Land near Bernissart: Chances of finding anything?

[IguanodonGhost]

Let me start by saying I don't know the first thing about fossils and the like, so I admit this question is probably a bit silly, but humour me please.

I recently inherited some land near the Bernissart coal mine. (For those who don't know it, that spot is famous due to the discovery of over 40 Iguanodon skeletons in 1878 at a depth of 332m.)

The land itself is situated less than 5 km away from the mine (as the crow flies) and is about 12-13 square km. The terrain isn't really worth much since it's classified/protected forest (not sure what the proper term is in English).

 

I have to make a decision whether I want to keep it or sell it, so the litlle kid in me was wondering what the chances would be of finding dinosaur fossils there? And I mean a major discovery, not just a small tooth or so.

I obviously realise that digging 300 meters deep isn't very feasible (and possibly not allowed due to the status of the land anyway). But would there be any reason to keep it? Is there any easy way to know if the land holds any secrets deep down? (Ground-penetrating radar or things like that?)

 

Cheers

[FranzBernhard]

Welcome to TFF from Austria!

 

First of all, I would have a look at the most detailed geological map available of your property. I suppose, the coal is of carboniferous age and the Dinos are of Cretaceous age. Without looking it up, I suspect, the Dinos were found during shaft sinking?

 

So, look at the geological maps and see, if the Dino-containing strata crop out on your property. If yes, check that specific area out.

 

Franz Bernhard

[Top Trilo]

I agree with Franz, formation and the age of the rock can be very different even though the areas are quite close. Even if it is not present, there are probably some fossils in the land its just a question on whether you will do the work to find where and to look, even in the most fossiliferous areas you don't just find a dinosaur skeleton on the side of a cliff

[jpc]

The dinosaurs at Bernissart were found in the coal seams, so the coal is Cretaceous, not Carboniferous.  They were also found at fairly steep angles, so the beds are not laying horizontally.  Somewhere nearby, maybe those beds come out at the surface, maybe not.  You would need to do some serious geological research.  It might be useful to look into the history of the coal digging.  Why did those guys dig for the coal at such depths?  Was the same layer exposed somewhere nearby and all mined out?  (I imagine this is a reasonable scenario). 

 

Ground penetrating radar will only give you data for a few feet below the surface.  

[marguy]

47 minutes ago, jpc said:

The dinosaurs at Bernissart were found in the coal seams, so the coal is Cretaceous, not Carboniferous.

The dinosaurs are from the Cretaceous period, the coal mined was indeed carboniferous. The 1st theory (see attached figure) to interpret the site evoked an ancient  valley but currently it is believed that the 'depression' in which were the fossils of plants, fish and reptiles had rather a karstic origin.

 

 

you can see the following sites (with presentation in English, French and German) https://artsandculture.google.com/exhibit/fQJiRgnsYJgwIA?hl=fr

https://www.bestor.be/wiki/index.php/La_mine_de_charbon_de_Bernissart  

 

( therefore for the author of the subject, the probability of finding such fossils on his land is almost zero ... sorry to disappoint him!)

  figure 2: terrain houiller = coal layers (carboniferous)

[jpc]

I should go read my Bernissart book (again).  

[FranzBernhard]

10 hours ago, FranzBernhard said:

I suppose, the coal is of carboniferous age and the Dinos are of Cretaceous age. Without looking it up, I suspect, the Dinos were found during shaft sinking?

 

10 hours ago, jpc said:

The dinosaurs at Bernissart were found in the coal seams, so the coal is Cretaceous, not Carboniferous.

 

9 hours ago, marguy said:

The dinosaurs are from the Cretaceous period, the coal mined was indeed carboniferous. The 1st theory (see attached figure) to interpret the site evoked an ancient  valley but currently it is believed that the 'depression' in which were the fossils of plants, fish and reptiles had rather a karstic origin.

I love this kind of quizzes/puzzles. Its easy to google everything up, but its much more fun to guess and make up a hypothesis from your own existing knowledge. Thanks, @marguy, for resolving this puzzle.

 

9 hours ago, marguy said:

therefore for the author of the subject, the probability of finding such fossils on his land is almost zero ... sorry to disappoint him!

Correct, with the most important word in bold. @IguanodonGhost, you may still check the geological maps of your area and look for publications mentioning villages, rivers etc. around your property. Chances are slim, but not totally zero to find something! Its time for your inner child to play (again). .

Franz Bernhard

[DPS Ammonite]

Make an offer for local university paleo students and paleo societies to search your property for fossils. If they find promising stuff then keep the property.

[IguanodonGhost]

Thanks for all the answers everyone. Learned a lot already!

 

Unfortunate to hear there's not much chance, but I wasn't really expecting there to be. 

I've looked up the (official?) Walloon geological maps, but unfortunately the map is outdated in the area where the land is situated.

 

It's a bit hard to tell, but I estimate the land to be situated in the pink area, near the center and underneath the word "Version".

Because that area is outdated I can't gather much info and I'd have to make an appointment to consult the unpublished map(s).

 

 

 

This legend is from the updated map sections, but the orange CHE should correspond to the pink used above.
Bottom text roughly translates to: "clay tufa, greenish gray, with glauconia grains and amorphous silica cement (opal), coherent, soft and porous; or fine, clayey sands with a few beds of glauconiferous tufa". (My geolocial knowledge is quite limited, so I hope the translation is somewhat accurate.)

[marguy]

According to these latest details, CHE corresponds to the Thanetian, ie around -60 million years ago, while the Iguanodons are from the Lower Cretaceous, so around -130 to -110 million years ago. To console you for the absence of dinosaurs on the surface of your land, maybe the Thanetian rocks contain other fossils?