How Were Trees Cut Before Saws?

[Philbert]

OK, this is an amazingly simple question. I understand that before chainsaws we had crosscut saws. And before then we had steel, and bronze and stone axes. Does anyone know the techniques used to cut down large trees before saws (and before nylon ropes and steel cables and steam donkeys and . . . . . )?

I have read a lot about different types of saw notches and back cuts and bore cuts. Recently, I was watching some amazing YouTube videos showing PNW logging of monster trees by axe and crosscut saws. Two guys might spend a full day or more chopping out a notch with double bit axes on one of these trees. But they did the back cuts with a crosscut saw. So, before steel saws, how did they cut down large trees?

Did they just notch front and back and hope to get lucky? Could they still use wedges in some way? Anyone know? Could not find anything on the Internet, but might have just searched under the wrong terms.

Thanks.

Philbert

 

[RandyMac]

hack at both sides and hope for the best. If you make out here, there are examples at High Rock and near Jordan Creek.
The savages burnt around the base, until it fell.
One of the first Giganteas was felled with large augers.

 

[ncpete]

I have taken trees up to 16-18" down with an axe when I was much younger. Big wedge out of the side you want it to fall towards, and then do the backside cut in the same fashion. Could not imagine doing that today.

 

[aarolar]

Indians used to take down trees with fire, they would cover the trunk in mud about chest height then keep building fires around the base till it weakened enough it would fall.

 

[2dogs]

There really wasn't any use for large tree. Some small trees were made into canoes but that was about it. Even at that I would guess most of the canoe trees were blowdowns that fell near water.

 

[madhatte]

Saws and mills are probably older than you think.

 

[Philbert]

Saws and mills are probably older than you think.

I found references to 'pit sawing' of beams into lumber that go back several hundred years, but several hundred years is only a fraction of human history. Plus, there are places outside of the industrialized areas without access to saws. I am assuming that many 'pioneers', 'explorers', etc. in this country had access to an axe, but not necessarily a saw when building basic log cabins, etc.

There really wasn't any use for large tree. Some small trees were made into canoes but that was about it. Even at that I would guess most of the canoe trees were blowdowns that fell near water.

Actually, the trees used for canoes in some areas had to be quite big, because they dug them out. In northern climates they used small branches and skins or bark to form canoes and kayaks, etc. In other areas, they girdled and used fire to bring down trees, then more fire and sharp rocks used as adzes to hollow them out. No epoxy available. Large timbers also were used for building beams, hewed out of logs.

If the historical part is a distraction, the question could be re-phrased. 'How can a large tree be taken down with just an axe?'

Do you chop more than half way through on the 'wedge' side, then hack at the back until it falls? Do you chop all the way around like a beaver? Can you maintain any directional control other than the natural lean?

I am thinking that you have to be much more selective about the trees you cut, as well as be more patient. Maybe limit the size of the tree, and identify/eliminate more hazardous/challenging ones. I was curious if anyone had any direct experience with this, or historical knowledge. The falling techniques taught today were developed and adapted over the course of many years. There must have been similar types of methods developed for axe-only cutting.

Appreciate the input.

Philbert

 

[SliverPicker]

Long long before the North American natives used fire to down trees some used their teeth!

 

[Samlock]

It appeared everything I said about Manchurian axe men was BS.

 

[GrassGuerilla]

It's astounding to think of how the early American pioneers cleared land with little more than an axe and team of mules. Imagine the amount of work it took to clear some of the old growth. I'm humbled at what I consider a hard days work. Those men and women were made of tough stuff.

 

[HuskStihl]

When putting in the back cut with an axe, you need to chop really quickly to avoid a barber chair. I guess they used the large auger in the prehistoric GOL technique.

 

[Philbert]

I'm guessing that a lot of chopped trees went 'wrong'. Unfortunately, that's how we learned a lot of our techniques - the 'hard way'.

When putting in the back cut with an axe, you need to chop really quickly to avoid a barber chair.

I'm thinking that with an axe only, the back cut is totally different. You can't use a wedge to lift the tree.

On an 'ideal' tree (perfectly straight, no lean, no wind) wouldn't you want your face cut/wedge to go more than halfwayway through the tree?

Or would to make a smaller 'back cut' first, and chop the face until the tree started to fall?

Philbert

 

[Philbert]

Maybe this helps (even though not a 'big' tree)?

