Talking about Spanish, Basque and Latin American patterns

[FortyTwoBlades]

Looking through the book right now and the author mentions a number of catalogs in his personal collection and the collections of a few fellow collectors. There's a 1920's one on eBay right now but at nearly $700 it's beyond my means at the moment.

 

[Ugaldie]

Yes FortyTwoBlades I wish we could afford it. I hope it becomes public and doesn’t end up gathering dust or getting lost.

The vision you share about some Latin American axes is similar to what existed in the Western Atlantic. This view was based on the different ways the Biscayne axe was produced. It featured all kinds of variations in bit shape, weight, and poll design, and all of them were considered and sold as variations of the same pattern.

But the perception of these axes in South America was different. Neither view is wrong, each one has his vision. It seems that in some regions of Latin America people preferred and/or produced specific variations and each of these had its own local name. In the same way axes in English-speaking America may appear to have more or fewer variations but each of them is just as legitimate as the others.

The contradiction is not there, the Chilean pattern compared to the Brazilian one is as different as the Oberharzer is from the Dayton. The contradiction lies in the idea that resistance to change was what ultimately caused the change to happen.

I don’t understand your reservations about HB. If anything its catalog matches correctly with those of other makers. In fact if we look at English, German, or other Swedish manufacturers, the patterns correspond to each other quite accurately.

Even the Mexican pattern aligns properly. If we look at the German catalog I linked, we can see that HB’s Mexican pattern has been correctly reproduced.



If we look at the Wetterlings catalogs we can see two interesting points. First, as we have already discussed, changes in the features of a given axe do not necessarily lead to changes in the pattern name, not even in Latin America.



I find a 5 lb media labor surprisingly heavy for a “half-task” axe, but these axes consistently reach that weight, something new I’ve learned.

The second point is that, as you can see, media labor axes are lighter than labor entera across the full range of pattern variations.



Regards

 

[Ugaldie]

I have done some research on Mexican axes and I think I have found something interesting.

It seems that Mesoamerica was one of the cultures (perhaps the culture) most closely associated with axes in human history. In the preColumbian era they developed a society in which axes were used not only as tools but also as a form of money and, to some extent, as decorative items and objects with ceremonial or symbolic significance.

The shape varies to some extent in functional axes, but the common cultural image they shared is clearly represented in the axe money they used. As you can see in the following image, their shared cultural understanding of the axe’s form featured extended toes and heels.

The only place in Latin America where we can find modern axe patterns similar to the Mesoamerican axes we are discussing is this same region. The Mexican pattern is very close to it and the Central American pattern shown in the HB catalog we have been referring to shares similar features that, again, are not found in any other Latin American patterns.



This suggests independent development based on local cultural origins. There is a reasonable possibility that once iron/steel arrived the Mexican and Central American patterns were locally developed forms possibly derived from (or evolving out of) preColumbian axes.


Source

It would the cool calling them as the tlaximaltepoztli axe family.

 

[Ugaldie]

The title has been changed to accurately reflect what we are discussing.

Regards

 

[Ugaldie]

Our discussion about Russian axes triggered something in my mind. I had an intuition and I have researched a bit.

Russia and the territories it has influenced have been very large and they have had a very big variety of conditions. I haven’t found anything that talks about Russian axes across the full range of its history and territory, but (considering its vastness) the little I have researched points in the direction of the intuition I had.

We are talking about a plethora of cultures which have had a tumultuous history that has changed them deeply, including the axe development of this region. There are not many pre-Soviet written sources, so we have to rely on archaeology.

Let's take for example this article. It talks about Novgorod, a region with a very rich steelmaking history. There, you can see the development that axes had in this region. They started as clearly bearded axes and later developed into more 'common' looking ones from an Occidental perspective.



Yes, we are talking about very old axes, but they will help to my point. The wide bit gradually shortened and overall the axes started losing their prominent ethnic features. Here you have another image where you can see the evolution of the axes, from the older ones at the top to the newer ones at the bottom.



If we continue though history we can see this collection of artifacts from Mangazeya, a significant 17th-century Russian trading settlement in Western Siberia. Here you can see an axe they used in the wilderness. Note that it could easily be the evolution of the axes in the last image and the more or less curved bit that we can constantly see in all these axes.



Different types of axes can be seen until the big change they underwent with the large Soviet industrialization, more or less one century ago. It looks like new industries took just some patterns and flooded the USSR with them, especially those that resemble carpentry-based patterns.

This led to a situation I think you have talked about FortyTwoBlades , where axes were not the best for the wilderness, so people started to grind them down to fit their needs. They were lucky enough that these carpenter-like axes were big and wide, so they could be ground down.

Interestingly the new Taiga axes ressembled the old wilderness axes.

