is this fossil material?

[chong2]

and if so can you help provide some evidence of what it is?
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,222133.0.html

 

[Harry Pristis]

I think 'triplecreek' nailed it in the other forum: "Its natural, just weathered. Use as a pestle would have shown much more even wear on the use end. Very interesting piece though."

It is not bone, nor is it wood. I cannot tell whether the white things are marine shells or not. If so, it is a chunk of sedimentary rock. If the white things are deformed marine invertebrates or are crystals (phenocrysts), you have a chunk of metamorphic rock. But, either way, it is not bone, nor wood, nor artifact.

 

[chong2]

harry, thank you for the fossil reply, but it is a artifact of some sort, i was just trying to get a id on the material. found at a prehistoric camp at such a location where every stone flake and rock is a artifact. you would have to hold the piece in your hand to see the polishing/grinding evidence. thank you for the reply!

 

[Harry Pristis]

harry, thank you for the fossil reply, but it is a artifact of some sort, i was just trying to get a id on the material. found at a prehistoric camp at such a location where every stone flake and rock is a artifact. you would have to hold the piece in your hand to see the polishing/grinding evidence. thank you for the reply!

Believing is not evidence.

Surface association with artifacts is weak testimony. How do you know that a rock-hound didn't discard the piece as "too clunky" or "too uninteresting" or as "too heavy" a mere ten years ago?

Why would I need to hold the rock in my hand to see evidence of grinding/polishing? It's just a matter of getting the correct camera angle and exposure, isn't it?

​

 

[Harry Pristis]

The high and dry camps of the West are a little different than Florida, Harry.

I would still not rule out that it is a part of an artifact. Based upon the local depositional environment, I feel that the fellow could still make a case for it as a manuport, and then depending on local resources available, we could then speculate as to further function.

I am not rabid to call a rock an artifact, I just think that this one should not be written off as a natural geologic occurence.

I have collected in West Texas, and have found high and dry camps with lithic scatter.

Well, if a manuport is an artifact, 'chong2' has testified that his rock is a manuport. What he hasn't done is offer any evidence that the rock was altered by use. Maybe the "business end" of the rock is what's missing. It's fruitless to speculate without some evidence of use.

 

[chong2]

pleh and harry,
thank you for ur inputs!!

k, ill try to get some micro in the sunlight to show the "wear.
thing is harry, the area this was found, every stone and piece of rock was brought in by humans. maybe a prehistoric rock hound brought it in, but the local, everything was brought in here. the depyh of "bedrock" im not sure, i have never dug, but pleh, im sure you have a idea of sand....
the area this was found no one would just carry it there, it had a purpose...... ill try to get some pics up later today and yes, if the back half was there it woulf tell the story.

p.s. found pottery with it but in that area there are 1000's of years occupied there

 

[chong2]

pleh and harry,
thank you for ur inputs!!

k, ill try to get some micro in the sunlight to show the "wear.
thing is harry, the area this was found, every stone and piece of rock was brought in by humans. maybe a prehistoric rock hound brought it in, but the local, everything was brought in here. the depyh of "bedrock" im not sure, i have never dug, but pleh, im sure you have a idea of sand....
the area this was found no one would just carry it there, it had a purpose...... ill try to get some pics up later today and yes, if the back half was there it woulf tell the story.

p.s. found pottery with it but in that area there are 1000's of years occupied there