Thread: "Axe" Cuts in slab

I have a chunk of Red Cedar at home with similar marks in it, inherited from Dads collection. Like him, I can't bring myself to make anything from it and lose the history that may or may not be behind it. This piece came from a grubbed out stump he milled near Coffs Harbour and I've always figured it was a springboard notch. If I ever work out a way to include it in a piece I'll let you know!

Originally Posted by Feckit

Dominic

There is a possibility that it is an old survey blaze. Back in the day significant trees were often used as reference marks to cadastral boundary corners. The most common ones the general public will see are the old Main Roads shield blazes which denote the tree as a reference tree to a road reserve corner.

One of the main components of the blaze was the "shelf" that was cut well below the blaze shield. Into that shelf there was usually a drill hole or other such thing that would mark the actual point on the tree that was the reference point. These points were observed by the surveyor and used in the reinstatement of boundaries.

Blazes were also placed on the sides of trees if the tree was very close, but not on, a boundary line.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about;

Attachment 464954

Blazes are many and varied and I suspect you have an old one.

Feckits comments are correct about the survey practices. The survey regulations changed over time and were certainly quite different between NSW & QLD, however the axe marks are highly unlikely to have been made in association with a cadastral or engineering survey in QLD.

As a surveyor who has worked over literally hundreds of kilometres of cadastral boundary surveys in "cedar country" in FNQ I have almost universally never seen a commercial species such as Red Cedar, QMP, Silky Oak etc "taken" as a corner reference tree (shield and bench with much smaller side shields) or marked as a "near boundary" (single horseshoe shield) or "on boundary" tree (double horseshoe shield in QLD). Most original survey plans frustratingly show "scrub" as the species of reference tree as it was preferable to mark a tree that would escape the timber cutters axe. Old surveyor Hollingsworth who worked on many of the original surveys did "take" trees such as swamp mahogany etc on occasion and I have found surviving examples of such cut in the 1910-1920 period near Jullaten on the northern portion of the Atherton Tableland in the 1980's & 1990's.

The original surveyors were also "valuers" who appraised the country and its natural resources in the conduct of their surveys both for their own payment (higher rates for difficult country), and for the Crown to assess the value of crown rents etc. Mostly they possessed a considerable knowledge of the natural environment.

Secondly the depth and shape of the axe cuts aren't consistent with survey markings, so imo unlikely to have been made in the course of a survey.

You make a very good point. Highly unlikely surveyors would use a "money tree" to act as a marker.

Good Morning Dominic

Thanks for this thread - certainly raises a lot of largely unanswered questions.

First. Looking at the axe marks - they have extremely smoothe edges indicating that a very sharp axe was used, and the blows were expertly landed. This suggests they were done by a professional bushman, not a weekend hacker. My axe, used almost exclusively for splitting firewood, would never cut cleanly like that!

Secondly, Feckit; I know nothing about historical surveying practices, but realise that they had to survey as accurately as possible, and in a way that their work could be replicated by future surveyors. But would surveyors have taken the time to cut as deeply as that?

Thirdly, Rustynail. I have never heard of the use of "double springboards". The board holes that I have seen have been deeper and wider than those in Dominic's photo, presumably to take thicker tree boards more securely. But I do note that the wood between the two board holes has split before the healing. Those board holes then would not support one or two tree boards safely. Could this, alone, be the reason for not felling that tree?

Finally, Dominic. You certainly have a conversation piece here. One option might be to fill the holes with clear epoxy and then make a table top. You could continue this conversation around that table.


Fair Winds

Graeme

When twin boards are used they are usually much thinner than standard tree boards - not much thicker than a fence paling They were either hung round the neck or from the belt by means of a length of cord knotted through a hole towards the heel of each board. When the axeman had finished cutting and jumped down, either to the ground or the next spring board down, he would grab the cord to free the boards on his way past. In the case of a single spring board he would just grab the end of the board as he "fell" back to earth. No time with double boards, its a one pull time line. This action could quite easily crack the centre piece between the two notches and, I could imagine, take out the whole chunk. Small men are usually fine on a single board, big fellas need a wider stride to maintain their equilibrium and some axemen were big boys.

Didn't see this thread first time round, but I agree that the cuts look more like springboard notches than anything else I can think of - different men cut their notches a bit differently, depending on their skill & experience, so they vary a little. As to why the tree was notched but not felled at the time, Rusty is probably on the money - the cutter 'sounded' the tree as he went up and didn't like what he heard so moved on. There could have been any number of other reasons, like they decided it couldn't be felled safely once they got into position because of the likelihood of a hang-up. Where I grew up it wasn't uncommon to see old springboard notches on trees that had been bypassed. Our property was cut over several times for mill logs, the last time being in the early 60s by my father & his brother. Watching the old pot up on a springboard was better than watching ballet, and as Rusty says, when the tree starts to creak & move, you don't waste time getting down! I only ever saw boards used at a 'jumpable' height, but I've seen old photos of cutters 20 feet or more up - what did they do? I'd like to know what the casualty rates were for springboard users!

