Chewed musket balls?

[Oxgirl36]

Hi Wigeon the picture of mine are of late 17th century an a lot aren't that well cast, I don't find many with the sprue. Now I've found hundreds of early 19th century balls at a firing range and they are a lot better quality! An all the same size. Interestingly you said about waterlogged ground all the ones in the picture have been under water every winter as it floods on Sedgemoor.

Thanks Littleboot that's interesting, I make fishing leads an lead that's solid is always the same hardness, all I know is I have good teeth but they wouldn't be after biting down on a musket ball, I think a lot of unfired balls we find have been fired but not hit a target an as long as they don't hit a stone on the ground an land in grass there in good condition, interestingly I saw a documentary on Waterloo with a skeleton that had been buried with a French musket ball in the body an the ball was in surprisingly good shape! No real damage as you would expect.

sorry for being a bit stupid but does that mean a casting spur as in picture supplied

No completely different marks. I made s post somewhere. I’ll go look

[Oxgirl36]

I’ve found pretty much every type on one civil war site. Some burred, some with teeth mark, none with corrosion pitting though.

It’s hard to photograph the difference between burred ones and ones with teeth mark but, in the hand they are obviously different.

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=115997&p=1024827&h ... e#p1024827

[pakeha]

I used to fire black powder rifle,target only,when I lived in NZ.Perhaps they could be caused by the ramrod.You use a short starter to engage the ball then the long ramrod to push it right down the barrel.Starter and ramrod ends are concave,though after time they may have worn,so perhaps this is what could cause so called teeth marks.

[Oxgirl36]

I used to fire black powder rifle,target only,when I lived in NZ.Perhaps they could be caused by the ramrod.You use a short starter to engage the ball then the long ramrod to push it right down the barrel.Starter and ramrod ends are concave,though after time they may have worn,so perhaps this is what could cause so called teeth marks.

No they are teeth marks. Human? Animal? There’s lot of conjecture along with the reasons behind it

Personally I think it’s a mix of bored soldiers chewing them and some bad boys who gave then rolled them in manure, etc. to create infection too. It’s a mix of stuff and, on my site, represents less than 1% of all the balls I’ve found.

[Wigeon]

I’ve found pretty much every type on one civil war site. Some burred, some with teeth mark, none with corrosion pitting though.

It’s hard to photograph the difference between burred ones and ones with teeth mark but, in the hand they are obviously different.

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=115997&p=1024827&h ... e#p1024827

That is certainly a very interesting and productive site you have there .

I am currently sceptical on the whole question of chewed musket balls but always open to changing my view in the lights of evidence.

The 'chewed' musket balls that I have been show have left me thinking 'miscast, plough or other damage + corrosion' however I have usually kept my thoughts to myself.

If you have any contacts with Oxford Archaeology https://oxfordarchaeology.com/about, it would be very interesting to submit those that you consider to be definitely chewed or bitten for expert examination. There may be other options such as the Royal Armouries ?

As other MDF members have musket balls that they consider to be definitely 'chewed', perhaps we could make a joint submission to Oxford Archaeology and share the cost ? I would certainly contribute.

My current thinking is that 'chewed' musket balls are akin to those wonderful freaks of natural flint that so frustratingly resemble arrow head and other tools. I would take great delight in being proved completely wrong though.