sweet find!

[vegalyrae]

So, yea, hi everyone! first off i guess i should introduce myself.

My name is brooke and i'm from south shore ky, right smack in the middle of the Shawnee main territory.

every spring we scour the fields in the flood plains of the scioto and ohio rivers meet looking for anything we can find that the plows unearthed. well...today during a nice brisk fall walk i would something i have never seen before.

the end is rounded with 7-8 ribs carved in the middle, then ending in a perfectly cylindrical blunted end. the whole thing weighs 2.3 lbs and is nearly 5 inches in length. my first thought was a tool of some sort but it appears to be made of some sort of fossil stone. we have an axe we found earlier in the year that is about the same size but this thing is by bar the coolest thing we've found yet....even though we have no clue what it is lol! what do you guys think?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Deerslayeroh71]

Im sorry i was just going by gators pic i didn't go back to page one i dont think its horn coral but could be something similar.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[GaRebel1861]

It is an interesting find for sure & a keeper.

 

[vegalyrae]

View attachment 693968

this is a good example of typical horn coral features that i will comment on below

I have put the pictures all together so comparison will be easier

while I am open as to what this then is and a few good guesses have been made, I'm sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with horn coral for a few reasons.

size..this MUCH larger than specimens found

shape...this is not cone shaped, but more of a flattened oval

shape again....lack of a pointed end could be something as simple as erosion or being worn away over time, however the other end does not match as well, it is not con-caved and has a perfectly symmetrical round handle of sorts.

ribbing- spaced evenly with visible tool marks, where as horn corals ribbing is very irregular and not as pronounced

now lets assume that this is not the actual coral its self but merely a casting as casting are also quite common in the fossil world.

corals were not hollow like bi-vales were. their structure is rather solid growing larger over time, the coral its self being rather soft and plant like. This would make an inner cast of a coral impossible, much like an inner cast of a stalagmite being impossible. yes, horn coral appears to be ribbed in some photos, but not in the same way as this object. it is very irregular. if it is indeed a fossil casting as some would suggest, horn coral is not the the one. that would be like calling a flake a point because they can look somewhat similar and of the same material, but upon further inspecting are no where near the same.

I do appreciate everyone trying to help me with this as i have been scouring the internet as well. while i do not know what it is, ruling out what is isnt is process of elimination, which is where we are at now.

 

[GatorBoy]

Not an artifact... a fossil.. agreed?

 

[vegalyrae]

Not an artifact... a fossil.. agreed?

while i am very open to everyone's ideas, i just cant rule out artifact due to the symmetrical tool marks. I am beginning to think this is not an actual identifiable object, but nothing more than a chunk of fossilized seabed (given the material) that someone long ago was carving on for decorative purposes....much like someone today would whittle on wood to make something for their kids to play with.

 

[vegalyrae]

simply not knowing what something is and not having another like it so compare to does not rule out the likelihood of being man made, especially whe there is evidence to suggest it is man made. all that means is that another has yet to be found.

Much in the way of today, when someone hand crafts something unique, there may not be another one like it but that doesnt mean it no longer exists. This is what makes relic hunting so fun! The speculation, research, and opinions of others! how many times has something odd been found that made no sense only to be identified as something we did not previously know about? while it would be nice if we had a huge database of everything ever created before our time, unfortunately we dont. it is up to us to solve these mysteries. jumping to the conclusion that it is not man made when it has evidence of being so, simply because we dont understand what it is would be counterproductive in the learning process. imagine if we gave up so quickly on everything we did not understand

 

[vegalyrae]

and please dont get me wrong...I am open to all possibilities, but i put more weight in evidence than opinion. is there a possibility this is a fossil because of what it is made of? yes,

is there a possibility this is man made given the evidence that it has been worked with tools? yes.

is there a possibility that this is somehow a combination of the two? yes.

much in the way of a toy being made, not only of a different material, but on a material that would be disposable and not in normal use, as those materials would be used for the real tools and not wasted on a disposable plaything. take a wooden pirate sword for example lol

in the true sense of learning, i refuse to rule out possibilities that have evidence that supports them. that is why i am open to this being a a piece of fossilized seabead that was carved on for unknown reasons...so far...given the material and toolmarks...that seems to be the most logical conclusion

 

[Deerslayeroh71]

It somewhat resembles a cephalopod fossil heres a couple pics i found looking around the net not saying thats what is just a thought.