I can vouch from personal experience that given the amount of work you put into bowling a sizable tree over with axes & "black snakes" (as crosscut saws were known by in my area), you sure as heck didn't waste your time on what may be an inferior log, which would either be refused by the mill inspector or severely down-graded. While experienced cutters were pretty damn good at picking their marks, even they sometimes got it wrong & felled a dud, or bypassed a perfectly good tree that they thought wasn't up to scratch. When there were still a good few trees to choose from, you could afford to be picky on private land, but in State forest, I think you had to cut what was marked regardless of whether you thought it was a good'un or not....

Cheers,

Sounding a tree with an axe is not always accurate. Particularly with soft timber. In modern times the tree is sounded with the tip of the chainsaw being driven straight into the heart to determine if there is rot. Black saw dust and you move on. A bit of a pipe is fine.
Soft trees like cedar require a little more care when felling, so a common practice was to remove the head prior to felling to help prevent felling shakes.
This would require an axeman at considerable height with a series of spring boards to make his way back down, often set up like a spiral staircase.

Originally Posted by rustynail

......Soft trees like cedar require a little more care when felling, so a common practice was to remove the head prior to felling to help prevent felling shakes........

Y'know Rusty, I'd take a lot of convincing of the wisdom of that approach. It may help in some situations, but not sure it would do a lot of good in all situations. I've dropped a lot of trees with a full crown and only a few barrels, so my sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions. However, in every case the barrels accelerated like bullets and hit the ground with a far greater thud than a tree with a full crown. Our mantra used to be that the leaves slow the fall, but even if that is only imagination, the branches hitting the ground first cushion the blow. Getting rid of the branches can make it easier to direct the fall, and should reduce the chance of a hang-up. Now that really slows the fall!

Cheers,

Originally Posted by rustynail

..... In modern times the tree is sounded with the tip of the chainsaw being driven straight in....

Meant to say - haven't they got portable ultra-sound gear yet?

There is yet another possibility as to why the tree was left - the cedar cutters got greedy and were caught in the act of taking an unmarked or "seed tree" so abandoned the felling.

The depth and accuracy of those cuts is impressive and is also why I said unlikely to have been made by a surveyor's chainman. Surveyors axe's in general were more a robust axe, not one suited to making narrow deep cuts. For corner and "mile" reference tree the shields were only ever taken back to heartwood, the side "horseshoe cuts" rarely went to heartwood, so no need for such a fine axe. Chainmen are also notoriously "difficult" and don't like doing any more work than necessary.

Learning to recognize old "grown over" shields is a valuable skill for surveyor's reinstating original surveys. Some trees never fully or even partially grow over the shield, others particularly Euc's can do so in less than a decade, some die rather quickly and yet others will rapidly grow to the point that the "original shield" is found 300mm or more inside the present face of the tree. The bark in the "regrown wood" over the shield on some shows a very distinct "mid rib" over the centre of the shield, others a "ripple effect" over all or a small part of the shield area, and some show no tell tale signs at all. I guess a lot depends upon the age of the tree, its growing conditions, species regenerative properties etc.

Hollingsworth's 1910-20 era swamp mahogany found in the 1990's was on the edge of a small rainforest creek, still fully open, displayed the original "trimming or facing" axe marks, with the chiseled numerals & letters still very crisp. Amazing for 70+ years on a tropical rainforest margin. Hopefully that tree may survive another70 + years.

I have also seen a "whitewood" cut in a similar era out and also connected to in one of my surveys in the early 1990's on a property near Kynuna that had a very unusual tall blaze / shield, well it was still only some 125mm or so in diameter.

Very old shields scars of unknown origin out near Duchess in western QLD were very contentious in a cultural heritage "walk over" until I pointed out that they were made with a steel axe and two of what would have been three "reference trees" were facing the same point in the middle of "road" i.e. not near or facing a property corner. That was a QLD Main Road's survey practice to aid location of survey pegs placed along investigation survey traverses.

Remarkable trees like that stay embeded in a surveyors memory bank as they are rare and impressive. If only we knew the journey that Red Cedar board has been on, where it grew up, who cut it, how it was snigged out …… curiosity?

link to site showing open forest "reference trees" - Survey Reference Trees

Ian, I quite agree, the normal process is to use the crown as a shock absorber. With eucs thats fine. Cedar is a different proposition. Branches leave the the tree at some pretty rakish angles which, when left attached, act as an elbow and often ruin the crotch. Most cedar is growing in pretty dense scrub unless it is a paddock tree. Hang ups are common so the less spread the better. Usually there is a massive thicket of lantana or something similar to cushion the fall.
When it comes to felling money trees every one has to be approached individually. They are all different in structure and the topography is rarely easy.