sign in sign up
<<
Home , Axe, Flint axe

Comparing Heads of Stone, , and : Studies in Experimental Archaeology Author(s): James R. Mathieu and Daniel A. Meyer Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 333-351 Published by: Boston University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530689 Accessed: 26/03/2010 04:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=boston.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information and to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Boston University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org 333

Comparwng Axe Heads of Stone, Bronze, and Steel: Studies sn Expersmental Archaeologr

JamesR. Mathieu Universityof Pennsylvania Philadelphia,Pennsylvania Daniel A. Meyer Universityof Calgary Calgary,Alberta, Canada

Thispaper presents inferences based on theresults of an experimentalproject comparing theeffectiveness of stone,bronze, and steelaxes in trees.The study shows that bronzeis as efJicientas steelforthis task, and thereforethe two material types can becon- sideredequivalent when comparing . We support theXindings of otherstudies indicatingthat metalaxes are moreefJicient than stone in a numberof waysother than effortexpended. Other variables that affecttree felling egfciency are discussed.Tree type,tree diameter, and axe typeare themost important, but otherfactorsmay also be significant.The use of regionallyspeciJic estimates for treefelling time is sug,gestedwhen makingcultural inferences based upon experimental data.

Introduction which demonstratedthat buildingone of the Southwest's Archaeologistsask many questions about the techno- most impressiveprehistoric structures did not requireex- logical capabilitiesof people in the past. They frequently traordinaryamounts of labor, and thereforea postulated encounterdirect evidence of past technologiesin the form complexsocial organization is not necessarilyindicated. of tools or other artifacts,and the remainsof structuresor Much experimentalarchaeology involving tree felling featuresbuilt by people using those tools. Understanding and axe-use studies has taken place in the past 100 years the effectivenessof tools or a technologicalcomplex often (Sehested 1884; Smith 1891; Montelius 1906; Pond requiresa knowledgeof how the tools were used and how 1930; Morris 1939; Hyenstrand1969; Townsend 1969; efficientlythey fulfilledtheir purpose. Bordaz 1970; Heider 1970; Semenov 1964; Saraydarand One way archaeologistshave approachedthe effective- Shimada1971,1973; Kozak1972; Godelierand Garanger ness of ancient tools is through replicativeor "imitative" 1973; Coles 1973, 1979b; Coles, Heal, and Orme 1978; experiments(Ascher 1961: 793-795), whereby modern Carneiro 1979a, 1979b; Harding and Young 1979; people employancient technology in orderto simulatethe Steensberg1980; Olausson1982, 1983; Orme and Coles work of past peoples. In spite of Schiffer's(1976: 5-7) 1983; Coles and Orme 1985; J0rgensen1985). Experi- criticismof this approach,replication can give insightsinto mental testing of the effectivenessof axes has involved variousaspects of past societies.For example,experiments using them in variousways to test plausiblefunctions. The can be used to estimatethe time requiredto build struc- goal of such studies is to learn as much as possible about tures or clear fields. Archaeologistscan use this informa- the capabilitiesof axes and to get a better idea of their tion to estimatethe amount of labor expenditureneeded potential as tools. These experimentshelp researchersto to accomplishcertain tasks, to inferhow manypeople such determine the range of uses of an ,but do not enterpriseswould require,and to explorethe social impli- conclusivelydetermine an artifact'smain or sole use. As cationsbehind the needed laborforce, includingthe social Schiffer(1978: 236) correctlypoints out, even in our own and organizationalrequirements needed to mobilize a society,a 's stated primaryfunction is certainlynot its body of laborers.One exampleis StephenLekson's (1984) only use. study of Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, This paper addressestwo main issues and reachescon- 334 Comparin,gAjce Heads/Mathieu and Meyer

clusions based upon an experimentusing stone, bronze, axes at felling, althoughresearchers found that stone axes and steel axes. First, we compare bronze axes with steel were capableof felling and clearingeven large trees. This axes in terms of efficiency(as measuredby time) in felling apparentexhaustion of the usefulnessof experimentaltree trees. Second, we compare metal axes to stone axes in felling led to a focus on other aspectsof the studyof axes. termsof efficiency.We made comparisonsin as completea The majortype of analysisundertaken at this time may be manneras possible, controllingas many variableswith as calledstudies of tracesof activity.Traces of activityinclude large a sample as possible, subject to constraintsof time, evidenceindicating the use of an axe to createan item or expense, and ability.Where variablescould not be con- structure,or evidence indicatingthe use of a particular trolled,they were noted and their effectswere discussed. type of axe. For example,Deborah Olausson, following in the footstepsof Semenov(1964), studieduse wearon PreviousResearch axes and examinedthe range of activitiesthey could be Experimentationwith stone axes began in the 19th used for beyond tree-felling (Olausson 1982, 1983). century and determined that stone "axes," whether of Other researchers(Coutts 1977; Orme and Coles 1983; chippedor , were definitelycapable of pene- Coles and Orme 1985) have studied the marksmade by trating timber and felling trees (Smith 1891; examples variousaxe-like tools. Coutts correlatedthe "morphologi- cited in Clark 1945: 68). After the turn of the century, cal characteristicsof chips freshlycut" (1977: 67) experimentationwas uncommon, with the exception of with the typesof adzesused in the cuttingin an attemptto the work of Pond (1930) and Morris (1939), who each infer the type of used in the productionof archae- felled one smalltree. When experimentationwith axeswas ologicallypreserved woodchips. Likewise, Coles and Orme resumed in the 1950s, most notably by Danes (Iversen (1985; Orme and Coles 1983) noted axe "signatures"on 1956; Steensberg1957; J0rgensen1985), its goals were workedwood "sometimespoint[ing] to individualtools" wide-rangingand its methods more scientific.These ex- (1985: 27). These studies expandedthe field of experi- perimentersfelled large numbers of trees with polished mentationwith stone axes as they attemptedto correlate flint axes and recordedmuch more informationthan pre- specificbehaviors with archaeologicalremains, and devel- vious investigators.Concern was placed on the abilityto oped more rigorous scientific controls for such experi- clearacres of forestsas opposed to fellingsingle trees. Data ments. of this natureallowed researchersto estimatethe amount of land that a prehistoricfarmer could feasiblyclear and EfficiencyCompolrisons cultivatein a given periodof time. Tree fellingstudies also Six studieshave attemptedexperimental comparisons of allowed the estimationof labor requiredfor other activi- steel versusstone (Carneiro1979b; Godelierand Garanger ties, such as the constructionof wood monuments 1973; Saraydarand Shimada 1971, 1973; Steensberg (Renfrew 1973), or other building, as in the exampleof 1980; Townsend 1969). Three were done on standing Pueblo Bonito cited above (Lekson 1984). trees using steel axes and stone adzes (Godelier and During the 1960s and 1970s, numerous experiments Garanger 1973; Steensberg 1980; Townsend 1969). and observationson tree felling were made. Ethnogra- These studies, which employed time as the yardstickfor phers returned from the field with accounts of people comparison,showed steel to be betweentwo and four and making,, and using stone axes or adzes (Carneiro one half times fasterthan stone. 1974, 1979a; Godelierand Garanger1973; Heider 1970; The fourth study (Carneiro1979b) observed the time Kozak 1972; Steensberg 1980; Townsend 1969) . Re- requiredto clearone-sixth of an acre(674.5 sq m) offorest searchersquantified their trials and created formulae to with steel axes. Carneiroalso verified the results of his calculate time required to fell trees (Carneiro 1979a; earlierstudy (Carneiro1979a), demonstratingthe effect Townsend 1969). Attempts were made to measure the that tree hardnesshas on felling time. Carneiro(1979b: efficiencyof stone axes or adzes againstthat of steel axes, 69-70) comparedthis steel axe data with estimatesfrom either by calculating time expended (Carneiro 1979b; the earlierstudy and found that the relativeefficiency of Godelierand Garanger1973; Saraydarand Shimada1973; axe typesvaried with tree size. Steel axesranged from 10 to Steensberg1980; Townsend 1969) or oxygen/kilocalorie 32 times fasterthan stone axes (Carneiro1979b: table 6). consumption(Saraydar and Shimada1971, 1973). These The fifthstudy (Saraydarand Shimada1971) compared studies also led to the ideniificationof severalvariables a steel axe to a ground stone axe and measuredefficiency affectingtree felling. by recordingoxygen intake and expenditureto calculate By the late 1970s, experimentersseemed to have thor- kilocalorieconsumption with a Kofranyi-Michaelismeter oughly explored the potential of using stone axes to fell (Saraydarand Shimada1971: 216). These measurements trees. It was obvious that steel axeswere betterthan stone resultedin a ratio of 6.4:1.0 of steel to stone efficiencyin Journal of Field Archaeolofly/Vol.24, 1997 335

