ID of fossil bone cut by humans?

[Daltong]

After learning about the burn test, I tried this bone that I was skeptical of after learning that my coyote jaw was a modern bone. After the test this fossil did not smoke or turn black, so I am more confident that it isn't a regular bone. It looks to be a fossilized leg or wrist bone of some sort, and there are visible cut marks on the bone. It appears to have been fairly cleanly cut off, which was another reason I was worried about its age. I don't have the whole bone to go off of but it measures 10.5 cm to the longest point where the joint area is, 1.9 cm wide at the narrow end, and 2.5 cm wide at the base of the joint. The area where it would have connected to another bone or bones is 2 cm long and about 3cm wide. Photos show the structure of the bone, and if anyone knows what it could be I'm really interested in learning more about it. Found in north central Florida in the same area as the previous bone I posted.

 

 

 

 

 

[Daltong]

Still not 100% on the status of bone vs fossil on this one, but I did hold a lighter under it for about ten seconds and nothing happened. When I did this with the previous bone, it blackened and began smoking/smelling very quickly

[Mahnmut]

Hi Daltong, 

thats interesting! Other members more informed of your region will chime in,

but what in my eye is another point for this to be at least not a recently butchered bone is that there seem to be cutting marks from different directions on the cross section as well as some chipping that I would expect rather from old bone than from fresh bone.

Although the crab claw is not yours, using a measuring tape could help with the ID.

Best Regards,

J

[Daltong]

4 hours ago, Mahnmut said:

Hi Daltong, 

thats interesting! Other members more informed of your region will chime in,

but what in my eye is another point for this to be at least not a recently butchered bone is that there seem to be cutting marks from different directions on the cross section as well as some chipping that I would expect rather from old bone than from fresh bone.

Although the crab claw is not yours, using a measuring tape could help with the ID.

Best Regards,

J

Sorry about not including measurements in the photo, I'll definitely do that in the future. If this is actually from a prehistoric human, I wonder why he or she attempted to cut the bone so cleanly. My guess if it's a leg bone would be possibly for skinning purposes to pull the animals hide off easier, as I've done this before when tanning deer skins. I definitely look forward to seeing if anyone knows about this one, it would be one of my most interesting finds so far since it was clearly manipulated by a person at some point.

[Mahnmut]

Hi again, 

I am still curious about your bone.

I am also sceptical, because a fossil worked bone would be something quite rare.

Searching for prehistoric cut bones online I did not find much, even less anything that looked as straight as your sample. My first impression that it may be not butchered recently means this: its not industrially cut like so many bones one finds nowadays, someone spent some time sawing from different angles. Could of course have been a hunter or non-industrial butcher 50 years ago. The flaking does not look like it happened shortly post mortem at least. And your burn test indicates some age.

Having emphasized how cautious I am accepting this as fossil, here is something that may be similar if it turns out to really be a fossil:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/science/marrow-israel-cave.html

Best Regards,

J

[rocket]

We have some in our collection, bit similar and defintifely old (came together with some ice-age-fossils), I post one

So, for my opinion it could be old or younger, not easy to decide. But, possible

 

[Daltong]

16 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

Hi again, 

I am still curious about your bone.

I am also sceptical, because a fossil worked bone would be something quite rare.

Searching for prehistoric cut bones online I did not find much, even less anything that looked as straight as your sample. My first impression that it may be not butchered recently means this: its not industrially cut like so many bones one finds nowadays, someone spent some time sawing from different angles. Could of course have been a hunter or non-industrial butcher 50 years ago. The flaking does not look like it happened shortly post mortem at least. And your burn test indicates some age.

Having emphasized how cautious I am accepting this as fossil, here is something that may be similar if it turns out to really be a fossil:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/science/marrow-israel-cave.html

Best Regards,

J

I'm definitely skeptical as well since I have no experience with determining the age or composition of bones, I only know the shark/horse teeth and other things like that are fossilized because they no longer exist here. I might take it to the museum if more people suggest that it could really be a fossil that was manipulated by a human, as I've emailed one of the people working there and he said any time to take something in and they can try identifying it themselves. Thanks for sharing the article, that's a pretty amazing discovery.

[Daltong]

8 minutes ago, rocket said:

We have some in our collection, bit similar and defintifely old (came together with some ice-age-fossils), I post one

So, for my opinion it could be old or younger, not easy to decide. But, possible

 

That's a really cool piece, the cut marks are pretty interesting.