Talk:Tomahawk

message: "The tomahawk subtracts where is was from where it should be, it now is."
What does this text in the article mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.180.146 (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully that bit has been taken out.  It's a reference to an audio clip which was floating around some webforums a few years back.  It was supposedly about the Tomahawk cruise missile and contained a long-winded non-sensical description of how the Tomahawk's guidance system supposedly operates ("the Tomahawk subtracts where it isn't from where it is to determine where it should be, and subtracts where it should be from where it is to determine..."). 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * Regarding the first picture...
** Why should the footer include information about who made it? This is not a place for advertisement. 
:It's being descriptive, many people have seen the whole piece and asked if it was an antique, etc.  It's also about giving credit where it is due.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are talking about, I think that old picture is long gone from the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the picture with one that I think is a lot easier to see.  Jerry 19:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture... 

message: The cited article doesn't say anything about that. --213.39.133.194 09:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing the article does not mention: I read (somewhere) that the invention of Bowie knife caused a decline of the tomahawk. Seems more settled places back east didn't need it for a weapon anymore, and frontiersmen found the heavy Bowie more useful... Anybody know if thats true?...Engr105th 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've heard that too at knifeshows from guys who make Bowies, do you recall where you read it?  It would be an interesting addition to the article if we could verify it. Mike Searson 20:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I recall reading it sometime back in the 1990s...maybe because the movie "Last of the Mohicans" piqued my interest. I'll see what I can find - but doubt I'll get the exact source again (and that source probably isn't original). But I think its pretty obvious the Tomahawk was "obsolete" well before the Civil War. Kinda overtaken like the flintlock gave way to percussion rifles. Flintlock/Tomahawk belonged to the Colonial era...Engr105th 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll look as well.  It definitely was not obsolete on Naval Vessels, though until the 1940's.  On a side note, I'm considering writing a new article on the modern tomahawk...any interest in helping out with that one? Mike Searson 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do...Been interested in this interesting weapon for some time. Almost bought a handmade one at a show here in NC...by the way, is there a secure email option on this Wiki stuff, just to trade info? I'm rather new to it... Engr105th 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can go to my User page and down on the left hand side there is a link "Email this user" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Searson
Mike Searson 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like I have to register my email somehow (I guess thats how my signature always shows up red, while other are blue? I'll figure it out. Give me a while)...You wrote above "It definitely was not obsolete on Naval Vessels, though until the 1940's."  I'm not sure about that - maybe it was still present as some kind of boarding party axe or a fire axe, but certainly it was obsolete as a typical weapon by then. Surely they weren't issuing them to modern naval vessel crews?? For example, Officers still have ceremonial swords but nobody uses them:) By the way, my past interest has been on the tomahawk as a colonial/trade weapon - but I'd certainly like to work on the latest evolution. Engr105th 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Boarding axes are primarily weapons, at least from my POV.  I believe I read that bit about Tomahawks when helping research the USMC NCO Sword article on here.  In the 40's they ceased production of "swords, cutlasses, tomahawks", etc.  I think I may have a link to the actual document somewhere.  Anyway, your name is red because you do not have a "User Page".  You can email me directly if you wish Probably easier than wikiying back and forth. Mike Searson 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hand-to-hand combat? 

message: Tomahawks are cool. So you dont want to mess ith a person with a Tomahawk. Respect the TOMAHAWK  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.48.225 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomahawks are awesome 

message: Why is there no section on the tomahawk's symbolism?
If someone does do a piece on it's symbolism, they must include 2 of the following qualities:
1. Independence
This is because the tomahawk/axe was used by the *common person* during the American Revolutionary War. (no, I'm not just saying this because I watched brave heart/patriot or last of the mohicans) It is also an extremely versatile tool accessible to the common person because of the manufacturing and purchasing cost. The ability to only use a $40 tool to build an entire cabin is a justifiable reason to say that the tomahawk is a symbol of independence.
2. Hard Work
Do I really need to explain this one?
3. Peace
It's 3 am, so I'm not gonna go too into this, but historically, it was used as a token of peace.
4. Durability
I can't think of any other cutting tool that would last as long as an Axe.
Seriously, I've used the same axe head for like, 20 years (several handle replacements). I've seen perfectly good axe heads that are 300 years old. The only thing that wasn't in good shape, was the handle, and those are easily replaceable. 
Compare a 400 old axe head to a 200 year old sword. The axe head is in better shape, and it probably was used more than the sword.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverQuixotic (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