terms of depth cut and a 5.1:1.0 ratio of steel to stone These comparisonsof stone tools and steel axescan help efficiencyin terms of kilocalorieconsumption per inch of in the explanationof the practicalreasons behind a switch wood cut (Saraydarand Shimada1971: 217). to the use of steel axes by "StoneAge" peopleswhen they Saraydarand Shimada(1973) used the same steel axe gain accessto them, but for manyparts of the Old World and ground stone axe as in their 1971 study (Saraydarand this comparisonis often inappropriate,as the transition Shimada1971) to clearplots of land. Eachaxe was used to from stone to steel was usuallyinterrupted by bronze (if clear a 30 ft x 30 ft plot (ca. 9.14 m x '9.14 m), and the not also ).Surprisingly, there has been lirclepublish- energy expended by the fellers was measured with a ed experimentationwith bronze. The few referencesto KoEranyi-Michaelismeter and a BeckmanD-2 oxygen ana- bronze axe experimentationin the literatureappear to be lyzer (Saraydarand Shimada1973: 346). The total time solely associatedwith John Coles' (and colleagues')work spent was also recorded.They calculatedan averagekilo- on the SomersetLevels (Orme and Coles 1983; Coles and calorieper minute expenditurevalue for each axe basedon Orme 1985). In ExperimentalArchaeology, Coles (1979a: three sampling periods of five-minute duration, and 101) statesthat "experimentshave often been used to test weighted the plots with respectto each other employinga stone axes, and sometimesiron and steel axes, but rarely "wood index" (Saraydarand Shimada 1973: 346-347). bronze." His experimentalwork with bronze tools (flat This experimentresulted in a ratio of 3.6:1.0 of steel to axes, palstaves,and socketedaxes) is alludedto elsewhere stone efficiencyin terms of time to fell and a 3.3:1.0 ratio (Orme and Coles 1983: 21-22; Coles and Orme 1985: of steel to stone efficiencyin termsof kilocalorieconsump- 25, 27, 30), but practicallyall of the specificexperimental tion per inch of wood cut (Saraydarand Shimada1973: informationcan only be found in archiveddocuments 346). (Coles and Orme 1985: 30). A reviewof these efficiencystudies raises many questions The publishedbronze axe researchdid not focus on tree about how the variablesaffecting tree felling were con- felling, but rather on ,whether of timber trolled. Godelierand Garanger(1973: 210) controlledfor (Orme and Coles 1983) or roundwood(Coles and Orme circumference(diameter) of the tree, tree type, and indi- 1985). The emphasis of the work was on gaining "an vidual skill. Unfortunately they felled only eight trees. understandingof SomersetLevels species and the ways by Steensberg(1980: 34) controlled for circumference(di- which they might havebeen workedand thereforeselected ameter)and for tree type, but he felled only one tree with for variouspurposes" (Coles and Orme 1985: 36). They stone and one with steel. Townsend's(1969: 201) sample, studiedthe typeof marksor "signatures"various stone and on the other hand,was 91 treesof varyingspecies and size. bronze axes make (Coles 1979a: 103, 168; Orme and It is difficultto determineif he controlledfor anyvariables Coles 1983: 22-25; Coles and Orme 1985: 25-29), and other than species and size, and one wonders howhis comparedthe efficiencyof woodworkingwith stone and resultsmight be skewed.Carneiro (1979b: 58) was able to metal axes (Coles 1979a: 168; Orme and Coles 1983: observe the felling of 25 trees, but he had to estimatethe 2543; Coles and Orme 1985: 30-36). The authorscon- fellingtime for the remaining99 treesin his sample,which cluded that the introductionof bronze and affectedthe precisionof his results.Saraydar and Shimada basicallydid not changethe technicalability of woodwork- (1971: 216), in their first experiment,controlled for the ing, though it mayhave affectedthe styleof woodworking skilllevel of individualfellers by using the same technique. (Orme and Coles 1983: 43). They also controlled for tree type and did not use the The need for a comparisonof axe efficiency,including initialor finalfive minutes of choppingin orderto discount stone, steel, and particularlybronze axes, with respectto effects of fatigue or inexperience. Unfortunately,their the felling of trees, controlling for as many variablesas sampleis one tree cut with steel and one with stone, and possible,having a large sample,and maintaininga natural theirstudy was conductedin an artificialsetting. Although tree felling environment,prompted us to design our own theirstudy demonstrated the relativeefficiencies ofthe two experiments. materials,their data are largely inapplicableto real situ- ations, where many other variablesaffect the final out- The Experiment come. They clearlydemonstrated the greaterefficiency of steel, yet the dataare of little use to the researcherwishing Goollsof the Stxdy to estimatelabor costs accurately.Their second experiment The goals of our studywere threefold.The primarygoal (Saraydarand Shimada 1973) was more "naturally"set was to comparethe efficiencyof bronze axes to steel axes, and again controlledfor the effects of fatigue or inexperi- and then to comparethese with stone axes. Recognizing ence by employingan averagerate, but did not control for that a numberof variablescould interferewith a straight- tree type. forward comparisonof these materials,our second goal 336 Comparin,gAjce Heads/Mathieu and Meyer

involved investigatingthe effect that importantvariables into which the bronze alloy was poured. Engman pro- haveon tree-fellingefficiency. These variables included tree duced two bronze axes;he hammeredone and the other type (hardness),haft length, width, axe weight, axe was hammeredby Mathieu. shape, and tree size. Many variableshave been noted by Archaeologicallythese axe types have been shown to be previousresearchers, but, as stated above, we wished to hafted in a wood handle with a natural,L-shaped bend investigatethese variableswith largersamples and stricter where the axe is attachedthat orients the axe head cor- controls.Finally, our third goal was to identifyand discuss rectly.After insertingthe axe head, the split is securedby variablesthat have not receivedsufficient treatment in the some form of cord or rawhidewrapped around it. Accord- literature. ing to Coles, "wooden hafts for halberdsand for bronze axes with flangesor socketswere made of bent pieces of Ances wood ( or ), sometimes root, to provide the The axes employedin our study were representativeof sharpangle for the axe attachment. . . " (Coles, Heal, and three major technologies steel, bronze, and stone, the Orme 1978: 9). lattersubdivided into polishedflint and ground stone. We decided that to haft the axes in such a way would Although specificages areunknown, all of the steel axes constitute an experimentalarchaeology study in itself. used in the study were common commerciallyavailable What was most importantfor our study was that the axe types of the mid- to late-twentiethcentury. They were head be securely hafted. To do this, two ash pick-axe selected from the collections of two households in Ver- handles were cut to size, and openings were routered mont, where they remainin use to this day. These axes throughthe handlesto fit the haftedends of the axe heads. were haftedwith commerciallyavailable wooden axe han- The axe heads,when fitted,protruded slightly through the dles. Fromthe rangeof formsavailable, we chose four axes backof the haft.After inserting the axe heads,wet rawhide on the basisof bladewidth, haft length, and weight. was tied around the axe to add further support. This The bronze axes were made specificallyfor this study. proved fruitlessas the rawhidedid not shrinkand tighten The processbegan with an examinationof the smallcollec- upon drying, and thus playedno part in securingthe axe tion of bronze axesat the UniversityMuseum of Archaeol- heads.Regardless, the haftingwas secure(FIG. 1). ogy and Anthropology,University of Pennsylvania.We The stone axes used in our study are all chose an axe that could be easilyreplicated by casting.The artifactsselected from the collections of the University axe chosenwas an unprovenienced"palstave" type belong- Museum of Archaeologyand Anthropology.The Artifact ing to the Middle BronzeAge of (Tylecote 1986: DestructiveTesting Committee approvedtheir use with 32-33), dated to between 1400-900 B.C. (Davey 1973: the consent of the curatorof the EuropeanSection. From 52-53). the selectionavailable we chose four axes:two of polished The next step was to identifya suitablechemical make- flintand two of groundstone (a thirdpolished was up for our replicas.We decidedthat a 90%copper, 10% tin later required as one of the original axes broke during bronze alloy was most appropriatebecause true tin felling). Of each material,we selectedtwo sizes of axe, one contain 8-10% tin, 10% being considered the relativelylarge and one relativelysmall, but each with standardtin bronze (Tylecote 1986: 30, 1992: 20, 30). roughly the same blade width (TABLE 1). Both of the We then obtained99% pure tin from a South Philadelphia groundstone axesare cataloged as Neolithic "stoneimple- recyclingcenter and provided it to WilliamRomanow, who ments"and describedas ground axe-headswith flat edges prepared the alloy in the MaterialsProcessing Central from LakeConstance, . These axeswere made Facilityof the Laboratoryfor Researchon the Structureof by peckingand grindingan aphaniticor granular,greenish, Matter of the Universityof Pennsylvania.lUsing 99.99% simaticstone. The flint axes, although more disparatein pure oxygen-freecopper and the tin, Romanowproduced size than the ground stone axes, were similarin blade the alloy.Any impuritiesremaining in the alloy were ig- width. An origin in Scandinaviais the only provenience nored because alloys also contained impuri- informationavailable for the polishedflint axes. ties. The stone axe headswere haftedin crude handlesfash- Robert Engman of the University of Pennsylvania ioned from either small saplingsor tree branches(FIG. 2). carveda wooden replicaof the originalartifact. This rep- All of the axe handleswere made of ash leaf maplewood, lica was then "rammedup in sand,"which made a mould which we found in some earlytrials to be more durable than the other availablematerials. We selected suitable 1. Mr. Romanow's work was supported by the National Science trees or branches,cut them to appropriatelengths and Foundation, MRL Program, under grant No. DMR88-19885. stripped off their bark. Aficerallowing them to dry, we Journalof FieldArchaeolo,gy/Vol. 24, 1997 337

