Nörsk Grunner Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 Fools fossil bone or geological wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nörsk Grunner Posted March 5, 2017 Author Share Posted March 5, 2017 Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 26 minutes ago, Nörsk Grunner said: Anyone? It has only been 2 hours since the original post-- have patience! Not a bone. A rock with bore holes that has been tumbled. Tony 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...
MSirmon Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 I have an extensive and growing collection of interesting rocks with several looking just like that. When I have posted them in the past the response has always been geological (rocks) but would be very interested if that determination has changed in the last year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nörsk Grunner Posted March 5, 2017 Author Share Posted March 5, 2017 31 minutes ago, MSirmon said: I have an extensive and growing collection of interesting rocks with several looking just like that. When I have posted them in the past the response has always been geological (rocks) but would be very interested if that determination has changed in the last year. Do you have a picture handy? I was told it was a tool for arrows but I dunno it's definitely odd and well shaped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 8 minutes ago, Nörsk Grunner said: I was told it was a tool for arrows Whoever said that was wrong, it is not a tool or man altered in any way. 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...
westcoast Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 It looks like chert which can have a white outer altered or weathered layer and a dark interior. Because of its natural shape it may possibly have been used as a tool but you would need an experienced archaeologist to analyse any scrape or scratch marks. Was it found near an archaeological site? But otherwise not a fossil and 'just' a stone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bone2stone Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 There have been many finds of this nature and there is always somebody has told them "tool" or fossil. We will not mislead you here if it is a obscure rock, we will be honest and tell you it is just a rock. Sorry not tool and certainly not fossil it's just a cool stone. Jess B. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 I got not'in'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 It looks like a water carved limestone piece, to me. 3 " 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...
MSirmon Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 13 hours ago, Nörsk Grunner said: Do you have a picture handy? I was told it was a tool for arrows but I dunno it's definitely odd and well shaped. Here are a few examples of what I've found out here in chert central. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nörsk Grunner Posted March 5, 2017 Author Share Posted March 5, 2017 3 hours ago, MSirmon said: Here are a few examples of what I've found out here in chert central. Thank you for time in posting these pictures. I have many stones with with similar shapes, outer layer colors and textures. Chert, eh. Very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nörsk Grunner Posted March 5, 2017 Author Share Posted March 5, 2017 9 hours ago, westcoast said: It looks like chert which can have a white outer altered or weathered layer and a dark interior. Because of its natural shape it may possibly have been used as a tool but you would need an experienced archaeologist to analyse any scrape or scratch marks. Was it found near an archaeological site? But otherwise not a fossil and 'just' a stone. I might scratch off weathered layer on some of my stones and see what lays beneath. This forum is excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nörsk Grunner Posted March 6, 2017 Author Share Posted March 6, 2017 On 3/5/2017 at 4:23 AM, bone2stone said: There have been many finds of this nature and there is always somebody has told them "tool" or fossil. We will not mislead you here if it is a obscure rock, we will be honest and tell you it is just a rock. Sorry not tool and certainly not fossil it's just a cool stone. Jess B. I stumbled on a study of a Native American site in North Dakota chapter 14 discusses how shells were modified for various purposes and how some of the shells were brought to the area by its occupants. One of these modified shells looks very similar to the one that started this post. Does anyone find this interesting? Chapter 14 http://www.dot.nd.gov/public/education/scatteredvillage.htm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, Nörsk Grunner said: One of these modified shells looks very similar to the one that started this post. Does anyone find this interesting? Yes, but the original piece of this post is not a shell (fragment or otherwise) and has the common appearance of a clam bored rock that has been stream /beach tumbled. I still say it is not an artifact. Tony 2 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...
abyssunder Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 I agree. Not man-made, but Mo Nature's 'handmade'. 1 " 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...
bone2stone Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 This specimen is caused by acidification. A lens of differentiated deposits are often found in the Austin chalk material. Once the acid permeates the substrate it often attacks the material most subject to degradation. Yours is just such a specimen. Limestone not fossiliferous nor is it an artifact by any means. Better luck on your next find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bone2stone Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 10 hours ago, Nörsk Grunner said: I stumbled on a study of a Native American site in North Dakota chapter 14 discusses how shells were modified for various purposes and how some of the shells were brought to the area by its occupants. One of these modified shells looks very similar to the one that started this post. Does anyone find this interesting? Chapter 14 http://www.dot.nd.gov/public/education/scatteredvillage.htm Interesting yes informative yes comparative to your find doubtful. Jess B. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.1c89bcbea88f1e4d0c75a8d5cee8738f.png)
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