool for bushcrafting and a weapon. As such it makes me wonder, and I often wonder about the effectiveness of period weapons and techniques, how was it really used,, and when. I think a lot of picture using that spike on an enemy's head. Well,,, what did it take to remove it? Do you really want to do that in close battle if that enemy has friends at hand you need to deal with next? That spike through an opponent's skull will most likely take the fight out of that one opponent, but, how many hacks and cuts did it take to get am enemy to quit the fight? The thrown knife or tomahawk, or arrow from a primitive bow, is the wound I question the most. There is no terminal ballistic effect, no massive energy dump. Blades kill by blood loss. I can very well see a determined enemy continuing the fight after being hit in the torso with a thrown knife or tomahawk, or shot through with an arrow. Length of continued fight will depend on location of hit and organ/bones involved,,, but could be long enough to kill the thrower or someone else.
So, how would you use Paranger's spike 'hawk in a fight?
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Aug 18, 2023 16:08:22 GMT -7
So, how would you use Paranger's spike 'hawk in a fight? Swing it around wildly and hope I don't poke myself in something important........(?)
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Aug 18, 2023 18:01:12 GMT -7
🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Aug 18, 2023 18:19:47 GMT -7
45 degree downward slash toward head/neck with the axe bit, then backhand upward with the spike into the abdomen.
Not that I have given it much thought...😁
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on Aug 18, 2023 19:34:06 GMT -7
Watermelons.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Aug 19, 2023 4:49:03 GMT -7
45 degree downward slash toward head/neck with the axe bit, then backhand upward with the spike into the abdomen. Not that I have given it much thought...😁 I might try for a little lower with the backhand with the spike, into a more vascular area 😉
|
|