Table 1. Measurementsof axes used in experiments. Axe weight includes both axe head and handle, as both affect the moment of inertia.For stone axes, the ID number followed by a decimalpoint indicatesthat the stone axe head had to be rehafted,hence the differ- ences in axe weights and handle lengths. Bladewid th Handlelen,gth Axes Wei,ght(k,g) (cm) (cm) Steel 1 0.6 5.5 30 Steel 2 0.76 9.0 36 Steel 3 1.55 9.3 69 Steel 4 2.37 12.0 91 Bronze 1 1.02 5.5 46 Bronze 2 0.96 6.0 47 Stone 1.1 1.03 5.3 77 Stone 1.2 1.91 5.3 72 Stone 2 1.68 7.6 73 Stone 3 1.89 8.0 73 Stone 4 1.78 6.6 80 Stone 5.1 2.02 5.3 76 Stone 5.2 2.19 5.3 74 Stone 5.3 3.37 5.3 72 Figure 1. Hafted bronze axes used in the felling experiments.Photo Stone 5.4 3.17 5.3 71 D. Meyer. Stone 5.5 2.75 5.3 76

chiseledan appropriateopening into the handle.Depend- ing upon the thicknessof the handleand length of the axe head, the axe head either went completely through the handle and protrudedon the other side, or the hole went clearthrough but the axe head did not protrudethrough the rearof the haft. The axe head was fittedinto the hole so that the top and bottom (thin faces) of the axe head were held tightly in place,yet spacewas left betweenthe sides of the shafthole and the sides (broad faces) of the axe head. We did this basedon a suggestionin J0rgensen(1985), whose experi- ments in DravedWood showed that this techniquewould help keep the haft from breaking.The head was further securedinto placeby windingthin cotton aroundthe outside of it. This was done mainlyto keep the sidesof the haft from popping out, as J0rgensendescribes in his ex- periments,and also to preventthe axe head from popping out of the haft. Some of the handles fashioned in this manner did not withstand much chopping before they broke,whereas others lasted throughout the project. Although the haftingwas crude, we did not attemptto replicateNeolithic handles as did J0rgensen(1985) and Olausson (1983). We felt that although under optimum conditionsNeolithic handleswould have been best, Neo- lithic haficingwas a skillwe lacked.We decidedthat as long as the handlesheld the axe heads securelyand they were comfortableto swing, the efficiencyof the axe would not Figure2. Haficedstone axes used in the experiments.From lefc to be affected. right:Stone 2, Stone 5, Stone 4, Stone 1. Photo J. Mathieu. The hafting of the stone axes was one of the least 338 Comparin,gAxe Heads/Mathieuand Meyer

controlled aspects of this project. The range of variation yer 1982; Summitt and Sliker 1974-1980; Wangaard coveredby the axeweights and lengths (TABLE 1 ) iS likelyto 1981?USDA ForestService 1974). be a sourceof uncontrollederror in the data.The length of We choppedfive trees and five softwoodtrees the axe handles did not vary greatly,but the completed with each axe (for our purposessoftwood refersto rela- stone axes weighed anywherefrom 1.03 kg to 3.37 kg. tivelysoEer trees and not necessarilyconifers). We decided This variabilityof weight between axes would have been that all five hardwood or soEwood trees should be the difficult to correct. Axe weight should be noted when same species in order to control that variable.The result consideringall of the resultsfrom this project. was that all steel and bronze axes felled five poplars(soft- The steel and stone axes were sharpenedwith a foot- wood) and five ash leaf (). Unfortu- poweredsandstone , and the bronzeaxes were sharp- nately,we could not employ the stone axes on these two ened with sand paper.We did not measurethe degree of types of trees due to a lack of sufficientnumbers of these sharpnessobtained. The only axes resharpenedduring the species. Therefore,the steel axe data and the bronze axe trialswere the stone axe heads, and only if their blades data are easily comparable,whereas comparisonsof the began to chip; resharpeningwas done to prevent them datafor metalaxes to the stone axe dataare problematical. from shatteringon further impact. Although the metal Because of the nature of previous experiments(which axes did dull somewhat, they remainedsharp enough to concentratedmainly on stone axes) we felt advantaging efficientlyfell the relativelysoE temperateforest trees (cf. our bronze data was the best choice under the circum- Carneiro1979b, where much hardertrees were felled). stances. We assignedtrees to each axe so that therewould be an Trees even rangeof diametersrepresented for each axe (TABLE 2). The tree felling study began in the Springof 1991 with The finaldistribution of treesto axeswas fivepoplars (soft) the numberingand measuringof trees.Eligible trees of five and five ash leaf maples(hard) to all metal axes, fivewhite different species were chosen from property in South (soft) and fivesugar maples (hard) to allpolished flint Burlington,Vermont (TABLE 2). These trees were tagged axes, and five poplars (soft) and five (hard) to all and numbered,and their diameters(breast height) were ground stone axes. measuredwith a diameter-ruledtape measure.An ideal Fellinfl selection of trees, i.e., four differenthardwood and soft- wood specieswith equal numbersand rangesof diameter, Varioustechniques for felling trees have been described was not available(the trees felled were part of a thinning in the experimentalliterature. These include the use of a project)and, as will be seen, the authorshad to make do one-handedor a two-handedswing (Carneiro1979a: 27; with what was available.The five tree types were poplar Morris 1939: 137); a full swing, utilizing the shoulders ( deltoides),white (Pinus strobus),ash leaf and uppertorso, in contrastto a half swingingtechnique, , also known as box elder (Acer ne

Table2. Nomenclature,specific gravities, and range of diametersof treesfelled in the study. Specific,gravity Size ran,gefFlled Trees wet dry* (dizmeter in cm) Poplar(Populusdeltoides) 0.37 0.40 8.00-40.06 White pine (Pinusstrobus) 0.34 0.39 11.68-19.79 Ash-leafmaple (Acer ne,gundo) 0.42 0.46 7.49-34.72 Sugarmaple (Acersaccarum) 0.56 0.66 7.95-17.65 Americanelm (Ulmusamerican) 0.44 0.54 8.76-17.07 Europeanoak (Quercus robur) - 0.72 Europeanbirch (Betula pend ul) - 0.67 * These data are availablefrom a numberof sourcesincluding Desh 1981; Hawley and Wise 1926; Haygreenand Bowyer1982; Summittand Sliker197F1980; Wangaard1981, USDA ForestService 1974. Oak and birchare not includedin our study but are discussedin the text. Journalof FieldArchaeolosgy/Vol. 24, 1997 339

68) versus"cutting-to-fall" (Carneiro 1979a: 32; J0rgen- garding damage to the axes such as flint chips or haft sen 1985: 31; Steensberg 1957: 68; Townsend 1969: breakage,and other observations. 201); the use of double incisionson the same side of the tree that eventually converge into a single cut (Coles Results 1979a: 102); CCgirdling,""tree-ringing," "ring-barking," or strippingthe barkoff aroundthe tree'scircumference so Relgtive Efficienciesof Stone, Bronse, gnd Steel that it will die (Carneiro 1974: 114, 1979b: 72; Coles Our scaleof efficiencyof an axeis dependenton the time 1973: 21; Coles, Heal, and Orme 1978: 28; Iversen1956: requiredto fell a tree. We felled 20 trees (10 poplarsand 38; J0rgensen1985: 39; Steensberg1957: 68); burning 10 ash leaf maples)with BronzeAxes 1 and 2 and 40 trees the tree (Carneiro1974: 114, 1979b: 72; Coles 1973: 21; (20 poplarsand 20 ashleaf maples)with SteelAxes 1, 2, 3, Coles, Heal, and Orme 1978: 26; Shaw 1969: 52); and and 4. We graphedthese two materialsagainst each other notching the tree to be felled by the wind or another in Figure 3. The graphfails to show any cleardistinction falling tree (Steensberg 1980: 39; Carneiro 1974: 114- betweenmaterials, and leadsto the conclusionthat bronze 115, 1979a: 53-54, 1979b: 48, 54). Each ofthese meth- and steel axes are equallyefficient for felling trees. ods has advantages,but we did not burn, notch, or girdle The efficiencyof metal axes (both steel and bronze) any trees, as it was the axes' efficiencieswe wished to test. versus stone axe efficiencyis illustratedin Figure 4. This With respect to swinging and felling techniques,we em- graphplots every tree felled with stone, bronze, and steel ployed whichever method seemed most useful for the axes by axe materialtype. The graphshows that stone axes situation,thereby assuming that maximizationof effective- generallyfell treesmore slowlythan metalaxes. This result ness and minimizationof time and effort was the norm. confirmsthe findingsof earlierefficiency studies, but also Meyer,when employingSteel Axes 3 and 4, used a full allows furtherinsight into the natureof felling trees with two-handedswing. Mathieu,when employingSteel Axes 1 stone axes (see Meyer 1992). and 2, variedhis strokefrom one- to two-handed(this was Figure5 also combinesall trialsand exhibitsthese distri- possible due to the short haft). This variationavoided butionsby bladematerial. Visual examination of the graph fatigueand allowedthe best possibleangles of approachon allowed us to judgmentallyadd two lines to Figure 5 to the trees. The flexibilityof swings allowed by a short- make certaindistinctions clearer to the reader.These two hafted axe is an advantagewhen attemptingto fell poorly lines divide the graph into four areas. Section A results positioned trees. The hafts of the bronze axeswere not as from the use of stone axes only; it is the slowest region long as SteelAxes 3 and 4, but were longer than SteelAxes with respectto tree diameter.Section B shows the use of 1 and 2. A two-handed swing was used by both experi- bronze,steel, and stone axes,and demonstratesthat all axe menters with the bronze axes. The only variationwas types will fell a tree of small diameterrelatively quickly. switchingfrom a left- to a right-handedswing depending Other factorsinvolved in tree felling, such as preparation on the need to avoid obstacles of foot placement or to time or walkingto the site, mayrequire more time thanthe relieve stress on certain muscles. The stone axes all had actualtree felling. Section C shows that metal axesnotice- long handlesand were employedwith both hands. ably surpassthe efficiencyof stone axes on trees of large With the metal axes we employed the cut-to-falltech- diameter.Section D should be a CCnoman's land," for as nique, in which a second cut is made on the opposite side the tree diameterincreases one would expect that the void of the tree and slightlyabove the of the main cut. As between stone axe efficiency and metal axe efficiency the tree nearedfalling, small cuts were often made on the would furtherseparate (Carneiro 1979b; Mathieu 1992; sidesto crackthe barkand outer rings.With the stone axes Meyer 1992). This region is also the most likely to show we generallyused the cut-to-fallmethod, though on many unusual outliers, or tree types of unusuallyhigh or low trees a combinationof cut-to-fall and round cutting was specificgravities; either metal-axed trees that took an inor- necessary.As a tree approachedthe point at which it was dinately long time to fell, or stone-axed trees that fell about to fall, the fellersattempted to push or pull the tree unusuallyquickly. down. This is a tactic that would be employedby anyone From these graphswe conclude that the effectiveness desiring to fell a tree. Five trees needed to be cut com- within metals,i.e., betweensteel and bronze?is equal, and pletely through becausetheir limbs were caught in other that the importantdifference in technologieslies between trees. stones and metals. While the trees were cut, the observertimed the feller and counted the numberof swingsfor each tree. Afterthe T}seEffect of Metgl Hgrdness on Efficiency treeswere cut, the fellerestimated the depth of the cut and Afterusing the metal axes and comparingtheir efficien- the angle of the cut. The researchersrecorded notes re- cies, we removed samples from the blades of Bronze 340 ComparinsgAJce Heads/Mathieu and Meyer

30

" du-

E = * X

g 10- ,

° 0X0 ° oz8 80 ° oO° ° eo o . , . I . , o 1 o 20 30

Tree diameter in cm

Figure3. A comparisonof all trees (regardlessof species)felled with the steel axes and all trees felled with the bronze axes. Computergenerated regression curves are linear.

Axes 1 and 2 and Steel Axe 2 and also one from an fellingdoes not supportthis idea.The bronzeaxes attained unworkedbronze lug, in order to performa hardnesstest a level of hardness, with relativelylittle cold-working, of the blades.The hardnesstest made a dent in each of the sufficientto be used as a wood-cuttingimplement that was samplesand measuredthe hardnessof the metalsin vickers as efficientas steel. Bronze's softness does not allow the (HV). The hardnessvalues for these sampleswere com- axe to hold an edge as long as steel, but the inabilityto paredto the hardnessof other metals.According to Tyle- hold a -sharpedge does not seem to affect the axe's cote (1986: 29), one would expect our 10%tin-bronze efficiency.Although bronze requiresmore frequentsharp- axesto havea hardnessof 100 HV beforehammering. Our ening than steel, its softnessallows it to be sharpenedmore unhammeredbronze lug sample'svalue of 96 HV demon- quickly. stratesa good match. If a 10% tin-bronze cold-worked to 108 HV is as A 10%tin-bronze can be cold-workedto a hardnessof efficient as a steel axe of 580 HV, as our study shows, 230 HV (Tylecote1986: 29). Our two bronzeaxe samples then it can be suggested that other metals or alloyswith producedhardnesses much softer than this, 108 and 144 comparableor higher hardnessesmay also be equal in HV (this differenceis due to differentialcold - efficiencyto steel axes when felling trees. For example, hardening).Our steel axe samplewas harder,measuring cold-worked, low-carbon has a hardness 580 HV. If one were to use the metals' hardnessesto which rangesbetween 150-250 HV (Buchwaldand Leis- obtain "someidea of the mechanicalproperties and there- ner 1990: 100). Even air-cooled,unquenched steel2 (con- fore of the value of an implement as a " (Tylecote 1986: 32), one would suppose that the bronze axes would be inferiorto the steel axes. Our study of tree 2. Steel is iron with a high, fairlyhomogeneous carbon content. - W

