Fullgroove Sledgehammer

[Charl]

Speaking of hammers, and hammers that perhaps started out with at least the intention of being an axe, and at 8 pounds, a regulation sledge, a native sledgehammer, my wife found this back in 1992. Plow scars galore, but it only came up because the farmer decided to plow halfway to China for a handful of years. Look at the flatten out facet of extreme pounding. Saw a lot of use for some heavy duty work. Big enough to stand on it's side or poll. Looks like the poll end might have seen some type of use as well.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[GatorBoy]

It's common for the poll end of axes like that one to have damage.. Even celts have damage to the poll end quite often.
I would imagine that could come from all sorts of different things like using a stone to hit the back of the axe while it's lodged in a tree .. To using that end as a hammer when the need arose... Or even damage sustained during hafting.
I would still consider that an axe.. Definitely not a sledgehammer.
I'm going to grab a celt right now

 

[monsterrack]

Looks to me as if it was an all around good tool used a long time.

 

[GatorBoy]

 

[NC field hunter]

Looks to me as if it was an all around good tool used a long time.

I agree. The poll shows more wear than the bit. It reminds me of a maul for splitting wood.

 

[Charl]

There's no question it was used as a heavy duty hammer, like a sledgehammer. Something this heavy could pound large sections of bark off felled trees. Looks like they were making an axe to start. But, with all the pecking down near the bit, it was suggested that the maker changed his mind on axe, having realized he needed a hammer, and maybe never got around to grinding a sharpened bit before using it as a maul. Or, after seeing use as an axe, it ended its' usage life as the sledgehammer we see today. One has only to examine that darkened smoothed flat facet to know this was used to pound the hell out of something, not to cut like an axe at all. And, the fact that it is not chipped like the bit on a hammerstone used on rocks, proves that it was hammering something that was softer material then the hammer surface itself. Otherwise, it would be chipped up like most hammerstones, and not have a large unbroken smooth surface facet. As noted, this would be ideal for whacking large sections of bark off felled trees.

These are often referred to as camp axes as well, since they were so heavy they were stashed at seasonal camps rather then transported from seasonal camp to seasonal camp.

These photos show how the wear is on the side of the bit, not the worn edge of the bit. And that large side facet was pounded smooth on something softer then the rock itself. Although the poll end does show usage, and I agree that is common, it is the bit end that shows the usage in order to create that flat facet in granite. That's a heck of a lot of pounding on granite showing right there, to get it that flat and smooth. That is definite pounding wear, not chopping wear, and a hell of a lot of pounding wear, with the momentum of 8 pounds. I said sledgehammer simply because 8 pounds is a standard size for a small sledge, and not because the tool type actually goes by that name; it doesn't, but the comparison is spot on! Not going to cut much with a broad flat face like that; this was clearly used as a heavy duty hammer regardless of it's' likely start as a camp axe.

Therefore, at the end of its' usage life, it was definitely more of a sledgehammer then an axe. At least if we define axe as something used to chop or cut. Definitely. The usage wear makes that much a no brainer conclusion, IMO. A person can still call it a full groove camp axe, but its' usage at the end of its' life was as a maul on material softer then the tool itself. And I have absolutely no problem at all comparing it to a sledgehammer. I will stick by that comparison 8 days of the week, because it's absolutely accurate as a comparison, given 8 pounds of weight and very obvious pounding wear. And it would take some SERIOUS pounding on a softer material to wear the granitic surface down to that extent.
Another shot of the poll as well. There is a sharp ridge of rock running across the center of that battered hole at the top of the poll. No doubting the poll end saw use in some fashion as gator and NC field hunter suggest.

 

[GatorBoy]

Just a shot in the dark here because of course I can never know for sure but I think there is the possibility all that damage may have occurred from using something just as hard to beat the axe forward again in the haft or from actually swinging it and striking something to knock it back into the haft again ...because if you think about it hafted like an axe would be that's the end you would need to strike to put it back into position if it slipped from the haft from striking with bit end.
Some of those started out huge so that thick stubby bit we see now could have looked a whole lot different when it first started before being sharpened and reworked many times but the poll end still shows all of the damage from the beginning... just a thought

 

[Charl]

