Petrified fish?

[John Carter]

Dear Colleagues please help me figure it out. looks like a flint arrowhead. but no wonder, there are a large number of them. but it is interesting because there is inclusion inside .. personally, I clearly see the spine, head, gills, eye, and .. scales (. in the center of the fish, in the head and in the abdomen). but this is unrealistic, because animal organic matter is impossible in silicon rock. how to explain it? And is it even a fish? Thanks.

 

[digit]

Interesting for sure--there definitely seems to be some fossil material inside this piece of microcrystalline chert/flint. Could we get a higher resolution image focusing on the inclusion with similar backlighting? At first glance it might appear to be something like a fenestrate bryozoan but better pictures would make that more clear. Not seeing anything to indicate fish at the moment.

 

Pretty cool artifact!

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Fossildude19]

Cropped, enlarged, and brightened:

 

 

My best guess is some sort of bryozoan.  Definitely NOT a fish.

[Kane]

I agree with bryozoan.  As for the possibility of fossils in this material, yes, as it appears to be chert. I have prepared fossils encased in solid chert, and it is quite a miserable experience even with good tools.  

[Tidgy's Dad]

Chert and flint often seems to form around echinoderm remains, especially echinoids.

It's a long shot, but I'm wondering if this could be a starfish arm; a view of the underside of it? 

[FossilDAWG]

Fossils embedded in chert tools have been used to identify the source of the chert, and to help reconstruct ancient trade routes used by indigenous people in North America, and I presume elsewhere.  Your artifact might be an important find in that regard.

 

Fossils are definitely possible in chert (also known as flint).  Chert is composed of silica, but it is quite different from other silicate rocks in how it is formed.  For example, silica from siliceous sponges may dissolve in seawater and later precipitate in seabed sediment due to differing chemical environments.  The precipitated silica can incorporate shells or other organic material from the sea bed.  For example, on the English and French coasts along the English Channel it is common to find sea urchins and sponges preserved in flint nodules.

 

Don

[Randyw]

Wow! I learned something new today! Great looking piece with a bonus!

[JohnJ]

4 hours ago, John Carter said:

Dear Colleagues please help me figure it out.

 

Can we see a photo backlit from the opposite side?

[John Carter]

Colleagues, friends, thank you for the fruitful discussion!! didn't expect to see a response so quickly. thanks for the definition. a little upset, because for 15 years I thought it was a fish. and only today my friend said that it is impossible for there to be fish in flint. and he was right. what a pity. an item from Europe, for North America, I think it will not matter ... ps. Do you think our ancestor who made this tip saw aesthetic value in it (besides the functionality of the tip itself)? he placed this botanical object in the center of the tip... apparently he didn't do it by accident... (I think so.. maybe wrong.) Will try make better photo.

[John Carter]

19 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

 

Can we see a photo backlit from the opposite side?

Will do

[Bonehunter]

That is a very cool piece!

 

In my humble opinion, the piece is just a tool for hunting, many times they were not retrieved once thrown, thus consideration for the "aesthetic" aspect was probably a coincidence -the man chose this for its knapping qualities. This isn't an arrowhead, but a lance that was hafted and thrown with the use of an atlatl. If it was a field find, then it was used as there is a chip in the tip, likely a "miss" -hitting a rock instead of game, and retrieved, Though a knapping error could also have occurred and it was/wasn't used. If this was a stream find, then it was damaged there. If I went further to guess, I'd say its paleo- 11,000-9,000BP, maybe Archaic- 5,000BP. In the US it most closely matches a type called Kennewick. Arrowheads didn't appear for thousands of years later, as more modern ancestors started farming-this was used for larger game animals......but it's all conjecture as there's no one left to ask!  ........Bone