Joxrnglof FieldArchgeolo,gy/Vol. 24, 1997 341

80

" Stone

O Bronzeand Steel

- 60

uZ - * O

40 -

-o

* . F * * e

20 - o

e * * 00 00 ° °° O

* * 00 t O o.o0.°OrdeX° g

o c 1 o 20 30 40 50

Tree diameter in cm

Figure4. A comparisonof trees felled with stone axes versustrees felledwith metal axes (bronze and steel). taining as much as 1% carbon) has a similar hardness, Efficiencygnd TreeSpecies within the range of work-hardenedtin-bronzes (Smith 1981: 94-95). Our study confirmedthe resultsof earlierexperiments It would appearthat from the time people used bronze (and common sense) showing that hardertrees generally to make axes, until quenching steel became common require more time to fell than do softer trees. Figure 6 among blacksmithsto hardentheir steel,3 the choice be- comparespoplar and elm trees felled with stone axes in tween metals to be used for axe manufacturingdepended terms of time needed to fell with respectto tree diameter. little upon their attainablehardness. This slight variation Not surprisingly,the resultsshow that the hardwood(elm) between metals makes arguments based on improved required more time to fell than the (poplar). efficiency of one metal over another seem highly un- With metal axes this differencedoes not appearto be as founded. Arguing that quenched steel axes improved largeas with stone axes. efficiencyis debatable,at least in regardto tree felling and It has been posited elsewherethat the ratio of specific other wood-workingactivities. gravitiesof the tree types might be the relationshipwhich best explains the difference in felling time (Carneiro 1979a: 51-53, 1979b: 60-63). Elm'sspecific gravity (0.44 3. It is unclearwhen this actuallyhappened, though it may not have wet, 0.54 dry) is greater than poplar's (0.37 wet, 0.40 been so even during Roman times in Europe (Vince Piggott, personal dry). communication,1993). Tylecote (1992: 53) statesthat ". . . the art of quench-hardening. . . was not widelypracticed either in the Near East The difference between the time it takes to fell soft- or in Europeduring the pre-RomanIron Age." comparedto hardwoodsis also clearlyrevealed in -

342 CompgringAJce Hegds/Mgthiex gnd Meyer

80

60

uM

-

* 40 | -@

-

E F

20

o o 10 20 30 40 50

Tree diameter i n cm

Figure5. A comparisonof trees felled with stone axes versustrees felled with metalaxes (bronze and steel). The lines separatingthe graphinto four sectionswere drawnby visualinspection. Section A representsthe slowestfelling times for relativelysmall trees, representedonly by stone axes. Section B representsthe size rangein which any tree will be felled quickJywith any type of axe. SectionC representsthe fastestfelling times for relativelylarge trees, representedby metal axes only. Section D is a "no-man'sland," where trees felled unusuallyquickly with stone axes or unusuallyslowly with metal axes are found.

Figure7, which shows all of the trialsusing stone axes.The how easilyit is chopped, not in terms of hardness,but in graphshows two majorgroupings, a largerone to the left terms of how "neat" the wood chips are. We noticed and upper area and a smallerone to the right and lower during chopping that pine, sugar maple, and especially area.All of the relativelysoft trees, pine and poplar,with ash-leafmaple producedlarge, cleanly-cutchips, whereas the exception of those felled by Stone Axe 1 (the least poplarand elm producedsmaller chips that often looked efficientof the stone axes), are in the right hand group, "chewed" (not cleanly-cut,with a fibrous appearance). and all of the relativelyhard trees, elm and sugarmaple, are J0rgensen(1985: 4849) also notes that other subjective, in the leXchand group. Those felled by Stone unquantifiableproperties of wood affect felling. He de- Axe 1, though clusteredin the left hand group (with the scribes oak as a firm wood that cuts and cleaves nicely. hardwoods),are the farthestto the right of that grouping. Mapleis similar,but as the axe cuts into the heartwoodof These data indicatethat the softwood tree speciesrequire the tree, it becomesa difficultwood to chop. Even using a less time to fell than the hardwoodtree species. ,maple is one of the most difficultwoods to cut The above resultsconfirm what common sense tells us through. about the differencesbetween hardwoodsand softwoods. Figure8 servesto illustratethis point. Sugarmaple trees, Other tree characteristics,however, aside from specific with a specificgravity of 0.66 when dry, are plotted with gravity,will also affectthe amountof time needed to fell a Europeanoak trees felled by J0rgensen,with a specific tree. An aspect of wood that is not readilyquantifiable is gravityof 0.72 when dry.European felled by J0rgen- / o . , . ,

Joxrnglof FieldArchgeolo,gy/Vol. 24, 1997 343

Elm

40- /

/ ._

/

30- / o O

/ 20- / / oW /

/ o / 10 - / * /

3C o 10 20

Tree diameter in cm

Figure6. A comparisonof poplartrees (Populusdeltoides)and elm trees ( Ulmusamericana)felled with groundstoneaxes. The computer-fittedregression curves are linear. sen, with a specific gravity of 0.67 when dry, are also wood to eithercleave relatively easily or cleavewith greater plotted. Linearregression curves for each set of datawere difficulty,and producethe effectsdescribed above. also plotted. Sugar maple trees, with the lowest specific A finalaspect of the differencesbetween tree typesnoted gravity,took the longest time to fell, while oak and birch in our study was the effectivenessof different types of are in the orderthat one expectsbased upon their specific stone axes on differinghardnesses of trees. Our impres- gravities.One may arguethat J0rgensen'sdata are from a sion, basedon fellingboth hardwoodsand softwoodswith differentset of experimentswith a differentset of fellers, ground stone and polished flint axes, was that ground and that this is the reason for the discrepancybetween stone axes,which tended to be dullerand thickerthan flint relativespecific gravityand felling time for sugar maple axes, made it more difficultto penetratethe trees' wood, trees. Our results,however, correspond with J0rgen- but the axe head was less likelyto breakthan the flint axe sen's elsewhere(see Meyer 1992). This difference,unpre- heads. Conversely,the flint axes tended to have sharper, dictablebased on specificgravity alone, is more likelydue thinneredges which made it easierto penetratethe trees' to the factthat some typesof trees,such as sugarmaple and wood, but increasedthe likelihoodof the axe head break- elm, are more difficult to chop down for reasons other ing (as happenedto one of our polishedflint axeswhen it than specificgravity or hardness. was employedon the hardwoodsugar maple). These im- Desh (1981: 176) notes two factors that modifVthe pressionsmay lead to the hypothesisof a geographically importanceof specificgravity to the strengthof the wood: distributeddichotomy between polished flint and ground the arrangementof individualplant cells, and the physico- stone axes.The choice of materialfor axe manufacturemay chemical composition of the cell walls. Both of these not only be linkedto the availabilityof certainstone types, factorscontribute to planesof weakness,and can causethe but also to the local flora.If the local florais of a softwood =E 40 Stone40nStone20n Maple Maple / ,a

344 Comprin,gAJce Hegds/Mgthieu gnd Meyer

80

° * Stone50n Elm /

_ I

_ I /

o P/

0--- '1_ -n

O . , . , 0 10 2C0 30

Tree diameter in cm

Figure 7. Graph plotting results of individual stone axes felling different tree species. The dashed lines represent relatively soft poplar (Populus deltoides) and pine (Pinus strobus) trees, and the solid lines represent relatively hard elm ( Ulmus americana) and sugar maple trees (Acer saccharum). nature,we mayexpect to find more polishedflint axes, and which are swung faster than long hafts. By using 15 conversely if the flora is normally hardwood, we may minutes(900 seconds)as a standardof comparison,gener- expect to find a higherproportion of ground stone axes. ally a short haft was swung about 1000 times, a medium haft about 700 times, and a long haft about 450 times, Efficiencyand Haft Len,gth which roughly equatesto 1 swing per second for a short Of the 60 trees felled with metal axes, 20 were felled haft, 3 swings per 4 seconds for a medium haft, and 1 with short-haftedsteel axes (30 and 36 cm in length), 20 swingper 2 secondsfor a long haft.It is interestingto note with medium-haftedbronze axes (46 and 47 cm long), that the rate of swing of 1 strokeevery 1.5 secondsnoted and 20 with long-haftedsteel axes (69 and 91 cm long). by Carneiro(1979b: 47) for the Yanomamofalls within These threetypes of haftswere comparedwith one another the rangeof variationobserved in this study. to see whichwas most efficientin termsof fellingtime. We found that the efficiencyof the long haftsbecomes distinct Efficiency,Blade Width,and AnceWei,ght only in trees exceeding 25 cm in diameter,when the Blade width refers to the actual length of the cutting increasedlength results in an increasein torque of the edge of the axe (not to the thicknessof the implement). swing, and therebyan increasein power and moment of Steel Axes 2 and 3 have practicallythe same bladewidth, inertiaof the axe head. 9.0 and 9.3 cm respectively,and were comparedwith one The rate of swing of different haft lengths was also another.It was observedthat a discrepancyexisted in favor recorded during the experiments.Not surprisingly,we of Steel 3 when felling trees greaterthan 25 cm in diame- found that short haftsare swung fasterthan mediumhafts, ter. This discrepancyis believedto be due to the different -

Joxrnalof FieldArchaeolo,gy/Vol. 24, 1997 345

80

60

-

.

