dbrake40 Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) Hello, this was found on a southern Minnesota river rock/sand bar. I have a guess what it is but wanted to see what your unbiased opinion is by not divulging my suspicion. It dense but pretty light like a piece of very hard plywood. This was found by a friend who loves hunting river banks and rock bars... Edited July 10, 2019 by dbrake40 type-os Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Part of a moose or deer scapula? 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...
PaleoNoel Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 While it doesn't have the telltale "schreger lines" of mammoth and mastodon tusks I can't help but see some resemblance there with the striations. Maybe a closer view of the cross section could give us a better idea of this piece's identity. Additionally it could also be a section of pleistocene or holocene petrified wood. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 At this resolution it looks like sedimentary rock to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbrake40 Posted July 10, 2019 Author Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) Ok - enough with the suspense. A local archaeologist thought is was a mammoth or mastodon tusk fragment... Edited July 10, 2019 by dbrake40 type-os Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, dbrake40 said: Ok - enough with the suspense. A local archaeologist thought is was a mammoth or mastodon tooth fragment... Tooth or tusk? Because it does not look like part of a tooth, neither mastodon nor mammoth. It could be part of a tusk. If you Google mastodon and mammoth, tooth and tusk, you'll see what I mean. I'm no expert on this by any means, but what I looked at says tusk more than tooth. 1 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...
dbrake40 Posted July 10, 2019 Author Share Posted July 10, 2019 10 minutes ago, Mark Kmiecik said: Tooth or tusk? Because it does not look like part of a tooth, neither mastodon nor mammoth. It could be part of a tusk. If you Google mastodon and mammoth, tooth and tusk, you'll see what I mean. I'm no expert on this by any means, but what I looked at says tusk more than tooth. Sorry - Yes tusk fragment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, dbrake40 said: Sorry - Yes tusk fragment. Ok -- so now we need to determine if it's mastodon or mammoth. You look and I'll look. Let's see if we concur. P.S. -- Hint: You may not have to search any further than this forum. 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...
dbrake40 Posted July 10, 2019 Author Share Posted July 10, 2019 31 minutes ago, Mark Kmiecik said: Ok -- so now we need to determine if it's mastodon or mammoth. You look and I'll look. Let's see if we concur. P.S. -- Hint: You may not have to search any further than this forum. Are referring to post about Schreger lines in ivory? Because I cannot see them in these photos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, dbrake40 said: Ok - enough with the suspense. A local archaeologist thought is was a mammoth or mastodon tusk fragment... So , let's make this simpler.. There is one and only one way to distinguish between a Mammoth or Mastodon tusk fragment. Schreger lines. https://makezine.com/2012/03/29/how-to-tell-mammoth-ivory-from-elephant-ivory/ Here is a form post that explores the topic. Just noted your post that you can not see them. Neither can I. They will be on the"ends"... It may help to search this forum for Schreger. 3 The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 9 minutes ago, dbrake40 said: Are referring to post about Schreger lines in ivory? Because I cannot see them in these photos... Nope. Just from what's visible in your photos when compared to both. Would you say mastodon or mammoth, and why? I'm not saying that it CAN be identified as either, just trying to get you to consider what physical features including coloration you would take into consideration. 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...
dbrake40 Posted July 10, 2019 Author Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mark Kmiecik said: Nope. Just from what's visible in your photos when compared to both. Would you say mastodon or mammoth, and why? Ok - you've got me stumped... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 18 minutes ago, dbrake40 said: Ok - you've got me stumped... I was editing my post as you posted this. I'm playing devil's advocate so we can determine what other information we would need to tell the difference and how to present data to support a hypothesis. Schreger lines may be the only way -- I don't know. But just by looking at a lot of photos of each I would lean towards mastodon for two reasons. The surface striation, the location of discovery. I may be wrong, but if I had to bet money I would place my bet on mastodon for the reasons given. You know how when you see something hundreds or thousands of times you get a feel for how it should look and if something is slightly different it pops up like a red flag that says "Hey, you better take another look at this 'cause something don't jive"? For instance, how can the trilobite guys on here identify a specimen down to specie level and then say that one that looks just like it to you and me is a different specie? They've seen so many that they just have a feel for what it can and can't be. 1 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 July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 Just to clear the muddy water a little bit.... A tusk is a tooth, but a tooth is not necessarily a tusk. I think it looks more like a piece of molar plate from a mammoth than it does a tusk fragment. Can not see schreger lines and it looks flat with 2 types of material (enamel and dentin {?}) preserved. 3 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...