And there you have the point and simmilarities I want to talk about. It happened at least one generation later but something simmilar has happened with Latin American axes. The variety of axes thinned not because of end-user reasons and that can be a loss. Not only a cultural loss, but more importantly, a knowledge loss.

Not all of them, but original patterns can have a reason to be as they are and even if you don't understand the reasoning behind them the best way of procedure is the same as Collins did, do not force them to disappear. Give people a bigger variety, mix patterns as in North America, increase the variability and with time a natural bottleneck will occur. One in which the best will endure and evolve with each other, giving birth to axes that will make less efficient axes disappear in the places they arrive. The same as it happened with traditional Basque racing axes.

Regards

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I think you perhaps misunderstood what I meant with regards to HB--rather I was saying that the patterns are likely not so much ones that developed in those regions so much as they were patterns that were being sent to those regions and so became the norm because they'd take what they could get. By the time there was more choice available they had settled on those original types due to familiarity rather than due to functional optimizations for local uses. That's, again, conjecture on my part, but it seems to be the case from what I'm able to see. That is to say, the Mexican pattern was not one developed in Mexico but instead is "the kind of axe that was being sold to Mexican markets and is now considered the normal shape as a result" if that makes sense.

 

[Ugaldie]

I understand, but this is information we'll never know with complete certainty. However based on the absence of any evidence or any indications that support the process you're suggesting, along with the information I've provided, I believe it points in the opposite direction.

While searching for more information I came across this 1871 catalog. It's from a New York-based dealer, but the name is Spanish, the printer has a Basque surname and the writing style clearly indicates that it was written by someone with native knowledge of the language. It looks like this dealer has deep Spanish ties. The catalog contains some axe-related information that we could discuss."



But what I found most interesting is the information provided in the preface, which reminded me of what you mentioned about catalogs from that era. Below is a translation.

"Only a limited number of copies of this catalog have been printed, as my intention is to circulate it solely among the main companies that trade with the Spanish markets. Therefore, each of them will receive only one copy, and I recommend they keep it carefully for their private use, as I will not be able to replace it."

This advice may confirm that the main course of procedure at the time didn’t prioritize catalogs enduring over time.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I understand, but this is information we'll never know with complete certainty. However based on the absence of any evidence or any indications that support the process you're suggesting, along with the information I've provided, I believe it points in the opposite direction.

While searching for more information I came across this 1871 catalog. It's from a New York-based dealer, but the name is Spanish, the printer has a Basque surname and the writing style clearly indicates that it was written by someone with native knowledge of the language. It looks like this dealer has deep Spanish ties. The catalog contains some axe-related information that we could discuss."

View attachment 3107418

But what I found most interesting is the information provided in the preface, which reminded me of what you mentioned about catalogs from that era. Below is a translation.

"Only a limited number of copies of this catalog have been printed, as my intention is to circulate it solely among the main companies that trade with the Spanish markets. Therefore, each of them will receive only one copy, and I recommend they keep it carefully for their private use, as I will not be able to replace it."

This advice may confirm that the main course of procedure at the time didn’t prioritize catalogs enduring over time.

I would say rather that it's unlikely that individual regions in Latin America were especially developing their own patterns simply because tools were almost universally imported rather than domestically produced up until European companies started setting up shop locally. There was not much of a thriving forged goods industry in Latin America until relatively recent history, from what I have seen. Colonial efforts were largely supplied with finished goods rather than with raw materials up until that point. As such, between this and the seeming lack of meaningful difference in pattern choices beyond the "broad vs. narrow, round vs. oval eye, flat-backed or round-backed" that they were probably taking more or less whatever was sent to them, but when asked what they wanted would have shown an existing example of a thing they'd already been sent. The very fact that round-eye axes were commonplace there was because of the way that rural individuals could more easily shape makeshift handles for them using what was basically a minimally-altered sapling. Expediency was very much prioritized in the buying habits of the populace, along with economy. Slip fit axes didn't require saws for cutting a kerf for wedging, and before drop forging was adopted, most of the patterns produced could be pretty quickly forged out in large volume just by wrapping and welding the eye rather than needing to form it by punching. Again, while this is conjecture based on what I know of the region's industry, your remark about "in the absence of evidence it points in the opposite direction" I'd say it's rather equally nebulous either way. We simply do not know one way or the other, and that much MUST be asserted in the absence of material support to the contrary. The regional pattern names can be just as easily attributed to either side of that argument, and I'd say that the named patterns don't seem to be meaningfully different from the originating designs that you opened the thread with. What differences there are are mostly cosmetic and easily attributed to variation from maker to maker in the early days of export to Latin America from domestic Spanish sources. So if some degree of development was being done in Latin American markets themselves, they certainly didn't seem to be especially discerning or making major changes. At the end of the day, we simply don't know and would need period documents discussing the topic directly, such as in trade publications or governmental discussion of exports/imports as were often done. I can say with full certainty, for instance, that the style of scythes used in Mexico (one of the few Latin American regions in which the tool became at all popularized) are basically straight up Spanish patterns in both blade and snath, there being basically no difference from the originating style.