- 40 |

- o -

* -

20- / /

O , . , 0 10 20

Tree diameter in cm

Figure8. Graphplotting sugarmaple trees (Acersaccharum) felled with flint axes, Europeanoak trees (Quercusrobur,petrzea) felled by J0rgensen(1985) with flint, and Europeanbirch trees (Betula pendula)felled by J0rgensen(1985) with flint. The computer-fittedregression curves are linear. haft size of the two axes. Steel Axe 2 had a haft length of felling efficiencyunless the bladewidth correspondsto an 36 cm, whereasthe haft of Steel Axe 3 was almosttwice as increasein axe weight, or the blade is simplytoo smallto long at 69 cm. be effective(Steel 1 seems to be approachingthis thresh- Figure9 shows the resultsof plotting all treesfelled with old). Blade widths of differentlength most likely corre- Steel Axes 1-4. The differentblade widths' efficienciesare spond to the needs of maneuverabilityof axes employed virtuallyindistinguishable up to 20 cm in diameter,except for differentuses, such as tree fellingversus wood working. for Steel 1 which tends to be the least efficient.The width We also wished to examinethe effect of axe weight on of its blade is 3.5-6.5 cm shorterthan all the other axes, efficiencyin this study.Unfortunately, we were unable to but the observeddecrease in efficiencyis far from propor- directlycontrol for this, so we must base our analysison tional. After20 cm in diameter,there is a slight difference the assumptionthat bladewidth does not affectefficiency. between Steel Axes 3 and 4, which both have long hafts. We plotted the ratesof swing of Steel Axes 3 and 4 versus Steel Axe 3 proved more efficientthan Steel Axe 4 as tree time on poplartrees (FIG. 10). The graphshows that as time diameter increases,which suggests that a smaller blade increases,the swing rate of Steel Axe 4 (the heavierof the width (9.3 cm for Steel Axe 3) is more efficient than a two axes) falls awayfrom Steel Axe 3. This is due to the longer one (12.0 cm for Steel Axe 4). We argue that this greaterfatigue felt by the fellerwith the heavieraxe over fact is more likelya result of axe weight ratherthan blade time. This decreasein swing rate is arguablythe reason width. Steel Axe 4 was much heavier(2.37 kg) than Steel behindthe decreasein efficiencyseen in the resultsof Steel Axe 3 (1.55 kg), and thus slowed the rate of swing (see Axe 4. The conclusiondrawn here is that the swing rateof below). We conclude that bladewidth does not affecttree Steel Axe 4 slowed and its efficiencydecreased compared - g X * * o w X W * W

3 46 Comparin,g AJce Heads/Math iex and Meyer

60

a Steel 1 50 - X Steel 2

O Steel 3

40 - * Steel 4 -

8

* - 30 - @

o -

20 -

o

o o

° o 10-

n o- - * o S i o

* c°w-e n ° - o

o 1 0 20 30 40 50

Tree diameter in cm Figure9. A comparisonof axe bladewidth using all trees felled by individualsteel axes. Steel 1 has an edge length of 5.5 cm, Steel 2 of 9.0 cm, Steel 3 of 9.3 cm, and Steel 4 of 12.0 cm. to Steel Axe 3 as time increased,due to the greaterweight metal axes rangedfrom 40-90 degrees, averaging70 de- of Steel Axe 4 and its effect on the feller'sfatigue (which grees,with a standarddeviation of 13 degrees.In contrast, might not be an issue for a Neolithic tree feller used to the angle of cut for all stone axes ranged from 60-110 such labor). No generalconclusions regarding axe weight degrees, and averaged85 degrees,with a standarddevia- can be made, as the effects of axe weight on efficiencywill tion of 12 degrees. A one-tailedt-test run on these data varyconsiderably with axe type, the use to which the axe is produceda probabilityof less than 0.0005, demonstrating put, and individualfellers. a significantdifference in the angle of cut for the two axe types. The metal axes were more efficientat penetrating Efficiencyand AnceShape the heartwoodbecause they requireda smallerentry into It was believedthat the only way in which the axe shape the tree, with the result that less wood needed to be would affect the felling of a tree was in terms of the axes' removedfrom the tree in orderto fell it. ability to penetrate the wood of the tree. Logically,a This improvedpenetrability of metalaxes plays a partin thinneraxe shapeshould be advantageousin penetratinga the detachingof a felled tree from its stump. We noticed tree. Becausemetal axes are much thinnerthan stone axes, that a tree was more easilydetached from its stumpwith a a comparisonbetween metal and stone axe penetrability metal axe thansvith a stone axe. seemed most appropriate.We decided to approachthe Dickson (1981: 92) made an interestingobservation issue by observingthe angle of cut of the felled trees as a about the use of steel over stone axesin : measureof how wide an opening in the tree was necessary Whatpleased the [Australian]Aborigines about steel for the axe to penetratethe deepest partsof the tree, and [overstone axes] was not that a task could be done more thereforeto fell it. It was found that the angle of cut for all quicklybut that it was so much easier. . . It is the fine blade Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol.24, 1997 347

600

Steel 3

* Steel 4 500 -

-

400

-

o - g 300 cn

200 -

100 -

X U o * | W 10 20 30

Time to fell in minutes Figure 10. A comparisonof swing rate over time with axes of differentweight. The dataplotted are Steel 3 (1.55 kg) versusSteel 4 (2.37 kg) fellingpoplar trees (Populusdeltoides).

which can be used at a low angle of attackthat gives the steel difficultto controlin experimentalsituations. Once a tree's its advantage. . . diameterreaches about 20 cm, the tree's speciesand size Metal axes can shave trees more easily,get into tighter seem to playa largerrole in the amount of time necessary places, be aimed more accurately,allow easierpreliminary to fell. Treesunder 10 cm in diameterwill be felledquickly shaping of wooden objects, and quicken the process of with any type of axe, and other factorssuch as walkingout detachingfelled trees from stumps.This furtherillustrates to the fellingsite and clearingvegetation probably contrib- that it is not only the sharpnessof steel that gives it an ute greatertime costs to a projectthan the actualfelling. advantage,but also its thin shapemakes its use easier. Variables Table3 lists the variablesaffecting tree fellingpreviously Efficiencyand TreeSize noted in the literature,and whetheror not we attempted Analysisof the datafrom this study led to an interesting to controlfor them in our trials.In the courseof our study, insight. All the graphsthat plot "time to fell in minutes" we noted other relevant variables,which we felt were against"tree diameter in cm" show a distinctconvergence significantenough to merit discussion.The most impor- of the data aroundthe 10 cm diametermark. The clump- tant of these is what we call "the felling environment" ing of resultsat and below this diametersuggests that small (Carneiro1979b: 4042 discussessimilar problems, but trees can be easily felled by any axe type and that the treatsmost of them as part of the field-clearingprocess). importantvariables may not be ones we controlledfor in Felling environmentinvolves a numberof factorsthat, in this study, but factorssuch as vegetation and topography combinationor alone, can affectthe time to fell a tree. For which make up the "fellingenvironment" and which are example,the lean of a tree can increasethe speed of felling 348 Comparin,gAJce Heads/Mathieu and Meyer

Table 3. Previouslynoted variablesaffeciing tree felling.

