Heavy Calcified (?) Skull

[AllGrownsUp]

Another "rock" from my desert house. This one was covered in sediment, which I mostly chipped off. I think there may still be some skin on there as there is also some reptilian texture but much of it came off attached to the top layer of sediment (which I saved). Its solid mineral of some sort & very heavy for its size. It seems smashed in along the jaw on one side making it a little lopsided from all angles & I believe there was a longer mouth which is now thrown over the other side and wrapped the other side around a little. You can also clearly see some kind of vertebrae through the mineral running along the center of the bottom of the head/jaw as well as the top row of teeth along each side of the jaw. From the front you can see where some teeth got knocked inward. I can post more pics, angles, or details if you'd like but here's a start.

This is the front/side. You can see the teeth knocked inward.

 

This is underneath. You can see through the mineral and see the outline of a vertebrae down the center as well as where it attached near the back. Look closely and you can also see the top row of teeth as well as where they start where the jaw meets.

 

 

This is the back of the head/skull

 

 

This is the other side view. I believe that lump towards the front of the face is a mouth that got broken & wrapped around the side.

 

This is head-on. You kind of have to tilt your head to the right to see it at the correct angle since it's been smashed to the side. I believe that dark spot towards the center was the opening for the nose and the thing twisting up and to the left along the bottom portion is the longer mouth that got broken & wrapped around. Or else . . . ?

 

There are a lot of "rocks" like this in my yard but this one has the most detail so far.

I also took photos of the bones & shell this week & will get them uploaded this weekend.

 

[BobWill]

Sorry but nothing about this resembles any thing that used to be alive. Can you tell us the age of the exposures you are finding these in? That is the very first thing you should be looking at to see what you should expect to be finding there. If you don't know the age or the name of the formation you need to at least tell us the general location so someone can help us determine this. You may be able to find a geological map online with this information.

[AllGrownsUp]

Really? Not even the bone running the length of the middle of the base of the skull or the rows of teeth on each side? I'm in the precambrian zone on the geo map. 

[AllGrownsUp]

You can also clearly see the root of one of the teeth in the front if you look closely at the photo. Outside of one side of the face being pushed in the entire thing is perfectly symmetrical. That's a pretty big coincidence to have a large bony vertebrae-like area running right down the center of a symmetrical skull-shaped item with teeth on each side, no? There's a small hump on the top of one side of the skull that came off with the sediment but I still have it. There are also visible scales where the top yellowed layer is still there. 

[Kane]

No apparent bone texture. This is not a fossil.   And it certainly would not be a vertebrate fossil if it comes from Precambrian strata. 

[History Hunter02]

Sorry. No fossil here. Rocks can have funny shapes that make you think they are something sometimes. 

[KimTexan]

Hum, I don’t see a skull, but I think I may see what looks like oyster shell or bivalve shell material. It is difficult to tell for sure, but by the mention of the fact that it is heavily calcified makes me suspect marine environment fossils.

So sorry it isn’t the cool skull. It is a pretty common thing for rocks or fossils to be mistaken for something else. After all they’ve been through they often are twisted and deformed to the point of not being recognizable. 

 

I have circled 2 areas on this pic which may be sea shell material. That gray rock is often a calcium carbonate material which oyster shells are made of. It’s not nearly as interesting as what you thought it was, but it’s cool looking.

 

Your last pic clearly shows chalcedony rock which is a crytocrystaline silicon dioxide, the chemical structure of quartz, but arranged differently than quarts.

The rock also has thick calcium deposits on it. I tend to think it was once a mass of oysters or something from a reef environment. 

[Darktooth]

Are you the same person that posted the fossilized "Duck"?

[Fossildude19]

Looks like a chert nodule to me.  

No bone, no teeth, no enamel, no structure. 

Sorry, but I am not seeing any type of fossil here, either.

[Fossildude19]

7 minutes ago, Darktooth said:

Are you the same person that posted the fossilized "Duck"?

No, that was a person from up in Canada, somewhere. 

Just Ducky

[Darktooth]

2 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

No, that was a person from up in Canada, somewhere. 

Just Ducky

Just checking.

[ynot]

1 hour ago, AllGrownsUp said:

Another "rock" from my desert house. This one was covered in sediment, which I mostly chipped off.

Your rock is an agate nodule. This is a common type of rock in southern California deserts.

The "skin" You chipped off could be the volcanic rock the agate formed in or "calichi" a calcium carbonate mineral that forms on rocks in a desert environment.

Being precambrian means that there were no animals with skeletons and no bones. There were very few animals with shells and only towards the end of that time.

[AllGrownsUp]

There are teeth and you can see the roots of 3 of them. There are scales a-plenty but clearly my photos don't do it justice at all. You can delete this post.

