Copper tool

[Mintberrycrunch]

Found on a river near known Indian mounds I was hoping copper culture probably wishful thinking any thoughts. Update after sending out a few emails to people dealing in bronze artifacts I may have a lead I'll post the email

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Mintberrycrunch]

I forgot to give them my phone number but I covered everything else

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Mintberrycrunch]

I didn't get any reply. It was worth a shot though.

 

[SkaBa]

I didn't get any reply. It was worth a shot though.

That's too bad. I was hoping they would be interested.

 

[Bruce R]

Maybe they only reply when they actually know what it is ! LOL.

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

Maybe they only reply when they actually know what it is ! LOL.

After I watched a few clips of the show seems like they prove or disprove the history of known items. Not identify unknown objects still was worth a shot

 

[Tnmountains]

Being cast there is probably not another example to compare it with and the person who cast it only knew. My guess was it did not turn out as they wanted and discarded if more material was available. i hammer out stuff in my forge all the time that does not turn out and I chunk it. I feel sorry for the poor soul that should to try to put an I.D on the things I discard.

 

[Bruce R]

Send them an irate email, that works quite often for me, I figure they just can't resist making me out an ass.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Last thing it is nice being able to through around an age of 2000 thousand years and not even one nay sayer. You guys know I'm right this thing is ancient. since everyone could careless I may or may not update this when I do finally figure it out. Just looking for friendly conversation

OK I'll be the naysayer.

I'm not an expert on what you have there. I doubt anyone is but there are a few obvious things that stand out.

I am very experienced in the surface appearance of many antiquities. I've worked with Christies, Bonhams, the British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum and handled more bronzes from the Ancient Egyptians (including King Tut), Chinese Classic Art Period (2000 BC), Luristan (1000 BC), Ancient Roman and modern art pieces than most experts. My best friends for years were the former conservator for the Met and the biggest antiquities dealer in the world. They have both passed now. I've probably handled more bronze from different eras than most art lovers will see in museums and private collections in a lifetime. All verifiable fact - no brag.

The big elephant in the room is the composition of the piece. First of all it's brass - not bronze. The fact that it is brass means that it's no earlier than 1400 AD and most likely to be much much more recent. Native Americans had zero access to zinc so a Native or pre Colombian origin is not a possibility.

The finder states that the ground is overgrown and wet. The location is between a river and a swap. That all points to a high acid, high moisture environment. Considering the brass is high in zinc there is no way this could be an ancient piece or even from the 1600's. There just isn't the surface to justify a long time in this environment. The zinc/copper alloy would have spalled and formed a gray green friable surface within several decades - not centuries much less thousands of years. If the piece was found in a dry alkali desert environment it would be a different story. A dry basement, dump or home site might preserve it somewhat more but a high acid moist environment accelerates the oxidation of the copper and zinc.

Normally when brass oxidizes the zinc will form a protective coating of light gray slightly greenish fibrous looking crystals. This piece seems to have mostly copper oxides (green) that are normally found when brass is exposed to the acids and oils of human hand contact. Or it was treated to a decorative finish. And that may be the biggest clue. Brass has only been used in historic times, the alloy composition leads to the informed conclusion that it's an 1840's or more recent alloy.

Brass is used almost exclusively as an ornamental metal and is most often cast by pouring into a mold. This piece was cast as opposed to being constructed or forged, despite it's resemblance to other forged pieces. There are several casting processes that produce a solid piece with no casting ridges. Lost wax casting comes immediately to mind but there are other methods as well. It could just as easily been finished after casting as most commercial and art pieces are. Bronze castings are often left rough but brass is usually finished.

So we have a recent brass piece (within the last 170 years) that was likely to be have been made for an ornamental purpose. The appearance reminds me of some Max Ernst sculptures, Nassan Gobran or possibly a Daliesque influence (Dali loved curved props with a primitive theme). All these artists had a big influence on modern sculpture and ornamental art. I'm seeing clunky Dada or Surrealist African native art influences more than Victorian or American Native themes. In other words a 20th Century art design. But that's just my 2 cents as far as the appearance.

Or it could just be a broken bottle opener or a piece of a bad brass casting run tossed to the side.

 

[Nitric]

Being cast there is probably not another example to compare it with and the person who cast it only knew. My guess was it did not turn out as they wanted and discarded if more material was available. i hammer out stuff in my forge all the time that does not turn out and I chunk it. I feel sorry for the poor soul that should to try to put an I.D on the things I discard.

I'm going off topic...But this made me laugh!

I bought a couple of forge's a few years back......I thought I was going to use them to melt and refine gold and silver. anyhow, never touched them and have no clue how to do that yet. My dad wanted one of them and beats on metal, burns his fingers, smokes up the whole street, coughs and gags etc...... I think he has visions of making knives and the statue of liberty or something!!!! My point? A lot of stuff has been beat on, twisted up, and gets chucked into the woods especially when hot stuff is accidentally touched with out gloves!!!! Last time I was there he was trying to make nails or something...I told him i'd just go buy him a box of nails! He has a building("forge shop") all kind of tools......And is making a nail?

