Jump to content

fossillized scratch marks?


digirama

Recommended Posts

  • New Members

I found this rock next to a public road within 2 ft of roadside. Brookline, MA area.  FYI it wasn't embedded in the ground, just laying on top. Originally assumed it was a stone-worked scrap or maybe damaged by a snow plow blade. Chisel marks from a stonemason in-training 100+ yrs ago? But it's kind of 'organic' looking in the patterns of the 'scratches'. The more i looked at it, the more I considered it might be a fossil. Claw scratch-marks from a prehistoric animal?  Impressions in what was once mud ground? Not sure of rock type, but it's very hard rock. If granite then not likely to be a fossil, I know. Detailed photos included.  Happy to be proven wrong in my notions, I just want to be sure in the offhand chance it is a fossil. Thanks in advance for your feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

rock 3.jpg

rock 2.jpg

rock 1.jpg

rock 7.jpg

rock 6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks manmade to me, someone took a chisel and a hammer to it for some reason.

“...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin

Happy hunting,

Mason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it could be a fossil of any kind. It could be glacial transported material. It looks geological in origin and glacial erratic, to me. The wider and deeper marks are not fresh, they are eroded. I could be wrong, also.

 

59c4442296e01_rock1.jpg.aaeeaeb0c0386ecf29cb0b0e28513091.jpg.7be9d8b68ae65bf5198b4df99a5a3bba.jpgIMG_4465.thumb.jpg.f0695229d4d0994dbfacbd2a73d02f4f.jpg

comparative picture from here

 

" 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

4 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

I don't think it could be a fossil of any kind. It could be glacial transported material. It looks geological in origin and glacial erratic, to me. The wider and deeper marks are not fresh, they are eroded. I could be wrong, also.

 

This was my first thought as well, I'm caught between the two.

“...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin

Happy hunting,

Mason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again gentlemen this may be a stone once buried in a garden, plow struck before someone just got fed up and dug it out.

Just a guess though, but I have seen this phenomenon before on stones mistaken to be native American artifacts.

Most, that have the plow gouges, normally have oxide/rust staining from the initial plow strike.

 

It again IMHO this may be an artifact used as an anvil so to speak to hold what ever they were butchering at the time

or to "remove corn from cobb.

I believe it is an artifact.

Stonebone

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...