 

[vegalyrae]

we had discussed a cephalopod fossil or perhaps a casting of one but the size is off and the groves are carved into it. but that is very similar...i'd love to have a cephalopod fossil like that!!! the one i do have itsnt NEARLY that nice lol, fossil collecting, hunting, and research is what got me into this and is what i have the majority of my field time invested into. been at fossils for nearly 14 years now and just recently in the past 2 years have gotten into artifacts.

 

[rock]

It is very interesting what ever it is and I hope you get an answer for it. This is probably far fetched but I would think they used it to wrap their cord around it. If it is heavy could it be some type of weight?

 

[Archeodeb]

ok here are a few different pics of it from different angles: you can see the area where the plow got it and also the cylindrical end that i was talking about much better in these pics

View attachment 692659

View attachment 692660

View attachment 692661

Hi,
Ordinarily my first post on a new forum would be to say HI, and that I am new, and maybe give you a brief bio or something, but this thread intrigued me enough to quit being a lurking guest and come out to play. I want to throw out a couple of ideas and see what you think...

Look at photo #2 showing this thing from the (good) side. What does that look like to those of you who actually are old enough to remember cooking from scratch (or watching your mom or grandma do so)? Yeah, a rolling pin. In stone that translates as a "Mano". Now, I know those ridges are not typical for grinding corn or acorns, but does that automatically mean it couldn't be for grinding or making quick work of something? Think about all the fancy rollers you see in stores these days. There are rollers with knife blades for cutting vegetables; others with ridges and patterns for cutting and impressing pasta, even rollers with patterns on them for inking and painting paper or walls. If any of you do fiberglass work, you've seen something very similar (with a single handle) for pressing the fiberglass cloth into the gel coat. My point is that anything repetitious makes use of tools that do repeats in some way that is faster or more efficient than doing the action over and over without them. Whether you are using an arrow shaper, a mold for pouring pots or rollers for grinding, embossing, painting or patterning in some way, you are making your work easier and more uniform. A roller takes a straight line and repeats it smoothly and efficiently. This is obviously a roller. (Those are handles on the ends -- much too regular and smooth for a fossil in my opinion.) What it was used for exactly is up to debate, but that it is a roller is, to my mind, unequivocal.

Possibilities... grinding rough hard objects by catching them more securely in the grooves ... coating it with plant dyes to create a pattern on cloth or animal skins ... using it as a pattern to impress lines in a soft material like clay ... etc.

What do you think?

Another observation... notice that the "handle" is offset -- exactly like an eccentric cam -- why? It gives a greater weight to the thing if used as a hammer (held by one handle only) but it would also naturally cause one side to impress more deeply than the other if rolled. Interesting!

 

[NC field hunter]

Hi,
Ordinarily my first post on a new forum would be to say HI, and that I am new, and maybe give you a brief bio or something, but this thread intrigued me enough to quit being a lurking guest and come out to play. I want to throw out a couple of ideas and see what you think...

Look at photo #2 showing this thing from the (good) side. What does that look like to those of you who actually are old enough to remember cooking from scratch (or watching your mom or grandma do so)? Yeah, a rolling pin. In stone that translates as a "Mano". Now, I know those ridges are not typical for grinding corn or acorns, but does that automatically mean it couldn't be for grinding or making quick work of something? Think about all the fancy rollers you see in stores these days. There are rollers with knife blades for cutting vegetables; others with ridges and patterns for cutting and impressing pasta, even rollers with patterns on them for inking and painting paper or walls. If any of you do fiberglass work, you've seen something very similar (with a single handle) for pressing the fiberglass cloth into the gel coat. My point is that anything repetitious makes use of tools that do repeats in some way that is faster or more efficient than doing the action over and over without them. Whether you are using an arrow shaper, a mold for pouring pots or rollers for grinding, embossing, painting or patterning in some way, you are making your work easier and more uniform. A roller takes a straight line and repeats it smoothly and efficiently. This is obviously a roller. (Those are handles on the ends -- much too regular and smooth for a fossil in my opinion.) What it was used for exactly is up to debate, but that it is a roller is, to my mind, unequivocal.

