Gettysburg bone saw

[2ndDEboy]

Bone saw found on the Gettysburg battlefield soon after the battle given the shape formally of the rosensteel collection this is a disston saw made in Philadelphia

 

[oddballaffliction]

Is there a mark on it?

 

[R. Porter]

Apparently there is a long running discussion as to whether this is a Civil War period bone saw or a Civil War period bread knife.

I believe this is the item that is said to have been misidentified as a bone saw in Francis Lord's Civil War Collector's Encyclopedia though the comment is not illustrated, so I could be wrong about that.

OldTools Archive

oldtools.swingleydev.com

Here it is identified as a bread knife:

Early Civil War Era Bread Knife - 96215

11 inch blade. Unmarked. Probably DISSTON.

www.jimbodetools.com

Here it is identified as an amputation bread saw knife (yep, that's what it says):

L349-ANTIQUE Pre-CIVIL WAR DISSTON & TOLAND AMPUTATION BREAD SAW KNIFE 1840s | #1919591206

You’re bidding on a(n) ANTIQUE Pre-CIVIL WAR DISSTON & TOLAND AMPUTATION BREAD SAW KNIFE 1840sWas made as a bread knife or camp saw but IN VOLUME 4 OF THE CIVIL WAR COLLECTOR'S ENCYCLOPEDIA SHOWS THES

www.worthpoint.com

Here it is called a kitchen saw and is said to have been made from 1860 to the 1940's:

Kitchen Saw Recreated

forums.woodnet.net

 

[R. Porter]

There is a discussion on a forum, link below, about this saw. Both kitchen use and medical use are proposed with re-purposing suggested.

H&C Disston Saw Knife

The ebay rumour is that it was used as an amputation saw during the civil war, but the Disston's, "The Saw in History" (1926) refers to it as follows: A tool that is classed with these bone and meat-cutting saws, and yet is more than a saw is the Saw-knife. This is a knife with double-cutting...

www.kitchenknifeforums.com

 

[Conquerordie]

I don't know if it's a bone saw or not. I've never sawn through bone either, but the handle looks to like it would be uncomfortable to saw through anything that would be hard. I think more of a hacksaw style handle for that. On the other hand, why would you need such fine teeth to cut bread? You would perhaps to cleanly cut something hard, like bone.

 

[2ndDEboy]

I don't know if it's a bone saw or not. I've never sawn through bone either, but the handle looks to like it would be uncomfortable to saw through anything that would be hard. I think more of a hacksaw style handle for that. On the other hand, why would you need such fine teeth to cut bread? You would perhaps to cleanly cut something hard, like bone.

I confirmed with the medical museum in Frederick Maryland these are a type of federal bone saw

 

[R. Porter]

From a website on Disston saws:

Q. I have a saw that looks like a really large hacksaw, labeled Disston and Sons, USA. Overall length is 29 inches. Saw blade length is 24 inches and the blade is 1 inch wide. A. The meat saw was manufactured by Disston from the 1850's until 1955. The earliest ones are labeled H&C Disston. Charles Disston was Henry's brother. A butchering saw is a commonly-found tool. They regularly get labeled Civil War-era surgeon's amputation saws on Ebay, but those are not common, and 99 out of 100 of butchers' saws were never used for surgery on a human. The sale of an old item is often helped with a good story. Not every tiara was worn by a queen, most guns never killed anyone, and that saddle probably was not made for a unicorn.

This is for a hacksaw style saw rather than the one under discussion. There is also some mention of makers marks on the blade that might suggest a time frame for manufacture.

Online Reference of Disston Saws -- Frequently Asked Questions

identifying and dating disston saws

www.disstonianinstitute.com

 

[2ndDEboy]

From a website on Disston saws:

Q. I have a saw that looks like a really large hacksaw, labeled Disston and Sons, USA. Overall length is 29 inches. Saw blade length is 24 inches and the blade is 1 inch wide. View attachment 554255​ A. The meat saw was manufactured by Disston from the 1850's until 1955. The earliest ones are labeled H&C Disston. Charles Disston was Henry's brother. A butchering saw is a commonly-found tool. They regularly get labeled Civil War-era surgeon's amputation saws on Ebay, but those are not common, and 99 out of 100 of butchers' saws were never used for surgery on a human. The sale of an old item is often helped with a good story. Not every tiara was worn by a queen, most guns never killed anyone, and that saddle probably was not made for a unicorn.

