Delete comment from: Boston 1775
If rfuller is right about the ball mould being a .62 calibre, it could easily have been used by any number of fowling pieces and not just a pistol. From my recollection of the many accounts of April 19th there are references to "ancient" flintlocks being used by the local militias on that day. Of course "ancient" is a relative term, but certainly doglocks and fowling pieces of all sorts (perhaps going back to the first quarter of the century) fit the bill along with older military style muskets (perhaps from any one of the previous French wars that were "issued" to provincial militias).
Is rfuller saying the balls that were found had wrapped paper around them (I'd find that hard to believe) or is the reference simply to how ball was made up for cartridges? I suspect the latter. Anyway, I do not recall a reference to pistols being carried by the local militias that day, but that doesn't mean they weren't, and I might not be remembering all I've read from original documents. I do recall pistol references in relationship to officers of the Regulars, but that, in and of itself, doesn't mean the mould or the ball that were found came from either side. When we do not know for sure, one can only speculate the mould came from a local militia man. Although the odds may suggest that more so than a Regular soldier.
I guess my point is, when one doesn't "know," one should be clear that they are only speculating when they make certain statements. rfuller states "The ball size is for a pistol of the time, probably .62 calbre or smaller..." and then goes on to say "The mould also looks, from it's proportions, rather small; if the ball size is 38 cal or smaller..." Which is it .62 or .38? Is rfuller personally familiar with the find, or is he just looking at the photo as we are? I'm confused by these statements, which make it clear there is only speculation going on here.
It's hard for me to understand just what has transpired between paragraph 2 and 3 by rfuller. If the mould and other artifacts were found at a site of action on April 19th, why would someone jump to the conclusion the mould would be from a rubbish pile or dropped by a hunter. Of course it's possible, but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion in my opening statement, and that's what has happened here. What is the evidence for either? Is there a period house site nearby where a rubbish pile would be found? Rubbish piles don't just show up randomly. They actually have a purpose and can be associated with sites of human habitation, either temporary or long term. Considering the action of the day, a hunter is far fetched in my mind, but let's look at the odds of a hunter dropping his mould at a site where some military action took place. Okay, I don't have real evidence one way or the other (and neither does rfuller), and one could argue that I'm speculating, and they would be right, but I'm going with the odds.
Well, enough of my rant. I think you get my point. If you don't "know," admit it and look for more clues. In this case, you have a bullet mould and musket balls from a site that is being dug for a specific purpose (Is it the site of Parkers Revenge?), nothing more. What are the clues to say yes or no? That's what people are looking for. With that information, one needs to clearly state what it is you're speculation (best guess) is about these objects and not present one's best guess as fact. An artifact out of the ground has no story of it's own. It is just an object, nothing more. While the object can be identified, it has to be placed in the context of where it was found, and only after further research can one make reasonable assumptions of where it came from, how it was used and if you're lucky, you might figure out who used it, when and why. Only further hard research develops the story of an object..., if you are really lucky.
Aug 25, 2011, 7:03:39 PM
Posted to Archeological Findings along Battle Road