Stromatolites found in Knox county TN

[MaryLynnRocks]

I have several stromatolites that I've found in Knox county TN. They've only been found one 1 other location in Tennessee, by a boat ramp in Claiborne county. These aren't near a body of water, they're setting on top of very damp, moss covered ground. Claiborne county is about 45 miles north. 

[Fossildude19]

I am not sure any stromatolites can be found in Knox County.

I see no mention of them in THIS PDF.

[doushantuo]

I believe some stromatolites have been found along the banks of Cherokee Lake,Grainger County(exposures of Copper ridge Dolomite).

Whether what I'm viewing is a stromatolite is entirely another matter

[FossilDAWG]

They look like they could be stromatolites. Stromatolites are known from the Knox Formation (Late Cambrian/Early Ordovician) in Georgia.  You might email some photos to Brad Deline at the University of West Georgia for a more authoratative opinion.

 

Don

[Yoda]

If you slice through one of the lumps vertically, do you see the tell tale layers?

Your close up photo quality isn’t very clear 

 

@Wrangellian , @MarcoSr your thoughts ?

[MarcoSr]

3 hours ago, Yoda said:

If you slice through one of the lumps vertically, do you see the tell tale layers?

Your close up photo quality isn’t very clear 

 

@Wrangellian , @MarcoSr your thoughts ?

 

The pictures aren't clear enough to see the details.  From what I can see, I'm not seeing anything that I can say are definitely features of stromatolites.

 

Marco Sr.

[FossilNerd]

I agree with Marco. I don’t see anything pointing to Stromatolites in these pictures.  Different pictures may change my mind.

[Wrangellian]

Agreed, we need clearer pictures, or show them to the guy Don mentioned. I see features suggestive of stroms but that could be other things too.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Wrangellian

[EMP]

Stromatolites are fairly common in the Cambrian-Ordovician dolomites and limestones of the Great Valley. You can find them across multiple different formations from the middle Cambrian to the early Ordovician. I'm not as familiar with that part of Tennessee, but from my experience in Georgia and southern Tennessee, if they aren't eroded down to a reddish clay it's likely cherty dolostone, and if that's the case it's certainly possible these are stromatolites, which tend to get preserved in cherty layers. Whether or not they are definitively I can't say, but it's worth sending an email about. 

[MaryLynnRocks]

I made videos but can't post them, I swear it's not a scam but here's a link on Google photos

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/cxoMRvt2rwt8Ho6c9

[MaryLynnRocks]

[doushantuo]

have you found anything resembling this? 

Edited May 10, 2023 by doushantuo

[MaryLynnRocks]

16 hours ago, doushantuo said:

have you found anything resembling this? 

 

[Andúril Flame of the West]

I am by no means knowledgeable on stromatolites, but some of the rocks you photographed seem to contain structures that at least superficially resemble some stromatolites. Here is a photograph of a stromatolite from the Cambrian Conococheague formation of the northern Shenandoah Valley, Virginia (stromatolite fossil appears in the yellow circle).

 

 

The Conococheague formation is Cambrian in age and quick internet search revealed that at least some layers of the Knox Formation (which is where I assume your rocks originated based on comments from other members) are also Cambrian in age. I cannot say whether the formations are contemporary or whether the depositional environments in which the strata were laid down are similar (@EMP would have to comment on this, having far more knowledge on the formations in the Mid-Atlantic area), but some of the structures you photographed do at least superficially resemble the Cambrian-aged stromatolite fossil pictured above. EMP also mentioned rocks in the Great Valley, which I would venture to guess the Conococheague formation is part of (as a result there might be some similarities between fauna of both formations, though, of course, this is only a guess on my part), though another member would need to verify this. 

 

This is the LINK where the image of the stromatolite originated and more information about the stromatolite fossils and the Conococheague formation can be found there. As a fair warning, if you are reading this post on mobile the link has only worked for me on a PC interface. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Andúril Flame of the West

[EMP]

4 minutes ago, Andúril Flame of the West said:

I am by no means knowledgeable on stromatolites, but some of the rocks you photographed seem to contain structures that at least superficially resemble some stromatolites. Here is a photograph of a stromatolite from the Cambrian Conococheague formation of the northern Shenandoah Valley, Virginia (stromatolite fossil appears in the yellow circle).

