Tanit Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 Can anyone tell me if these two stones are fossils or not? Dimensions: 1- 20 mm ; 2.5 gr 2- 35 mm ; 5.6 gr. thickness : 1 mm Thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 Not seeing any fossils here. The one backlit is a cryptocrystalline quartz., maybe chert or agate. Not really sure how the pictures relate to each other. Is it front and back views of one piece? 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...
Tanit Posted April 8, 2019 Author Share Posted April 8, 2019 The second and third photos are the front of the two pieces and the fourth and fifth are the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 One looks like agate the other is sandstone (or has to much matrix on it to tell) 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...
Al Tahan Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 20 hours ago, Tanit said: Can anyone tell me if these two stones are fossils or not? Dimensions: 1- 20 mm ; 2.5 gr 2- 35 mm ; 5.6 gr.thickness : 1 mm Thanks Honestly these photos look like this weird type of shell or oyster part (maybe the bottom shell of an oyster?) of somthing I’ve found shelling in Florida. I don’t think agate would make a nice little “agate chip” like this only 1mm thick. Also....where did you find this? I may be modern depending on how you found it. not 100% sure but it doesn’t seem like something purely geologic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanit Posted April 8, 2019 Author Share Posted April 8, 2019 Someone found in Tunisia more than 500 such pieces buried underground, according to what he said. He gave me the two pieces I presented here. I thought at first that it was a kind of ancient coins. I then presented them on a numismatic forum to get an opinion. Everyone agreed that they are not coins. Someone suggested that it could be fossils. So I presented them to you for the advice of paleontologists. Apparently everyone here finds that they are not fossils. If they are not old coins or fossils, what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 Agate nodules. They come in many shapes and sizes. 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...
Tanit Posted April 9, 2019 Author Share Posted April 9, 2019 I tested with acid. The acid stays on the surface and does nothing. I tried to pierce the coin with a needle: impossible to make even a small one hole. What is intriguing is the large number of pieces found in the same place as a treasure and with a larger piece of about 30 cm on which is engraved the portrait of a Roman man in profile. I will post the picture as soon as the person sends it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanit Posted April 9, 2019 Author Share Posted April 9, 2019 I think it is prehistoric or Roman flint blades used to cut or scrape. I made the test: I cut with this tool a branch of soft wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 17 minutes ago, Tanit said: I think it is prehistoric or Roman flint blades used to cut or scrape. I made the test: I cut with this tool a branch of soft wood. I'm not sure that would be a definitive test as just about any sharp shard of rock could achieve the same purpose. A sharp shard would be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to declare an object was used as a cutting tool. If memory serves, most human artifacts of the period would display some clear signs of knapping or grinding to create the ideal shape and utility for the tool. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) They are probably Nummulites . " The ancient Egyptians used nummulite shells as coins and the pyramids were constructed using limestone that contained nummulites.[4][5] It is not surprising then that the name "Nummulites" is a diminutive form of the Latin nummulus meaning "little coin", a reference to their shape. " - Wikipedia Edited April 9, 2019 by abyssunder 2 " 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...
Mark Kmiecik Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 A nummulite is a large lenticular fossil, characterized by its numerous coils,[1] subdivided by septa into chambers. They are the shells of the fossil and present-day marine protozoan Nummulites, a type of foraminiferan. Nummulites commonly vary in diameter from 1.3 cm (0.5 inches) to 5 cm (2 inches)[2] and are common in Eocene to Miocene marine rocks, particularly around southwest Asia and the Mediterranean (e.g. Eocene limestones from Egypt). Fossils up to six inches wide are found in the Middle Eocene rocks of Turkey.[3] They are valuable as index fossils. The ancient Egyptians used nummulite shells as coins and the pyramids were constructed using limestone that contained nummulites.[4][5] It is not surprising then that the name "Nummulites" is a diminutive form of the Latin nummulus meaning "little coin", a reference to their shape.[6] In 1913, naturalist Randolph Kirkpatrick published a book, The Nummulosphere: an account of the Organic Origin of so-called Igneous Rocks and Abyssal Red Clays, proposing the unconventional theory that all rocks had been produced through the accumulation of forams such as Nummulites. 2 Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 22 minutes ago, Mark Kmiecik said: A nummulite is a large lenticular fossil, characterized by its numerous coils,[1] subdivided by septa into chambers. 2 hours ago, abyssunder said: They are probably Nummulites . I do not see "numerous coils, subdivided by septa into chambers" in the OP's pieces. I am in doubt to the nummulites theory. 7 hours ago, Tanit said: I tested with acid. The acid stays on the surface and does nothing. This indicates the mineral is a cryptocrystalline quartz (agate). 5 hours ago, Tanit said: Roman flint blades used to cut or scrape. Romans did not use "knapping" technologies, they used bronze and later iron. 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...
