The reasons of controversy? First off, there is a contention among tomahawk collectors. Some don't think the Underhill pattern types should constitute in the tomahawk category due to their being non-blacksmith and more pattern-made. Inclusion at local hardware stores of the era made some call foul, but the lines are very blurry in this time period. There are many later (1860's-90's) pipe tomahawks that have triphammer-made cast steel blades, but the collectors seem to have no problem with them! The nawsayers say there's no proof these spike axes were used by Native Americans! Yep, just like there is no proof that a specific spiked trade axe predating the steel types were handled by natives. Only direct provenance can prove that. That doesn't mean they weren't carried by such, it's just a 'can you prove it' moment. The fact is, hammer poles and spike tomahawks were carried by both European immigrants and Indians alike, as already said in this thread many times. The fact of the matter is, spike tomahawks were still being traded with the Indians, so this axe theoretically could have been a native axe. Or they could have been a settler's axe, soldier's axe, surveyer's axe or even belonged to a frontiersman getting ready to cross the Rockies. We simply don't know, but just because this type of axe was 'more commercial', doesn't put it out of the running for being exactly what it was called, a 'tomahawk axe'.
|