Comparing Axe Heads of Stone, Bronze, and Steel: 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 technology and tools 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 felling trees.The study shows that bronzeis as efJicientas steelforthis task, and thereforethe two material types can becon- sideredequivalent when comparing technologies. We support theXindings of otherstudies indicatingthat metalaxes are moreefJicient than stone axes 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 artifact,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 tool'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 flint 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 ground stone, 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 wood 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 adzes 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 henge 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,hafting, 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