Native American spike tomahawk, fur trade pole axes and skinning knives

[M ELEY]

Hello Colin and thank you for responding to the thread. Yes, you are absolutely correct that there are many fakes out there, but 95% of them are the pipe tomahawks, which fetch thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars. Spike tomahawks are also faked on occasion, but outside of diehard collectors, many don't register these as 'true tomahawks'. The faked ones typically have false patina or modern rust. The fakers use old tool heads that they grind down to fit the right shapes. What remains is a minefield of misunderstanding, axes that AREN"T tomahawks but resemble them, foreign look-a-likes, etc. I find what helps me is understanding what isn't a tomahawk, look at those traits and compare them with examples I come across for comparison. Again, I'm no expert, but feel comfortable that most of my examples are solid. That being said, just because they are spike tomahawk weapons doesn't necessarily mean they were used by natives. That, as you pointed out, requires provenance. In any case, I won't deny this is (like boarding axes!) a slippery slope of collecting. Ten years ago, I had three other examples that I ruled out as look-alike and thus got rid of them-

[M ELEY]

Hello David. Thank you so much for posting that piece! Yes, I had heard that boarding axes sometimes wound up in Native hands. It makes total sense, as both trade spike axes and boarding axes resemble each other and are contemporary. Likewise, one can see situations where sailors would encounter coastal tribes and make trades. I've even seen one documented boarding ax made up with brass trade tacks and sinew grip. Pretty fascinating!

[M ELEY]

Hello Jim! Wow, do you have all of these sources? I'm still working on getting my hands on several of the sources you mention here. I'm making a copy of this thread for my own records, so thanks for that! I greatly appreciate the information you provided to support these pieces. I am still looking for a copy of Peterson's tomahawk book, which I hear is exceptional. Thanks also for posting a pic of that knife. I was apt to believe my example might be either a frontiersman versus Indian piece until I saw Taylor's book. After I saw several native examples including this one, I'm leaning more towards the latter now!

[Hombre]

I find this thread extremely interesting... Tomahawks and Bowie knives... Unfortunately it is not easy to find books about the topic and when you do, you must order from the U.S.A and that will not be cheap...
Here are a few books I have about the tomahawk... have a few about the Bowie knife too..

Best,
Stefan
Sweden

[M ELEY]

Thank you very much for these references, Stephan! I have that last one and hope to pick up a copy of Baldwin's soon. Of course, Peterson would be the jewel to the crown, but as it is out of print, the copies go for obscene prices!! Again, my thanks for these recommendations-

[M ELEY]

My newest acquisition and one seeped in controversy for more than one reason.

First off, this is a ca.1830-40 cast head spike axe made in the pattern of the so-called 'Underhill Tool Company' axes ca.1840. The Underhill Tool Company was one of the earliest of the companies that used fine steel shaped and cast via triphammer processing (pre-Industrial Revolution, but definitely much faster than blacksmith-wroght pieces). This axe pattern with the pointed/pyramid shaped ears was taken from earlier trade pieces, including an Iroquois pattern. (see Neumann's 'Swords and Blades of the American Revolution', 55a, 56a, 27a, 29a. See also Hartzler's 'Indian Tomahawks and Frontiersmen Belt Axes, pg 38\fig 5, pg 39\fig 6, pg 49\fig 36 and pg 96\fig 44 for similar triangled ears and similar heads). The oval eye on mine drilled out and the haft very possibly original.

As these were the very first commercially produced models, they were included in catalogs of the time and indeed sold to hardware stores, suttlers, tool suppliers, etc. It is noted, however, that these early pattern heads were also put on wagons and sent out to the trading posts, just like the old hand-wrought spike axes of yesteryear. Thus, we have an axe pattern that truly served both worlds (Native Americans and settlers).

[M ELEY]

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'.