[Dan Kary]

Hi everybody,

I've got three questions about North American tomahawks that I don't think have been asked on the forums (I concluded this after having done a quick search).

The first is regarding spontoon tomahawks. Did Europeans ever make these new? Or were these always repurposed from trade axes?

The second is also about spontoon tomahawks. I'm aware that the native North Americans made use of them. Did Europeans?

The last is regarding pipe tomahawks. I've noticed some modern reproductions have pipe tomahawks that are not really pipes at all - the pipe bowl is filled in and it can be used as a hammer. That strikes me as a good idea but is it one that is completely modern, or where there tomahawks in colonial North America that had both a function as a hammer and a tomahawk but looked like a pipe tomahawk?

Thank you!

Dan

[Victor R.]

I don't know about the first two, but as for the third question:

If you look at the development of axes, which is what a tomahawk is, you'll see many examples with a blade and bludgeon head going back centuries and the world over. I suspect the pipe tomahawk developed from the blade and bludgeon design - it certainly wasn't the other way around. As far as I've read, a purpose made pipe tomahawk was never meant for martial purposes, but was purely a ceremonial item, so one with a "filled in bowl" probably never had a bowl and stem set up to begin with, but was a purpose built martial/bushcraft item.

Like any iron or steel object with a blade (think shovel as an example) a pipe tomahawk could serve as a weapon if necessary, but that wasn't the purpose for which it was built. An even better example might be a roofing hammer - I have one that's about 80 or 90 years old that, except for the nail puller at the top, looks much like a pipe tomahawk in profile. Except for the nail puller, the head design also looks a lot like some of the single-hand axes attributed to the middle ages and "Viking" era. It's just a common shape that has served multiple purposes.

[Dan Kary]

Thanks Victor! I can't find an answer for the first two, but for the third...I went to the catalogue for the Smithsonian's national museum of the American Indian. I don't know why I didn't think to do this earlier...maybe because I thought that metal tomahawks were largely trade items rather than made by native Americans? Anyways, I thought I would give it a go since I have found lots of great warclub examples this way.

I did find some pole tomahawks (that seems to be what they are called) where it is like a pipe tomahawk but the "bowl" is solid and can be used like a hammer (and indeed, Victor seems right to point out that maybe I should be saying that the hammer is hollowed out in a pipe tomahawk, rather than saying the bowl is filled in on a pole tomahawk since certainly pole hawks probably gave rise to pipe hawks). One thing that was kind of stunning, however, was the amount of tomahawks there that were pipe tomahawks. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe because of what the museum specializes in, and these were particularly favoured by native Americans? Or maybe it's what the curator flavors? Or maybe it's just how it worked out.

Anyways, there were lots of spontoon tomahawks there too - but no answers forthcoming on questions one and two.

[Ryan S.]

[Glen A Cleeton]

Rpger's Rangers is mentioned as using spontoon hawks but aside from the several modern takes on such, there is little factual material tp support the claim.

Cheers
GC

[J. Scott Moore]

As a bladesmith, I can say that it would be more work than it is worth to cut a tomahawk down to form into a spontoon. If you cut the blade down in the way that is seen on spontoon hawks, the blade needs to be cut hot. There is simply no other way to do it without seriously compromising the integrity of the edge. I.e. without creating serious stress fractures. Once that is done, there are an additional problems. The first is that there would only be a tiny amount of high carbon steel- right at the tip. You might think that’s fine, but may I remind you that even when not hardened. High carbon steel, no matter it’s type, is much harder in general than iron, which forms the bodies of almost all trade axes historically. Also, trade axes were very thin, making them fantastic weapons, and once you remove what little material is there at the edge, the chance that a misaligned blow will damage the blade, especially when thrown, which is in some dispute, I would like to add. Secondly, when the cuts are complete, assuming that the work was done hot, as I believe it would have to be, in order to be any good as a tool or a weapon, you have to heat treat it again. This causes grain growth, increasing the likelihood that the blade will crack in the hardening. Every time you heat a pice of steel above the critical temperature, you increase the size of the grain. If care isn’t taken to normalize, the blade will not survive the quench, except through luck. This careful heating is not a simple thing, and it is unlikely that smiths would have had such specific knowledge of exactly what happens when you normalize steel. It is far more likely that each smith had his routine that was taught to him by his master, and that was just the routine. Recalescence was not really documented and understood until recently,
Finally, about the use of pipe hawks, I think it’s important to take into account that drilling a small hole through the length of a shaft of wood can severely compromise the structural integrity of the wood. Not to mention how difficult that task actually is even with a lathe. Also, an extended poll, or hammer end can do a lot to balance a weapon, and “filling in” was extremely hard. You can’t just melt more steel and pour it in, and you can’t exactly fill it in using modern welding methods, as they did not exist. At most, you would have to forge a plug, and forge weld it in, and then reform the poll, and re heat treat the entire weapon again. Each of those steps can go south, quickly. Not to mention the fact that you’d have to be a very well equipped smith to be able to pull that off without destroying the piece and without modern tools. Again, it’s very nervous work. Now, one could create a tap and cut threads on a plug and essentially screw a plug into place, but you’d almost have to start with a cylindrical hole, which means more shaping, and metal cutting drill bits were not easy to use either. So in my opinion, it is far more likely that some tomahawks that had a longer poll, or hammer head were sometimes drilled out for smoking, rather than the reverse.
Now, for clarity’s sake, I am not saying that neither of these things happened in history, but it bears some consideration; given the multitude of downsides, was this a common practice, as some people would have us believe, or is the reality that it just didn’t make sense to do these things to weapons that you might have to trust your life to? I think not, but that is just my opinion as a blacksmith.

