How I Ruined My First "historical" Find

[SwiftSword]

Two years ago, I found what I thought was my first musket ball on property near the road along which the Minutemen of my town march to join the Battle of Lexington and Concord. I was absolutely ecstatic. This was my first properly old find, History with a capital H, history I could touch! I imagined the last person to have handled this ball before me: knee breeches, buckled shoes – a tricorn hat, for sure!

It didn't bother me that the ball was much too small for an 18th century musket (maybe it was made for a pistol), nor that balls like this had been in use for a hundred years before and after that fateful April morning in 1775.

For the last two years, this ball had pride of place in my collection. But recently I returned to the spot, now a much more seasoned detectorist with better equipment and a more critical mindset. I found three more balls right away. I returned the next day and found five more, all very shallow finds, almost at the surface. A few inches beneath the balls, I found a toy car made in 1955.

This was puzzling. None of the balls had been shot from a gun, though some were clearly damaged by hitting something. Most didn't have the thick, white-brown patina that lead acquires after centuries in the ground. They were all grouped fairly close together on a steep slope, behind a subdivision built in the early sixties. The toy car was buried deeper in undisturbed ground, and therefore predated any of them. Then it dawned on me. These weren't musket balls at all. They were projectiles for a slingshot! Most likely from the sixties or seventies, a time when it was perfectly acceptable for kids to shoot their eyes out with weapons that flung toxic lead balls! I knew this because I had been a 70s kid, and ten-year old me had coveted a slingshot just like this. So here, some kid had set up a plinking range and was flinging lead balls at cans, perhaps, with many balls burying themselves in the slope behind the target.

Ugh, what a disappointment at first! But in the end, I was mostly happy that I figured out the puzzle. In fact, I think it makes a better story. One that illustrates why archeology is all about context, and how objects without context are almost always meaningless – something all metal detectorists should keep in mind! Of course it helps that I've found some real musket balls in the meantime, though not at the Battle Road. They are the larger balls at the top of the picture. These unfired balls were almost certainly dropped by hunters. But who knows – perhaps some of those hunters were also Minutemen?
 

 

[KS Stick]

Cleaning Musket balls just wash them with water and a little Oxi Clean Powder swirl them the dirt will come off and leave the white oxidation Rince with clear water.  I have cleaned 100;s of them this way 

Stick.

[Kodiak]

Great Story

Thanks, Kodiak

[Badger-NH]

Musket balls are so common in New England that there would be no way of knowing if it was from a battle.  Hunters used muskets for over two centuries.

Saying that the things we find are historical can be bad for the hobby as it adds to our bad reputation among archeologists and the general public.

[kac]

The white is lead oxide. Older they are the whiter they become usually. I don't bother cleaning them, just put them in a little baggy for storage.

[relicmeister]

I don’t clean my musket balls. My first really old find was 1804 large cent. Everything I did to it did more damage to the point it was an unrecognizable slug. I now use the hippocratic method - first do no harm. 

[Badger-NH]

I wash off the dirt but leave them white if possible.

 

[Badger-NH]

2 hours ago, relicmeister said:

My first really old find was 1804 large cent. Everything I did to it did more damage to the point it was an unrecognizable slug. I now use the hippocratic method - first do no harm. 

Often the soft copper oxidation will hold the detail while the metal below it has been destroyed. It might be worth it to not clean the coin to save the detail but this can be messy when you have a lot of coppers.

I clean all my coppers. I think they look better cleaned and my hands don't get dirty when handling them.

 

[GB_Amateur]

6 hours ago, relicmeister said:

My first really old find was 1804 large cent. Everything I did to it did more damage to the point it was an unrecognizable slug. I now use the hippocratic method - first do no harm.

That would have been a painful lesson for me given the scarcity/rarity of the 1804 Large Cent.  Likely it didn't have much numismatic value in the condition it was in, but it would still be enjoyable to have something so unusual.  Well, I assume you still have it... 

All USA large cents and half cents were made from 100% copper planchets.  AFAIK no small cents were ever made of 100% copper -- early ones (1856-64) were 88% copper and 1864-1982 were 95% copper.  (I don't recognize anything later as other than trash.  😠)  I do think those with more tin included in the alloy (Indian Heads being typical) are resistant to corrosion -- at least they tend to be more attractive.  But as to whether the alloys are more resistant than pure copper?  Given that the early ones (Largies and Halfies) have been in the ground longer, maybe it's just the time effect that makes the biggest difference in them being more delicate.  18th and early 19th Century coins from other countries (e.g. Great Britain) might help break the stalemate, assuming they were alloys and not pure copper.   (I have no idea of their detailed composition.)  Maybe @kac , @F350Platinum , @Badger-NH , and others here can shed some light given they've found those coins too.

[GB_Amateur]

9 hours ago, Badger-NH said:

That's an amazing number of 150+ year old copper coins!  I see a lot of USA Large Cents but other stuff I don't recognize.  Did you post this just to make the West Coast detectorists envious??