spence
Hunter
Posts: 1,610
Member is Online
|
Post by spence on Dec 5, 2019 23:04:13 GMT -7
I've accumulated four tomahawks over the years, all bought from either vendors or blacksmiths with forges set up at the NMLRA meets at Friendship, Indiana. All are pretty basic, not fancy, but three of the four are decorated in some way. My favorite throwing hawk, I call it the squaw ax, weighs only 1 lb. 4 oz., with scroll engravings and silver metal crescent moons inlet on both sides.  A larger one with a silver heart inlet on one side and a running deer engraved on the other, brass tacks on the handle.   The one I usually carry, a bit heavier, 1 lb. 12 oz., with a small poll and a heart-shaped punched out hole. It throws reasonably well, has a bit more heft for chores on a trek.  The smallest one was sold as a Fort Meigs axe, but I have no documentation for that. I do have a sketch of what looks like a nearly identical one, from Carl Russell's Firearms, Traps and Tools of the Mountain Men. The original belonged to Gen. Samuel Hopkins, late 18th century, and is owned by the John James Audubon museum at Henderson, Kentucky. It is called the Kentucky pattern tomahawk.   Spence |
|
Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990 
|
Post by Keith on Dec 5, 2019 23:09:08 GMT -7
Nice collection you have there Spence.
Keith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sicilianhunter on Dec 10, 2019 22:01:07 GMT -7
I've accumulated four tomahawks over the years, all bought from either vendors or blacksmiths with forges set up at the NMLRA meets at Friendship, Indiana. All are pretty basic, not fancy, but three of the four are decorated in some way. My favorite throwing hawk, I call it the squaw ax, weighs only 1 lb. 4 oz., with scroll engravings and silver metal crescent moons inlet on both sides. A larger one with a silver heart inlet on one side and a running deer engraved on the other, brass tacks on the handle. The one I usually carry, a bit heavier, 1 lb. 12 oz., with a small poll and a heart-shaped punched out hole. It throws reasonably well, has a bit more heft for chores on a trek. The smallest one was sold as a Fort Meigs axe, but I have no documentation for that. I do have a sketch of what looks like a nearly identical one, from Carl Russell's Firearms, Traps and Tools of the Mountain Men. The original belonged to Gen. Samuel Hopkins, late 18th century, and is owned by the John James Audubon museum at Henderson, Kentucky. It is called the Kentucky pattern tomahawk. Spence Spence, I always find myself struggling between what I like, what is PC/HC and what is practical. That may or may not exactly make sense when we are attempting to remain authentic. It puts me in a frame of mind where I begin to rethink the exact period of my persona to meet the requirements of my equipment. Maybe this is a natural part of living archaeology. I can’t say all of my tomahawks are are authentic but I will say that the closest authentic one is also the most practical and it’s nothing more than the British light axe offered by Townsends. The least authentic but still my favorite is a Cold Steel pipe hawk |
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Dec 10, 2019 23:25:42 GMT -7
I've accumulated four tomahawks over the years, all bought from either vendors or blacksmiths with forges set up at the NMLRA meets at Friendship, Indiana. All are pretty basic, not fancy, but three of the four are decorated in some way. My favorite throwing hawk, I call it the squaw ax, weighs only 1 lb. 4 oz., with scroll engravings and silver metal crescent moons inlet on both sides. A larger one with a silver heart inlet on one side and a running deer engraved on the other, brass tacks on the handle. The one I usually carry, a bit heavier, 1 lb. 12 oz., with a small poll and a heart-shaped punched out hole. It throws reasonably well, has a bit more heft for chores on a trek. The smallest one was sold as a Fort Meigs axe, but I have no documentation for that. I do have a sketch of what looks like a nearly identical one, from Carl Russell's Firearms, Traps and Tools of the Mountain Men. The original belonged to Gen. Samuel Hopkins, late 18th century, and is owned by the John James Audubon museum at Henderson, Kentucky. It is called the Kentucky pattern tomahawk. Spence Spence, I always find myself struggling between what I like, what is PC/HC and what is practical. That may or may not exactly make sense when we are attempting to remain authentic. .... That makes total sense, and I'm sure a lot of us struggle with that. In many areas of gear selection. I prefer rifles, but, for my time and place a smoothbore is more correct, and, it just so happens is more practical given my local game laws. I prefer fixed blade knives under 4 or 5 inches blade length, and for field dressing game prefer about a 2 inch blade, with full tangs. But, most period examples of trade knives and scalpers show longer blades with partial tangs. I like the hawk Spence shows with the slight flat rectangular hammer poll the best of what he has shown. I think this is an area of delicate balance between historical accuracy, personal preference, and practicality. |
|
|
|
Post by Sicilianhunter on Dec 11, 2019 7:50:06 GMT -7
Nock,
As you mention that same struggle works it way into every nook and cranny of our kits.
Another battle is keeping it light, simple and effective.
As in the case of the smoothbore, you may like the look of a Fusil de Chasse but if your persona is British in back ground you will have to re-think that purchase plan or come up with a back story which might become tedious.
Not to get too far off topic but this add,subtract,multiply and divide of equipment that seems to occur on out journey into authenticity begs the question: What do I do with all the crap that doesn't fit/work for me anymore??
If I pass it on and I am a proponent of authenticity, are I perpetuating poor historical representation?
