Battle axe vs. oak wood

Ergersheim experiment No. 7 was carried out in March 2017 to check a theory by an archaeologist from the Netherlands saying that neolithic stone battle axes could have been used for felling trees by cutting the roots. The results of our attempt were not convincing, battle axes are, due to their dull edge, not really effective in processing wood. Moreover it´s almost impossible to cut all roots of even a small oak tree. However, we were surprised how resilient these axes are, they withstood even the hardest stress and took tens of thousands of blows without breaking.
Aside from this, we were very successful in splitting trunks with wooden wedges, even tangential splitting worked very well.
Please visit: www.theresekeog...
To be continued ...

[@jasonmiller5483]

Where I come from the natives used root knobs for clubs because it is the dense part of the tree full of resins and oils burls and twists... Probably a good reason why it was not as efficient.

[@ulfr23]

Right. For the same reason Stone Age woodworkers at Swiss lake settlements used what we call "wing hafts", axe hafts made from the transition of trunk and root of ash trees - wood is much harder and denser here and takes more stress (see Swiss colleagues cutting down an oak with such axe at kzbin.info/www/bejne/aH-Qn2R4fayomJI)

[@damocsell]

Hi I wanted to say what a great job on your ancient copper making video don't worry about the knucklehead "expert" comments. People who want to learn will see through them.

[@aleramone23]

Woulnt be way faster burn a fire around the desired tree?

[@ulfr23]

See the discussion with freejutube below.

[@Judge_Mike]

what was the diameter of the tree and how long did it take?

[@ulfr23]

Diameter was 28 cm. We don´t measure time, because our working speed is not comparable to ancient, instead we count strokes - in this case 8025

[@Judge_Mike]

why not comparable?

[@ulfr23]

We are people of the 21nd millennium. Nobody knows who cut down trees thousands of years ago. Was this done by the farmers themselves? Or by hired workers? By slaves? I´m a trained woodworker, but some of my colleagues are not. Just this fact would influence the working speed. Even counting strokes may only give avague impression about how long it took in ancient times. Experimental archaeology can only give clues but cannot proof something.

[@ReasonAboveEverything]

Whoever came up with the root theory knew nothing about felling trees.

[@NateB-v5h]

even if you hack through the visible roots, there are still plenty more roots underground so you would have to dig more and more as you go. that's a whole lot more work compared to just chopping at the trunk. not only that, but you can work standing up which would make it a lot easier. I see that they dug around the roots that you can see, which helps but still they're doing it the hard way by going for the roots. I assume neolithic man would have done it the way that requires the least effort, and this is definitely not that way.

[@ulfr23]

You said it! Another academic theory has gone up in smoke. That´s why we tried it and that´s why we`ll never do it again.

[@jasonmccombs8123]

It doesn't help that they don't know how to swing an axe

[@ulfr23]

Whom do you mean with "they"?

[@joystickmusic]

@@ulfr23 He means the people hacking way, obviously.

[@grinninggoat5369]

If the timber was planned to be used for construction and splitting... makes no sense why they would cut it down at the roots to fell the tree... if someone wanted a root from the tree afterwards they's still be free to go and harvest one but... cutting them all to fell a tree just to have to cut the root section off to split and get timber in an added time consuming step makes no sense unless... felling a tree with roots intact was for ritual/social reasons, like the one wooden henge found on an eroding seaside in Scotland or Northern England some years ago that was felled roots intact then moved & centered root side up in the air in a split timber henge. That would be the only reason I can see for felling a tree with most all primary roots intact.

[@anvilbrunner.2013]

So now we know. Very good.

[@freejutube]

better : controled fire + battle axe cutting into the charred wood ?

[@ulfr23]

Thanks, but: No fire allowed in this forest. +Would take much more time than cutting it down the "normal" way. +Wet oak doesn´t burn.

[@freejutube]

sure :-) but we can't resist wondering whether the experiment would be useful and possible; hypothesis : 1) fire exceptionnally authorized in winter when there is water all around 2) more time for cutting one tree only, but maybe less time, efforts and people for the quasi-simultaneous cutting of several trees 3) oaks are wet only on the surface (when it rains), and maybe in the cambium (but less in winter), the rest is ~ "dry wood"

[@ulfr23]

1) We tried to get permission to use fire for cutting a felled tree to length, but no chance :-( 2) Last year we worked on two trees only, because cutting the roots took very much time and we had to alternate very often, my back is not the youngest anymore ;-) 3) You´re right, ~"dry", but still wet enough to disallow burning, we tried this at another experiment building a dugout canoe. And think of the masses of firewood you have to collect for burning an oak of 50 cm diameter, I think the effort bears no proportion compared to just cutting with a real good axe as shown in the 2015 video kzbin.info/www/bejne/aH-Qn2R4fayomJI (swiss precision work).

[@freejutube]

thanks; I just saw again this video (kzbin.info/www/bejne/aH-Qn2R4fayomJI) ; beautiful efficient tools !

[@citizen1114]

I thought the same thing but the number of times fire would have to be applied due to the limited depth of the charring would be hardly worth it.

