Indian Artifact or Dugong Rib in Venice?

[RescueMJ]

Greetings from Inland Venice, FL. Unusual fossil find for me. Pleistocene material. My first thought was Dugong when I picked it up, and fit great into my hand.  I have found hundreds of Dugong ribs in the last year at my location.  This is an unusual one due to the smooth texture.  It measures 4.5 inches long by 2 inches wide.  Density is 2.51 g/cm³ if you are interested.  Photo labeled "4"  shows odd texture. Closeup attached.  FYI:  Indian artifacts confirmed to 10,000 B.C. recovered within 10 miles. I have not previously recovered any Indian artifacts. I'm looking for feedback. Thanks in advance friends.

 

-Michael

[Rockwood]

I think pachyostotic bone is far enough. I can easily imagine it being a well worn fragment of a larger bone. I really don't have the experience to rule out a rib though.

[RescueMJ]

Makes a great paperweight. 

[Harry Pristis]

Chert, or other hard rock, is not as available in South Florida as it is in the North.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that super-dense dugongid rib bones were occasionally used as tools by NA.  Maybe this is an example.

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Personally I'm having a bit of difficulty identifying this as bone, setting as it lacks the outer cortex and none of the cancelous bone is visible. But I'm willing to accept this being dugong bone.

 

As for the Native American artifact aspect of it, @Harry Pristis is completely correct in that where flint and chert are scarce, other suitable materials would be used. In the Caribbean, for example, coral would be used - while on fieldwork in the Dominican Republic we once found an artefact of exactly this shape made of coral, which was probably the "mano", or pestle, part to a grinder. I'd suggest the same is the case here, as the heavy weight and handy grip are ideal for such a tool. Grinders are typically made out of more coarse materials, though, as this helps to break up fibers and other hard substances better. However, one uses what one can get, and the end of the tool that's in use would gradually smoothen anyway.

 

In fact, this latter condition is very important if you'd want to declare this piece a tool, for with these kinds of artefacts the proof is in the proverbial pudding: unless found at an archaeological site (or archaeologically attributable deposits), has residue still clinging to it, or shows other signs of having been used, one would be hard-pressed to call such a generic shape a tool (you'd, in fact, probably want multiple of these). And with this likely having derived from a water-logged environment (if not having been cleaned as well), I doubt the first two of these requirements can still be matched...

 

Still, a very interesting find, and definitely a conversation-starter 

[Harry Pristis]

25 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Personally I'm having a bit of difficulty identifying this as bone, setting as it lacks the outer cortex and none of the cancelous bone is visible. But I'm willing to accept this being dugong bone.

 

Dugongid bones are rather distinctive.  They don't have cancellous bone -- it's as though they are all cortex.  (I'm referring to the common fossils in the Peace River and environs.)  Most don't show any growth banding or other notable coloration.  They are just dense.  I've used many of them as ballast in large plant pots.

 

 

[Scylla]

Maybe it is just because I'm seeing this on a phone, but the original looks grainy like sandstone or basalt. If it is a non-native rock type for the area then I would think artefact more likely. Can we get a sharp picture of the object?

[RescueMJ]

I have limited magnification in my home lab.  The image A & B are at 3x.  The third one is at 6x.  The stylus is at a fossilized fragment different from the rest of the specimen. It does not look like the other fossils from the same area.  Perhaps it is a sandstone... not native to this location. 
 

It does look like an item I saw at The Fountain of Youth in St. Augustine in Indian artifact case (last photo) last week.

[RescueMJ]

Two bins of chunkosaurus fossils found within 1/4 mile of this specimen. 

[Harry Pristis]

2 hours ago, RescueMJ said:

I have limited magnification in my home lab.  The image A & B are at 3x.  The third one is at 6x.  The stylus is at a fossilized fragment different from the rest of the specimen. It does not look like the other fossils from the same area.  Perhaps it is a sandstone... not native to this location. 
 

It does look like an item I saw at The Fountain of Youth in St. Augustine in Indian artifact case (last photo) last week.

 

 

 

 

This looks like a greenstone celt, an import from N. Georgia or N. Alabama.

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

8 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

 

Dugongid bones are rather distinctive.  They don't have cancellous bone -- it's as though they are all cortex.  (I'm referring to the common fossils in the Peace River and environs.)  Most don't show any growth banding or other notable coloration.  They are just dense.  I've used many of them as ballast in large plant pots.