 

[CRUSADER]

OK I'll be the naysayer.

I'm not an expert on what you have there. I doubt anyone is but there are a few obvious things that stand out.

I am very experienced in the surface appearance of many antiquities. I've worked with Christies, Bonhams, the British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum and handled more bronzes from the Ancient Egyptians (including King Tut), Chinese Classic Art Period (2000 BC), Luristan (1000 BC), Ancient Roman and modern art pieces than most experts. My best friends for years were the former conservator for the Met and the biggest antiquities dealer in the world. They have both passed now. I've probably handled more bronze from different eras than most art lovers will see in museums and private collections in a lifetime. All verifiable fact - no brag.

The big elephant in the room is the composition of the piece. First of all it's brass - not bronze. The fact that it is brass means that it's no earlier than 1400 AD and most likely to be much much more recent. Native Americans had zero access to zinc so a Native or pre Colombian origin is not a possibility.

The finder states that the ground is overgrown and wet. The location is between a river and a swap. That all points to a high acid, high moisture environment. Considering the brass is high in zinc there is no way this could be an ancient piece or even from the 1600's. There just isn't the surface to justify a long time in this environment. The zinc/copper alloy would have spalled and formed a gray green friable surface within several decades - not centuries much less thousands of years. If the piece was found in a dry alkali desert environment it would be a different story. A dry basement, dump or home site might preserve it somewhat more but a high acid moist environment accelerates the oxidation of the copper and zinc.

Normally when brass oxidizes the zinc will form a protective coating of light gray slightly greenish fibrous looking crystals. This piece seems to have mostly copper oxides (green) that are normally found when brass is exposed to the acids and oils of human hand contact. Or it was treated to a decorative finish. And that may be the biggest clue. Brass has only been used in historic times, the alloy composition leads to the informed conclusion that it's an 1840's or more recent alloy.

Brass is used almost exclusively as an ornamental metal and is most often cast by pouring into a mold. This piece was cast as opposed to being constructed or forged, despite it's resemblance to other forged pieces. There are several casting processes that produce a solid piece with no casting ridges. Lost wax casting comes immediately to mind but there are other methods as well. It could just as easily been finished after casting as most commercial and art pieces are. Bronze castings are often left rough but brass is usually finished.

So we have a recent brass piece (within the last 170 years) that was likely to be have been made for an ornamental purpose. The appearance reminds me of some Max Ernst sculptures, Nassan Gobran or possibly a Daliesque influence (Dali loved curved props with a primitive theme). All these artists had a big influence on modern sculpture and ornamental art. I'm seeing clunky Dada or Surrealist African native art influences more than Victorian or American Native themes. In other words a 20th Century art design. But that's just my 2 cents as far as the appearance.

Or it could just be a broken bottle opener or a piece of a bad brass casting run tossed to the side.

I too think its about 200 years old max.
I agree with most of what you say, but the Roman did produce brass objects, mostly coins;
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=b...UQsAQINg&biw=1600&bih=775&safe=active&ssui=on

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

Of course, 'if' you ever get a valid ID we will all be interested, so please update.

But, I'm a nay sayer & stick to my first thoughts of the following date range - 1600-1800.

This was the last date range you gave

 

[CRUSADER]

This was the last date range you gave

So....My gut still thinks about 200 years give or take. My main point is, its NOT ancient.

 

[coinman123]

Probably something made for a very specific utilitarian purpose, that is now unknown, or a random thing made by a bored blacksmith. I doubt it will be possible to solve what it's original purpose was. I recently made a tool mean't to pick goat manure out of the cracks of the floorboard in the barn, chances are no one would have any idea what it was made for in two hundred years. Good luck though!

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

So....My gut still thinks about 200 years give or take. My main point is, its NOT ancient.

I value your opinion but I disagree until the experts come back with the same findings. Or you can find an item made within the last 500 years with the same composition. Not exact but at least containing the same elements in close proportions.

 

[CRUSADER]

I value your opinion but I disagree until the experts come back with the same findings. Or you can find an item made within the last 500 years with the same composition. Not exact but at least containing the same elements in close proportions.

Thats OK, it's only an opinion, as you say.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I value your opinion but I disagree until the experts come back with the same findings. Or you can find an item made within the last 500 years with the same composition. Not exact but at least containing the same elements in close proportions.

How about you producing evidence of a piece of brass with lead as part of it's composition that is more than 200 years old? The lead content of your brass object clearly indicates a machine age or later origination.

The percentages you state as the composition of your piece were derived without exposing fresh metal. I agree with keeping the piece as you found it but surface testing of metal that have been corroded/oxidized will always produce different results than the raw metal as it was cast.

As pointed out by others there have been thousands of different brass compositions used during the machine age that incorporate lead. Very few of those compositions were ever published. Those are known as trade secrets.

Trying to match the exact composition of the corroded/oxidized surface is not a valid test. Weathering changes the surface composition of all metals, some more than others but Copper alloys are well known for significant surface alteration when exposed to air and water. A better test than matching the surface composition would be to establish the earliest period that cast brass had a lead component.