This is for a hacksaw style saw rather than the one under discussion. There is also some mention of makers marks on the blade that might suggest a time frame for manufacture.

Online Reference of Disston Saws -- Frequently Asked Questions

identifying and dating disston saws

www.disstonianinstitute.com

Thank you for the information I truly appreciate the resources sir

 

[delta rifles]

Here is a rendering of your saw and a description of its use in The History of the Saw: A Comprehensive Description of the Development of This Most Useful of Tools From the Earlist Times Down to Present Day. Philadephia: Henry Disston & Sons, 1916. Here is a link to the entire book: https://archive.org/details/sawinhi...story00henrrich/page/n3/mode/2up?view=theater

This was the earliest reference I could find made by Disston about the saw. The form of the saw pre-dates this publication, but I figured this would be useful as a general guide as to how Disston categorized its saws.

 

[2ndDEboy]

Here is a rendering of your saw and a description of its use in The History of the Saw: A Comprehensive Description of the Development of This Most Useful of Tools From the Earlist Times Down to Present Day. Philadephia: Henry Disston & Sons, 1916. Here is a link to the entire book: https://archive.org/details/sawinhi...story00henrrich/page/n3/mode/2up?view=theater

This was the earliest reference I could find made by Disston about the saw. The form of the saw pre-dates this publication, but I figured this would be useful as a general guide as to how Disston categorized its saws.

View attachment 554273
View attachment 554274

Makes sense
There were alot of cattle in Gettysburg this was picked up off the battlefield by Iva Rosensteel after the battle so who knows could have been used to cut humans or beef cattle lol

 

[R. Porter]

Here is a link to a catalog from 1899 with lots of illustrations of medical instruments, including saws, along with their prices.

Surgical instruments

www.google.com

 

[JoeCollector]

I noticed the five digit ID number (15976) on the handle. Is this a ID for an old museum collection? Do others have this type of markings on their relics? Just curious.

 

[2ndDEboy]

I noticed the five digit ID number (15976) on the handle. Is this a ID for an old museum collection? Do others have this type of markings on their relics? Just curious.

Yes this was found on the Gettysburg battlefield by Iva Rosensteel just after the battle ended

 

[2ndDEboy]

This lnifr

Apparently there is a long running discussion as to whether this is a Civil War period bone saw or a Civil War period bread knife.

I believe this is the item that is said to have been misidentified as a bone saw in Francis Lord's Civil War Collector's Encyclopedia though the comment is not illustrated, so I could be wrong about that.

OldTools Archive

oldtools.swingleydev.com

Here it is identified as a bread knife:

Early Civil War Era Bread Knife - 96215

11 inch blade. Unmarked. Probably DISSTON.

www.jimbodetools.com

Here it is identified as an amputation bread saw knife (yep, that's what it says):

L349-ANTIQUE Pre-CIVIL WAR DISSTON & TOLAND AMPUTATION BREAD SAW KNIFE 1840s | #1919591206

You’re bidding on a(n) ANTIQUE Pre-CIVIL WAR DISSTON & TOLAND AMPUTATION BREAD SAW KNIFE 1840sWas made as a bread knife or camp saw but IN VOLUME 4 OF THE CIVIL WAR COLLECTOR'S ENCYCLOPEDIA SHOWS THES

www.worthpoint.com

Here it is called a kitchen saw and is said to have been made from 1860 to the 1940's:

Kitchen Saw Recreated

forums.woodnet.net

there is a noticeable difference in this knife and mine I do not believe they are same although u see one match but the other is for a different knife shape thank you for the link

 

[R. Porter]

I contacted the National Museum of Civil War Medicine in Frederick, Maryland, and provided them with a link to this discussion thread asking about the saw in the original post. This was the response they sent back:

----------------------------------
Thank you for your inquiry to the National Museum of Civil War Medicine concerning the saw in the online discussion. Most Civil War medical saws had handles that were either pistol grip or with a large cut-out handle, like modern wood saws, which made them easier to control. These handles were made of ivory, very hard wood (usually ebony), or bone.