 

 

 

Wow! That looks weird! If not for the shape, I'd be inclined to say the lighter-coloured piece was just some kind of natural calcified vein in the rock. That's really dense bone! Is manatee-bone much like this, or does that have (more) cancellous parts?

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

13 hours ago, RescueMJ said:

It does not look like the other fossils from the same area.  Perhaps it is a sandstone... not native to this location.

 

Yeah, that's what I was thinking: sandstone. From what I can tell from the photographs, there seem to be inclusions in the make-up of the object, while, if this were bone, you might expect some other fossils (e.g., shells) to adhere to it, but not intrude. With these clearer images, I also think I'm seeing differences in grain size that don't seem consistent with pachyostic and osteosclerotic bone I've seen. Sandstone would also be much more likely to be used as a pestle - although a fossil bone with similar texture would, of course, serve as an equally good stand-in. If you've already cleaned the piece, you can use your hand to compare smoothness between the main "shaft" and broadest end of it, to see if the latter is indeed smoother than the former. If it is, this could point to use (often you would also be able to simply see this by the wear of the sandstone particles). In any case, the dugong bones that Harry showed before would be far too smooth in texture to make effective grinding tools and would therefore be less likely to be used as such.

 

13 hours ago, RescueMJ said:

It does look like an item I saw at The Fountain of Youth in St. Augustine in Indian artifact case (last photo) last week.

 

The artefact they've got on display appears to be what's known as a petaloid celt, more commonly referred to as an axe or hatchet (though not always used as such, especially not when made out of precious material), and exactly what Harry posted.

 

11 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

This looks like a greenstone celt, an import from N. Georgia or N. Alabama.

 

 

I'm doubtful yours is a celt, though, as such objects typically serve ceremonial purposes (if not practical ones) and therefore receive a lot more attention in their manufacture. In this case meaning the sides would be straight; the piece would be flattened along one axis, with this flattening resulting in a graded slope on one end (the blade); near perfect symmetry along both the flattened and non-flattened axes; and smoothing of the outer surface. In your case the surface seems too rough for a celt, if not also being of a type of stone not normally used (typically a fine-grained/microcrystalline siliceous rock).

 

To me, all lines of evidence discussed above point to the piece being a pestle similar to the recent one below, found on everyone's favourite auction site, but little changed from the tools that people were using hundreds if not thousands of years ago!

 

 

And another one from the same site, supposedly Woodlands from New Jersey, but impossible to authenticate based on photographs alone. However, there are some interesting similarities in terms of composition, inclusions and wear between this piece and the one under discussion:

 

[RescueMJ]

This has been a great thread for me. For comparison to @Harry Pristisphotos.  My specimen is: 4.3 inches long, 8.24 ounces, density of 2.337 g/cm³. Hold back the jokes .  Piecing together all of the info and data:  Photo " Hand 1" shows how it fits into my hand with contour. "Hand 2"shows closed fist.  "Hand 1 Outline" shows approximately where fingers would wrap around item. With further inspection, it looks like there are worn pieces where the fingers would grasp. "Hand 3" shows the end that I would expect to be the contact end.  It is worn at that end as well.  

 

Thanks to all of you that contribute and spend your time with these mysteries.

 

-Michael

[Harry Pristis]

Fingergrips are usually not diagnostic.  However, The whole surface appears to have "peck marks," the percussion marks that result from shaping hard stone.  The greenstone celts I illustrated were first "pecked" into rough form, then ground to the finished shape.  You can see peck marks on these bola stones.  Considering the effort to produce greenstone celts and the distance over which they were traded, these were valued tools.  Celts are tools; they do not "typically serve ceremonial purposes" in Florida. 

 

Tools are not made of sandstone because sandstone will not hold an edge.  Sandstone, like the metamorphic greenstone, is not found naturally in Florida.

 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

41 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said:

Fingergrips are usually not diagnostic.  However, The whole surface appears to have "peck marks," the percussion marks that result from shaping hard stone.  The greenstone celts I illustrated were first "pecked" into rough form, then ground to the finished shape.  You can see peck marks on these bola stones.  Considering the effort to produce greenstone celts and the distance over which they were traded, these were valued tools.  Celts are tools; they do not "typically serve ceremonial purposes" in Florida. 

