Please ID?

[jpc]

I think they are not fossils.  

 

PachyP.... you're Eocene thing looks like a scute form a Glyptosaur... a common Eocene lizard around here, also found in Europe.  

[abyssunder]

On 9/30/2020 at 12:31 AM, Antonjo said:

I'm curious about this "spongy"rock? 

 

In my opinion, you have a bioeroded hard substrate there, as a rock. Details of your picture are not proper for a correct ID, so I'm just guessing that the equidistant double borings on the visible surface may be Caulostrepsis and the half circle one could be Entobia. High res images may tell the story, also a scale in mm would be good as reference.

[Antonjo]

6 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

In my opinion, you have a bioeroded hard substrate there, as a rock

Thanks, I posted this more to depict surroundings. This piece is about 3 cm in diameter, and I didn't take better photos than this

[Antonjo]

4 hours ago, jpc said:

I think they are not fossils

What do you think it is? 

[abyssunder]

12 minutes ago, Antonjo said:

Thanks, I posted this more to depict surroundings. This piece is about 3 cm in diameter, and I didn't take better photos than this

In this case, I would agree with me. 

[Antonjo]

1 minute ago, abyssunder said:

In this case, I would agree with me. 

I don't have enough knowledge about subject, so I agree to agree

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

4 hours ago, jpc said:

I think they are not fossils.  

 

PachyP.... you're Eocene thing looks like a scute form a Glyptosaur... a common Eocene lizard around here, also found in Europe.  

Thanks for the pointer, Jean-Pierre! This find stumped me for a while, with me primarily suspecting either fish or lizard, but not knowing where to start looking for a definite answer... But Glyptosaurinae seems a very good match, judging from tbe images below:

 

Figure 6 from Bolet and Evans, 2013: Lizards and amphisbaenians (Reptilia, Squamata) from the late Eocene of Sossís (Catalonia, Spain)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 from Cicimurri, Knight, Self-Trail and Ebersole, 2016: Late Paleocene glyptosaur (Reptilia: Anguidae) osteoderms from South Carolina, USA

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

7 hours ago, Antonjo said:

I knocked those two pieces one with another and they surely sound like two stones, high pitched 

I tried to burn it too, and it doesn't smell like hair or nails, but somehow different 

Here are few more photos, with washed and cleaner sample

 

    

Sorry for having hijacked your thread there for a bit, @Antonjo! But having had a look at your latest photographs, I also tend to more see these pieces as stones rather than bone... The cores of the specimens seem very solid, unlike bone, and there appears to be some kind of hard cortex, visible in the one-but-last picture, that also looks more like stone than bone. Still, it's odd that two pieces of stone would have such similar shape without an apparent reason...

 

The way these pieces look now, I'm inclined to add my vote to @LabRatKing's original suggestion of flowstone...

[JohnJ]

@Antonjo

 

What other type fossils have you found at this location?

[LabRatKing]

6 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Sorry for having hijacked your thread there for a bit, @Antonjo! But having had a look at your latest photographs, I also tend to more see these pieces as stones rather than bone... The cores of the specimens seem very solid, unlike bone, and there appears to be some kind of hard cortex, visible in the one-but-last picture, that also looks more like stone than bone. Still, it's odd that two pieces of stone would have such similar shape without an apparent reason...

 

The way these pieces look now, I'm inclined to add my vote to @LabRatKing's original suggestion of flowstone...

Now that they are cleaned up, I admit I’m at a loss. The keeled sides do invoke thoughts of scapula or even keel bones, but it’s the zig zag patterns that still make lean towards geological. I’m having difficulty finding much fossil info about the area. I’ll dig some more tomorrow though, I like a good challenge!

[Antonjo]

6 hours ago, JohnJ said:

@Antonjo

 

What other type fossils have you found at this location?

Mostly numulites, on exact location, and in the area, you can find echinoids, bivalves, corals...

[Antonjo]

2 hours ago, LabRatKing said:

I’ll dig some more tomorrow though, I like a good challenge!

thanks @LabRatKing I'm curious

[Bradley Flynn]

When I look at the pictures you have presented, I think pottery. It almost seems like it could have been ware that broke during the firing process, this can explain the bubbles on the broken surfaces and crack lines. Also the center and the outer edge differ in color, this could be due to the outer surfaces being more worked or the thicker parts of the ware retained moisture. The moisture could have been responsible for cracking and breaking of the piece during the firing process. The lip/ridge could be the lid rest on the inner of the ware, while the outside has some decorative zig zag markings. This is just my opinion, I do some pottery work and these pieces you have seem very familiar to me. 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

1 hour ago, Bradley Flynn said:

When I look at the pictures you have presented, I think pottery. It almost seems like it could have been ware that broke during the firing process, this can explain the bubbles on the broken surfaces and crack lines. Also the center and the outer edge differ in color, this could be due to the outer surfaces being more worked or the thicker parts of the ware retained moisture. The moisture could have been responsible for cracking and breaking of the piece during the firing process. The lip/ridge could be the lid rest on the inner of the ware, while the outside has some decorative zig zag markings. This is just my opinion, I do some pottery work and these pieces you have seem very familiar to me. 

