Any idea of the age of this?

[StringFellowHawk]

Maine Fishing Trip Find

This was a Maine fishing trip find. I think this is half a bowl. Any other ideas? Are these common? Any idea of the age?


Thanks

 

[creekhunter]

Might be part of a grinding stone but looks fairly natural to me.

 

[StringFellowHawk]

Natural meaning . . . you don't think it is an artifact?

 

[creekhunter]

Hard to tell from the photo, but is doesn't resemble many artifacts I have seen, and nature can copy almost anything, so yes I vote its natural.

 

[StringFellowHawk]

More pictures. I cannot believe that this is natural creekhunter, but appreciate your opinion.

 

[NC field hunter]

In my area, it's common to see stones break like this when hit by a plow. Don't take my word alone here, but I think your piece is natural. Unless the hulled out area shows a polish or some sign of wear, I'm pretty sure it's natural. Good eye any way. You have the right idea!!

 

[theviking]

I agree, at first glance it looks natural. Taking a second look I think there is a small chance we might be looking at a soapstone bowl fragment,maybe not. Maybe Charl will chime in and straighten us out. Welcome to tnet.

 

[StringFellowHawk]

Some background on the location:

This was found on a gravel point bar on a lake where a river enters (there are no farm fields, or development in the area). Water was lower than normal this year. The lake was formed artificially from a man made dam. Below is a link to a archelogical investigation that was conducted on the lake previously. This piece was not in an area investigated or identified by the previous dig.

American Society for Amateur Archaeology - The Vail Habitation and Kill Site: Implications for Palaeo-American Behavior and Band Size

This could be partially my fault for not relaying to you guys enough information.

Thanks for your assistance!

 

[Charl]

The link you left is to one of the most important Paleo sites in the Northeast. Vail/Debert points take their name from the site. The ASAA is a great bunch of people. I belong to the Ma. Chapter, and Mike Gramly lives in Ma. I've never been up there, but it sure has been a dry summer. Sure would be a great area to surface hunt under the circumstances. Bet there's fluted points showing somewhere right there.

Anyway, having a hard time figuring out the rock type here, but from the underside shots, I don't think it is steatite, aka soapstone. Otherwise, I couldn't be certain from the photos. (If it feels greasy or soapy, it might be soapstone.) It could be a broken mortar, but I would lean natural as well, but could easily be wrong. It's one of those things that I want to hold in my hands to look at, but it might just be water worn that way, given where you found it. I just can't say for certain, wish I could be of more help.

 

[GatorBoy]

Doesn't look man made to me

 

[rock]

Im sorry but you will have to take your pics outside in natural light and make sure your camera is on the marco setting. 1st set of pics it looks natural then there is 1 pic that makes me question the rest you have provided. So more pics please and welcome to the site.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

The link you left is to one of the most important Paleo sites in the Northeast. Vail/Debert points take their name from the site. The ASAA is a great bunch of people. I belong to the Ma. Chapter, and Mike Gramly lives in Ma. I've never been up there, but it sure has been a dry summer. Sure would be a great area to surface hunt under the circumstances. Bet there's fluted points showing somewhere right there.

Anyway, having a hard time figuring out the rock type here, but from the underside shots, I don't think it is steatite, aka soapstone. Otherwise, I couldn't be certain from the photos. (If it feels greasy or soapy, it might be soapstone.) It could be a broken mortar, but I would lean natural as well, but could easily be wrong. It's one of those things that I want to hold in my hands to look at, but it might just be water worn that way, given where you found it. I just can't say for certain, wish I could be of more help.

I agree with Charl. My gut says natural, but it's something I'd like to look at personally. It just looks more like creek erosion and not pecking or grinding.

 

[eppingera]

Like your name, just saw an old episode of Airwolf the other day, cheesy now but I loved it as a kid

 

[StringFellowHawk]

Thanks Charl for meeting up with me today to look at my "bowl/mortar"

 

[yakker]

Funny, from the 2 pics he showed, I saw a broken bowl, but I thought it might be modern (er) than String thought. But then came the geofacters and then the BIG info on exactly where it was found... Maybe I'm crazy.. Wouldn't be the first time I was told so. But I think it's a broken bowl-- from some era. Definitely would like to see a close-up of the bottom, exterior. And... I wonder what came of that meeting so cryptically hinted at in String's last post... hmm.