 

Tools are not made of sandstone because sandstone will not hold an edge.  Sandstone, like the metamorphic greenstone, is not found naturally in Florida.

 

Seeing as celts are so rare in Florida and are made of exotic material, I think that's a very strong argument against this being a semi-finished product. You would not procure rare materials knowing there's a risk it might break or end up otherwise unsuited to your intended purposes, as you would need to either trade for it or make long and dangerous journeys to obtain the material itself. For the same reason, tools, more frequently then not, were produced near to the place of procurement of their raw material. Hence, I really don't think we're dealing with a celt here. The fact that the type of rock also doesn't seem suited to, as you say, "hold an edge" only adds to this argument.

 

It is this same difficulty in procuring products in these rare materials that often imbue such items with a certain prestige and ceremonial value. There are plentiful studies from the Amazon and Andes that illustrate that the further one travels or obtains an object from, the more mystical that place or object is, and the higher its prestige value. Though I might have been a bit too generalising when I said celts "typically serve ceremonial purposes", it is this prestige value that sees celts either produced (as in the greenstone axes of Papua New Guinea) or used (e.g., the many decorated axes of the Taino of the Greater Antilles) in ritual context. Similarly, the green colour of many of the higher-quality celts shares symbolic associations with vegetation and fertility, which, again, elucidates their significance beyond the purely utilitarian. Of course, objects of similar shape serve a utilitarian purpose as well, but those are typically not made of as valuable materials as the celts are and are then also simply, and more properly, referred to as axes.

 

In any case, the object under discussion here has a composition and grain size that make it much more suitable for grinding stuff, either as a pestle or as a roller (in a mano and metate combination), which the indicated dents along the side would seem to point to.

[Harry Pristis]

I know you're trying hard, Pachy, but you're making assumptions -- incorrect assumptions -- about Florida archeology.  Archeologists like to think of their work as "science." I try to avoid any drift into imaginative speculation.  

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Your critiques are well received, Harry. Indeed, the fact archaeologists have a tendency to embellish their finds, generalise, over-interpret patterns and often take a teleological approach, amongst others - such as unjustly applying a direct historical approach, inappropriate ethnographical analogues, and misuse of historical sources - are some of the reasons I'm very critical of academic archaeology myself. Not least because these tendencies are rife within the sub-discipline of iconographical studies, my particular fancy within the field, and something I've spent most of my time studying archaeology trying to create a new theoretical framework for - one based more on principles of art history than on simply seeing random similarities that fit a self-invented cosmology. Indeed, the famous archaeologist Ian Hodder, working on Çatalhöyük in Anatolia, has said that, considering the speculative nature of archaeology, any person's interpretation of the past is just as valid as anybody else's - which very much aligns with how archaeology plays a part in image building of the past, a feedback-loop that often also serves to provide - specially indigenous peoples - with a sense of pride about where they came from.

 

Notwithstanding the fact I, thus, agree with your comment, and will be the first to admit I have little knowledge on the specifics of archaeology in Florida (which, if I remember correctly, generally remains a bit of a mystery, in part due to the early European colonization of the region), I'd still like to point out a couple of things before dropping the subject. For, it is exactly in the above image- and identity-building functions that archaeology sees and perceives its greatest contribution to society by formulating stories about the past. It not only makes archaeological data-collection more relevant to the present (for, why else would archaeologists dig all this stuff up - why do palaeontologists, for that matter), but makes the discipline more relatable as well. This move is not necessarily even one driven by the field itself anymore, but has become a prerequisite to a lot of the grands that keep archaeological research going. There's therefore a positive feedback cycle for the interpretive archaeology that arose following the New Archaeology movement of the 1960s. And, sure, while archaeology is not a science in the same sense as that of the so-called "hard sciences" like physics or chemistry (can biology be considered a "science" in that case?), but rather a humanities study, it is a principle based on the same scientific methods of hypothesis testing. Moreover, modern archaeology has seen an increasing uptake in analytical methods based in the "hard sciences" - not just for dating (C-14, uranium decay, thermoluminescence, to name a few), but also isotope analysis (provenance, dietary, trophic level), material composition analyses (e.g., X-ray fluorescence [XRF]), ancient DNA-analysis, geophysics and remote sensing (LiDAR, GPR, GPS, magnetometry, satellite imagery), geological methods (soil composition, taphonomy, petrology) and statistics. As such, archaeology has come a long way from simply collecting artefacts and imagining exciting stories around them. That having been said, though, there are regions in the world, and sub-disciplines of the field, where archaeology is still very much driven by anthropology or the study of history, which indeed increases interpretive biases.