message: Hi,
What about chosing, for the introduction, a photo of a classical tomahawk rather than a modern reinvention? What about one those two images from the NARA :
File:Low Dog (From L. D. Greene Album) - NARA - 533089.jpg|ca. 1881-1885
File:Photograph of Native Americans from Southeastern Idaho - NARA - 519255.tif|1897
El Comandante (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: Hi,
I regret there is no o bibliography, and that just magazine articles are quoted. I'm pretty sure it's possible to find more reliable sources : historians and archaeologists must have published descriptions of tomahawks and their usages.
El Comandante (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: It seems to me like as far as many of the images are concerned they feature abundant images of modern tomahawks (with suspiciously promotional-sounding captions for the companies that created them) and no depictions whatsoever of any stone tomahawks. Peter Deer (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This ahistoricity of the article had been bothering me too for a long time. Finally I added a bit on tomahawk design in pre-iron technology, along with a concise history of the word in the context of Algonquian languages. Certainly more can be filled in about the historical development of tomahawk technology and design by someone who knows the subject well. If you have any good references, please bring 'em. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nine years later, and it's still a LARPer's dream, with little bearing on the INDIGENOUS history. Surprise, surprise. Amerikkkapedia wins again. 184.147.89.203 (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight to Novelty Tomahawks 

message: I'm disappointed that there is no discussion in this article of how the tomahawk was traditionally used in the Americas. It composition is described, and then there is a discussion of modern use. But the weapon has been in use for ages; why is there no detail about this? 71.58.209.95 (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional use 

message: I removed all of the manufacturers which did not have articles or whose articles did not mention tomahawks here. Please provide sources if reading them. Meters (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturers removed for lack evidence of notability or association with tomahawks 

message: Can add "Prey" to this list, as it features prominently. 98.116.198.6 (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the 21st century, tomahawks have been prominently featured in films  

message: The Penn Museum has some good modern articles about pipe tomahawks that could be used as a higher quality source to reference. 173.81.81.153 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penn Museum as better source 

message: I just wanted to point out the glaring error on the topic of origin. The article claims it was an indigenous invention of America. Yet no amount of research yields any stone tomahawks as described looking remotely anything like what we all know as a tomahawk today. It appears that whilst they had stone axes this was a purely European settler invented trade tool, and that the natives either assumed ownership of it, or the settlers retconned it to being native for mysticism and higher selling novelty to other settlers.
There is nothing remotely in the museums of indigenous design that looks anything like a tomahawk, nor any functional form of axe. The knapped stone axeheads look more like clubs (I am unsure if it's because of the lack of good knappable flint in your country but the lumpy rock heads I see presented as indigenous artifacts are absolutely ineffective axes and nothing remotely like a tomahawk).
This is sort of like saying because Leonardo Davinci drew some men with feathery wings and made some models that he invented the F35. The technological leap between indigenous "Tomahawk" versus what we know today as a tomahawk is many, MANY thousands of years of R&D difference. There is no feasible way that this is an indigenous invention, nor remotely related to the indigenous version of the tomahawk. Thus it's origin comes down to assumption by the native population (which is common, look at horseback riding, saddles, tanned leather, weaving, advanced pottery, etc and other settler brought tech that has been assumed into culture and retconned unknowingly) or worse, it was carpet baggers trying to sell cashing in on the fetishization of the "exotic" by pretending it's based on the natives designs. I suspect the latter is most probable, specifically because I have in mind the Bowie knife, when asked to make a Bowie knife EVERY blacksmith knew vaguely what they wanted, but not one of them had a clue what they were making, or if it was authentic, but probably had a neat story to tell their buyers!
Now take into account that this axe looks like many thousands of extant archeological finds identical to it's shape and design all over Europe we have a stronger case that this is a marketing retcon. I am not American so I presume that there will be some sensitivity around this topic with Americans however I am an academic and I can't stand idly by when something patently absurd is being presented as fact when it is obvious to anyone that it is incorrect. 2001:8003:2961:AD00:D872:AD50:B1A7:A343 (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin appears European.