[Dan Kary]

Thanks for that response J! What you say makes so much sense.

I've since poured over a lot of examples and it seems that spontoons were probably, if not in all then in, most cases made as such. A lot of it has to do with points you've made.

It seems clear that they were a response to an increasing desire for fancier and fancier tomahawks as the standard trade tomahawks market became saturated. They also seem much thicker, as you point out, than the thinner trade axes. They also tended to be huge compared to trade tomahawks. All this leads me to believe that they were purpose built. I don't know if non-natives really used them, or even how many natives used them, in a martial context (given that many of them were pipe hawks which aren't as structurally sound, of course!). They are certainly well represented in photography for portraits.

I should clarify that by "filled in" I didn't mean that they took a pipe and filled in it. I meant that they took that form and made them solid. I can't imagine that somebody would take a pipe and make it not a pipe. I was wondering about what are called hammerpole hawks which look like pipe hawks. My choice of words was poor and I am sorry for it.

I really like your point about balance. I wonder, in addition to the hammer balancing things out, if many of the cutouts (hearts, crosses, etc.) on blades had as much a balancing purpose as they did a decorative purpose.

[J. Scott Moore]

I think that the cutouts made a huge difference in weight and balance, simply because so much material is removed, but I don’t know if that was secondary in priority or not. Having thrown a few hawks around, I do know that the lighter axe is easier to swing, and to get longer distances, but they tend to hit with somewhat less force when they’re being thrown or swung. There are arguments for both cases, and I think that in most cases, it was just down to personal preference.

[Victor R.]

[Dan Kary]

I've got another question, and I thought it might be a good idea to consolidate things since this is also a tomahawk question.

I've been looking at a lot of photographs and period art (18th and 19th century mainly, but also some early 20th) and I'm having trouble finding picture of native Americans with spike tomahawks. I'm wondering why.

Is it because they never used them? Maybe having a spike wasn't a priority to them like having a pipe (or possibly hammer - it's hard to tell if some tomahawks had a pipe or hammer since they can look the same from the side)? Were spike tomahawks just a European thing (I have heard that this sort of tomahawk comes from earlier boarding axes of the 17th century onward)? Am I just looking in the wrong places? Thanks!

Another thing is that I want to correct myself. It seems like, upon further investigation, that spontoons were not very thick. This makes sense. They could only be used for fighting and so a thinner blade makes much more sense. You aren't going to be splitting logs with a spontoon and so there isn't a lot of sense in making it thick. Plus, as mentioned before, a lighter blade is good in a fight!

[Sean Manning]

[Dan Kary]

[Sean Manning]

[Dan Kary]

Thanks for the link Sean! I haven't gotten into the article in depth yet but I think the stuff about how light the trade axes are is an interesting topic. Was it so they would break more easily and need replacement quicker, or was it an understanding that these things were weapons and needed to be lighter?

I'm with you. I don't understand the purpose of the spike in the context of a tool in colonial North America. I get spikes for the other purposes you mention. When it comes to fighting, I'm not sure about the spike in this context. The only thing I can think of is that, maybe, it is more effective to punch through a thick capote winter coat and other winter clothing than an axe head? I have a Hudson bay blanket (which many capote were made from) and it would think it offer, even unintentionally, a pretty substantial protection - but it sure wouldn't stand up to a spike. Isn't that basically the purposes of spikes on axes in a martial context? Armour piercing?

(now that's interesting...as I type this, I wonder if there would have been tomahawks that were more or less effective in summer vs. winter...a spike tomahawk for winter to get through that thick clothing, while a standard, pipe, or poll hawk for summer fighting...).

[Sean Manning]

Another thing to keep in mind is that those detailed oil paintings of First Nations chiefs and warriors are mostly from the 19th century. Until late in the 18th century there were not many good painters in the colonies (and indigenous subjects were not really fashionable with wealthy patrons). So oil paintings let alone photos are going to show a very late, very Great Plains and Mountain West perspective on material culture.

Hatchets probably had a different role in the forests of eastern Turtle Island than among the Dakota for example. Most axes and knives are tools even if they might be used on a living creature. Settlers tend and tended to be obsessed with indigenous warfare and overlook the other 99% of life.

[Dan Kary]

I found some period pictures of native americans with spike tomahawks: https://www.furtradetomahawks.com/spike-tomahawks--3.html

The site says that "photos of indians holding spike tomahawks are extremely rare" and doesn't really help clarify why they even existed (why have the spike?). I wonder if the spike is just about balance and instead of a hammer they decided to make it sharp to make it fully dedicated as a weapon. Another wondering I have is that it's just useful to have to break up soil, use as a lever, etc.

[Ryan S.]

[Perry L. Goss]

Might have to start here, and delve deeper once you start...some of these guys are excellent sources.

https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php

As well as...

https://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/

Best to you on your research.