Just a shot in the dark here because of course I can never know for sure but I think there is the possibility all that damage may have occurred from using something just as hard to beat the axe forward again in the haft or from actually swinging it and striking something to knock it back into the haft again ...because if you think about it hafted like an axe would be that's the end you would need to strike to put it back into position if it slipped from the haft from striking with bit end.
Some of those started out huge so that thick stubby bit we see now could have looked a whole lot different when it first started before being sharpened and reworked many times but the poll end still shows all of the damage from the beginning... just a thought

Yes, that's an interesting thought, but it's almost like saying they were only using the poll end and just using the bit end to "tighten" up the haft, so to speak. That would make the bit end almost like an afterthought, there for no reason but to reposition the tool in the manner you describe, at the end of its' usage as a tool. With that much pounding wear on the bit, IMHO, it would be more logical to conclude they were in fact pounding with one face of the bit. It could have been a softer stone, like steatite, as in quarry axe, but this was several miles from the nearest such quarry. Could have been to knock bark off felled trees. An interesting idea, and the damage within the groove probably eliminated any further usage since it would no longer remain stable in a haft with the groove damage. But I believe that much extreme wear on the bit is from usage in all likelihood. The comparison to a sledgehammer was due to its' 8 pound weight and all that pounding wear. And it does look like they wielded this tool from both directions. I don't see any reason why the maker would have stopped using the bit end and just used the poll end. Now the odd thing is that very sharp and narrow ridge, running at the base of the depression in the poll, would have split a walnut right down the middle if you laid it atop that sharp ridge and pounded the nut. That ridge I'm talking about is hard to see, it's just to the right of the center of the depression in the closeup, but I wondered about that since that depression got there through some usage. Just lay the seam of the walnut across that narrow ridge and pound the nut open with one blow. But, that is just speculation on my part, not a hard and fast opinion.

 

[GatorBoy]

Not what I meant.. The other way around actually.
I was suggesting it was used like the axe it looks like... and the damage on the poll is just a symptom of that.... after a lot of knocking back forward into the haft.
Anyway its a nice axe.
It quacks like a duck

 

[Charl]

Here's what I mean about that ridge and using it to crack a walnut. I did it once and it worked perfectly. Of course, I'm not being hard and fast on that, just something curious that I noticed. Lay the seam of the nut on that sharp narrow ridge and bang, opens right up. Maybe I should make it my walnut cracker. At any rate, I will go on record as disagreeing with you completely where it's final usage was concerned. The wear on the bit is not from cutting or from chopping. It shows obvious use as the maul that it was. Although I very much appreciate your opinion, it doesn't match the physical evidence itself. As noted, it may have started as an axe. But, and this is very relevant, the pecking extends right down to the flattened bit. This axe was very thick, to be able to stand on both the poll and side after all, and was not much longer then at present, leaving very little room for a ground down bit, ground down past the pecking. Plus it would have been a wide bit. So it is entirely possible the maker decided he needed a maul more then an axe and therefore immediately began using it as a maul before he even attempted to hone a ground bit on a very thicker then average axe. However, that cannot be proven, just another reasonable possibility reading the physical evidence on the axe. That close to the original bit, the tool should have shown some grinding by that point where the face meets the pounded down facet, yet it does not, only pecking. That almost guarantees a short bit and short usage life, and it's no surprise that it was converted to use as a heavy duty grooved hammer. Not an axe. I know you say it quacks like a duck, gator, but sometimes I get the impression you just like to disagree for the sheer sake of disagreeing. But, whether that's the case or not, in this instance, at any rate, while your opinion is noted, this tool was used as a heavy duty hammer at the end of its life. I appreciate you taking the time to add your thoughts in that regard, but in this instance, your opinion doesn't carry any weight with me at all. My own eyes and simple deductive reasoning told me what this was a long time ago. It was a hammer of some sort at the end of it's usage life. The evidence is clear enough. You're entitled to decide what is quacking in your opinion, but you're simply mistaken as far as I'm concerned and I'm afraid I must disagree. And like I said, my friend, that will be 8 days of the week.....

One final note: I titled this "Full Groove Sledgehammer" because the comparison is 100% appropriate. It's not the actual name of a class of artifact, but the comparison was 100% apt. It's quacking perhaps, but not as an axe. It is exactly what I described it as, and all the physical evidence demonstrates that undeniable fact. My description of this artifact is 100% accurate. But, if someone prefers to think otherwise, be my guest, you're entitled to be wrong.