All indications are that the very earliest brass alloys with lead were around 200 years ago. Leaded brass is not a natural alloy and lead has no use in brass unless the brass is intended for machining. There are no known ancient leaded brasses. Show where lead was used in brass more than 200 years ago and you will be on your way to establishing an earlier possible manufacturing date. This is known as researching a piece based on it's physical properties rather than what it might appear to be to the finder.

Another possible piece of the puzzle of age and origin might be solved by finding another object like the one you found. If the two articles are the same in appearance and composition they are likely to have the same origin. Clearly without a very similar object for comparison you can only make wild guesses as to what it's function was. It could be a Pigmy double nostril booger picker, an antigravity key or a trivet. It's all just speculation.

The provenance of the piece is another clue. You found the piece in North America in a wet area with a lot of vegetation. As I pointed out in an earlier post the surface patina of your object is not indicative of being exposed to that environment for a long period of time. The object was recently lost or buried.

The find being in North America and composed of brass strongly points to a modern manufacture. Unless the piece was brought from a foreign land with a previously unknown ancient leaded brass industry and recently dropped or buried where you found it the odds are very high that it is a modern piece manufactured in the last 140 years.

Belief is a funny thing. Humans can believe in things that are easily demonstrated to be impossible. For example I believe that with enough knowledge and caring there can be peace on earth. Yeah it's silly and obviously isn't going to happen but I do keep that bit of nonsense close to my heart and it makes me feel better. Notice that I keep that in my heart for my feelings. I don't use my mind to try to support that silly belief and I know it's just a feeling and not a fact. I find it helpful if I limit my beliefs to a few good things and let the rest rely on good old knowledge, fact and logic.

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

How about you producing evidence of a piece of brass with lead as part of it's composition that is more than 200 years old? The lead content of your brass object clearly indicates a machine age or later origination.

The percentages you state as the composition of your piece were derived without exposing fresh metal. I agree with keeping the piece as you found it but surface testing of metal that have been corroded/oxidized will always produce different results than the raw metal as it was cast.

As pointed out by others there have been thousands of different brass compositions used during the machine age that incorporate lead. Very few of those compositions were ever published. Those are known as trade secrets.

Trying to match the exact composition of the corroded/oxidized surface is not a valid test. Weathering changes the surface composition of all metals, some more than others but Copper alloys are well known for significant surface alteration when exposed to air and water. A better test than matching the surface composition would be to establish the earliest period that cast brass had a lead component.

All indications are that the very earliest brass alloys with lead were around 200 years ago. Leaded brass is not a natural alloy and lead has no use in brass unless the brass is intended for machining. There are no known ancient leaded brasses. Show where lead was used in brass more than 200 years ago and you will be on your way to establishing an earlier possible manufacturing date. This is known as researching a piece based on it's physical properties rather than what it might appear to be to the finder.

Another possible piece of the puzzle of age and origin might be solved by finding another object like the one you found. If the two articles are the same in appearance and composition they are likely to have the same origin. Clearly without a very similar object for comparison you can only make wild guesses as to what it's function was. It could be a Pigmy double nostril booger picker, an antigravity key or a trivet. It's all just speculation.

The provenance of the piece is another clue. You found the piece in North America in a wet area with a lot of vegetation. As I pointed out in an earlier post the surface patina of your object is not indicative of being exposed to that environment for a long period of time. The object was recently lost or buried.

The find being in North America and composed of brass strongly points to a modern manufacture. Unless the piece was brought from a foreign land with a previously unknown ancient leaded brass industry and recently dropped or buried where you found it the odds are very high that it is a modern piece manufactured in the last 140 years.

Belief is a funny thing. Humans can believe in things that are easily demonstrated to be impossible. For example I believe that with enough knowledge and caring there can be peace on earth. Yeah it's silly and obviously isn't going to happen but I do keep that bit of nonsense close to my heart and it makes me feel better. Notice that I keep that in my heart for my feelings. I don't use my mind to try to support that silly belief and I know it's just a feeling and not a fact. I find it helpful if I limit my beliefs to a few good things and let the rest rely on good old knowledge, fact and logic.

You make posts like my ex texts. The experts I've talked to seem to think its ancient. And you're wrong about simallar compositions only being used within the last 140 years. If it was made within the last 140 years it wouldn't be such a mystery.

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

agree with me or not. This guy is about 2000 years off on his time line of the first copper zinc based alloys. I don't have **** to prove to clay. I'm presenting evidence he's the one trying to prove a point.

 

[CRUSADER]

agree with me or not. This guy is about 2000 years off on his time line of the first copper zinc based alloys. I don't have **** to prove to clay. I'm presenting evidence he's the one trying to prove a point.

In which point you shouldn't rely on 'Experts' which are un-named.

 

[CRUSADER]

You make posts like my ex texts. The experts I've talked to seem to think its ancient. And you're wrong about simallar compositions only being used within the last 140 years. If it was made within the last 140 years it wouldn't be such a mystery.

We can all talk.