Mystery Artifact

[Allegheny]

For a bit of fun, I asked ChatGPT to figure out what it may be.
I have very little confidence in this tool set as it often comes up with absurd responses when I post challenging questions to it.
The only thing I use it for is checking my grammar on important documents.

So let the fun begin:

====================================================================

I am going to load a picture. This item was found in a sunken 1784 British Warship by some archeologists. They are trying to identify what it is. Could you please give me your top 5 opinions? Note that there are some makings on the item.



Stopped thinking
This is a very intriguing artifact. Based on the shape, material, cutouts, and the apparent engraved marking (“MELA” or possibly “M:ELA”), here are my top five possibilities for what it may be from a 1784 British warship context:

---

1. Decorative Brass Sleeve or Ferrule (Most Likely)​

This may be a brass ferrule — a reinforcing or decorative sleeve fitted around:

• a telescope,
• spyglass,
• knife handle,
• powder tool,
• officer’s baton,
• or a naval instrument.

The pierced “hourglass” cutouts may have been decorative rather than functional. The engraved letters could be:

• an owner’s initials,
• a maker’s abbreviation,
• or part of a longer word/name now lost.

Why this fits:

• Brass was common aboard Royal Navy vessels.
• Officers often owned decorated personal equipment.
• The object appears rolled from thin sheet brass.

---

2. Part of a Naval Lanthorn (Lantern) Vent or Guard​

The cutout pattern resembles ventilation openings seen in:

• candle lanterns,
• powder-safe lamps,
• or protective guards around flame sources.

The symmetrical openings could allow:

• airflow,
• light diffusion,
• or heat escape.

Why this fits:

• Ships carried many brass lantern fittings.
• The folded sheet construction is consistent with lighting hardware.
• The warship environment required specialized flame-control devices.

---

3. Decorative Mount from a Sword, Dirk, or Firearm Accessory​

It could be part of:

• a scabbard throat,
• pistol accessory,
• cartridge tool,
• or sword belt fitting.

The cutouts may once have exposed:

• leather,
• velvet,
• wood,
• or another inner material.

Why this fits:

• Officers’ weapons frequently had pierced brass ornamentation.
• The dimensions seem compatible with hand-held equipment.

---

4. Musical Instrument Component (Bosun or Fife-Related)​

The shape and rolled construction somewhat resemble fittings from:

• a fife,
• pipe case,
• bosun’s whistle accessory,
• or instrument holder.

The openings may have been intended for:

• resonance,
• grip,
• or decorative presentation.

Why this fits:

• Naval vessels carried fifers and signaling instruments.
• Personal engraved items were common.

---

5. Early Naval Optical Device Component​

This could potentially be from:

• a spyglass,
• viewing tube,
• navigation aid,
• or protective cover for optics.

The opposing cutouts might have reduced weight or improved grip while maintaining rigidity.

Why this fits:

• Brass optical fittings were extremely common in the 18th century.
• The rolled cylindrical form strongly suggests it once fit over another object.

---

Additional Observations​

Material​

The artifact appears to be:

• brass,
• bronze,
• or heavily patinated copper alloy.

That is highly consistent with Royal Navy shipboard objects from the early 1700s.

---

The Marking: “MELA”​

The inscription is extremely important.

Possibilities include:

• a maker’s mark,
• abbreviated surname,
• ownership initials,
• or partial Latin/Italian/French wording.

“MELA” might relate to:

• a craftsman,
• a naval supplier,
• or even a shortened name such as Melas, Meller, or Mela.

If archaeologists can obtain:

• a sharper macro image,
• raking light photography,
• or X-ray fluorescence scans,
  it may reveal whether additional letters are missing.

---

My Overall Best Guess​

My strongest instinct is that this is:

a decorative brass sleeve/ferrule from a personal naval instrument or officer’s accessory.

The craftsmanship and symmetrical piercing feel more decorative than purely industrial.

If you would like, I can also:

• compare it to known 18th-century Royal Navy artifacts,
• analyze the engraving style,
• estimate the original full shape,
• or produce a reconstruction sketch of what the complete object may have looked like.