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 16, 2019 11:37:03 GMT -7
Brokennock wrote: "That makes total sense, and I'm sure a lot of us struggle with that. In many areas of gear selection. I prefer rifles, but, for my time and place a smoothbore is more correct, and, it just so happens is more practical given my local game laws. I prefer fixed blade knives under 4 or 5 inches blade length, and for field dressing game prefer about a 2 inch blade, with full tangs. But, most period examples of trade knives and scalpers show longer blades with partial tangs." Brokennock, does your persona have Scottish Blood or traveled through areas that Scots and/or Scots Irish settled here in the New World? If so, you may want to think about a knife so common that even many Scottish women usually carried in the pockets of their skirts and of course men used them as well. Sometimes called a "grolloch or grolloching" (hunting) knife, they were small knives similar to what you may be thinking about. You might look at the center two knives here: i.pinimg.com/736x/fb/3e/f9/fb3ef9333e4964175c60d8727b37091d--th-century-celtic.jpgGus |
|
Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990
|
Post by Keith on Dec 16, 2019 18:06:27 GMT -7
What we are talking about here is tools of the trade. Guns, rifles, pistols, tomahawks/axes, & knives do not only have specific uses, but they are also needed for self defence. With that in mind I carry three knives as some woodrunners did, a clasp knife in my waistcoat pocket, & legging knife in my right legging top, & a longer bladed hunting knife under my belt.  Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 17, 2019 4:16:40 GMT -7
Hi Spence,
I remember the Fort Meig's Belt Axe was offered for many years by a Muzzle Loading Outfit that also was heavy into selling parts and kits for the Vincent Rifle, but I can't remember the name of the outfit now. I never ran across someone who actually owned that belt axe, though.
So I wonder what you may be able to tell us about the way it works in use?
Gus.
|
|
spence
Hunter
Posts: 1,610
Member is Online
|
Post by spence on Dec 17, 2019 7:26:06 GMT -7
It is a very small axe, weighs only 12 oz., feels that way in the hand. The blade is 4 1/2" long, 1/2" thick with a 1 15/16" cutting edge, the handle is 12". You wouldn't choose it for much heavy cutting, and I would feel underarmed using it as a weapon. I see some people fasten their tomahawk to the back of their shot pouch, a bit like the illustration of the kit of Gen. Hopkins, above, and it would be good for that. The balance is also not great for throwing. So, overall, not terribly impressive. But cute.....  Spence |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 17, 2019 8:42:08 GMT -7
Spence,
Thank you. I'm wondering if it is heavy enough to chop through deer bone to quarter the carcass? I'm thinking it would have to be to have been useful as a hunting belt axe?
Gus
|
|
spence
Hunter
Posts: 1,610
Member is Online
|
Post by spence on Dec 17, 2019 11:12:06 GMT -7
Yes, it would be a very good tool for butchering a deer. There are a lot of similar camp chores it is useful for if you remember the old adage, match the tool to the job.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Dec 17, 2019 19:06:03 GMT -7
Spence, Thank you. I'm wondering if it is heavy enough to chop through deer bone to quarter the carcass? I'm thinking it would have to be to have been useful as a hunting belt axe? Gus I avoid chopping bone, preferring to disarticulate instead - keeps bone chips off the meat and avoids possibly chipping the edge. I do use a meat saw to disconnect the ribs from the spine when butchering and occasionally, a field saw to split the pelvis in the field. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 18, 2019 2:44:46 GMT -7
Spence,
Thank you for the further information.
Brokennock,
I've been thinking about what you mentioned on not being able to find something in the period that fits your desire for a short knife.
First, is it possible that a period trade knife could have the blade tip broken to make it shorter and then reground to match what you like?
Though a period hand or foot operated round grinding stone would not grind as fast as modern grind stones, the period round grinding stones were used to grind all kinds of shapes of knife, sword and bayonet blades.
If so, then perhaps such work on an Old Hickory knife or even modifying something like a Green River Knife blank would make such a knife you would like?
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 18, 2019 2:48:33 GMT -7
Spence, Thank you. I'm wondering if it is heavy enough to chop through deer bone to quarter the carcass? I'm thinking it would have to be to have been useful as a hunting belt axe? Gus I avoid chopping bone, preferring to disarticulate instead - keeps bone chips off the meat and avoids possibly chipping the edge. I do use a meat saw to disconnect the ribs from the spine when butchering and occasionally, a field saw to split the pelvis in the field. That's basically what we did when butchering deer here also. However, meat saws were not something normally found on the frontier in the 18th century? Gus |
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Dec 18, 2019 5:41:20 GMT -7
I avoid chopping bone, preferring to disarticulate instead - keeps bone chips off the meat and avoids possibly chipping the edge. I do use a meat saw to disconnect the ribs from the spine when butchering and occasionally, a field saw to split the pelvis in the field. That's basically what we did when butchering deer here also. However, meat saws were not something normally found on the frontier in the 18th century? Gus Agreed! However, I doubt they were quite as concerned about getting every scrap of usable meat off the carcass. Only in the last few years has the saw been used to disconnect the ribs for cooking. The pelvis is one of those things I also rarely saw - didn't have enough patience to blindly cut around the bung to free it this year so used the saw then the knife. A tomahawk would have worked just as well, and little meat would have been lost. |
|
