Red Ochre?

[Wandermore91]

Today while on a quick sunset hunt after work I laid eyes on a red chunk. Not sure how realisic this is, I’m aware of the native’s use of the red pigment from red ochre. I determined it is not just a clump of rust formed around an old metal object, as you can see different minerals throughout it. Curiously I wet the stone, and ran the edge of it down a rock. What do you know, it left a trail of rust red pigment on the rock and also down my hand. I let it dry and brought it home. I am pretty sure ochre is not naturally occurring in my area (NE) but please correct me if I’m wrong... in the case that this could actually be red ochre is it possible that it may have been brought to my site by the Natives? Would there be any other explanation? Can anyone confirm or disprove this is actually red ochre? Has anyone ever come across any while hunting? Artifacts have been found in the area where I found this. Thanks, very interested to hear what you have to say!





Last two are images from Google

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charl]

That's a chunk of iron oxide. It often occurs as an encrustation on the exterior of shale cobbles that originate in the Rhode Island Formation, which outcrops in the Narragansett Basin and eastern Massachusetts. The RI Formation dates to about 300 million years, the Upper Carboniferous Era, and the shale contains numerous plant fossils from that era. I've collected fossils here my whole life, and I'm more used to just breaking open glacial cobbles of the shale then I am working actual bedrock outcrops of the shale. And I see that iron oxide encrustation frequently, usually with other minerals like quartz embedded in the iron oxide mass. I can show you a photo of what I am referring to. In these photos, you can see a fern fossil exposed, but also you can see the iron oxide masses on the exterior of the cobble:





That's most likely what you have, a loose chunk of it. I'm not sure what the natives around here used for red ochre, but they could have got both red and yellow pigment from iron oxide and limonite(yellow) masses where they could find them. I find a lot of utilized graphite pieces, used to produce black pigment, at some of my sites. But I can't be as certain of their source for red pigment. I don't have any literature on that; have to research it. For black, there were well known graphite sources in the region where it is known the natives obtained it to use as pigment.

 

[Charl]

Well, I just noted that the New England artifact guide published by the Massachusetts Archaeological Society states that the paintstone for red ochre was hematite. I'm sure that must be the case for red ochre usage throughout North America. Your piece would not be hematite, but rather iron oxide as described above....

 

[Shorewalker]

Well, I just noted that the New England artifact guide published by the Massachusetts Archaeological Society states that the paintstone for red ochre was hematite. I'm sure that must be the case for red ochre usage throughout North America. Your piece would not be hematite, but rather iron oxide as described above....

I was thinking that hematite was used as well but wasn't sure of regional differences. I have a few examples of highly faceted hematite that I have picked up at some sites.

 

[Wandermore91]

Well, I just noted that the New England artifact guide published by the Massachusetts Archaeological Society states that the paintstone for red ochre was hematite. I'm sure that must be the case for red ochre usage throughout North America. Your piece would not be hematite, but rather iron oxide as described above....

Very interesting as usual. So is it worth it to keep eyes peeled for something that could actually be hematite or red ochre in the future? Do you believe this could still be lying around at sites or was it far fetched of me to think that could’ve been what I had? Your fossil is really cool, my friend has one with a fern through it as well, carbon dated at URI to 300 million years just like you said. It makes me wonder what I have been overlooking as sometimes I do come upon some interesting oxidized stones but I tend to toss them aside in the hunt for artifacts. Basically from now on if I find a stone with that type of shell I should break it open and see what’s inside?

On the topic of graphite, I’m glad you touched upon that as well because I have found some of that which I swear showed multiple signs of use (scratching and flattening.) Do you hang onto the graphite you find? I kept this particular piece before I was aware that it was used by them. Is this what you’re referring to? Thanks Charl 🙂[emoji106]🏼

 

[Wandermore91]

Here’s another I found that was very interesting to me but I wasn’t sure what I was seeing

 

[Charl]

Yes, I always save the graphite I find in one field in particular. My personal field of dreams, which in hunting I tried to create as complete a site assemblage as possible. Paintstones are technically manaports, not artifacts. They're raw material. On the other hand, most of the pieces I find show obvious usage, areas for instance where the graphite was gouged out. And I just like the idea that someone in the distant past was making a pigment with it, for whatever purpose.

In this piece, it's obvious the native was extracting the graphite from it:





All these pieces are from the same site. Here you can see what simply rubbing the graphite will do. It's a greasy rock. The natives mixed it with animal fat to create paint. If it's graphite, though, simply rubbing it should do this to your finger:



In Rhode Island, there was a large graphite deposit which the Narragansett called Coojoot. At least that is how the English spelled it. At times in later centuries, people tried developing mines at Coojoot, which was located on the side of Tower Hill in South Kingstown. I used to hike to it in my youth, to collect quartz crystals. There is a story of the Coojoot deposit and mine here:

https://archive.org/stream/rhodeislandhisto15rhod/rhodeislandhisto15rhod_djvu.txt

 

[Charl]

Very interesting as usual. So is it worth it to keep eyes peeled for something that could actually be hematite or red ochre in the future? Do you believe this could still be lying around at sites or was it far fetched of me to think that could’ve been what I had? Your fossil is really cool, my friend has one with a fern through it as well, carbon dated at URI to 300 million years just like you said. It makes me wonder what I have been overlooking as sometimes I do come upon some interesting oxidized stones but I tend to toss them aside in the hunt for artifacts. Basically from now on if I find a stone with that type of shell I should break it open and see what’s inside?

On the topic of graphite, I’m glad you touched upon that as well because I have found some of that which I swear showed multiple signs of use (scratching and flattening.) Do you hang onto the graphite you find? I kept this particular piece before I was aware that it was used by them. Is this what you’re referring to? Thanks Charl [emoji106]

View attachment 1574032
View attachment 1574033
View attachment 1574034

Generally speaking, the plant fossils are only found in the shale from the Rhode Island Formation. You don't have to look for rocks with iron oxide encrustations, just cobbles made of shale. Then you find the bedding plane as best as possible, and try splitting the rock with a hammer, or hammer and chisel. There are still outcrops as well, scattered here and there in RI and Ma. Basically just learn to recognize the dark grey to black shale cobbles. This can be very difficult to do on the shore where many rocks assume that coloration, even the sandstone which is the same age, but seldom fossiliferous. Though sandstone casts of tree trunks and branches can be found.