Though it's certainly possible for pottery to break of in parts leaving a keel like this, this normally only happens with ring-coiled pottery. In those cases, it's actually rare to have impressions on both sides of a keep, as, typically, you'd have one could on top of the next, with only the bottom part of the one coil flattened onto the one below. In addition, since coiled pottery manufacture is a rather ancient technique no longer in use for commercial pottery making, you'd expect the ceramic's paste to hold inclusions. That's not the case here, both the outside and core of the pieces looking to homogenous for pottery. Therefore, in my opinion, these are not fragments of ceramics.

 

What I have been wondering about, though, is how homogenous the soil was from which these specimens were extracted. On the photographs, the soil looks rather perturbed - i.e., there could be inclusions from other places in time, a palimsest. For, unless the specimens were actually extracted from consolidated matrix, there is a risk of them not deriving from where they appeared to be embedded. I'm all to familiar with this from my own hunts. In that case, one might need to ask whether it's possible that modern trash found its way into the soil here, whether it could have mixed. For, one idea that crossed my mind before is that this might actually be some kind of industrial product. I've since discarded this hypothesis, as the material looks very homogenous on both in- and outside, and the marbling and cracking on the face on the one specimen with the zig-zag pattern seems way too much like rock to me.

[Bradley Flynn]

@pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon yes you have valid points there My thinking was that it's possibly old pottery made by an apprentice or someone learning, hence the cracks and breakage. The coil method is indeed very old and still in use today, although there is more than one way to build with clay. Many of these ancient vessels where ornately decorated with delicate complex designs, making the proposed shards in question very difficult to place. On the other hand it could definitely be modern, industrial junk that ended up on the site, geological or maybe even shell fragments from an older sea bed. Anyway, I've had a stab at it with a blunt knife

[mikeymig]

Looks like split horse tooth to me. 

[LabRatKing]

@Bradley Flynn brings up an excellent point. I think at this step, you should try a few basic tests. The first would be to do a "steak plate test" which is to drag one point on one of the specimens on a piece of un-glazed tile. If it makes a streak, note the color/ take a picture. If it doesn't then it is likely not a fossil and probably a bit of pottery as Brad suggests. If it does make a streak, this is where the fun starts and pictures will be helpful of the streaks. If it is a fine dusty powder, biomorphic geology (flowstone) is very likely. If it is a coarse, chunky streak, the odds of it being fossil are much better. If it barely streaks or gives a polished appearance it is likely more modern if biologic at all.

 

I would also do a fizz test with a drop of hydrochloric acid, 37% also called muriatic acid to see what the carbonate composition is like. From what you have described so far, I suspect there wont be any fizzing.

[Antonjo]

3 hours ago, LabRatKing said:

@Bradley Flynn brings up an excellent point. I think at this step, you should try a few basic tests. The first would be to do a "steak plate test" which is to drag one point on one of the specimens on a piece of un-glazed tile. If it makes a streak, note the color/ take a picture. If it doesn't then it is likely not a fossil and probably a bit of pottery as Brad suggests. If it does make a streak, this is where the fun starts and pictures will be helpful of the streaks. If it is a fine dusty powder, biomorphic geology (flowstone) is very likely. If it is a coarse, chunky streak, the odds of it being fossil are much better. If it barely streaks or gives a polished appearance it is likely more modern if biologic at all.

 

I would also do a fizz test with a drop of hydrochloric acid, 37% also called muriatic acid to see what the carbonate composition is like. From what you have described so far, I suspect there wont be any fizzing.

Thanks for advice @LabRatKing I will try it when I find unglazed tile, and I'll post pictures of it. 

Today I went on the same location, and find lots of very similar samples, all of which was on very narrow area, maybe 10 m2. Further than that, I couldn't find any.. 

Here are few more photos

[Bradley Flynn]

Well I don't think it's pottery anymore

 

[Bradley Flynn]

Looking at all of them layed out like that it looks like osteoderms or some kind of armored plating. I'm hoping someone can figure this one out

[LabRatKing]

17 minutes ago, Bradley Flynn said:

Well I don't think it's pottery anymore

 

Nor do I. I think we got fossils...now to figure out what. 

[LabRatKing]

1 minute ago, Bradley Flynn said:

Looking at all of them layed out like that it looks like osteoderms or some kind of armored plating. I'm hoping someone can figure this one out

I’m thinking osteoderms too. I put in an intra library for some papers on my he area. Might need a translator for a few of them.

[LabRatKing]

@Antonjo question: are you finding these at the sea shore, along a creek , or other? I’m on to something on the his end, but need a bit more info about the site. If you’re finding them where I’m guessing, that may help with identity 

[Antonjo]

9 hours ago, LabRatKing said:

@Antonjo question: are you finding these at the sea shore, along a creek , or other? I’m on to something on the his end, but need a bit more info about the site. If you’re finding them where I’m guessing, that may help with identity 

The site is at the base of the hill called Perun, it is about 1km from the sea shore. I'm not aware of any creek near, except little river called Zrnovnica maybe 2 km away

 

[Bradley Flynn]

I'm not sure on the geology of the area you are finding these, but I did a little searching and found something interesting or maybe just another miss. 

http://sciencythoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/teeth-and-osteoderms-of-sebecosuchian.html?m=1