========================================================================




Ok thanks, one person thought is was an hour glass holder similar to this. What are your thoughts?


Yes — after seeing this comparison image, I think the “hourglass holder” theory becomes substantially stronger, possibly even the leading interpretation.

The similarities are actually quite striking.

Here’s why:

---

Strong Points Supporting the Hourglass Holder Theory​

1. The Shape Matches Extremely Well​

Your artifact has:

• a rolled cylindrical body,
• large opposing cutouts,
• narrowing toward the center,
• and reinforced ends.

That is very consistent with protective hourglass frames from the 17th–18th centuries.

The cutouts would:

• allow visibility of the sand,
• reduce weight,
• and protect the glass bulbs from impact.

The “waisted” opening is especially telling.

---

2. Naval Use of Sand Glasses Was Extensive​

A 1734 British warship would have carried many sandglasses for:

• timing watches,
• navigation,
• dead reckoning,
• speed measurement,
• and gun drill timing.

Common naval glasses included:

• 30-second glasses,
• half-minute log glasses,
• 28-second glasses,
• and half-hour watch glasses.

Because they were constantly handled aboard rolling ships, protective brass holders made practical sense.

---

3. Brass Was Ideal for Marine Conditions​

Brass resisted:

• salt corrosion,
• humidity,
• and wear.

Naval instrument makers frequently used:

• brass,
• bronze,
• and copper alloys.

The patina on your artifact fits this environment perfectly.

---

4. The Size Seems Appropriate​

Your object appears roughly consistent with:

• a handheld or mounted sandglass frame.

The surviving example you posted is somewhat more refined and elongated, but stylistic variations were common over decades and between makers.

---

5. The Engraving May Indicate Ownership or Maker​

The “MELA” marking could fit:

• a maker’s signature,
• owner’s initials,
• or an abbreviated surname.

Instrument makers often marked navigational or timing equipment.

---

One Important Difference​

The major question is:

Where are the end fittings or retention features?​

Most hourglass holders:

• either screw apart,
• have retaining rings,
• or include internal shoulders holding the glass in place.

Your artifact appears somewhat cruder and more compressed.

However:

• corrosion,
• crushing from sinking,
• or missing attached components
  could explain this.

It is also possible the glass itself shattered long ago and only the sleeve survived.

---

My Revised Ranking​

After seeing your comparison image:

1. Hourglass / sandglass protective holder ← now my leading theory
2. Decorative sleeve for navigational instrument
3. Lantern or lighting component
4. Weapon/accessory mount
5. Optical instrument component

---

Additional Historical Clue​

British naval sandglasses from the early 1700s are actually somewhat underrepresented archaeologically because:

• the glass rarely survives intact,
• brass fittings were often salvaged,
• and wooden mounts decayed.

So a surviving brass sleeve from a shipwreck would be a meaningful find.

---

My Overall Assessment​

I would now estimate there is a fairly good probability this object was associated with:

a marine sandglass (hourglass) used aboard the ship.

The opposing windows and cylindrical sleeve construction align very naturally with that function.

If you'd like, I can also:

• compare this against known Royal Navy sandglass artifacts,
• estimate the original dimensions of the glass,
• identify what type of shipboard timing glass it may have been,
• or create a reconstruction drawing showing how your artifact may originally have looked complete.

 

[AllanKP69]

were copper joints leader or rolled closed back then

Great question. This hourglass holder looks to have rolled seams. Thanks for all the responses!
I guess I need to schedule another day trip to the museum to get into more details. There are many other questions that have arisen since I was there last week.

maybe a night time piss pot?

A piss pot (bed pan) was also recovered from the 1748 Fowey wreck but looks quite different. These were usually part of the surgeon's stores.

 

[paul ron]

the scratched in lettering looks to me as M. R.T. A.

Id say the owners name. a maker's mark would have been less conspicuous.

 

[AllanKP69]

The book Fowey Lost and Found say that the piece has M. Flamand on it. I cannot find the muster list to see who Flamand was on what position he held on board. There may be the list at the National Archives in Kew, but I have had no success in finding it so far.
Allan