patrickhudson Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 I posted a similar “horn” recently that didn’t get much resolution. Here’s another one with a few more pics. Indonesia (supposedly), found alongside megs in some type of wash pile/hill (supposedly). thoughts? thanks in advanced for any insight. It’s a weird one. I’ve seen a couple, but only a couple, pictures online of Miocene type rhino horns that are somewhat similar - but nothing exact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 One word comes to mind, carved. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 It's supposed to be the horn of what? It's Indonesia , so they're probably trying to get you to think rhinoceros. Rhinoceros horns are made of keratin, so are very unlikely to fossilize as stone. The matrix at the base looks exactly the same. (which can happen, of course, but not usually with bones, teeth etc) . What do you think it is, Patrick? Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrickhudson Posted October 27, 2020 Author Share Posted October 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said: It's supposed to be the horn of what? It's Indonesia , so they're probably trying to get you to think rhinoceros. Rhinoceros horns are made of keratin, so are very unlikely to fossilize as stone. The matrix at the base looks exactly the same. (which can happen, of course, but not usually with bones, teeth etc) . What do you think it is, Patrick? He doesn’t claim to know what it is. The reason why I thought fossilized is because of what the original artifacts base looked like (attached pic), and the supposed weight of the piece (he said it’s very heavy like a rock). it’s got the narrowed look of a rhino, but @rockwood has a point, it could be carved. The original one definitely looked less carved than this one. Other than rhino or carved, it’s not hollow so other possibilities are out of question. I’m just stumped. That’s it!! Maybe it’s a carved stump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
val horn Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 These "horns" dont look right, but looking at photos is not the same as seeing it in hand. This is important to you, can you take it to a local paleontology department at a major museum or university? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CEP Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 Hopefully you didn't buy it. That would be bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 19 hours ago, patrickhudson said: Maybe it’s a carved stump I rather think it is a bone fossil. Just that the dollar value of a 'chunkosaur' isn't up to that of a horn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrickhudson Posted October 28, 2020 Author Share Posted October 28, 2020 What about a sinocerstops? It would fit the shape, the fossilized appearance of the base, and at least be in the generalized location Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrickhudson Posted October 30, 2020 Author Share Posted October 30, 2020 On 10/27/2020 at 3:48 PM, Tidgy's Dad said: It's supposed to be the horn of what? It's Indonesia , so they're probably trying to get you to think rhinoceros. Rhinoceros horns are made of keratin, so are very unlikely to fossilize as stone. The matrix at the base looks exactly the same. (which can happen, of course, but not usually with bones, teeth etc) . What do you think it is, Patrick? Here’s another one he’s got. Slightly different angles - looks a bit different. Any different thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhiggi Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 That latest one has the look of carved bone to me 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 A legitimate reason why the shape lacks the expected texture and is instead a more simple geometric shape over most of it's surface is difficult imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMert Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 2nd one looks worse than the 1st My sites & reports 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