[@Underbottom.Sandydown]

The people using these were likely building waddle and dob structures, doesn't really make sense to take a tree that big at the roots when you could just take a 4-6" tree a few feet off the ground for good straight timber and next spring when the wood is seasoned the tree will have sprouted shoots for your woven walls. It's easier to move the timber of smaller trees as well as remove their roots for clearing farmland. Far better to just clear out all the small trees you can, leave what you want and burn out the big boys.

[@ulfr23]

Of course wattle&doub walls are easy to build, but the archaeological record tells us that trees up to a diameter of 120 cm were cut down to build the early neolithic longhouses, see Rössen or Bandceramic culture, and this is why we do our experiments. And according to recent research after clearing the forest the trunks incl. the roots were most probably left in the ground, and the cereals were sawn in small patches around the trunks until these were rotten.

[@Sgtassburgler]

I don't understand why anyone thinks that is a battle axe. Actual battle axes were very light weight as in combat you don't want a sledge hammer for a weapon, especially since they had no metal armor. To me it looks to be designed for splitting timbers.

[@ulfr23]

The axes we used during the experiments weigh 940 resp. 730 g, this is no sledge hammer, is it? Moreover, with the originals the edge is comparably dull, not as sharp as e.g. flint axes designed for woodcutting. And if you use these axes as splitting wedges, thus applying forces from both ends, they will break immediately at the shaft hole - we tried this once and never again. Splitting only works if the edge angle is less than max. 20° and never with axes (blades with a shaft hole). Even with axe blade shaped wedges splitting doesn´t work very good, because stone tools are much too brittle. Watch our videos about the other experiments, we employed antler and wooden wedges with great succes - no need for stone wedges.

[@nsdtgabe4082]

I remember reading somewhere the main purpose of these wasnt to cut but rather smash deep holes into peoples bodies, especially skulls since theyve also found bodies with similar fracture marks

[@Sgtassburgler]

@@ulfr23 Still seems heavy and is particularly hard to make for something that neither looks ceremonial or is utilitarian when you could just make a stone celt or as time has proven a spear for warfare. Spears being the most effective and easy to construct weapon in history. I don't really mean using it as a wedge, but more of a maul to strike wood parallel to the grain to split it. Have you tried splitting wood with it like a splitting maul? I have seen your antler and wood wedges, and I understand that as far as wedges are concerned neolithic peoples would have just used wood predominantly. I have actually seen all of your content and watched it multiple times over the years, but to me this particular tool just doesn't seem like it was created to be a weapon. So much time would be used to make this and it would be about as effective as an unground stone celt for warfare. Neolithic people did seem to waste a lot of time doing unnecessary things though, at least that is what perfectly ground and polished flint axes show us, so I dunno.

[@ulfr23]

@@Sgtassburgler: As you stated, neolithic people wasted a lot of time doing things we don´t understand today. As for effectivity: To drive from A to B, you just need a wheeled chair and a motor. So where is the need for 500 HP, chrome moldings, white wall tires and metallic colour? Scaninavian Neolithic weaponry makers spent weeks walking on the beaches in order to find special rocks calles "eye diabas" (a black stone with white rectangular chrystals inside), which are very rare. They were used for making disc clubs which are undoubtly weapons www.kulturarv.dk/fundogfortidsminder/resource/83994. We should be aware of thinking too actualistic - of course a simple spear or a celt will do, but as a friend of mine said: "The eye kills along with it" Actually there is no need to ornament any tool or weapon, but man always did ...

[@muhamadsayyidabidin3906]

@@Sgtassburgler some test has showed that polished stone axes is more durable that the earlier knapped stone axes. People obviously don't just creating large number of object just for aesthetic. And spear (non throwing variants with the exception of harpoon and pronged spear) are underrepresented in Neolithic context, probably because people used bow a lot more. This battle axes or axe-hammer probably were used to fell down small trees, kinda like a hatchet rather than lumberjack axes. And this could also be used as a weapon when needed. I mean stone maces with more elaborate head were used as a weapon, so why not this axes?

[@Judge_Mike]

i've read Russian peasants would remove the bark from the bottom of the tree, it died and fell in several years from wind. not a very fast method but labor saving )

[@ulfr23]

For making firewood this is possible but not for making timber - who would wait several years until the timber for his house is ready? And we have clear evidence for cutting trees from prehistory.

[@Judge_Mike]

actually it was a part of shifting cultivation technology, still practiced in the early 20th century

[@tangosmurfen2376]

A pine that dies standing up can remain standing for centuries

[@ragnarsvedje9620]

Not likely they'd fell the trees like that with those axes. They were alot smarter than that, and evidently smarter than todays modern man. There are many ways to take down a tree, this experiment shows the one technique they probably didn't use.

[@muhamadsayyidabidin3906]

They're probably using polished stone axes for felling large trees, not this battle axe or axe-hammer. This type of axe might have been to chop branches, splitting timbers and occasionally as a weapon as well. Knowing there's copper axe with similar shape and sizes to this battle axes, it's no wonder that they copied those copper axes while making stone axes and hope the same performance would applied.

[@thePyiott]

Probably just used a charring technique to soften the wood. And probably 2-3 men working at each tree.