 

While you say sandstone doesn't occur in Florida, absence of evidence (i.e., no tools having been found of this material) is not evidence of absence. Nor is sandstone by definition unsuitable for the manufacture of tools. Sandstone, in fact, was an often used material in the production and sharpening of axes and adzes, while, as said, it's grain size and rough texture make it perfectly suitable for grinding and mashing things up - from minerals for paints to fruits, nuts, grains and more. Hence, even if I might be wrong as to the exact material the piece discussed in this thread is made from, this does not exclude it's function, which are based on its characteristics rather than the exact material used (other oft used materials for grinders are coral and coarse-grained clastic rocks). As to exchange of goods or raw materials, plentiful petrological studies have been performed to trace stone tools back to the deposits they were originally sourced from, while absence of manufacturing waste in one place and abundance in others (often near the source of the material) evidences tools were often manufactured close to the source of their materials. Admittedly the trade and symbolic significance of pieces is more difficult to substantiate. But even here it can be proved that stone tools were transported over long distances (said petrological studies), that they were valued and curated (i.e., by signs of repair), argued that various more traditional cultures equate(d) distance with the realm of mystery and knowledge (anthropological studies, including Bastien's "Mountain of the Condor" and Helms' "Esoteric Knowledge, Geographical Distance, and the Elaboration of Leadership Status: Dynamics of Resource Control") and demonstrated that long-distance exchange networks exist even today between hunter-gatherer societies.

 

Anyway, take this for what it's worth. As said, I don't think there's a need to discuss things further. I just wanted to demonstrate the internal workings of archaeology for those that are interested...

 

Cheers,

Alexander.

Edited March 27, 2021 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

[Plantguy]

Hey Michael, Neat find whatever the heck its source/origin is! Very interesting thread. 

I agree that doesnt appear to be bone but I'm not sure if its sandstone or not from those photos...those apparent fossil fragments inside do make me believe it is/was a sedimentary rock, very well could be a sandstone cobble...I dont have any substantial artifact experience and cant offer an opinion on whether its an artifact or not. Its substantially different from what we normally find around here. 

 

So you dont find much sandstone in Florida but its here. There are spots where the sand deposits do get lithified. I respectfully disagree with Harry with it not being found naturally.  I did find a small pebble sized sandstone piece which just happens to also have a fossil fragment in it...it also has small grain sized black flecks within which Im thinking are bits of phosphate..common in the Hawthorne/Bone valley stuff around here...Photo attached below.

Are those small black rounded flakes/mineral grains in your specimen?

My sample was a surface find from Manatee County and the geologic map shows it as Peace River Formation--it has a mix of marine/terrestrial Plio-Pleistocene fossils including dugong bone. I only picked my sample up and kept it as it was so different in composition from the other reworked cobbles/pebbles that we usually see around here and wanted to look at it further. 

Enough of my ramblings....

Regards, Chris 

 

 

 

 

[RescueMJ]

I have done a lot of research on this "Specimen" and see some real passion.  For the good of the cause... I have attached a USGS document on a site a few miles East of me.  Look at the charts on Pages 14 & 15.  They show the different ages of rock formations and the depths they are reached.  Overall, It is a good read for the archeology and geology of my specific area.  

 

I am creating another post for another item that has similarities with your post.  Look for it shortly.

 

-Michael

1664405697_WarmMineralSprings-USGS.pdf

[RescueMJ]

@Shellseeker check out the USGS article above. 
 

-Michael 

[Coco]

Hi,

 

18 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

While you say sandstone doesn't occur in Florida, absence of evidence (i.e., no tools having been found of this material) is not absence of evidence.

 

For a better understanding : absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence

 

Coco

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

1 hour ago, Coco said:

For a better understanding : absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence

 

Hahaha! What a mistake to make 

Guess that what you get from writing a "thesis" like that during a working day! Let me correct that

 

And thanks for pointing it out to me!

Edited March 27, 2021 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

[Scylla]

On 3/26/2021 at 10:27 AM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

...(can biology be considered a "science" in that case?)...

 

Yes.