Jump to content

What do you think this is?


Golfer

Recommended Posts

I found this in Queens, New York.  I love to search regions for artifacts.  When I picked this up it was too heavy to be a plain rock or piece of wood. It weighs 1 pound 1.2 ounces and is about 5 1/2 inches long.  I took plenty of pictures which I will post.  Any ideas about it I will be happy to read. Thank you for your time. 

F8B5B1F6-66B2-4D80-B371-7203FCB675A5.jpeg

8F238F5E-F311-4A30-9A81-8B50F6AB5BC6.jpeg

774E123B-3067-4E72-907F-0A4E0B1A2153.jpeg

CC284FD2-9F28-43B8-AB08-43517F1E5463.jpeg

968B03CC-A330-445D-9B56-83233AAC0A25.jpeg

56513DA9-E13A-45A6-B34A-370EB38676B9.jpeg

7ACA36D3-1152-499D-BA1B-F4B7885CC17A.jpeg

FC50472B-BE59-4A93-B768-B8D435A5AA37.jpeg

C27A6EF2-41C1-4B3A-8582-1166C50FCD31.jpeg

F63487BE-E1A9-4797-95B5-25898CCDBB1C.jpeg

36362DCF-0912-4F22-BC98-3CA8CB583450.jpeg

FA695194-8DD4-46EC-BFF0-4CE3422C9F7D.jpeg

AF503E58-5B14-430A-96CD-B7F0726A6C40.jpeg

  • Enjoyed 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forum.

 

This looks like a chert nodule or ironstone concretion, to me.

No enamel to be a tooth, and no bone texture.

That leaves geologic.

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 8

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.  It is not magnetic.  When I first saw it I thought it was some type of tool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the geological camp.

Specimen in cross section shows plumose structure/fracturing features/hackle fringe and so on.

 

dfe2227f99125d93898a4066a988c370.thumb.jpg.1edee007a882a7e0cd34c947259a7149.jpgDSC00660.thumb.jpeg.0a6d403be6018906511361001aa3e999.jpeg

Edited by abyssunder
  • I found this Informative 2
  • I Agree 4

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironstone concretion as far as I can tell from the photo. Ironstone concretions are not magnetic because the iron is chemically combined with other elements to form "ironstone" mineral. It's called ironstone in general, but the iron can be combined with a variety of other elements to form minerals that appear similar to the eye. When combined with other elements the iron in the mix loses its magnetic characteristics, most of the time.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mark Kmiecik
added info
  • I found this Informative 2
  • I Agree 4

 

 

Mark.

 

Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golfer said:

What would the approximate age be?  Could it be hand worked? 

 

Somewhere between 1 million and 999 million years old. But that's just a rough guess. It's not a tool. It's a very common mineral in a very common shape.

  • I Agree 1

 

 

Mark.

 

Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironstone concretion. Made of siderite (iron carbonate) cementing/replacing matrix particles. The flaking during weathering (oxidation and hydratization of siderite) is very indicative for siderite concretions. And, yes, nice fracture pattern on that broken surface.

 

5 hours ago, Golfer said:

Could it be hand worked? 

Yes, with some time invested. But I would it leave as it is, its a nice display and discussion object. I like it!
Franz Bernhard

 

  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FranzBernhard said:

Yes, with some time invested. But I would it leave as it is, its a nice display and discussion object. I like it!
Franz Bernhard

Franz, I think you misunderstood. He meant WAS it hand worked (made from human hands).

  • Thank You 1

 

Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger

http://www.steinkern.de/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Golfer said:

What would the approximate age be?  Could it be hand worked? 

In order to find out the age you would need to consult a geological map of the area where it was found and then extrapolize the approximate age according to the stratigraphical level. And no it was definitely not handworked. Nature can create some extremely interesting forms all by itself with no help at all.

  • I Agree 2

 

Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger

http://www.steinkern.de/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

Franz, I think you misunderstood. He meant WAS it hand worked (made from human hands).

Ah, ok! 

No, completely natural!

Franz Bernhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know in prehistoric times Queens New York was under water thus predominant fossils found are aquatic in nature.  When I picked it up I thought it was a horn.  Thank you for your research.  It looks like it was covered in a chocolate brown color substance which is still present in some areas.  It is very intriguing looking.  I show it to friends and they say what is that? 
I have collected rocks for many years. My favorites are pieces of lava from the beautiful waters of Sorrento, Italy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golfer said:

It looks like it was covered in a chocolate brown color substance which is still present in some areas.

The chocolate brown substance is "limonite", a weathering product of siderite.

 

1 hour ago, Golfer said:

 It is very intriguing looking.  I show it to friends and they say what is that? 

:dinothumb::dinothumb:

 

Franz Bernhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Ironstone and all concretions are mineral masses that grow in rocks by precipitation, usually from mineral-rich groundwater.  They are often visually interesting and probably the most misunderstood rock or mineral on earth.  Like billowing cumulus clouds, or tiny dinosaur heads they take on fantastic shapes that  lead to colorful interpretations from the uninformed observer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Thank you for answering me.  I treasure my find. I’ve found some great stones and rocks including either a garnet or ruby encrusted stone since then but no fossil finds.  Will continue my searching  

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...