I just got back from vacation in Kentucky at Lake Barkely. A conservationist, John Barkley, gave a Tomahow throwing demonstration and basically got all of about 20 bystanders to successfully throw Tomohawks into a wooden stump target from a distance of about 18' (5.4 meters.) June 10, 2005

He gave a background talk on the origin of the Tomohawk. He stated that it originated in Northern Europe, and was really a very different thing than the stone axes the native American indians had. Swords were outlawed from commoner's possessions at some point. According to his account, many old swords were melted down and formed into "Hawks" which served multiple purposes for new colonists as axes, building tools, and weapons. This supposedly occured in France, Scotland, Ireland, and England. Distinctive cutout shapes such as a heart shape hole signified origin (bleeding heart for Scotland...he has one example.) He stated that during the colonial settlement period, large shipments of European swords (often broken blades) were sent to the Americas where they were melted down and reformed into Tomahawks.

This reminded me of some other Internet web articles I had read stating that possession of swords were basically illegal for many European commoners after late medieval period. I suspect a great deal of the swords that represent what an "average soldier" would have possessed are long gone. Those that survive, statistically, may be more representative of the elite social classes weapons rather than the main stay of battle. Just a though anyway. I was surprised to here that swords were being converted into other types of tools so late in history.

Jared Smith

That swords were illegal for commoner to carry or own is one of those myths that is difficult to kill.

There were restrictions as to where you might carry a sword, like in town on everyday business. That these laws were even written does tell us that not everybody cared about such details as not carrying offensive arms.
The artist Duerer has depicted german peasants in the beginning of the 16th C armed with swords. We know of swords in the hands of commoners in countless documents and depictions in art.
"Skadeliga Värjor" (= meaning something like "harmfull defense-tools") were banned within the city of Stockholm in the 15th C. These were defined as swords, but also axes and other more hefty weapons. A dagger was usually allowed for common citicens at all times.

There were even laws to the effect that land owning peasants in Sweden *had* to own and maintain an armament cosisting of sword or axe, spear, crossbow or bow plus some sort of armour and helmet. If the farmer was wealthy enough he even had to equip one or several men at arms in similar manner. Sometimes even providing mounts. The exact combination of weapons varied, but swords were commonly defined as part of the equipment.
Laws and rights for swordowning would have varied in Europe during the long period of the so called middle ages. That swords were common and widely used in most layers of society are beyond doubt. We should remember that there were strict social barrier even within the social group of commoners. There is a vast difference between the landowning farmer and the simple men working his land. There is also a difference between the esteemed master and his lowly apprentice. Becomming a payed soldier was often a release from strict social bonds for those who dreamed of adventure and easy pickings.
We should also remember that like now when common civilians might own firearms (with more or less governement controll in varying degrees through out the western world), there are at the same time rather strict social rules as to where and how it is accepted to cary lethal weapons in public. I would be surpriced if the situation was that much different some 800 years ago. Perhaps in proportion but not so much in principle).

To return to Tomahawks; there are indeed some interesting similarities to the tomahawk and the smaller types of european medieval handaxes. We see examples in the Viking period in both northern europe and russia that are just a small step away from what we recognize as t classic tomahawk. The blades of the "typical" tomahawk is usally a bit thinner a tiny bit smaller, but there is a clear sense of siblingship. (...just no pipe heads on Viking axes...;-)

;) ...The archaeological find of the century would be an axe in a viking grave complete with a pipe head and a silverworked tobacco pouch by his side...A traveller in the western reaches, one might believe....:-)

I agree with Peter. In the colony of Virginia, both the 1738 and 1756 Acts for the Better Regulation of the Militia required the following:

"Each man is to provide himself with a firelock or musket, well fixed, a bayonet
fitted to the same, or a cutting sword or cutlass, a cartouch-box, and at least
three charges of powder and appear with the same at the time and place appointed
for muster and excercise."

