JooJ Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) Not sure what to say about this find other than it found me. Was trecking @+1500 meters the old goat routes in the anti-mount Lebanon range (very narrow and step on 1 side) and at some point, I saw it lying next to a big rock. Any similar fish fossil kind? I was told that many fossils I found in the area are cretacious...nothing confirmed though. Edited January 19, 2020 by JooJ added pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntonia Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 I'm not seeing anything but a suggestively shaped piece of eroded stone. Sorry 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 I agree that its not a fossil but a suggestively eroded rock, probably limestone. It would make a great display piece though the way it natually stands is awesome! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JooJ Posted January 18, 2020 Author Share Posted January 18, 2020 Thank for replies. but a "suggestively shaped piece of eroded stone" does not erode on 1 side (resting side) as such and on the other retain a texture that is not stone. Looking at 25x, the "stone" is anything but one texture wise. Can't add many high res photos here so...Also, lebanon has a great reputation in fish fossil because of the endless internal small caves that lacked Oxygene but had water running on them. Just conversing, although I am more positive about it. I does look amazing stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Not a fossil. Rocks can indeed erode on one side. There is no skull morphology, no bone texture. Weathered limestone, I believe. 2 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JooJ Posted January 18, 2020 Author Share Posted January 18, 2020 I just added a close pic to the other flat side. thin line are perfectly symmetrical on both sides. Given that one side is flatter is because it layed that way but symmetry is very visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 10 hours ago, JooJ said: I just added a close pic to the other flat side. thin line are perfectly symmetrical on both sides. Given that one side is flatter is because it layed that way but symmetry is very visible. This has no features of a skull. It is much to thick and heavy to be any kind of Cretaceous fish. Fish bones are notoriously fragile. This is much too robust to be a fish skull. Again, the lack of bone texture indicates to me that this is not any kind of bone or skull. Fish skulls are made up of multiple plates, and are not solid like your rock. Image from HERE. With a few exceptions, fish skulls are usually preserved as compressed fossils, and less frequently in 3 dimensions. The "symmetry" you point out in the last photo is quite easily explained by weathering action, exposure to water and other elements. Mother nature is a wonderful artist, and she creates some wonderful looking rocks. If you still don't believe us, please take your item to the nearest university or museum and have a qualified paleontologist look at it in hand. 4 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahnmut Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Hello there. Lebanon is also known for beautiful landscapes of Karst erosion. Of course, it is the same limestone that carries the fossils that is shaped by karst erosion, so this is not a contradiction. Without high resolution pics it will not be possible to recognise a fossil in this stone. You can take a closeup of the regions of interest, then a high res pic will not take more server space then a low res one of the whole piece. (speaking in terms of pixels per mm of stone) Best regards J 3 Try to learn something about everything and everything about something Thomas Henry Huxley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 There is an extremely slim chance that a closer look will change our minds, but I agree that this piece just doesn't present the right image to be called a bone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 I see no symmetry of any kind in this rock, bilateral, radial, or translational. Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JooJ Posted January 23, 2020 Author Share Posted January 23, 2020 I have added few more pictures. If more needed just let me know where. I have to say that those fins are symmetrical below the said "head". Slightly twisted in the same direction but mutually exclusive and parallel to each other. Not possible to take high res pic but will be possible in few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Sorry, I still don't see any indication of bone here. Some of the textured area that looks more external I believe is lichen growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 I think it may be a ventifact. 1 Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 That means sand blasted to save another search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thecosmilia Trichitoma Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 It is geological. Here are some examples of what fossil fish from Lebanon look like= It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt -Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JooJ Posted January 24, 2020 Author Share Posted January 24, 2020 thanks. I know hajjoula very well been there so many times (600-750 meters above sea levels). They are a mafia like gang in the 2 villages that take out the fish fossil in this area. and all these fish fossils like you are showing coming from 1super tiny area that is SAFE to check out, security wise. sooooo many other places that have fossils. I have many of these with plants on them picked at an equal & much higher altitude. you have to understand that there are 1000's of mountains in lebanon, it's all mountains next to others. were I was looking was an area near the syrian border (the anti mount lebanon range) hajjoula is in the mount lebanon range. again you might have a completely different idea about lebanon's geography/geology. also since we are mentioning hajjoula, many new fish were unknown before, that should say something. But I hope you were not saying that this is what comes out from Lebanon , therefore this is what everything should be. Finally I am NOT adamant about this piece being a fish or not...I love beautiful rocks and that's why I picked it. thank you for your time to post those pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahnmut Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Of course there may be differently preserved fossils in Lebanon. Sorry to say so, but after the new pictures showing finer detail it still looks like a beautiful product of Karst erosion. I myself have found many "mammal bones" in Karst regions off Mallorca where I used to live as a kid. There where fossils in the same stones, but only of molluscs. The bone shapes where all produkts of erosion, but looking very organic. Some of the "bones" contained shells, what gave them away even back then, now I know that they would not have fit in the time either. Fossils do not only have typical shapes, but also typical structures. Yours got a shape reminding of a fish head, but none of the structure in my opinion. Best Regards, J 2 Try to learn something about everything and everything about something Thomas Henry Huxley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now