abyssunder Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 Well, there are no spirals / chambers visible on the external surface of a nummulite test, these features are visible in equatorial section or natural weathering to a deeper level, features nicely exemplified here . A good reference for the Tunisian Nummulites may be S. J. Jorry, 2004, thesis. Also, here's a picture showing different natural weathering levels of nummulite tests. 2 " 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...
ynot Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 2 hours ago, abyssunder said: these features are visible in equatorial section or natural weathering to a deeper level, Wouldn't they show up in the backlit views? 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...
Mark Kmiecik Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 20 hours ago, ynot said: Wouldn't they show up in the backlit views? They sure would. That's why I posted that Wiki clip about them. Makes it rather obvious that they are not. Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 (edited) Hey guys, I was having troubles figuring the orientation and seeing details as well so I took the last photos thinking they are one in the same specimen and rotated and flipped them and put them in grayscale for comparison....then I tried to correlate what the exterior view shows and what might appear with the backlighted photo...I think the section is too thick and light too bright in parts but I believe I see some similar very faint banding in several of the areas if you compare the left and right photos...Whether you could make them into coils I just dont see enough detail there. I think if it was a clean thin perfectly uniformly flat section like for petrographic mineralogic analysis -think ours when we made them were way less than a .1 mm thick I think you could really see whats going on internally... Right now Nummulites seems reasonable as a possibility but I sure would like to see it looked at under a scope with a good thin section...maybe the op could perform some simple scope work and can compare a nummulite coiled photo with the unknowns and provide us feedback... My two cents. Regards, Chris Edited April 15, 2019 by Plantguy fixed spelling/grammar 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 I made the probe light-passing-through the calcified test on more than 150 specimens of intact Nummulites recovered from Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Croatia, and there's no visible signs of spiraling - chambered features, even their thickness is varying from very thin to very thick (no matter how their diameter is). I conclude, that the specimens in question are Nummulites, very nice specimens, from an area I haven't samples. 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...
fifbrindacier Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 On 4/9/2019 at 5:15 PM, abyssunder said: Well, there are no spirals / chambers visible on the external surface of a nummulite test, these features are visible in equatorial section or natural weathering to a deeper level, features nicely exemplified here . On 4/14/2019 at 9:52 PM, Plantguy said: I'm in the nummulite camp, in the speciment on the right, i see patterns that looks like the ones on Abyssunder's image on the right. 2 "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 I completely agree with Nummulites. I have a bunch of N. perforatus from the Eocene of Transylvania that agree with these. The broken ones show the internal structure. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 23 hours ago, abyssunder said: I made the probe light-passing-through the calcified test on more than 150 specimens of intact Nummulites recovered from Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Croatia, and there's no visible signs of spiraling - chambered features, even their thickness is varying from very thin to very thick (no matter how their diameter is). I conclude, that the specimens in question are Nummulites, very nice specimens, from an area I haven't samples. Very interesting! I know when I was looking at my pile of bryozoans awhile back for a long period of time I saw spots afterwards. Hopefully you have no ill effects of looking at that many Nummulites! Nice research/work as always! Regards, Chris 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 18 hours ago, Plantguy said: Very interesting! I know when I was looking at my pile of bryozoans awhile back for a long period of time I saw spots afterwards. Hopefully you have no ill effects of looking at that many Nummulites! Nice research/work as always! Regards, Chris For a few minutes I have seen spots everywhere after finishing the test on the specimens, associated with a little headache... Thank you for the appreciation, Chris. 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...
fifbrindacier Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 On 02/08/2019 at 3:24 AM, fifbrindacier said: I'm in the nummulite camp, in the speciment on the right, i see patterns that looks like the ones on Abyssunder's image on the right. I should have said Abyssunder's image on the left, sorry. 1 "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 On 8/5/2019 at 1:44 PM, fifbrindacier said: I should have said Abyssunder's image on the left, sorry. No problem. We know what you were thinking about. 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...
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