 

[GatorBoy]

Hey there mister I'm just giving a quick opinion based on the photos you have shown.
Maybe you're more of an expert on exactly how these things were used then I am.... like you stated everybody's entitled to their own opinion.
That would include entitlement to be wrong... I don't see why you want to make a right or wrong argument out of someone's opinion.. I'm not looking to make you agree with me or anything I really couldn't care less have a nice day.
I can't count how many times I've used a screwdriver to open a paint can I still call it a screwdriver not a can opener.

 

[Charl]

Hey there mister I'm just giving a quick opinion based on the photos you have shown.
Maybe you're more of an expert on exactly how these things were used then I am.... like you stated everybody's entitled to their own opinion.
That would include entitlement to be wrong... I don't see why you want to make a right or wrong argument out of someone's opinion.. I'm not looking to make you agree with me or anything I really couldn't care less have a nice day.
I can't count how many times I've used a screwdriver to open a paint can I still call it a screwdriver not a can opener.

Well, pardon me, GatorBoy, but you really do come across as someone who likes to disagree just to disagree, not necessarily to add pertinent information at all. Moderators have suggested to me that that is often the case, in their opinion. And, really, that seems to be the case now. You can certainly have an opinion GatorBoy, but when you tell me it's quacking like an axe when it clearly is not, my eyes alone can see that, that I do begin to wonder what point it is you are trying to make exactly? Other than disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, since anyone can see the kind of usage wear on that tool. Am I wrong in saying that? Maybe, but I sure have noticed at times something that very closely resembles "being disagreeable with posters for the sheer sake of being disagreeable". As far as trying to make opinions right or wrong, well, now wait a minute, are not some opinions right and some wrong? Isn't that sort of the natural order of things? Are all opinions suddenly equal? When did that become a rule of debate?? Of course it includes the right to be wrong. We are all wrong sometime, no?? In this case, you were wrong. I'm only pointing that out. After all, I did start the thread. I do know what I'm looking at. If you render an incorrect opinion or observation, am I not entitled to point out that you are mistaken? Just pointing out that your interpretation is in fact mistaken. I'm disagreeing with you. Strongly. Big deal, no harm no foul. I started the thread and I felt like correcting your observation as it applies to this tool. You'll just have to live with it I guess. Or you can report me to a moderator again if you wish.

 

[GatorBoy]

Charl nothing here is fact including your opinion I suppose you were watching them crack walnuts.
The only fact that exists here is there are photos of an artifact

 

[GatorBoy]

I'm sure the moderators talk about me often... They've also spoke to me about the other members but I don't spread it out on a thread.
If any one of the moderators are going around telling who reported what to the people that were reported I have a big problem with that

 

[GatorBoy]

Not adding pertinent information at all huh?
Maybe check your other axe thread.. Even this one I added photos of a personal find to help explain.
"No walnuts were harmed in my explanation"

 

[Charl]

When I post a thread titled "Full Groove Sledgehammer" and your first comment is "definitely not a sledgehammer", and "if it quacks like a duck(axe)", I laugh, knowing, at least I believe, that that's just "gator being disagreeable because that's what gator does". Simply put, I just don't have any respect for how you go about things. None whatsoever. I am absolutely certain, if the thread had the word "white" in it, you would find a way to call it "black". You may say you are only offering opinions, but I feel I know better. You enjoy being disagreeable, even when the evidence contradicts you 100%. And you have been disagreeable to the point of argumentation with a great many individuals on TNet. It's been very noticeable over the course of time. In this instance, I just decided I would not let you have the last word when your observations are so out of kilter with the visible evidence. That's bull.

 

[GatorBoy]

It's common for the poll end of axes like that one to have damage.. Even celts have damage to the poll end quite often.
I would imagine that could come from all sorts of different things like using a stone to hit the back of the axe while it's lodged in a tree .. To using that end as a hammer when the need arose... Or even damage sustained during hafting.
I would still consider that an axe.. Definitely not a sledgehammer.
I'm going to grab a celt right now

Where is anything I said 100% disagreeable or off kilter sir?

 

[GatorBoy]

Now you're making it personal as well.
Speaking of respect

 

[Charl]

I knew what this was when I posted it. I didn't post it to find out what it isn't.






And Ray, if you run across this thread and read it, what can I say except you were right and I was wrong! Words of wisdom on your part at the moment.

 

[GatorBoy]

You knew what the other one was too then right?
Good job Ray