We would not have identified this saw as an amputation saw. I cannot be positive, but my guess is that this is a kitchen saw, possibly made by Disston.

I hope this has been helpful.

Sincerely,
Terry Reimer
Director of Research
National Museum of Civil War Medicine
[email protected]
-----------------------------------

Is there another medical museum in Frederick, Maryland, that you contacted about the saw?

 

[2ndDEboy]

Respectfully, you and others missed the wording of my original post and are under a general assumption with this saw however with this particular saw and the history of this saw from the battlefield it was found on . Generally speaking experts and museum personal are wrong in some cases and still have a lot to learn as that is education and the beauty of history. So while the head of the institution would not label this an amputation saw but in my original post I call it a bone saw to classify it under a variety of uses. Yes very much same place you just mentioned.rather I not mention the employee I spoke with I mentioned the place and I will not mention the employee I spoke with over a public forum. If you research this saw it is in fact a bone saw used for animals in the army or in dire times used on humans

Respectfully, I would suggest you read a book or two specifically about the aftermath pertaining to the battle of Gettysburg as this saw was found somewhere on the battlefield. the dead and wounded left for months after where as field hospitals were so overcrowded with wounded men I bet not only surgeons were overwhelmed that they employed privates and other military men with a variety of bone saws or any kind of saw to cut bone to perform amputations including kitchen bone saws used for animals

This particular style of saw is a federal variety (possibly captured used by Rebs we don't know) as the (Rebs would have used non army regulation tools in dire situations and also the Reb army used a lot of non regulation items and captured federal gear) this style of saw would have been with the army quartermaster department for cutting up livestock to feed the soldiers and I'm sure used for other purposes after a very large battle with roughly 33,000 wounded so could this saw may have been used for human amputations or this saw could have been used for cutting up dead horses as nearly 5,000-10,000 (depending on source) dead horses littered the battlefield. there is a very high possibility given what we know about the aftermath and hospital situations with Gettysburg. Is it in fact a bone saw yes it is

In conclusion the battle of Gettysburg was in fact a horrible ordeal but the aftermath was much much worse then the battle itself. More so the history of this saw will never be truly known and it may not be a proper amputation saw under definition of the medical people and field, BUT as this saw is from the Gettysburg battlefield, and it's a bone saw. One could argue it was used for amputations in dire situations or used to cutting horses to make a large animal as that much easier to move around and in that case would a medical saw be used on a dead horse probably not due to contamination. So the use of this particular saw during and after the battle is endless forgot to mention it could have been used to cut tree limbs for making of breast works during the battle.

Thank you for all your input about this saw and many others

Thank you for your info

 

[delta rifles]

I confirmed with the medical museum in Frederick Maryland these are a type of federal bone saw

Respectfully, you and others missed the wording of my original post and are under a general assumption with this saw however with this particular saw and the history of this saw from the battlefield it was found on

I am not trying to create an argument here, but you quite literally called it a federal bone saw a week ago in one of your posts in this very thread.

There is a very big difference between cutting through a bone of a dead animal and the bone of a live human. Could it have been done? I assume so, but calling this a federal bone saw is quite disingenuous. I could use a rock to tamp down a nail in an emergency situation, but it would make no sense for me to call it a hammer.

There is no concrete proof that linking this saw to actual medical use on the battlefield, and that is why you are getting blowback. In fact, the descriptions provided by the Disston Company, the opinions of actual medical history professionals and the very science behind the construction of the saw itself runs contrary to its use as an instrument of medical instrument altogether.

The issue I have with calling this an amputation saw other than the fact that the Disston Company itself didn't call it that is its construction:

1. The handle would make a clean cut on a live bone problematic to say the least.
2. The TPI (teeth per inch) on the blade would cause pretty substantial chipping along the bone. I do not know if you have ever done any woodworking with hand tools, but there is a reason why there are a whole range of tools for specific purposes. You would not use a dovetail saw to rip a board and vice-versa. Saws are constructed for specific purposes, and the teeth are set for those purposes specifically.

