'Brown' bone/wood fossil found in Suffolk, UK.

[dan_3183464922]

First of two similar posts, this one I'm calling 'brown' to try to avoid confusion.

Found near Felixstowe, Suffolk, UK.

I have use displacement to come to the conclusion that the density is 2.6 to 2.7.

Has possible tools marks, linear, and some more circular indentations.

(lighting poor on IMG_5008 but it shows the relief of the texture better.)

[Rockwood]

Definitely bone. The marks look more like transport/deposition wear me though. 

[blackdanter]

This section of marks is interesting but the shape of a couple of them doesn't quite make sense. They may be invertebrate activity that just happens to look like tooth scrapes. What age is this material? They may well be human made tool marks if the material is the right age.

 

[dan_3183464922]

25 minutes ago, blackdanter said:

This section of marks is interesting but the shape of a couple of them doesn't quite make sense. They may be invertebrate activity that just happens to look like tooth scrapes. What age is this material? They may well be human made tool marks if the material is the right age.

 

Yes, as a complete novice I thought that striations from forceful movement (glacial?) would tend to all be aligned. The fact that these are in differing directions and yet mostly of a similar length and width suggested to me something a little more procedural and deliberate?

[blackdanter]

3 minutes ago, dan_3183464922 said:

Yes, as a complete novice I thought that striations from forceful movement (glacial?) would tend to all be aligned. The fact that these are in differing directions and yet mostly of a similar length and width suggested to me something a little more procedural and deliberate?

I do suspect tool marks on that section. A sharp implement being used to gouge off tissue. Nice find.

Edited May 21 by blackdanter

[dan_3183464922]

2 minutes ago, blackdanter said:

I do suspect tool marks on that section. A sharp implement being used to gouge off tissue. nice find.

Thanks. I had thought about a predator's tooth marks maybe, but I guess you'd expect to see several in parallel with each other then maybe? That doesn't seem to be the case here, so I can fantasise about some hunter gatherer way back making those marks then I do find a fair bit of Roman/Saxon pot round here and and even older oriental jar too, but this must reach back much further. How long would it take to reach this level of fossilisation? The thing does feel rock hard and 'ring' like a stone if I (gently) tap it.

[blackdanter]

8 minutes ago, dan_3183464922 said:

Thanks. I had thought about a predator's tooth marks maybe, but I guess you'd expect to see several in parallel with each other then maybe? That doesn't seem to be the case here, so I can fantasise about some hunter gatherer way back making those marks then I do find a fair bit of Roman/Saxon pot round here and and even older oriental jar too, but this must reach back much further. How long would it take to reach this level of fossilisation? The thing does feel rock hard and 'ring' like a stone if I (gently) tap it.

2.85 Million years max for early Pleistocene so a bit older than Roman. Millions of years for proper fossilisation to occur.

[Brandy Cole]

It does appear to be bone to me, although I'm not familiar with your area.  The marks don't look purposeful to me.  Instead they look like marks made from degradation or weathering made when the piece was soft.  Maybe worm borings or impressions.

 

 

[Brandy Cole]

Also, it's unfortunately impossible for me to tell from the photo whether this piece would be modern or Pleistocene in age.  Many 'modern' bones take on mineral staining that affect their color without being mineralized. 

 

To mineralize, it generally takes several thousands of years with the most recent fossils being Pleistocene in age.  Although that can vary dramatically depending on your area.  Pleistocene fossils are possible, though maybe not common, in certain parts of the UK.  The most common bones we tend to see like this on the forum are modern cow and sheep.  But I wouldn't rule Pleistocene fossils out.

 

Many people commonly try a 'burn test' to try to judge the level of mineralization by holding a small flame up the object for a short time to see whether it smokes with a strong smell.  If it does, then collagen is burning. Collagen typically doesn't remain in fossil finds.  A strong smell and dark smoke would indicate a more modern bone.

 

Also, does the item have a wooden or more metallic sound when tapped with a piece of metal?  Is it significantly heavier than expected for its size?  How firm or resistant to damage does it seem to be?

 

Sometimes a species ID can help to determine age.  For example, if your piece were identifiable to an extinct species, we could determine latest possible age by knowing when the animal went extinct.  But your piece is heavily weathered, so it lacks the characteristics like joint facets that would help us to ID it to species.

 

Still, you have a good eye to recognize characteristics that help set this apart from a normal rock! 

 

On the markings, I would wait for someone with significantly more experience than me in that area to weigh in. But none of it looks definitively manmade to me.

[Rockwood]

52 minutes ago, dan_3183464922 said:

Yes, as a complete novice I thought that striations from forceful movement (glacial?) would tend to all be aligned. The fact that these are in differing directions and yet mostly of a similar length and width suggested to me something a little more procedural and deliberate?

Glaciers are essentially huge bulldozers. They do make tracks that are aligned, but the piles they leave are chaotic.