A Half Day in the Eagle Ford Group

[Titan]

A quick half-day trip to a few new sights yielded some exciting finds for me. I'm not well versed in Eagle Ford fauna but here goes!

 

 

There were many of the boulders comprised almost entirely of oysters and bivalves:

 

 

I was mainly looking for teeth and had no idea I'd find an ammonite so I was surprised with this find. On of the reasons why I love fossil hunting so much is that you never know what you might find out there!

 

This heron flew in literally 6 ft behind me as I was inspecting the creek bank. I heard a whoosh and turned around and there it was. After nearly jumping out of my skin I froze and watched it head upstream. A few minutes later a sounder of hogs started snorting and I walked around the bend and they were snorting at the heron - something I'd never seen before! 

 

My favorite find of the trip a 2 inch shark tooth (Cretodus I think).

 

 

My first Ptychodus tooth hidden amongst the pebbles!

 

 

I thought this was a goblin shark tooth when I found it because it was covered in mud. After cleaning it up at home now I'm wondering if its a partial reptile tooth (maybe Pliosaur)?

 

The largest find was this section of bone:

 

The only artifact (if it is one) was this possible Native American bead:

 

The oysters and bivalves cleaned up! I was surprised with how many were present as well as how many were complete.

 

And lastly a few more of the shark fauna:

 

Hope you enjoyed!

The trip was worth the heat, poison ivy, constant mosquitos, and running into several sounders of hogs!

 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Titan
Removed a picture that wasn't working

[DPS Ammonite]

Nice ammonite.

 

Were you near Sherman, TX?

 

The oyster is Cameleopha belliplicata.

 

link

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287588150_The_Late_Cretaceous_oyster_Cameleolopha_bellaplicata_Shumard_1860_guide_fossil_to_middle_Turonian_strata_in_New_Mexico

 

 

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/89816-post-oak-creek-oyster-with-anomoly/&do=findComment&comment=980168

[ThePhysicist]

36 minutes ago, Titan said:

My favorite find of the trip a 2 inch shark tooth (Cretodus I think).

Yup, nicely sized one.

 

37 minutes ago, Titan said:

I thought this was a goblin shark tooth when I found it because it was covered in mud. After cleaning it up at home now I'm wondering if its a partial reptile tooth (maybe Pliosaur)?

Definitely reptile, I've found striated fragments before, but they weren't big enough for me to call it mosasaur or pliosaur. I believe yours is a pliosaur @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon. 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

33 minutes ago, ThePhysicist said:

Definitely reptile, I've found striated fragments before, but they weren't big enough for me to call it mosasaur or pliosaur. I believe yours is a pliosaur @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon. 

 

I agree. Definitely plesiosaurian, and very likely brachauchenine pliosaur for its strong striations. The only reason I'm not a 100% sure is because it's a fragment and I'm not familiar enough with the other plesiosaurian fauna from that formation to rule out polycotylid (which, according to latest analyses, are considered plesiosauromorph rather than pliosauromorph plesiosaurs). As such, in an only give a best guesstimate based on assumed morphology. Still, a really nice find!

 

Add to the possible bead, could you say be take some further photographs of its other sides, as well as top and bottom? The easiest way to determine whether this could be a native or trade bead would be to determine the material and type of drill hole. True native beads will have an hourglass-shaped drill hole, where drilling happened from both sides with a tapering drill. But it could also well be a trade bead. Unfortunately, I'm not versed enough in their classification to even confidently say whether it could be one, but if your piece is ceramic, may be with trace of pigment (from weathered glaze), it could well be possible...

[Titan]

2 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

Nice ammonite.

 

Were you near Sherman, TX?

 

The oyster is Cameleopha belliplicata.

 

 

Thanks! First one like it for me that isn't in need of prep.

Nope, south south-west quite a ways. I think I was in the Arcadia Park Formation.

Thanks for that ID, much appreciated!

 

3 hours ago, ThePhysicist said:

Yup, nicely sized one.

 

Thanks for confirming. Cool, it's my largest tooth so far.

 

3 hours ago, ThePhysicist said:

Definitely reptile, I've found striated fragments before, but they weren't big enough for me to call it mosasaur or pliosaur. I believe yours is a pliosaur @pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon. 

Awesome, that's a new species for my collection.

[Titan]

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

 

I agree. Definitely plesiosaurian, and very likely brachauchenine pliosaur for its strong striations. The only reason I'm not a 100% sure is because it's a fragment and I'm not familiar enough with the other plesiosaurian fauna from that formation to rule out polycotylid (which, according to latest analyses, are considered plesiosauromorph rather than pliosauromorph plesiosaurs). As such, in an only give a best guesstimate based on assumed morphology. Still, a really nice find!

 

Thank you for the information and compliment! I was excited when I realized it wasn't a shark tooth and even more so now since it's my first plesiosaurian find.

 

 

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

Add to the possible bead, could you say be take some further photographs of its other sides, as well as top and bottom? The easiest way to determine whether this could be a native or trade bead would be to determine the material and type of drill hole. True native beads will have an hourglass-shaped drill hole, where drilling happened from both sides with a tapering drill. But it could also well be a trade bead. Unfortunately, I'm not versed enough in their classification to even confidently say whether it could be one, but if your piece is ceramic, may be with trace of pigment (from weathered glaze), it could well be possible...