 

 

The Conococheague formation is Cambrian in age and quick internet search revealed that at least some layers of the Knox Formation (which is where I assume your rocks originated based on comments from other members) are also Cambrian in age. I cannot say whether the formations are contemporary or whether the depositional environments in which the strata were laid down are similar (@EMP would have to comment on this, having far more knowledge on the formations in the Mid-Atlantic area), but some of the structures you photographed do at least superficially resemble the Cambrian-aged stromatolite fossil pictured above. EMP also mentioned rocks in the Great Valley, which I would venture to guess the Conococheague formation is part of (as a result there might be some similarities between fauna of both formations, though, of course, this is only a guess on my part), though another member would need to verify this. 

 

This is the LINK where the image of the stromatolite originated and more information about the stromatolite fossils and the Conococheague formation can be found there. As a fair warning, if you are reading this post on mobile the link has only worked for me on a PC interface. 

 

Pretty good sleuthing! I don't know if anyone's done a detailed stratigraphic correlation between the Conococheague and Knox Group, but from what I gather they are pretty much equivalent, with the Knox Group maybe incorporating part of what's called the Beekmantown Group up in Maryland. Their lithologies are similar (I believe the Conococheague has more clastic units), and their faunal contents are similar as well, with some regional variation like you'd expect. Both were deposited on the same shallow, carbonate bank on the southern edge of Laurentia. You're also right that the Conococheague is in the Great Valley. South of the Roanoke area it gets a little tricky stratigraphically, but by and large the Cambro-Ordovician units are restricted to what's called the Great Appalachian Valley. 

 

Cool photo, by the way. It brings back memories of the fossils I'd find walking around the Sharpsburg battlefield. 

 

 

[MaryLynnRocks]

13 hours ago, Andúril Flame of the West said:

I am by no means knowledgeable on stromatolites, but some of the rocks you photographed seem to contain structures that at least superficially resemble some stromatolites. Here is a photograph of a stromatolite from the Cambrian Conococheague formation of the northern Shenandoah Valley, Virginia (stromatolite fossil appears in the yellow circle).

 

 

The Conococheague formation is Cambrian in age and quick internet search revealed that at least some layers of the Knox Formation (which is where I assume your rocks originated based on comments from other members) are also Cambrian in age. I cannot say whether the formations are contemporary or whether the depositional environments in which the strata were laid down are similar (@EMP would have to comment on this, having far more knowledge on the formations in the Mid-Atlantic area), but some of the structures you photographed do at least superficially resemble the Cambrian-aged stromatolite fossil pictured above. EMP also mentioned rocks in the Great Valley, which I would venture to guess the Conococheague formation is part of (as a result there might be some similarities between fauna of both formations, though, of course, this is only a guess on my part), though another member would need to verify this. 

 

This is the LINK where the image of the stromatolite originated and more information about the stromatolite fossils and the Conococheague formation can be found there. As a fair warning, if you are reading this post on mobile the link has only worked for me on a PC interface. 

Thank you, Andúril Flame of the West. I really appreciate your help with this mystery I've had on my hands. Apparently, we all need to do more research. I'm setting on top of a mountain of stromatolites, I'm serious as I can be about this. They are everywhere, in the driveway, all down the side of the road, everywhere here. Please just Google stromatolites Tennessee, you will see that they are all over Tennessee. The study I'm posting now was done right where I'm at, inside Knox county, right where Jefferson & Sevier county meet. Wow, this is so cool!! 

[doushantuo]

alternatively:

 

which can simply be found online

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by doushantuo

[doushantuo]

the term "stromatolite" was originally coined for certain laminated,ooidal carbonates in the triassic of Germany(Rogenstein facies),that might (or not) display various forms of synoptic relief.

I'll have to do some soulsearching before I accept any old  algal bindstone as "stromatolite".

Some of the more bulbous(and/or hummocky) morphologies might e.g. be the chaetetid Labechia..

Edited May 11, 2023 by doushantuo

[MaryLynnRocks]

2 hours ago, doushantuo said:

the term "stromatolite" was originally coined for certain laminated,ooidal carbonates in the triassic of Germany(Rogenstein facies),that might (or not) display various forms of synoptic relief.

I'll have to do some soulsearching before I accept any old  algal bindstone as "stromatolite".

Some of the more bulbous(and/or hummocky) morphologies might e.g. be the chaetetid Labechia..

 

This is the proof I've been searching for, I am on the Knox county line, where it meets Jefferson & Sevier counties. I am 100% sure, I have tons & tons of them. They line the roadside, make up parts of the driveway. This is a 4 acre piece of land that's all 1 big hill. From the top to the bottom, all you see are rock. There are mounds in the woods that are long rows of what look to be fallen trees but are actually are moss covered mounds of packed rock up at the top and there are huge piles of it that had been busted up to make the driveway years ago, that have been pushed off to each side of the driveway. It runs all down the roadside too. When you pull in the driveway, your running over a big mass of them. They are all over Tennessee, Claiborne county boat dock, Cherokee lake, the Copper Ridge on Norris lake, Elmwood mine in Carthage (Smith) county, Blue Springs Cave in White county & I'm sure there's more. It's referred to as Tennessee's eastern highland rim. The 1st study I'm attaching was done in the 50's, published in 1961 by the American Geological Institute, 10 years before I was born. Who knew? The 2nd attachment explains it more

[MaryLynnRocks]

On the study published in 1961, it was the Geological Society of America, not the American Geological Institute that I was referring to, but both groups agree that this area had them back then. Most are gone because of development. Road crews, utility workers, railroad crews, commercial development and home/land owners have seen these fossils as nothing but huge, heavy rock that were in the way. They've busted them up, pushed them in a pile, then built on top of them. They didn't know or really care what they were to scientist's, to then they're just rocks. 

[doushantuo]

my HUMONGOUS error is now immortalized: for "chaetetid ",please read: stromatoporoid,with apologies to all,but particularly to the poster.

 

[doushantuo]

MaryLynn: since 1962 there have been tremendous advances in stromatology( a science that should exist,but doesn't ).The fact that these were called "stromatolites" in the sixties doesn't NECESSARILY mean that they are stromatolites as held by the current majority opinion about their character.

Edited May 11, 2023 by doushantuo

[Andúril Flame of the West]

On 5/10/2023 at 7:05 PM, EMP said:

 

Pretty good sleuthing! I don't know if anyone's done a detailed stratigraphic correlation between the Conococheague and Knox Group, but from what I gather they are pretty much equivalent, with the Knox Group maybe incorporating part of what's called the Beekmantown Group up in Maryland. Their lithologies are similar (I believe the Conococheague has more clastic units), and their faunal contents are similar as well, with some regional variation like you'd expect. Both were deposited on the same shallow, carbonate bank on the southern edge of Laurentia. You're also right that the Conococheague is in the Great Valley. South of the Roanoke area it gets a little tricky stratigraphically, but by and large the Cambro-Ordovician units are restricted to what's called the Great Appalachian Valley. 

 

Cool photo, by the way. It brings back memories of the fossils I'd find walking around the Sharpsburg battlefield. 

 

 

 

I am still quite new to this so I am glad to hear that my hypothesis had some substance to it. Also, I agree the photo is pretty neat. It is not my photograph but came from the link I attached in the post which I found to have some very interesting information. 

 

I came across this link while digging for old localities to find silicified Ordovician trilobites in the area. Unfortunately, it seems that other than the classic exposure most of Whittington's original collecting sites are gone or are now located on private property. Perhaps with some more digging around and some prospecting there are still places in that area where they can be found. By the way, is the Sharpsburg battlefield the one by Hupp's Hill and the caverns? 

[EMP]

59 minutes ago, Andúril Flame of the West said:

 

I am still quite new to this so I am glad to hear that my hypothesis had some substance to it. Also, I agree the photo is pretty neat. It is not my photograph but came from the link I attached in the post which I found to have some very interesting information. 

 

I came across this link while digging for old localities to find silicified Ordovician trilobites in the area. Unfortunately, it seems that other than the classic exposure most of Whittington's original collecting sites are gone or are now located on private property. Perhaps with some more digging around and some prospecting there are still places in that area where they can be found. By the way, is the Sharpsburg battlefield the one by Hupp's Hill and the caverns? 

 

I can search around for some leads. I found a couple of sites with silicified trilobites a while ago. They're both gone now but I'm sure there are others that haven't been found yet. Maybe I could post some pictures of what I found. 

 

No, it's the one south of Hagerstown, in Maryland. I used to go there a lot growing up, and there were some cryptozoons and other fossils you could find along some of the stone fences. Some rangers also found some silicified trilobites in the Cornfield IIRC. 

[Wrangellian]

On 5/11/2023 at 8:04 AM, MaryLynnRocks said:

On the study published in 1961, it was the Geological Society of America, not the American Geological Institute that I was referring to, but both groups agree that this area had them back then. Most are gone because of development. Road crews, utility workers, railroad crews, commercial development and home/land owners have seen these fossils as nothing but huge, heavy rock that were in the way. They've busted them up, pushed them in a pile, then built on top of them. They didn't know or really care what they were to scientist's, to then they're just rocks. 

I know the feeling...

 

On 5/11/2023 at 8:56 AM, doushantuo said:

my HUMONGOUS error is now immortalized: ...

 

I know the feeling...