 

[Ugaldie]

No FortyTwoBlades , tools were not almost universally imported rather than domestically produced up until European companies (I think you are referring to the Central and Northern European ones) started setting up locally. Manufacture didn't stop when Iberians reached the Americas.

I think we need a bit of context. We’ll be discussing a vast span of time, territories and populations, so I’ll try to be as brief and concise as possible.

When the people we know as the conquistadors reached the Americas and conquered them their true image was far from the Space Marine portrayal often shown in mass media. Yes they possessed more advanced industrial technology, but the reality was far more complex and mundane.

The conquistadors’ weaponry and the tools they used were diverse and adapted to local conditions. Rather than representing straightforward technological superiority it reflected practical adaptation and reliance on indigenous resources and production, showing a complex technological interaction between Europeans and Indigenous peoples.

The social structure that emerged in this context resembled the Iberian model. Metal producers were organized into guilds, and they were so important that they were established as early as the first half of the 16th century. There was considerable variability in everything involving these organizations, but they all followed the rules imposed by law and necessity. Classical thinking held that steel and iron production and processing were legally monopolized by the metropolis, with local manufacturing allowed only to meet demand. However, further research suggests that there was no legal prohibition on producing iron and steel locally.

Nevertheless, demand continued to grow over time and iron and steel production combined with local indigenous toolmaking (both metal and stone) could not keep up. By the 18th century industrial-scale iron reduction facilities began to appear. One of my favorites to show to English speaking people is a true jewel of the Mexican iron industry of the era: the Catalan forge at Mission San Juan Capistrano in California.

For those unfamiliar with Catalan forges, they were a medieval technological marvel for iron processing (a kind of “rocket technology” of their time) that remained completely fully functional and in use until the 19th century. They could generate a continuous, compressed airflow using the Venturi effect. These facilities significantly increased iron, steel, and tool production in Latin America.

As I know trompe, a fascinating technology, has been used until the 70´s and the last place I know it was used was in Ontario, Canada.

As you can see Latin America was not an industrial wasteland before new European players entered the market. There was ample room for the development of local axe patterns, especially in Mexico.

Yes, we both speculate though to different degrees, but the foundations of our arguments are quite different.

There are further reasons to support my view, for example, historical axe catalogs, particularly older ones from when these tools were in actual use, are commonly referenced. I have never seen anyone educated in axe culture question renowned axemakers based solely on conjecture and that includes you. Knowing the context I have serious doubts that the documents you mention (trade publications or governmental discussion of exports/imports about axe patterns) ever existed.

I know language is a living thing and current pattern names are so widely accepted that changing them is virtually impossible. However that doesn’t change the fact that the case I defend, in which pattern names have been changed, is well supported.

About slip fit and round eye axes, there are large parts of the world where these axes (specially those with oval eyes) are still common. Not only in Latin America, but they are also the most widespread axes in the agricultural sector of a region like Iberia, which has had extensive commercial ties with the rest of the world for centuries. Slip fit axes are neither a thing of the past nor the future, they have their advantages and disadvantages. Some regions prefer one type, others the other and some regions like the one I live choose between them depending on the task at hand.

Regards

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

No FortyTwoBlades , tools were not almost universally imported rather than domestically produced up until European companies (I think you are referring to the Central and Northern European ones) started setting up locally. Manufacture didn't stop when Iberians reached the Americas.

I think we need a bit of context. We’ll be discussing a vast span of time, territories and populations, so I’ll try to be as brief and concise as possible.

When the people we know as the conquistadors reached the Americas and conquered them their true image was far from the Space Marine portrayal often shown in mass media. Yes they possessed more advanced industrial technology, but the reality was far more complex and mundane.

The conquistadors’ weaponry and the tools they used were diverse and adapted to local conditions. Rather than representing straightforward technological superiority it reflected practical adaptation and reliance on indigenous resources and production, showing a complex technological interaction between Europeans and Indigenous peoples.

The social structure that emerged in this context resembled the Iberian model. Metal producers were organized into guilds, and they were so important that they were established as early as the first half of the 16th century. There was considerable variability in everything involving these organizations, but they all followed the rules imposed by law and necessity. Classical thinking held that steel and iron production and processing were legally monopolized by the metropolis, with local manufacturing allowed only to meet demand. However, further research suggests that there was no legal prohibition on producing iron and steel locally.

Nevertheless, demand continued to grow over time and iron and steel production combined with local indigenous toolmaking (both metal and stone) could not keep up. By the 18th century industrial-scale iron reduction facilities began to appear. One of my favorites to show to English speaking people is a true jewel of the Mexican iron industry of the era: the Catalan forge at Mission San Juan Capistrano in California.

For those unfamiliar with Catalan forges, they were a medieval technological marvel for iron processing (a kind of “rocket technology” of their time) that remained completely fully functional and in use until the 19th century. They could generate a continuous, compressed airflow using the Venturi effect. These facilities significantly increased iron, steel, and tool production in Latin America.

As I know trompe, a fascinating technology, has been used until the 70´s and the last place I know it was used was in Ontario, Canada.

As you can see Latin America was not an industrial wasteland before new European players entered the market. There was ample room for the development of local axe patterns, especially in Mexico.

Yes, we both speculate though to different degrees, but the foundations of our arguments are quite different.

There are further reasons to support my view, for example, historical axe catalogs, particularly older ones from when these tools were in actual use, are commonly referenced. I have never seen anyone educated in axe culture question renowned axemakers based solely on conjecture and that includes you. Knowing the context I have serious doubts that the documents you mention (trade publications or governmental discussion of exports/imports about axe patterns) ever existed.

I know language is a living thing and current pattern names are so widely accepted that changing them is virtually impossible. However that doesn’t change the fact that the case I defend, in which pattern names have been changed, is well supported.

About slip fit and round eye axes, there are large parts of the world where these axes (specially those with oval eyes) are still common. Not only in Latin America, but they are also the most widespread axes in the agricultural sector of a region like Iberia, which has had extensive commercial ties with the rest of the world for centuries. Slip fit axes are neither a thing of the past nor the future, they have their advantages and disadvantages. Some regions prefer one type, others the other and some regions like the one I live choose between them depending on the task at hand.

Regards

Again, I think we're largely talking past one another here, and you've fundamentally misunderstood my arguments. All sources I've found to date, both period and current, support that manufactured goods were overwhelmingly imported throughout the colonial period of Latin America even up through the Industrial Revolution, and most of the industry in Latin America carried out by the Spanish and Portuguese empires were chiefly agricultural and mining related. That is not to say that no metal processing was done whatsoever locally, but rather that most of it was being employed at small scale, and it took quite a long time before tool manufacturing was a major thing anywhere in the region. Wikipedia even has a nice overview available that lays out most of the major details.

I did not at any point argue that slip fit eyes were anything other than advantageous for the local context of use by the people doing the purchasing of the imported goods, as it reduced reliance on other (mostly imported) tools. I am well aware that they are still commonplace, and for many regions and reasons.

At this point I think I'll bow out of the conversation, but do please continue to post whatever you think is meaningful to the topic. I simply feel as though I am not being heard, or if heard, not understood, and cannot meaningfully contribute further so long as that's the case.

Edit to add: this is just one of very many trade reports detailing the trade of hand agricultural tools in Latin America. There are an astounding number of these kinds of reports to so great a degree that I find it an annoyance when trying to find other kinds of historical documents on Google Books pertaining to hand tools of any kind. Trade conditions for the hand tool industry is something that was extensively discussed during the so-called "golden age" of axes in the United States, and trade discussions go back into the 1800's, documents mostly falling off before that simply due to age and lack of preservation and digitization, but for the more modern periods there are overwhelming amounts of documents available.

 

[Ugaldie]

I understand FortyTwoBlades , you are free to proceed, no one is obligated to respond anybody for anything.

And no, I read and understand what you say and respond in consonance. Continue reading ang you will see it.

Yes you are right about the period you are talking about, which is part of the period I have talked about in order to show there was room for local hand tool development. And to understand this we continue needing context.

Latin America suffered a period of commercial and preindustrial revolution industry development as I have already shown in my previous posts. This came to an end in the early 1800's with the independence wars. This came a convulsous era of conflicts which derived to the situation you point. More or less the same thing Europe suffered in the transition from the Roman Empire to the Medieval era. You can read about it in the link to Wikipedia you have shared.

What I pointed (or wanted to point) was more or less two centuries of peace and development in a environment deeply influenced by a local universal vision of an axe type is, in my opinion, enough time to develop a local pattern.

Yes, I was surprised about what did you write about slip fits. It looked me you were talking about them as poor men choice. They are, but their advantages are much more than this.

By the way, Biscayne axe are by wide margin the most prevalent agricultural axes here. And by huge margin the most prevalent Biscayne axes are drop forged. The ones which are the most regarded are Ramon Onraita ones you can see in the first post of this thread.

Regards