Jump to content
asr2702

Tooth

Recommended Posts

asr2702

I found this in a local creek bed and feel its a dino tooth, Can anyone validate my find?

TR1.jpg

TR2.jpg

TR3.jpg

TR4.jpg

TR5.jpg

TR6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coco
Handle of a pot of soil ? Made by man ?
 
Coco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asr2702

Not man made

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fossilus

I agree with coco. No enamel or bone texture. Looks like worn pottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

Moved to FOSSIL ID. 

 

It's not a tooth. This item does not exhibit any tooth morphology - does not look like a tooth.

I also agree that there is no enamel on this which is easily seen on fossilized teeth. 

There is also no bone texture visible on this item. 

 

The item does look to me like a pottery handle that has been glazed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Familyroadtrip

I agree with @fossilus and @Coco it looks man made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asr2702

Thank you for your valuable insight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mammathus

Coming it too late. I agree with all. I see nothing that says tooth. But even then, if it's an old pot handle it's still very cool. Now you're an archaeologist! definitely a keep. i found an old Civil War bullet that must have hit a tree and i'm just as excited as if it were a fossil. It's a real piece of history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

As with @Mammathus, the answer has already been provided. But just thought I'd chip in with my 2ct, since I've actually studied archaeology. As such, I've seen lots of pottery shards over my training, and can positively confirm this is a pottery handle. By the worn look of it's surface, I'd say this would originally have been glazed - i.e. not native or early European pottery, but rather 17th-18th century about. Though if you'd really like to know the date, you'd have to contact someone with more experience in local history. European wares were never my specialty, though I do know that the type of glaze applied (thus also the colour that still remains) can be indicative both of where the pottery was originally made as well as the time at which it was produced.

 

So, unfortunately not a fossil or a tooth, but certainly an interesting find no less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asr2702
4 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

As with @Mammathus, the answer has already been provided. But just thought I'd chip in with my 2ct, since I've actually studied archaeology. As such, I've seen lots of pottery shards over my training, and can positively confirm this is a pottery handle. By the worn look of it's surface, I'd say this would originally have been glazed - i.e. not native or early European pottery, but rather 17th-18th century about. Though if you'd really like to know the date, you'd have to contact someone with more experience in local history. European wares were never my specialty, though I do know that the type of glaze applied (thus also the colour that still remains) can be indicative both of where the pottery was originally made as well as the time at which it was produced.

 

So, unfortunately not a fossil or a tooth, but certainly an interesting find no less!

Thank you so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asr2702
4 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

As with @Mammathus, the answer has already been provided. But just thought I'd chip in with my 2ct, since I've actually studied archaeology. As such, I've seen lots of pottery shards over my training, and can positively confirm this is a pottery handle. By the worn look of it's surface, I'd say this would originally have been glazed - i.e. not native or early European pottery, but rather 17th-18th century about. Though if you'd really like to know the date, you'd have to contact someone with more experience in local history. European wares were never my specialty, though I do know that the type of glaze applied (thus also the colour that still remains) can be indicative both of where the pottery was originally made as well as the time at which it was produced.

 

So, unfortunately not a fossil or a tooth, but certainly an interesting find no less!

 

9 hours ago, Mammathus said:

Coming it too late. I agree with all. I see nothing that says tooth. But even then, if it's an old pot handle it's still very cool. Now you're an archaeologist! definitely a keep. i found an old Civil War bullet that must have hit a tree and i'm just as excited as if it were a fossil. It's a real piece of history.

 

Thank you so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×