Variable Previous mention Control in ourstudy Accessto tree J0rgensen1985: 49; Carneiro1974: 114; Townsend1969: 201 Only discussed Age of tree Hardingand Young 1974: 104 Not accountedfor Diameterof tree Most previousstudies Controlledfor Drynessof wood J0rgensen1985: 48; Orme and Coles 1983: 21 Not accountedfor Hardnessof wood Carneiro1974: 114, 1979a: 51-52, 1979b: 60-65; Hardingand Controlledfor Young 1979: 104; Olausson1982: 31; Townsend1969: 201 Smalltrees rebound Townsend1969: 203 Not accountedfor from axe Soft wood catchingaxe Steensberg1980: 25, 36 Not accountedfor Axe material Carneiro1974: 203, 1979b; Dickson 1981: 92; Godelierand Controlledfor Garanger1973: 210; Olausson1982: 32; Saraydarand Shimada 1971, 1973; Steensberg1980; Townsend1969: 201 Axe weight Carneiro1979a: 49; Olausson1982: 33 Only discussed Bladeshape Bordaz 1970: 99; Carneiro1979a: 49; Clark1945: 68; Coles 1979a: Only discussed 102; Dickson 1981: 92; Olausson1982: 33; Semenov 1964: 130 Bladesharpness Coles 1979a: 102 Only discussed Hafting Carneiro1979a: 49; Olausson1982: 33; Orme and Coles 1983: 21 Controlledfor Brokenaxes J0rgensen1985: 49; Townsend1969: 201 Only discussed Conditionof fellers Carneiro1974: 114; Coles 1979a: 102; Hardingand Young 1979: Only discussed 103; J0rgensen1985: 49; Olausson1984: 40; Orme and Coles 1983: 21; Townsend1969: 201 Injuryto fellers J0rgensen1985: 49 Not accountedfor Luck J0rgensen1985: 49 Not accountedfor Techniqueof felling Carneiro1979b: 45-57; J0rgensen1985: 49; Olausson1982: 40 Only discussed /season J0rgensen1985: 49; Olausson1982: 39; Orme and Coles 1983: 21 Not accountedfor

by allowinggravity to contributeto the trunksnapping off numberof the graphsprinted here (FIGS. 3-6) illustratethis or, conversely,it can increasethe time to fell by requiring point. Althoughwe noticed the existenceof thesevariables extrachopping to get the tree to fall in the "right"direc- during our experiments,we do not believe that they ad- tion. The local topography(slope, gullies, etc.) arounda verselyaffected our resultsand the conclusionsdrawn from tree can increasefelling time by interferingwith the feller's them. They should, however,serve as remindersthat fell- footing. The vegetationaround a tree can increasefelling ing a tree or clearingland involvesmore than an axe, some time by makingapproach to it difficultor requiringextra trees, and a humanbeing. time for its removalbefore fellingcommences. Also, flying insects can create delays in the felling of a tree if their Conclusions annoyance is particularly persistent and unpleasant. This study has led to several important conclusions Carneiro (1979b: 41) observed a similarproblem with concerningtree fellingwith stone, bronze, and steel axes. ants in the Venezuelanrainforest. Of foremostinterest is that bronze axes are as efficientas Anotherfactor is the purposeof the tree felling,and the steel axesfor fellingtrees. The hardnessof the metalis not length of time in which the projectmust be completed.If as importantin fellinga tree as one might suspectbecause it is not crucialthat a tree fall immediately,perhaps when only a minimumhardness is necessary.Bronze and steel clearing fields in the off-season, then a short period of axes can be considered under one efficiency category, chopping may sufficeto makethe tree vulnerableto other metal axes, and as a materialtype are more efficient at forces such as wind, gravity,insects, and decomposition felling treesthan are stone axes, especiallyas tree diameter whichwill eventuallydrop the tree. In contrast,if thereis a increases.This is due, in largepart, to the thicknessof the pressingneed to fell a tree quickly,certain techniques may stone axes relativeto metal axes, not necessarilyonly due be chosen over others, for example,burning or pulling a to the superiorsharpness of the cutting edge of the metal tree down ratherthan continuing to chop. This pressing axes. The thicknessof stone axes decreasesthe penetrabil- need may also contributeto the increasedincidence of an ity of the axe and increasesthe amountof wood that needs emotional variablein the felling process;frustration and to be removedin orderto fell the tree. anger over difficultiesmay increaseor decreasethe time We also confirmeda number of factorsthat affect the requiredto fell. rate of tree felling. The two most importantare tree type These variablesmay come into play in any situation (hardnessand composition)and tree size, and filturestud- where a tree is to be felled. The largevariances seen on a ies of thesevariables will likelyprovide the best estimatesof Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol.24, 1997 349

time to fell a tree. With respect to tree type, one caveat thankthe followingpeople: Bernard Wailes of the Anthro- from our study should be noted. Although specificgravity pology Departmentof the I Jniversityof Pennsylvania,for is the most important property in determininga tree's his seminarin the springof 1991 which led to the initial hardness(and therefore time to fell), it is not the only interestin the topic and for his continualenthusiasm and propertythat has such an effect. The arrangementof plant support throughout the researchproject; the University cells in differenttypes of wood and the physico-chemical Museum, IJniversityof Pennsylvania,for the use of its compositionof the cell walls both contributeto planesof collections;William Romanow, for his time and effort in weaknessand to felling time. Therefore,although specific preparingthe tin-bronzealloy in the MaterialsProcessing gravitycan be used as a rough measureof relativetime to Central Facility of the Laboratoryfor Researchon the fell, as we in the exampleof oak versussugar maple, Structure of Matter of the University of Pennsylvania; this relationshipis not absolute. Robert Engmanof the Fine Arts School of the University Handle or haft length is also an important factor in of Pennsylvania,for his time and effort in casting the determining an axe's efficiency.A long-hafted axe will bronze axe heads; William Meyer and Diane Meyer for swing at a slowerrate than a short-haftedaxe, but will have providingthe trees to be cut down, for putting us up on greaterefliciency over time on largertrees. On smalltrees weekends, and providinghelpfial advice; Cary Meyer for there is little difference, but on larger trees the greater hafting the bronze axe heads;Vince Piggott of the Mu- power affordedby a long haft will significantlyaffect the seum AppliedScience Center for Archaeology,University outcome. Museum, Universityof Pennsylvania,for his help in pro- The axe's blade width was found not to affect sig- viding the meansfor testing the hardnessof the metal axe nificantlythe efficiencyof an axe when fellinga tree unless heads; Paul Macleanof MASCA,for his work making a it also entailed an unusualincrease in axe weight, which metallographicsample; Elmer Anderson of the Laboratory could affect the swing rate over time, and thus the for Researchon the Structureof Matterof the University efficiencyof the axe. of Pennsylvania,for taking the hardnessreadings and ex- A person can quicklyfell a tree with a diameterof less plainingtheir significance; Dan Bousquet,Forest Products than 10 cm, regardlessof the type of axe used. In such ExtensionSpecialist, and Roy Whitmore,Professor of For- situations, it is likely that severalunquantifiable factors, estry at the School of NaturalResources of the University such as the "fellingenvironment" (vegetation, topography, of Vermont, for their aid in locating the specificgravity insects) or preparationtime will increasethe amount of data for certain trees; Claire Bourges, Neff, Don time involved. These factors can override the normally Hanna, Gerry Oetelaar,Jane Kelley,and Scott Raymond more importantaspects such as tree type and diameter.But who took time out of their busy schedules to read and once the tree to be felled reachesa diameterof 20 cm or comment on earlier drafts of this paper; and Robert greater,these unquantifiableeffects become less of a factor, Carneiroand the anonymousreviewers, whose comments and progressivelybecome filteredout. servedto improvethe qualityof this paper. Finally,a conclusionabout the use of experimentalesti- mates to determine construction times in should be made. Especiallywith the use of stone axes, one JamesR. Mathieu (M.A. Universityof Pennsylvania, should not necessarilyrely on works such as this one, or 1992; M.A. Universityof York,1995) is pursuinghis Carneiro's(1979a, 1979b), J0rgensen's(1985), or Town- Ph.D. researchat the Universityof Pennsylvania.His send's (1969) for reliableestimates (Meyer 1992). Because field ensperienceincludes enscavations in North Carolina, Maine, Syria,, and GreatBritain. His researchin- certainaspects such as tool type (e.g., groundstoneversus terestsinclude Medieval Europe, castles, and spatial analy- flint), tree species, and environmentalfactors can have a sis. Mailing address:Department of Anthropology,Univer- profound effect, regionallyspecific estimates are in order. of Pennsylvania,33rd and SptuceStreets, . sity . . 1 * * ,> r . , l nat 1S, unless slgnlncantresearcn ln one s areaand envl- Philadelphi61,PA 19104-6398. specifictool types has been carriedout, an ronment using Daniel A. Meyer(B.A. Universityof Pennsylvania, interested party needs to complete such experimentsto 1992) is currentlya Ph.D. candidatein the Department providethe most usefillestimates of iime to fell a tree. of Archaeologyat the Universityof Calgary.He has workedin New Mexico,Vermont, Color6ldo, Wyozning, Acknowledgments North Dakot61,and Chiap61s,Mexico. He is conducting This experimentalarchaeological study involved the his dissert6ltionresearch in theAmerican Southwest, and work and assistanceof many people. We would like to his researchinterests include vernacul61r architecture, set- 350 Comparin,gAJce Heads/Mathieu and Meyer