Philbert

 

[HuskStihl]

When I was using an axe as a kid, it would be all face. I'd just keep going deeper until it fell in the direction it wanted to fall in anyway

 

[Philbert]

Okay, lots of Timbersports videos on YouTube. I understand that this is not the same as falling a tree in the woods. But it provides some insight. They keep talking about chopping two thirds of the way through on the front, then finishing from the back.

Cutting trees without a saw may have been more of an art than a science? Directional control via natural lean and direction/shape of face cut?

Would there be as much chance of a barber chair if you had already chopped 2/3 of the way through the front face?

Philbert

 

[RandyMac]

It wasn't near as haphazard as you think, they didn't spend that much time, just to scatter it all over the hillside. I have seen stumps that date from the late 1850s, early 1860s, they show a great deal of precision. Remember that those men did not spring from the ground, knowing nothing, many came from the White Pine regions and knew how to fall timber. Regardless of size, the principles remain the same. Did they get it right every time, no and neither do modern fallers.

 

[2dogs]

I found references to 'pit sawing' of beams into lumber that go back several hundred years, but several hundred years is only a fraction of human history. Plus, there are places outside of the industrialized areas without access to saws. I am assuming that many 'pioneers', 'explorers', etc. in this country had access to an axe, but not necessarily a saw when building basic log cabins, etc.



Actually, the trees used for canoes in some areas had to be quite big, because they dug them out. In northern climates they used small branches and skins or bark to form canoes and kayaks, etc. In other areas, they girdled and used fire to bring down trees, then more fire and sharp rocks used as adzes to hollow them out. No epoxy available. Large timbers also were used for building beams, hewed out of logs.

If the historical part is a distraction, the question could be re-phrased. 'How can a large tree be taken down with just an axe?'

Do you chop more than half way through on the 'wedge' side, then hack at the back until it falls? Do you chop all the way around like a beaver? Can you maintain any directional control other than the natural lean?

I am thinking that you have to be much more selective about the trees you cut, as well as be more patient. Maybe limit the size of the tree, and identify/eliminate more hazardous/challenging ones. I was curious if anyone had any direct experience with this, or historical knowledge. The falling techniques taught today were developed and adapted over the course of many years. There must have been similar types of methods developed for axe-only cutting.

Appreciate the input.

Philbert

I have never seen a large tree made into a canoe. I am quite familiar with the dug out process but I

I found references to 'pit sawing' of beams into lumber that go back several hundred years, but several hundred years is only a fraction of human history. Plus, there are places outside of the industrialized areas without access to saws. I am assuming that many 'pioneers', 'explorers', etc. in this country had access to an axe, but not necessarily a saw when building basic log cabins, etc.



Actually, the trees used for canoes in some areas had to be quite big, because they dug them out. In northern climates they used small branches and skins or bark to form canoes and kayaks, etc. In other areas, they girdled and used fire to bring down trees, then more fire and sharp rocks used as adzes to hollow them out. No epoxy available. Large timbers also were used for building beams, hewed out of logs.

If the historical part is a distraction, the question could be re-phrased. 'How can a large tree be taken down with just an axe?'

Do you chop more than half way through on the 'wedge' side, then hack at the back until it falls? Do you chop all the way around like a beaver? Can you maintain any directional control other than the natural lean?

I am thinking that you have to be much more selective about the trees you cut, as well as be more patient. Maybe limit the size of the tree, and identify/eliminate more hazardous/challenging ones. I was curious if anyone had any direct experience with this, or historical knowledge. The falling techniques taught today were developed and adapted over the course of many years. There must have been similar types of methods developed for axe-only cutting.

Appreciate the input.

Philbert

I stand corrected as there were dugouts larger than I thought there were. Most were much small but California Indians dugout fallen redwoods up to 8' in diameter. Yeah NorCal!

The majority of dugouts were of a more manageable size, like 3.5 to 4.5 feet in diameter. I do remember that some ancient dugouts held up 80 men and were over 70 feet long.

 

[RandyMac]

They made giant seagoing canoes in Puget Sound and well to the North.

 

[aarolar]

The southeastern cherokees mades canoes that were really long up to 40' long.

Check out the one at the bottom of this page.

http://web.utk.edu/~museum/permanent/native/historic.shtml

 

[slowp]

They made giant seagoing canoes in Puget Sound and well to the North.

They still do.
http://www.washingtontribes.org/default.aspx?ID=50