Possibilities... grinding rough hard objects by catching them more securely in the grooves ... coating it with plant dyes to create a pattern on cloth or animal skins ... using it as a pattern to impress lines in a soft material like clay ... etc.

What do you think?

Another observation... notice that the "handle" is offset -- exactly like an eccentric cam -- why? It gives a greater weight to the thing if used as a hammer (held by one handle only) but it would also naturally cause one side to impress more deeply than the other if rolled. Interesting!

You make a good point! I was recently looking for a cam follower for a machine that was built in 1994, and was told it wasn't manufactured any longer. (the follower) I was trying to avoid going straight to the company that made the machine. Attempt to save $ . Every place I checked told me "cams are obsolete". Finally I went to the manufacturer of the machine. I told them my struggle and ask why they use cams rather than computers. I was told "cams are a primitive tool. However, they hold time better than a computer ever will." I don't know when cams were invented, but, the Camco Furgerson rep. That I spoke to referred to them as primitive. He should know!!

 

[Age_old]

From what I can see, that's defiantly an artifact. I see what you guys are saying about a fossil horn coral, but it lacks the patterns and 'style' of a fossil. If you look closely in the photo, you can see little circular discolorations in the rock, which are randomly spread out. Simply put, if those are there, it is not one entire fossil. Those are either small oceanic fossils, or mineral deposits. Either way, it isn't a fossil coral.

That means it is made of rock. And rocks do not usually form 'rings' like that.

To me, personally, it is most certainly an artifact, and an extremely nice one at that. Maybe a grinder of some kind.

If I were you, I would pat myself on the back on a really neat find!

 

[rock]

From what I can see, that's defiantly an artifact. I see what you guys are saying about a fossil horn coral, but it lacks the patterns and 'style' of a fossil. If you look closely in the photo, you can see little circular discolorations in the rock, which are randomly spread out. Simply put, if those are there, it is not one entire fossil. Those are either small oceanic fossils, or mineral deposits. Either way, it isn't a fossil coral.

That means it is made of rock. And rocks do not usually form 'rings' like that.

To me, personally, it is most certainly an artifact, and an extremely nice one at that. Maybe a grinder of some kind.

If I were you, I would pat myself on the back on a really neat find!

Cool!

 

[roberthathaway7]

I agree that it looks like a hand tool. I'm no paleontologist, but the first thing I thought of when I saw it was that it was a tool for rolling, or more likely grinding. I'm sure that native americans had some use for grinding, and lots of grinding/rolling tools made even today have grooves and such that help the tool do its job is certain applications. As far as fossils, most life forms seem to have a pattern of symmetry and that thing is just a little too awkwardly shaped to look natural to me. Even if it's just a random rock though, still cool as heck! You should see the stack of cool rocks I have... started at age two and haven't stopped haha

 

[NC field hunter]

simply not knowing what something is and not having another like it so compare to does not rule out the likelihood of being man made, especially whe there is evidence to suggest it is man made. all that means is that another has yet to be found.

Much in the way of today, when someone hand crafts something unique, there may not be another one like it but that doesnt mean it no longer exists. This is what makes relic hunting so fun! The speculation, research, and opinions of others! how many times has something odd been found that made no sense only to be identified as something we did not previously know about? while it would be nice if we had a huge database of everything ever created before our time, unfortunately we dont. it is up to us to solve these mysteries. jumping to the conclusion that it is not man made when it has evidence of being so, simply because we dont understand what it is would be counterproductive in the learning process. imagine if we gave up so quickly on everything we did not understand

Standing ovation for that one. So many times people with large collections or people that frequent artifact shows will glance at an odd piece, and if it doesn't register in their mind pronto, geofact is called and they move on. ( no offense Reaper, Larson, Kelly, and so many others) of course these guys are, and should be the first ones to ask, but on a piece like this, 4-5 geofact answers should not make one toss it out. It just has too much character. Character doesn't mean artifact by any means. I remember TN Mountains saying in a post that he has a piece that no one has been able to ID in the 20 years that he has had it. I also have mystery pieces that I hold on to. I would hate to toss a piece such as the one above. I'm sure as soon as I tossed it, a whole cache of them would turn up. Many of my larger mystery pieces have made great primitive/modern wheel chocks for my boat.