garyc Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 From what I can see looking at these pics on my phone, If that’s from a tusk the diameter would be measured in feet, not inches. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 I would still need a good look at a clean surface to convince me that it isn't sedimentary rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 15 hours ago, garyc said: From what I can see looking at these pics on my phone, If that’s from a tusk the diameter would be measured in feet, not inches. Certain areas of the perimeter can be flattened both in life and in method of preservation, especially at the proximal end. Thousands of years of pressure can flatten curved surfaces dramatically, and since there is no way we can determine what actually happened we can't draw definite conclusions from the results. I do agree that from what is visible one could come to that conclusion. 1 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...
dbrake40 Posted July 12, 2019 Author Share Posted July 12, 2019 17 hours ago, Mark Kmiecik said: Certain areas of the perimeter can be flattened both in life and in method of preservation, especially at the proximal end. Thousands of years of pressure can flatten curved surfaces dramatically, and since there is no way we can determine what actually happened we can't draw definite conclusions from the results. I do agree that from what is visible one could come to that conclusion. I did a rough calculation and by the curvature of the peace it's about a 8in diameter tusk. Which is huge and I'm thinking the above assessment is correct and it could be partially flattened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 19 minutes ago, dbrake40 said: I did a rough calculation and by the curvature of the peace it's about a 8in diameter tusk. Which is huge and I'm thinking the above assessment is correct and it could be partially flattened. I am still unconvinced it is a tusk fragment. No schreger lines = not tusk. The 2 types of material do not fit with a tusk either. Would like to see good close up pictures of the sides and "grey" back. 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...
Plantguy Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Still wondering about this...... Went back and looked at some tusk pieces I have and noticed that some areas dont always show the schreger lines which surprised me--probably there just not visible--maybe Harry or someone else who knows can say how that works. After I messed with the 2nd photo and tried to sharpen the focus a bit I'm now still wondering if the preservation/tumbled smoothed edge could be hiding the subtle cross hatching or is that simply fracturing/mineral cleavage causing that look? Not sure if the unknown piece is still even available for additional photos/examination as PaleoNoel/Ynot requested but if so maybe wetting the end edge and viewing under magnification/might reveal more...Maybe even asking the archaeologist if he/she saw schreger lines could cut to the chase.... Here are a couple of shots of my pieces that show how some of the schreger lines really stand out in most areas and in others you cant really see them.. Cool find to ponder over whatever it is. Regards, Chris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbrake40 Posted July 14, 2019 Author Share Posted July 14, 2019 My friend, who originality found this, has been talking to an archeologist from the Science Museum of Minnesota and has convinced the archeologist to come visit and review his collection of river finds including this piece... So far they had been corresponding via e-mail with just photos. More to come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 4 hours ago, dbrake40 said: My friend, who originality found this, has been talking to an archeologist from the Science Museum of Minnesota and has convinced the archeologist to come visit and review his collection of river finds including this piece... So far they had been corresponding via e-mail with just photos. More to come! Thats great! We look forward to hearing about any details and/or seeing pictures of other finds... Regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 In the photo with the red arrows I see a bit of a cross-hatch pattern that resembles Schreger Lines. Anyone else see that? I wonder if wetting the specimen may help. 1 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...
abyssunder Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 I just want to add, that the Schreger lines are visible only in a transverse section of a proboscidean tusk, not in a longitudinal section which show the weekly/monthly/yearly crescents. Proboscidean teeth have Hunter-Schreger bands. A high-resolution image of a polished transverse cut of the specimen may help in the ID. 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...
Plantguy Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 3 hours ago, abyssunder said: I just want to add, that the Schreger lines are visible only in a transverse section of a proboscidean tusk, not in a longitudinal section which show the weekly/monthly/yearly crescents. Proboscidean teeth have Hunter-Schreger bands. A high-resolution image of a polished transverse cut of the specimen may help in the ID. Thanks Lori, I should have put more arrows on my specimen photo but yeah the transverse section of mine has an area near the core that has no lines and that was causing me to wonder...probably there but in reading some other posts it looks like sometimes the lines are just more visible along the outer portions of the tusk. Regards, Chris 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