[ynot]

5 minutes ago, AllGrownsUp said:

There are teeth and you can see the roots of 3 of them. There are scales a-plenty but clearly my photos don't do it justice at all. You can delete this post.

Agates can be quite convoluted in structures. They often have spires and sharp angles shown by different colored bands (layers).

The human brain tries to fit these shapes into a known object, but it is a coincidental similarity, not a fossil.

 

Take a look at this thread for some great examples of similar types of mother natures jokes.

 

[Bobby Rico]

Hi 

I am with ynot , it is agate nodule. 

It is hard to find fossils when you are just starting out but you seam to have a real interest in natural history, so please keep it up . When you are looking at your finds, you are using your knowledge of natural history (or database) to determine the nature of your finds. Your database is probably made up thousands of critters from all periods and all walks of life on earth (modern and prehistoric). If we was fossil hunting on your land we would only be looking for Pre-cambrian life.  The Pre-cambrian is a massive time period in the early part of Earth’s history but life only really exploded at the end of this period .  Most of the creatures of the Pre-Cambrian was soft bodied like sponges and jelly fish but they are never really found. Maybe you can find some  hard bodies creatures like trilobites but remember it is very rare to find Pre-Cambrian fossil most fossil collectiors will never get the opportunity too. There is next to none back boned creatures from this time No fish or reptiles. Please keep looking and maybe see if you can join a local geological group. All the best Bobby 

[Kane]

You will probably notice that we tend to use a lot of hedging language here ("it looks like," "seems like", "it might be") in lieu of declarative statements. This is particularly the case when dealing with specimens we are unsure of, as that is more aligned with the nature of scientific observation. Through a series of falsifications we can then eliminate possibilities until we can move from tentative to a more definitive identification. These observations take the form of comparing the morphology of the specimen against similar specimens, and investigating what fossil fauna would be present in the location in which the specimen was found. If this is locally sourced from the Precambrian, we can easily rule out that this is a skull -- unless it were an object from drift, or human imported material, in which case it would be from a different geologic context.

 

In this case, the evident agatized banding of the piece, the absence of any regular bone texture, the absence of clearly defined root and enamel structure, the thoroughly uneven and craggy surface, the lack of uniform or comparable structure to the area you identify as a nasal cavity, apparent conchoidal fractures, the present mineralization, the colour, and the general lack of symmetry of the piece, all point to mitigating against the claim this is a fossil skull. 

 

If it were a fossilized skull, we would be able to make out with much more clarity the various anatomical components that usually denote, say, cranial features like the parietal bone, occipital, postorbital bone, etc. 

 

In all, based on the images and what one would expect to see in a fossilized skull, probability alone heavily favours that this is non-fossil rock. Of course, although our opinion is based on the combined expertise of our members, we always encourage members who are still in doubt to take the specimen in hand to a local natural history museum or palaeontology department to confirm the identity. If that is the route you choose, I very much hope you will share with us what the verdict may be! 

 

 

[LordTrilobite]

Sorry, not a skull. Not a fossil.

[Aurelius]

  

10 hours ago, AllGrownsUp said:

There are teeth and you can see the roots of 3 of them. There are scales a-plenty but clearly my photos don't do it justice at all. You can delete this post.

 

There's no shame in mistaking a rock for a fossil, we've probably all done it at some point or another. But it's a bit silly to post something here for an ID, and then get a bit snarky when people politely tell you the truth. I'm prepared to be pretty definitive here - that is definitely not any kind of skull, or any kind of fossilised bone whatsoever. To be totally honest, it doesn't even look remotely like a skull. The pictures are perfectly clear.

 

However, there are a lot of very helpful people on the forum who would, I am sure, be happy to offer you some advice to help you find some actual fossils in your area, were you to ask. I can't guarantee that you'd find a skull very easily though, I'm still looking

[Innocentx]

The human mind is an amazing thing. Sometimes that's good but other times a personal prejudice can throw things out of whack. I want to acknowledge the kindness and patience shown by those above. You know who you are. 

[AllGrownsUp]

Here's a shot of the right side showing the jaw coming out of the the temporal fenestra and eye w/ sclerotic ring. 

 

 

 

[Ludwigia]

8 hours ago, AllGrownsUp said:

Here's a shot of the right side showing the jaw coming out of the the temporal fenestra and eye w/ sclerotic ring. 

 

 

 

Sorry. It's agate or chert. Look up Pareidolia. Then if you still believe you have a skull, take it to your nearest museum for confirmation, although I'm sure they will disappoint you just as we are doing here. You've asked for our experienced opinion and you won't hear anything much different if anyone else decides to chime in here.