tlementarchaeology, world-systems theory, and material Godelier, Mauric, and J. Garanger cultureand ethnicity.Mailing address:Department of Ar- 1973 "Outils de Pierre, Outils d'Acier Chez les Baruya de chaeology,University of Calgary, Calgary,AB T2N 1N4. Nouvelle-Guinee,"L'Homme 13: 187-220. Harding, Anthony, and Robert Young 1979 "Reconstruction of Hafting Methods and Function of Ascher, Robert Stone Implements,"in T. Clough and W. Cummins,eds., 1961 "ExperimentalArcheology," American Anthropolo,gist 63: StoneAxe Studies.Councilfor British Archaeolo,gy Research 793-816. Report23: 102-105. Bordaz, Jacques Hawley, C. F., and Louis Wise 1970 Toolsof the Old and New StoneA,ge. Garden City: Natural 1926 The Chemistryof Wood.New York:Chemical Catalogue History Press. Co. Inc. Buchwald,V. F., and P. Leisner Haygreen, John G., and Jim L. Bowyer 1990 "A MetallurgicalStudy of 12 PrehistoricBronze Objects 1982 ForestProducts and WoodScience: An Introduction.Ames: from Denmark," Journal of Danish Archaeolo,gy9: 64- Iowa State UniversityPress. 102. Heider, KarlG. Carneiro, Robert L. 1970 TheDu,gum Dani. Chicago:Aldine PublishingCo. 1974 "On the Use of the Stone Axe by the AmahuacaIndians Hyenstrand,A. of EasternPeru," Ethnolo,gischeZeitschrift Zurich 1: 107- 1969 "Den enkla Skafthalsyxansom Arbetsredskap,"Nords- 122. venskforntid. SkytteanskaSamfundets Handlin,gar 6: 99- 1979a "Tree Felling with the Stone Axe," in Carol Kramer,ed., 110. Ethnoarchaeolo,gy.New York:Columbia University Press, Iversen, J. 21-58. 1956 "ForestClearance in the ," Scienti.ficAmerican 1979b "Forest ClearanceAmong the Yanomamo:Observations 194:3641. and Implications,"Antropolo,gica 52: 39-76. J0rgensen, Svend Clark, Grahame 1985 Tree-fellin,gwith Ori,ginalNeolithic Flint Axes in Draved 1945 "Farmersand Forestsin ,"Antiquity 19: Wood.Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark. 57-71. Kozak, Vladimir Coles, John M. 1972 "Stone Age Revisited,"Natural History81 (8): 1F24. 1973 Archaeolo,gyby Experiment. London: Hutchinson. Lekson, Stephen H. 1979a ExperimentalArchaeolo,gy. London: AcademicPress. 1984 Great PuebloArchitecture of ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press. 1979b "An Experiment with Stone Axes," in T. Clough and W. Cummins, eds., StoneAJce Studies. Councilfor British Mathieu, James R. Archaeolo,gyResearch Report 23, 106- 107. 1992 "Tree Felling: An Experimental Archaeological Study Comparing Steel and Bronze Axcheads," unpublished Coles, John M., S. V. E. Heal, and B. J. Orme M.A. thesis, Universityof Pennsylvania,Philadelphia. 1978 "The Use and Characterof Wood in PrehistoricBritain and Ireland," Proceedin,gsof the PrehistoricSociety 44: 1- Meyer, Daniel A. 46. 1992 "BlisteredHands: An ExperimentalStone Axe Tree Fell- ing Study,"unpublished B.A. Honors thesis, Universityof Coles, John M., and B. J. Orme Pennsylvania,Philadelphia. 1985 "PrehistoricWoodworking from the : 1, Roundwood," SomersetLevels Papers 11: 25-50. Montelius, Oscar 1906 Kultur,geschichteSchwedens. Leipzig: E. A. Seemann. Coutts, P. J. F. 1977 "Green Timber and Polynesian Adzes and Axes," in Morris, Earl H. R. V. S. Wright, ed., Stone Toolsas Cultural Markers: 1939 Archaeolo,gicalStudies in the La Plata District, Southwest- Chan,ge,Evolution and Complexity.New Jersey:Humani- ern Coloradoand NorthwesternNew Mexico. Carne,gie ties Press Inc., 67-82. Institute at Washin,gtonPublication 519. Washington D.C.: The CarnegieInstitution of Davey, P. J. Washington. 1973 "Bronze Age Metalwork from Lincolnshire,"Archaeolo- Olausson, Deborah ,gia 104: 51-127. 1982 "Lithic Technological Analysis of the Thin-butted Flint Axe," Acta Desh, H. E. Archaeolo,gica53: 1-87. 1981 Timber:Its Structure,Properties and Utilization. 6th edn, 1983 Flint and GroundstoneAxes in the Scanian Neolithic. revisedby J. M. Dinwoodie. Forest Grove, Oregon: Tim- Lund: CWK Gleerup. ber Press. Orme, B. J., and John M. Coles Dickson, F. P. 1983 "PrehistoricWoodworking from the Somerset Levels: 1, 1981 Australian StoneHatchets. Sydney: Academic Press. Timber,"Somerset Levels Papers 9: 1943. Journalof FieldArchaeolo,gy/Vol. 24, 1997 351

Pond,Alonzo W. USDA Forest Service 1930 Primitive Methodsof WorkingStone Based on the Ensperi- 1974 WoodHandbook. Forest Products Laboratory Aj7riculture ments of Havlor F. Skavlem. The Logan Museum, Beloit Handbook,No. 72. CollegeBulletin 2, No. 1. Beloit:The LoganMuseum. Wangaard,F. F., ed. Renfrew,Colin 1981 Wood:Its Structure and Properties.University Park: Penn- 1973 "Monuments,Mobilization and SocialOrganization in sylvaniaState UniversityPress. NeolithicWessex," in C. Renfrew,ed., TheExplanation of Culture Change:Models in Prehistory.Pittsburgh: Univer- sityof PittsburghPress, 539-558 . Saraydar,Stephen, and IzumiShimada 1971 "A QuantitativeComparison of EfficiencyBetween a StoneAxe and a SteelAxe," American Antiquity 36(2): 216-217. 1973 "ExperimentalArchaeology: A New Outlook,"American Antiquity 38: 344-350. Schiffer,Michael B. 1976 BehavioralArcheology. New York:Academic Press. 1978 "MethodologicalIssues in Ethnoarchaeology,"in Richard A. Gould, ed., Explorationsin Ethnoarchaeology.Albu- querque:University of New MexicoPress, 229-247. Sehested,N. F. B. 1884 PraktiskeForsog. Arkaeologiske Undersogelser 1878-1881. Copenhagen. Semenov,S. A. 1964 PrehistoricTechnology. London: Barnes and Noble. Shaw,T. 1969 "Tree-fellingby Fire,"Antiquity 43: 52. Smith,G. V. 1891 "TheUse of FlintBlades to WorkPine Wood,"Annual Report of the SmithsonianInstitution 1891, Part1, 601- 605. Smith,Cyril Stanley 1981 "TheInterpretation of Microstructuresof MetallicArti- facts,"in C. S. Smith,ed., A Searchfor Structure:Selected Essayson Science,Art, and History.Cambridge: Massachu- settsInstitute of TechnologyPress, 69-111. Steensberg,Axel 1957 "SomeRecent Danish Experiments in NeolithicAgricul- ture,"The Agricultural HistoryReview 5(2): 66-73. 1980 New Guinea Gardens.New York:Academic Press. Summitt,R. S., and A. Sliker 1974- Wood.The CRC Handbookof Material Science,Vol. 4. 1980 Townsend,William H. 1969 "Stoneand Steel Tool Use in a New GuineaSociety," Ethnology8: 199-205. Tylecote,R. F. 1986 The Prehistoryof Metallurgyin the British Isles. London: The Instituteof Metals. 1992 A History of ,2nd edn. London:The Institute of Metals.