Historic axes, 18th century

S

Square_peg

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
13,793
I'm putting these up here for discussion. Old Axeman sent me these photos. These are two axes that Bernie found while doing historic restorations. He will fill us in on the details. Look closely and you'll find some interesting details.

Axe 1:

axe.more%20003.jpg


axe.more%20005.jpg


axes%20004.jpg



Axe 2:

axes%20001.jpg


axes%20002.jpg


axes%20005.jpg



Hint: look at images 1, 3 & 5.

And I love the polls on these axes - talk about balance........

And if you wanna see some clean hangs look at image 2.
 
Last edited:
I always wondered why they moved away from the polls like this, I think they have to be much better swinging. Switched for better splitting maybe?
 
I think wilderness outfitters was recently offering a modern reproduction of a small hatchet version of that long poll axe.
 
These are pretty neat, thank you for posting them up.

Do the polls have separate material forged on there? I see a line on both and one looks to have a chip taken from it.
 
The eyes are interesting, the first one looks near symmetrical like a double bit eye. It must have been a popular pattern at the time since both are similar. Glad to see some photos of these axes, thanks for taking the time to help Bernie get these posted up!
 
I like the thin profile of Axe #1. It does look like the poll has a piece forge welded on in the picture. I can see the bit lamination line in Axe #2 but not #1. What is the approximate weight on these?
 
Axe 1--I found this unhung axe head about 42 years ago inside a unmolested wall during a renovation project. The house was a colonial era, built about 1760. That makes this axe 256 + /-. All that was needed to sharpen was to stone the edge and hang it. Who knows how it got in the wall. The head weighs about 2.5lbs, it has a high center grind, it has forge welded insert bit and a forge welded poll. I hung it with a 23" hand riven haft in a straight pattern that works well for me and its intended use. It swings and cuts very well. In photo 2, for comparison, I put it next to a 50 year old Plumb 2.25lb boys axe that I hung with a 25" straight octagon slim taper haft ( I was not completly happy with the grain in this haft, but my hickory supply is about gone and I can not get any decent sticks where I now live).

Axe 2--I found this head in the dirt under another colonial era renovation. It needed quite a bit of work. The head weighs about 2.25 lbs, it has a wedge grind, it also has forge welded bit and poll. I hung it on a 28" haft. It does not cut as well as axe 1, but it does split very well and thats what my use will be.

Both of these axes are the origins of what we call the "American Axe"

If you have any 1750 to 1850 axes, adzes, or hatchets please post them up.

Thanks for looking, Bernie
 
COTS, I now live on the Big Island of Hawaii. There are some wonderfull woods here, like Koa. Koa has replaced American Black Walnut as my favorite cabinet wood. That is saying a lot, as a million years ago I used to cut my own Walnut on my saw mill. I am still looking for a wood here to sub for hickory (we both know there is no sub for hickory for axe helves)
We sold our ranch in Montana because I need one more adventure. I also have a weird connection to the first outsider to live in Hawaii, a British salior named John Young. I live about 10 min. from his home site and will be volunteering at Puukohola National Park. I am going to demonstrate, what else, 1790 era iron tools. John Young would have been the first to introduce metal tools to the stone age Hawaiians.
 
Operator1975- Yes it is like the day it was forged. It was never used. I would love to know how it got inside that wall 250 years ago. Thanks for posting those great axes. The second axe in your first picture has a similar poll to both of my axes.
 
Very nice, and confirm some of the research I did myself when looking for axes closest to what the earliest settlers might have used, though lighter than I thought... The prominent and useful polls are interesting as well.

Having cut down trees and bucked logs with my modern approximation, I think that I have an idea on the size. Though we know there were huge old growth trees all over, I am coming to doubt that those were the first choice for early settlers. I would myself stick to trees under 12" or so, probably, as larger logs are difficult to handle with only a man or two, and if they even had a saw, it would not have been a large one. Not pretending to know anything, especially in comparison to you, old axeman, just wanted to run these observations past you. The context I'm speaking of is, for example, claiming land in Kentucky, where I believe the requirement for improvements was at one point 10 acres of "corn" and a dwelling. Near me is an early farm/claim associated with, of course, D. Boone, which I've seen pictures of. The dwelling is more of a shanty than a cabin.
 