 

[2ndDEboy]

Here is a link to a catalog from 1899 with lots of illustrations of medical instruments, including saws, along with their prices.

https://www.google.com/books/editio...cutaneous+saw&pg=PA9&printsec=frontcover[/URL

http://

I am not trying to create an argument here, but you quite literally called it a federal bone saw a week ago in one of your posts in this very thread.

There is a very big difference between cutting through a bone of a dead animal and the bone of a live human. Could it have been done? I assume so, but calling this a federal bone saw is quite disingenuous. I could use a rock to tamp down a nail in an emergency situation, but it would make no sense for me to call it a hammer.

There is no concrete proof that linking this saw to actual medical use on the battlefield, and that is why you are getting blowback. In fact, the descriptions provided by the Disston Company, the opinions of actual medical history professionals and the very science behind the construction of the saw itself runs contrary to its use as an instrument of medical instrument altogether.

The issue I have with calling this an amputation saw other than the fact that the Disston Company itself didn't call it that is its construction:

1. The handle would make a clean cut on a live bone problematic to say the least.
2. The TPI (teeth per inch) on the blade would cause pretty substantial chipping along the bone. I do not know if you have ever done any woodworking with hand tools, but there is a reason why there are a whole range of tools for specific purposes. You would not use a dovetail saw to rip a board and vice-versa. Saws are constructed for specific purposes, and the teeth are set for those purposes specifically.

yes federal bone saw I called never I directly called it a amputation saw….made in Philadelphia and most likely issued to the federal army for cutting up livestock technically it's a federal bone saw what I called it again you failed to read my original post and a few more of my responses. For this particular saw found on the Gettysburg battlefield take care

 

[2ndDEboy]

I am not trying to create an argument here, but you quite literally called it a federal bone saw a week ago in one of your posts in this very thread.

There is a very big difference between cutting through a bone of a dead animal and the bone of a live human. Could it have been done? I assume so, but calling this a federal bone saw is quite disingenuous. I could use a rock to tamp down a nail in an emergency situation, but it would make no sense for me to call it a hammer.

There is no concrete proof that linking this saw to actual medical use on the battlefield, and that is why you are getting blowback. In fact, the descriptions provided by the Disston Company, the opinions of actual medical history professionals and the very science behind the construction of the saw itself runs contrary to its use as an instrument of medical instrument altogether.

The issue I have with calling this an amputation saw other than the fact that the Disston Company itself didn't call it that is its construction:

1. The handle would make a clean cut on a live bone problematic to say the least.
2. The TPI (teeth per inch) on the blade would cause pretty substantial chipping along the bone. I do not know if you have ever done any woodworking with hand tools, but there is a reason why there are a whole range of tools for specific purposes. You would not use a dovetail saw to rip a board and vice-versa. Saws are constructed for specific purposes, and the teeth are set for those purposes specifically.

So are you calling union drummer boy wrong??? A world respected and renowned expert dealer in civil war antiques this is the same style saw

 

[2ndDEboy]

I am not trying to create an argument here, but you quite literally called it a federal bone saw a week ago in one of your posts in this very thread.

There is a very big difference between cutting through a bone of a dead animal and the bone of a live human. Could it have been done? I assume so, but calling this a federal bone saw is quite disingenuous. I could use a rock to tamp down a nail in an emergency situation, but it would make no sense for me to call it a hammer.

There is no concrete proof that linking this saw to actual medical use on the battlefield, and that is why you are getting blowback. In fact, the descriptions provided by the Disston Company, the opinions of actual medical history professionals and the very science behind the construction of the saw itself runs contrary to its use as an instrument of medical instrument altogether.

The issue I have with calling this an amputation saw other than the fact that the Disston Company itself didn't call it that is its construction:

1. The handle would make a clean cut on a live bone problematic to say the least.
2. The TPI (teeth per inch) on the blade would cause pretty substantial chipping along the bone. I do not know if you have ever done any woodworking with hand tools, but there is a reason why there are a whole range of tools for specific purposes. You would not use a dovetail saw to rip a board and vice-versa. Saws are constructed for specific purposes, and the teeth are set for those purposes specifically.

I found this online as well