 

Sure, I'll get some pictures with my microscope as soon as possible. I'm not sure of the hole shape since it's infilled with material. I'll see if I can get some of the matrix out to determine the hole shape. Thanks for the information!

[Titan]

@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon Hey Pachy, I took some quick photos last night through my microscope and here they are. I'm not sure there's much there to aid in identification. I tried to clean out the hole a little but it appears infilled (picture #5). Where I could scrape out some on the other side (#4) I quickly started removing the base yellowish material and stopped before I changed the shape of the hole. It'll take a bit more delicate work which I haven't had time to attempt yet. 

 

[JohnJ]

As you likely suspected, this is not a "Native American bead".  Most likely, it is a burrow or root cast.  They can be common in some of the Eagle Ford formations.

[Titan]

@JohnJ Hi John, yes after looking at it under magnification I figured burrow was the most likely candidate. Thanks for the comment though, it's good to get more familiar with identifications out of a formation I'm still learning.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

4 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

As you likely suspected, this is not a "Native American bead".  Most likely, it is a burrow or root cast.  They can be common in some of the Eagle Ford formations.

 

I agree, the surface and overall shaped look too irregular for a bead, the hole in the middle too regular to have been made with primitive tools.

 

Now, of course, people are never the worse for making use of serendipitous circumstances - meaning the cast could still have been used as a bead (the use of fossils by native Americans for a variety of purposes has been well-documented) - but those kinds of use are typically difficult to establish outside of a confirmed archaeological context...

[JohnJ]

1 minute ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

meaning the cast could still have been used as a bead

 

As an archaeologist, wouldn't you expect more evidence of use or alteration as a bead?

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

3 hours ago, JohnJ said:

As an archaeologist, wouldn't you expect more evidence of use or alteration as a bead?

 

Not necessarily - that's kind of the point. Humans, like lost animal species, are opportunistic. Sometimes nature provides the exact right thing already (or something close to it). As an example, why make a hole at the top of a shell (for braiding in a necklace) if you find a shell with a proper sized hole in the exact right place already? Drilling a home with a stone (or even worse: shell, coral or bone) tool takes a lot of effort after all...

 

As such, such things are known to occur from archaeological context. But it's, of course, insanely difficult to prove this, unless you find a series of beads, thereby incorrectly implying a necklace, for instance.

 

Still, it's known Native Americans use pieces of baculite shell (perfectly split septa) by way of "Buffalo Stones", hunting magic to help in the pursuit of buffalo. Similarly, ammonites are know to have been used as powerful items in medicine bundles. Generally, any rate and interesting stone could serve the latter purpose. But what could be more interesting than a fossil?

 

Similarly, megalodon-teeth have been recovered from a number of Central American sites, with their international presence being made clear from traces of red ochre paint - the colour of blood and therefore symbolic of life - still adhering to some of the specimens. There are some interesting ties with local mythologies here too, but I'll leave that for some other time.

 

In any case, an interesting book on the subject (although it's unfortunately been catching dust on my book-shelves for a couple of years now) is Mayor's "Fossil legend of the first Americans".

Edited August 30, 2021 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon

[tombk]

Quite a nice haul for half a day! The display of all your cleaned fossils is impressive. 

[JohnJ]

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

Humans, like lost animal species, are opportunistic. Sometimes nature provides the exact right thing already (or something close to it).

 

1 hour ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

As such, such things are known to occur from archaeological context. But it's, of course, insanely difficult to prove this, unless you find a series of beads, thereby incorrectly implying a necklace, for instance.

 

I agree.  Archaeology has been a lifelong interest and Texas archaeology a 30+ year passion.  

 

However, even if opportunistically used as a "bead", I would expect more utility polish from wear and handling on this piece.  Also, given that most artifacts in Texas are under 8,000 years old, I would not expect the geologic encrustation of the hole to look like typical for a root or burrow cast.

 

My point is belabored...but, I think it is extremely unlikely this particular piece was used as a "bead".

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

14 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

I agree.  Archaeology has been a lifelong interest and Texas archaeology a 30+ year passion.

 

My experience and interest lie further south, within the Andes, Central America - Panama in particular - and the circum-Caribbean area, with fieldwork experience mainly in the Caribbean. So I guess you've got seniority to me in Texas

 

Quote

However, even if opportunistically used as a "bead", I would expect more utility polish from wear and handling on this piece.  Also, given that most artifacts in Texas are under 8,000 years old, I would not expect the geologic encrustation of the hole to look like typical for a root or burrow cast.

 

Although I'm not a 100% sure about this, I believe that under the right soil conditions encrustation like this can actually come about. It's all about the right geochemical processes. I think (I'm not a geologist, nor have extensive field experience, but have seen some weird encrustations)...

 

Quote

My point is belabored...but, I think it is extremely unlikely this particular piece was used as a "bead".

 

Overall, though, I agree that it's not very likely that this piece was used as a bead. The point I rather wanted to make is that an object being natural doesn't immediately exclude the object having been used culturally...

Edited August 30, 2021 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon