Iron trade axes study by William R. Fitzgerald

(* Permission was given by the author to publish excerpts on this web site. )

Willam R. Fitzgerals completed this great study by implementing a chronology for early trade goods from the 16th and 17th century across eastern North America (early glass beads, iron axes, brass ladles, iron knives etc).  He uses the glass bead period timeframe developed by Charles Wray and Ian Kenyon. In his study, Fitzgerald uses 105 complete and fragment axes from Neutral, Huron and Micmac sites in an attempt to isolate traits that might indicate axe grades and chronological trends.

 GP1 - (1580-1600)

GP2 - (1600-1620)

GP3 - (1635-1650)

Fitzgerald seems to suggest that trade axes were manufactured either in Holland or in Biscay.

"Early axes were made in two principal centres: Utrecht (Holland) and Biscay (northern Spain)." ¹

He later discusses the French System de Pois de Marc de Troyes in order to better examine and study this system that would have been used in New-France with many of the trade goods.

The French and English favoured the latter source (Peterson 1965 :20). While the general lack of standardization between sixteenth and seventeenth century systems of measure would presumably hinder the ready definition of grades (Table 14), there are two systems that would have been utilized by manufacturers supplying goods at this time. The French Systeme de Poids de Marc de Troyes was a dry weight system used between 1350 and 1840 for weighing all commodities. Its basic unit, the livre, has a metric equivalent of 489.41 grams. For linear measurement, the French Ancien systeme de longeur du pied du roi --used between the eighth century and 1668 --has its pouce equivalent to 27.22mm (Ross 1983:76). Twelve lignes (one ligne equals 2.27mm) constituted one pouce. While the old French systems and current metric equivalents are used for graphic presentations, the former will be emphasized because categories evident within the old French system might be clouded when metric measurements are used. The French systems are being used because of the assumption that the goods were at least supplied to the French, if not manufactured by them for the fur trade. If some of the goods were imported to France, other systems of measurement may have been employed. If different foundries used different systems of weight and measure, a degree of metric deviation around a standard grade might be expected. For example, a three pound/livre axe, if manufactured around 1580 in France and England, would range between 1359.24 and 1492.99 modem grams. While in each system the axe would be a three pound/livre axe, the variation in each system might result in a modem analyst's perception that those two axes would represent two different weight grades. For that reason, instead of expecting distinct clusters with minimal variability using twentieth century metric systems, clusters should be expected to display significant deviation. A number of other factors might blur weight and metric categories. Even if apparently unaltered specimens are used (i.e., axes that are completely intact and have not undergone post-manufacture alteration), the original size and weight might be reduced by aboriginal wear of the bit, several centuries of corrosion, and conservation procedures. Conceivably, the initial manufacturing process could also result in deviations from prescribed standards. These axes were hand wrought, produced by folding an iron strap around a mandrel, welding the two ends, forging the blade, and finally grinding, carburizing and tempering the bit. Undoubtedly, some degree of variation would result from such a manufacturing technique. Within the variability, however, discrete clusters should be discernible. While a number of measurements were taken (Figure 42), five attributes were focused upon to identify grades of axes that might correlate with armourers' marks: weight, overall length (a), blade length (b), bit width (c), and the height of the axe at the transition between the blade and the poll (m).

 

Armourers' Marks (Figure 43)

 

 The Armourers' marks studied by Fitzgerald were all classified according to the shape of the mark, the division of the mark, and the number and orientation of the mark. He goes on to say that "...the vast majority of the marks are circular in shape".¹

 

 

NOTICE THE DIFFERENT ARMORER MARK CONFIGURATIONS ON TRADE AXES.

 

*Chronology to culture process : Lower Great Lakes Archeology , 1500-1650 AD, Willam R. Fitzgerald, Ph D. dissertation, Departement of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, 1990 (revised 1992)

 

 

Weight

Many researchers have often tried to establish some sort of system that would confirm once and for all that there exists a correlation between weight, armourer's mark, and number of marks.   Fitzgerald somewhat confirms this, with the exception of few isolated cases.

"There appears to be a correlation between weight, armourer's mark, and number of marks. Eight-segment circular marks are found on the heaviest axes (with one exception), and for the four-segment circular marks those axes that have three impressions are the heaviest (again with one exception). Generally, the heaviest axes are stamped with three eight-segment circular marks; axes with four-segment circular marks are heavier if there are three stamps. Despite the relatively small sample size, clusters are evident among axes with four-segment circular stamps. Notable is the concentration of three impressions between 2.25 and 3.00 livres. The lightest axes have but one mark."

Measurements

After studying temporal trends, Fitzgerald concludes that temporal trends of axe attributes parallel those of weight.   He notices furthermore that GBP1 (1580-1600) site axes tend to be much longer than the other two following periods.  

"...this clearly indicates that weight, more than measurements, differentiates the axes, since long axes can be both heavy and light. There is very little, if any, correlation between armourers' marks and metric attributes, especially among the four segment circular examples. Long axes just as frequently had one mark as they had three, and, while the shortest axes never had three stamps, this was likely because of their extreme lightness rather than their shortness. While there was a notable correlation between weight, variety of mark, and number of marks, at least as it concerned four- and eight-segment marks, differences for metric attributes were not similarly distinctive".

Axe Trends

Fitzgerald concludes by discussing axe trends based on his comparative charts.  His main conclusion would be that early axes were much stronger, heavier with straight-sides for durability.  The later ones seem to lack many of these qualities.

"While Cartier and others exchanged a limited number of "hatchets" during the 1530s and 1540s in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the first axes to be recovered from archaeological sites (notably burials) were massive implements derived from commercial activities after 1580. Commercial acumen probably accounts for subsequent trends. Axes did not become appreciably shorter; rather, they became lighter. If a classificatory system is possible for axes it is, as this study indicates, on the basis of weight, not length. It seems that a particular weight of iron was prescribed for certain grades of axe and the size would be determined by that criterion. Long axes were still produced but, in an effort to conserve raw material, excess iron had to be shaved from some part of the axe. After GBP1, axes tended to be laterally compressed at the transition area from hafting element to blade (Figure 42). Whereas many axes from GBP1 sites, when examined from the superior position, reveal an essentially straight-sided configuration, those from later sites exhibit a noticeable concavity, resulting in a much thinner, presumably weaker blade. Additional iron was also saved if the height of the posterior section of the blade was reduced. The size of the bit could be preserved, but the strength of the axe at the poll-blade transition would be compromised. Also compromising the quality of later axes was the omission of an inserted steel cutting edge (Peterson 1965: 18). "

 

"The GBP1 axes were massive and extremely durable items. Quality decreased quite rapidly, serving a number of European ends. Less iron was required for each axe, more lighter axes could be transported, and inferior axes would lead to more frequent replacement. By GBP3 there was a greater selection of weight classes that might reflect a variety of axe functions, including felling of trees, timber preparation and dressing, light chopping, and possibly offensive weaponry."

1. Chronology to culture process : Lower Great Lakes Archeology , 1500-1650 AD, Willam R. Fitzgerald, Ph D. dissertation, Departement of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, 1990 (revised 1992)

* Permission was given by the author to publish excerpts on this web site.