 

[Charl]

Thanks Charl for meeting up with me today to look at my "bowl/mortar"

Your most welcome! Wish we could have been more definitive, but here is what we do know.

The stone is conglomerate. This is a sedimentary rock composed of pebbles all the way up to cobble/boulder size rocks embedded in a sandstone matrix. The stronger the ancient river, the more size to the cobbles swept downstream to eventually become part of a formation of conglomerate, thousands of feet thick, and after the millions of years required. Looking at the second set of photos, at the photo in the top right corner, of the underside of the piece, one can see some of the pebbles embedded in sandstone. There was one good sized hardstone pebble, not sure if it's seen in the photos.

Looking at the topside, I noticed that the texture of the surface of the cavity, hard to see unless in person, was coarse grained. It is sandstone after all. But it was coarse, neither made slick, or at least smoothed, by swirling water, nor did it look like any grinding had taken place as if pecked and ground into shape. So, one possible natural explanation is that a very large cobble eroded out of the matrix. In other words, it might have been that kind of conglomerate, with very large stones included in that sandstone matrix, because large cobbles were deposited in the sand by a very strong river. A formation that was once thousands of feet of conglomerate, and what you have is a tiny piece of that, a piece with one very big cobble having eroded out and left that cavity. Think of the type of cement walls with boulders embedded, and that might convey the idea. Only, in the case of the rock, the bond is millions of years old and much stronger. Also, conglomerate would be a poor choice to use to make a mortar or bowl. The maker, as he hollowed it out, would have kept running into pebbles that were likely hardstone rocks, and he might end up cursing quite a bit

Having said all that, as you know StringFellowHawk, it still was a head scratcher. It is clearly broke, and not recently, at it's thin spot, making it look like half a bowl. Just did not see the grinding I wanted to see in the cavity. I still hope you show it anyway to the folks you mentioned. If they were curious, bring it in. Show it around, mine is just one in person opinion.

Nice meeting you, give me a holler anytime......

Oh, that was the nicest triangle from around here that I've seen in quite awhile. Thanks for bringing it!

 

[GatorBoy]

Oh so it looks like a rock.. yeah.. what he said.. Lol..
" Just fooling around please have a sense of humor"
I've done a lot of water hunting in my day even collected artifacts while scuba diving I've seen sandstone take on extremely odd shapes just by at some point filling in the gaps between other objects and solidifying... That piece would have caught my eye also

 

[Charl]

Several people thought it was a rock, rather then bowl, myself included. But, as Reaper mentioned, it was something that could obviously be better interpreted in person. He works in the town where I live, so I stopped by at his request. Technically, the rock is conglomerate, not sandstone alone. Sandstone itself isn't formed by sand filling in the gaps between things and solidifying. That's not how sandstone forms.

BTW, it's a hard thing to do, to describe to someone how a rock turns out looking the way it does. It's easy enough to just say, it was a rock. Describing how it's put together through time, and how it might have ended up looking like half a bowl is much more helpful in conveying an understanding of what someone is seeing than simply saying it looks like a rock. But conveying that takes time, so the explanation needs to be lengthier then "it was a rock". I could be briefer, but I was under the impression folks wanted a better explanation then that, once seen in person. Since I could provide that, I did, beginning with how rocks and sand become a formation of conglomerate.

 

[GatorBoy]

Charl I've recovered sandatone from the water that had formed in wooden objects only a couple hundred years old..."it" does work that way.
Found it formed around bone even.
I'm using the word sandstone generally here there's so many different ways and types I'm talking about solidified sediment to say that it does not fill in the gaps between things and solidify is simply incorrect sorry.
Silica sticking sand together...that's all it takes.

 

[GatorBoy]

Pulled stone tools and pottery from it also.
I'm not going to write half a book here in the forum on how different types of sandstone are formed... I figure if someone wants that much information they will specifically ask or study it on their own