Boesse Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I've wanted to stay out of this, but thought it was some bizarre septarian nodule type thing from the start; with the exception of the spirals, much of this looks very septarian to me and indeed some of the larger cracks conform to the geometry of septarian cracks. So we've got a reasonable published example thanks to @Carl by none other than the great Seilacher himself - arguably the greatest mind in ichnology. The published drawing, and the similarity with septarian nodule cracks convinced me. Furthermore, in cross-section, it looks like a nodule. So what's our alternative? A mesoamerican sculpture that does not quite really match known styles (forgive me, but has the pattern been matched to mesoamerican artwork to a greater degree than the illustration, or is this still just supposition?) made it somehow into eastern Oregon? I think it's far too intricately sculptured, and the microscope shot is what initially sold me on a geological origin: the grooves follow lines of exfoliation, indicating that it's not some homogenous wad of clay that has been carved into, rather these patterns are caused by weathering along subtle changes in composition - the proof is in the way it flakes. Ancient Mayans or Aztecs would have needed a Zeiss binoc scope and a sewing pin to carve that pattern at that scale! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 The weathering happened after the carving (or casting). I collect antiquities, and many of them are weathered to look gelogical like that. Weather did not carve them, but the surface errosion creates that illusion. "has the pattern been matched to mesoamerican artwork to a greater degree than the illustration, or is this still just supposition?)" You agree with all the rest of us that it is not an ancient artifact. Here, you are beating on a strawman who does not exist. What has been mentioned is that the motif of it seems to be derived from precolumbian art. Several people have linked to such art. As I've stated already, declaring this icredably intricate design to be natural is an extrodinary claim to me, and there is no evidence. That drawing is not acceptable. Please show at least one photo of any geological specimen that comes anywhere close to what we see here. I demand evidence for such an amazing claim. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I am partly persuaded of its natural origin by this area of the edge which has a random septarian look to it. Better photos might help. 4 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Oh okay, so now we've abandoned the idea that it's an artifact, but now it's supposed to have been carved by somebody contemporary and in more detail than was possible by a paleoindian or mesoamerican? And yet the surface is still weathered/eroded, despite being modern? I'm just trying to get everything straight here. I disagree with you that the weathering is not compositionally related. You collect antiquities; I teach geology for a living. That looks like compositionally-controlled differential weathering to me. To be clear I'm talking about this image below - and further evidence that this is compositional is provided in the image above by Tqb showing that these structures exist in cross-section and not just as surficial etchings. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Boesse, you have to get off the artifact thing. You are the only one on that wagon train. ;-) Can you show a single photo of anything like what we see here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 29 minutes ago, Boesse said: Oh okay, so now we've abandoned the idea that it's an artifact, but now it's supposed to have been carved by somebody contemporary and in more detail than was possible by a paleoindian or mesoamerican? And yet the surface is still weathered/eroded, despite being modern? I'm just trying to get everything straight here. .... I think Bobby made clear that the idea of an artifact was off the table. A bit of patience will go a lot further than any demands. We are all interested in the facts. 1 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 All we have so far is the original specimen, and one vague drawing that doesn't quite seem to match. Could somebody present photos of obviously gelogic origin rocks that in any way resemble this item? What can be found in that direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 @tmaier, @Carl has already provided evidence which I accept as being good enough. I'm sold. Carl said he's made inquiries about photos; be patient. We'll be lucky if we get any photos, given that Seilacher has passed away. On the flipside, you've not provided any evidence that it IS art - artifact, or artifact imitation made by hippies. Rather than poking holes, why not provide us with some positive evidence of your hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Made... by... hippies? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Oh-oh... I'm out of here. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I jest, but seriously, I have no idea what your alternative hypothesis is supposed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhw Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 For what it's worth, I did a pretty thorough google image search using every possible term and phrase I could think of. Found nothing quite like like it, geologic, trace fossil, man made or otherwise. A real mystery this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 On 11/19/2016 at 2:24 PM, PRK said: A fossil friend found this in an open country, dry stream bed, while hunting in eastern Oregon. what the ---? @PRK Paul, could your friend narrow the area down to a county? The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRK Posted November 24, 2016 Author Share Posted November 24, 2016 This is not my specimen. I was just contacted for my opinion. All I know at the moment is rural E Oregon PS the drawings were enough to convince me, and btw what kind of tools would the ancients use for such tiny sculpturing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNCollector Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 What makes this a geologic effect in my opinion is that face that there is a chunk missing here (in the attached screenshot) that broke right on the edges of the spiral, meaning that the edges of the spirals represent areas in the composition of the rock - that although the difference cannot be seen with the eye - are either made of a more dense material or even a microscopic change in crystal structure. I don't have any professional experience in paleontology/archaeology, but I am a scientist, and one thing that I have learned never to do is underestimate Nature's way of creating complex objects out of extremely simple shapes. This is seen in math all the time, just look at the fractal: it is extremely complex and quite beautiful, but it can be described by a one-line formula. In the case of this specimen, every single shape appears to be a circle. Although the whole object looks so complex as to have had to been made by man, this object can ultimately broken down to a multitude of circles, which are the most simple shape in the universe. The evidence points to this being geological, not manmade. But it is more than that, it is very special, and certainly very very rare. Nature has the ability to create things like this using math, but it has a higher ability to destroy it through weathering and erosion using the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is remarkable that this specimen was created and survived for us to see it. It should be displayed in a museum... 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 On 11/24/2016 at 1:50 PM, TNCollector said: What makes this a geologic effect in my opinion is that face that there is a chunk missing here (in the attached screenshot) that broke right on the edges of the spiral, meaning that the edges of the spirals represent areas in the composition of the rock - that although the difference cannot be seen with the eye - are either made of a more dense material or even a microscopic change in crystal structure. I don't have any professional experience in paleontology/archaeology, but I am a scientist, and one thing that I have learned never to do is underestimate Nature's way of creating complex objects out of extremely simple shapes. This is seen in math all the time, just look at the fractal: it is extremely complex and quite beautiful, but it can be described by a one-line formula. In the case of this specimen, every single shape appears to be a circle. Although the whole object looks so complex as to have had to been made by man, this object can ultimately broken down to a multitude of circles, which are the most simple shape in the universe. The evidence points to this being geological, not manmade. But it is more than that, it is very special, and certainly very very rare. Nature has the ability to create things like this using math, but it has a higher ability to destroy it through weathering and erosion using the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is remarkable that this specimen was created and survived for us to see it. It should be displayed in a museum... Good point - a chunk missing here (in the attached screenshot) that broke right on the edges of the spiral, meaning that the edges of the spirals represent areas in the composition of the rock. For anyone into the maths (not me!), here's a paper on dessication crack patterns including spirals. The scale is small but it shows how they can be initiated. http://ariane.fast.u-psud.fr/~pauchard/publis/spirale.pdf 4 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Maybe the owner of the specimen might take the effort to make a mold, so we could see how it looks like as the counterpart of a counter-septaria, maybe then I could see the septarian cracks. " 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 More sharing options...
supertramp Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 What a strange specimen…I’ve never seen anything like it; maybe it would help to have some more pics of the opposite side; …the “designs” seem to have a corresponding pattern in the depth (so, not carved), though “floating” over a darker matrix rather than being the superficial traces of some cracks filling (which I do not see from the images, as Abyssunder said)…so, I would not include this piece in the septarian side (though “counter septarias”); very weird one ciao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 argh!!! I can not think of any process that will create concentric circles, with more circles within circles on circles. If this is caused by shrinkage then there should also be lateral shrinkage causing a break in the "donut" shapes. Also in the third generation of markings there are some that are simi spirals and some that are concentric circles and some that are more of a blob. I can not see that type of variation occurring in a natural geologic formation, as described in the article that Carl provided. If You score a rock it will break on the plane of weakness that the scoring creates. still confused here! 1 Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 HI everyone, Very strange structures indeed. I tracked down this journal article: "Concretion morphologies reflecting diagenetic and epigenetic pathways" by the man himself - Adolf Seilacher Seilacher 2001 concretions.pdf This time with photographs of the phenmomenon. Most similar to the example of the OP is Fig. 15c: The figure caption gives some insight on how these could form (see next post for figure and caption). 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Figure didn't upload...trying again: 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Awesome. Thanks, Doc. 11 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 As a side note I was lucky enough many years ago to have weekly lectures by Dolf Seilacher. He was visiting the university where I was doing my undergrad in New Zealand. We normally had laboratory or practical time of three hours and for a month we had weekly talks from Dolf on all sorts of things including trace fossils. I remember an entire lecture on barnacles - which I didn't appreciate as much then as a second year student as I probably would now....... Back then I was mostly interested in vertebrates. A major theme running through his discussions was self organisation - how simple rules or phenomenon can give rise to apparently complex structures. He must have been fascinated by these counter-septaria. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Here's a paper explaining how the spiral cracks form: Spiral Cracks in Drying Precipitates Z. Néda, K.-t. Leung, L. Józsa, and M. Ravasz Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 095502 – Published 12 February 2002 Neda et al 2002 Spiral cracks in drying precipitates.pdf A key figure: Appears to involve two generations of cracking. First generation forms "shards" and then the spiral crack forms along the detachment front as the dried fragment detaches from the substrate. There are lots of other papers on this if you look up spiral cracks and desiccation. You can even do an experiment easily at home to watch their formation! 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 3 hours ago, Doctor Mud said: HI everyone, Very strange structures indeed. I tracked down this journal article: "Concretion morphologies reflecting diagenetic and epigenetic pathways" by the man himself - Adolf Seilacher Seilacher 2001 concretions.pdf This time with photographs of the phenmomenon. Most similar to the example of the OP is Fig. 15c: The figure caption gives some insight on how these could form (see next post for figure and caption). As well as solving this, a fabulous paper packed with all sorts of other goodies, thank you! Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now