BG_ Nobody knows the answers for sure. I agree with your thoughts. I also doubt that the old growth was the first cut for the same reasons you mention. The timbers in the colonial log cabins and timber frame houses I have worked on do not show to be the old growth. Most were hewn from 12"-16" dia. with sometimes 20"-24" dia. Those dia. are still small for old growth. Having built and restored cabins in wilderness situations I can tell you that you are correct about being able to handle anything larger with only 2 men. This idea about a cabin being built in a day is bunk. The one day affair was just the raising. All the prep work-felling, bucking, hewing, riving, etc. was done many days in advance by the owner family.
 
BG- I do have some heavy 1750-1850 axes also, I just can not show everything. At my age now I am finally seeing the benift of a 2.5 lb axe !
 
Old Axeman,
Thanks. The boy and I have enough logs for a small cabin, but it was 2 years or more of spare time axe work :), and we need a bigger horse or use the tractor to move the larger logs. Kind of a father/son living history research project...

I can see the 2.5# axe being adequate for serial settlers and longhunter types. Then heavier axes were perhaps available for use in more permanent settlements and for bigger projects like the massive clearings for plantations and similar.

The style of the axes you showed us is remarkably similar to the very small axe Isaac Shelby carried, too. He called it a tomahawk, although for some reason it has come to be known as a Fort Meigs axe.

Thanks for sharing these treasures!
 
BG_Farmer said:
Very nice, and confirm some of the research I did myself when looking for axes closest to what the earliest settlers might have used, though lighter than I thought... The prominent and useful polls are interesting as well.

Having cut down trees and bucked logs with my modern approximation, I think that I have an idea on the size. Though we know there were huge old growth trees all over, I am coming to doubt that those were the first choice for early settlers. I would myself stick to trees under 12" or so, probably, as larger logs are difficult to handle with only a man or two, and if they even had a saw, it would not have been a large one. Not pretending to know anything, especially in comparison to you, old axeman, just wanted to run these observations past you. The context I'm speaking of is, for example, claiming land in Kentucky, where I believe the requirement for improvements was at one point 10 acres of "corn" and a dwelling. Near me is an early farm/claim associated with, of course, D. Boone, which I've seen pictures of. The dwelling is more of a shanty than a cabin.
Click to expand...

I have always been intrigued by this quote from de Tocqueville in "The Ax Book"

"The bell which the pioneers hang round the necks of their cattle, in order to find them again in the woods, announced our approach to a clearing, when we were yet a long way off; and we soon afterwards heard the stroke of the hatchet, hewing down the trees of the forest. As we came nearer, traces of destruction marked the presence of civilized man; the road was strewn with shattered boughs; trunks of trees, half consumed by fire, or cleft by the wedge, were still standing in the track we were following. We continued to proceed till we reached a wood in which all the trees seemed to have been suddenly struck dead; in the height of summer their boughs were as leafless as in winter; and upon closer examination we found that a deep circle had been cut round the bark, which, by stopping the circulation of the sap, soon kills the tree."

This was in the 1830s, and if I remember correctly this deadening of trees is contrasted to 'the Pennsylvania method,' which was a more methodical and work-heavy clearing of trees (I presume using oxen). Our forests today are little like the forests of early settlers, they do not grow to the same height - which I presume is because of the young growth and the lack of need for more sunlight in the older trees. And I know that 12" trees in the 1900-1920s lumbering period were considered to be on the borderline of baby trees, something that should not be cut. The percentage of 8-14" trees would have been quite small compared to today, meaning that they could not have cleared farmland without taking down the large trees. And deadening was one of the lesser used methods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top