Each of the colonies had their own regulations for the militia, all of the ones I have seen mention "cutting swords". Time and time again we find swords showing up in estate records. They were much more common among the masses of American colonists than most people recognize. While some colonies did allow the substitution of tomahawks instead of swords, Virginia never did.

So where did commoners get all these swords? Since only very small quantities show up in trade ledgers, we must assume the colonists already owned them when they came to the colonies.

While there are lots of examples of broken swords being turned into knives and daggers, I find it hard to believe that swords were commonly melted down to make tomahawks from. Tomahawks were such a cheap trade good being shipped to the colonies by the barrel full, it just doesn't seem to ring true that swords would have been destroyed to make them.

It is a shame that the truly fascinating history of weapons gets so muddied by myths. Although I am sure Mr. Barkley is well intentioned, it appears he hasn't done the research to substantiate what he's heard.

--Chris

Chris Goerner wrote:
"While there are lots of examples of broken swords being turned into knives and daggers, I find it hard to believe that swords were commonly melted down to make tomahawks from. Tomahawks were such a cheap trade good being shipped to the colonies by the barrel full, it just doesn't seem to ring true that swords would have been destroyed to make them."

During the early part of colonization, attempts to control the colonies included forbidding construction of steel mills. America erected its first blast furnace in 1621 and exported 5 tons of iron by 1771. This industry was increasingly restricted, and some blacksmiths could have resorted to importing steel. Steel foundries were basically very rare in the U.S. until the Civil War. Check the middle of this article out, there are several like it. http://www.colonialwarsct.org/amer_colonies_one.htm
Also this one, http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/r...dsteel.htm

It is well established that "steel trade Tomahawks" rapidly replaced iron and stone types. As many as 4,000 good quality steel trade axes (rifleman's belt axes, tomahawks, etc.) have been estimated to have been produced in colonial America. There are plenty of surviving steel examples with native trademarks for those who care to look. To make these various types of trade axes, one folded and forged a flat steel bar. A good article on how this is done can be found at http://www.lanouvelle-france.com/manufacturing.htm . An outdated style, or broken sword would make a premium starting piece for two or three trade tomahawks (generally just a little over 1 lb each steel head.) Coal (hence carbon) were available in both the colonies and the previously mentioned areas of Europe at this point.

Some unexplained anomalies regarding high quality steel found in colonial settlements are mentioned at several web sites. These generally speculate that some mysterious method of refinement of blister steel may have been devised. One such site is here.... http://www.davistownmuseum.org/guideMetallurgy.htm I find the simple reforging of good quality steel blades more plausible. Can't prove it though.

I don't know what Mr. Barker's sources were, but import of barrels of "broken swords" makes a lot of sense, for that time frame, to me.

I plead no contest on the issue of medieval law. I really don't enjoy the continuous political manipulation of modern law, and certainly have not researched medieval law. There seems to be a lot of web site disparity regarding "required armaments", versus what poor peasants could actually afford. I have heard estimates that a medieval sword was worth roughly the equivalent of $20,000 U.S. in today's terms. I think we could argue the price all over the place, and I would actually like to hear your 2 cents worth on an equivalent present dollar value estimate. In the end, I expect the price is still high in relative terms, and this makes about as much sense to believe in as thinking that every citizen would be able to run a mile in 5 minutes because some law said they had too. If there is archeological evidence (some city covered by a volcano?) that supports this idea, please expound! For myself, I will probably spend a large sum of money just out of eccentric passion, despite laws that actually greatly restrict where and what we can do with this kind of stuff now.


Jared Smith

The lamination of steel inside the cutting edge would be good, (and possibly easier?). There are some collector web sites out there that describe all steel European made tomahawks. I have wondered if an all steel type would actually be a good idea given its other uses as a functional kindling axe, hammer, and tool. Are not wedges, axes, and other splitting type tools generally more malleable than the type of steel used in swords so as to prevent brittle failure/ surface cracks?