✅ SOLVED Todays Find! WOOHOO!

Status
Not open for further replies.

rockheadhunter421

Sr. Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
349
Reaction score
193
Golden Thread
0
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Found my first piece of pottery today! WOOHOO! Been collecting artifacts for over 20 years and I finally found one for myself. I have a friend from TX that gave me a whole bunch of Caddo pottery and this piece looks similar. The only difference is this piece has a more polished/smooth texture. Then that very unusual fibrous/hard dark green stone was laying on the sand bar next to it. I've been collecting rocks and gem mining and I've never seen a crystal like it before. Then just before dark I search the same field I found the chunk of rhyolite in yesterday. All I found was a marble? DANG! I'm guessing it's 1900s but if it older could someone let me know what they think. Still had a great day! Thanks and happy huntin' to all!
 

Attachments

  • 0401142025.webp
    0401142025.webp
    141.1 KB · Views: 147
  • 0401141820.webp
    0401141820.webp
    45.3 KB · Views: 125
  • 0401142023.webp
    0401142023.webp
    14.1 KB · Views: 136
Upvote 0
I'm going to research more about silicification, petrification and even fossilization and distinguish between the processes. I'm making a guess that this is some type of silicified mineral. I still can't seem to think antlers. Most antlers get chewed up by chipmunks, squirrels and rats b/c of it's mineral richness. If it is an antler, then it has to be ancient and some process preserved it and crystallized it until it is totally unrecognizable. I'm going with what you say GB. I'm getting off here tonight. Thanks for all the help!8-)
 
I agree with Gator on the pottery piece. Pottery is a tough find in the piedmont of NC. Our soil is the most acidic on this planet. One place in Africa has the exact same Ph as us. I read this years back in a book supporting the continental drift. I've also read the same online. The only pottery I've ever found was in water. I've found some perfect pottery gaming pieces on Buggs Island on the VA side of the lake. Falls lake I have found a little pottery in as well. As for the mysterious stone, I'm pretty sure it's petrified wood. Here is a piece that I found years back. Does this look about right?

image-744421948.webp



image-3787580818.webp



image-2875007603.webp



image-3939501548.webp



image-3537886326.webp



image-2142818334.webp



image-895930432.webp



image-1154139550.webp
 
I like that piece of petrified wood! I was thinking the same but most I've seen doesn't have the color like mine. I have some already from out west that are red, yellow, white and brown colors. However, your piece looks very similar to my mystery stone. Silicified wood/petrified wood is a 3-d fossil instead of a being an impression. It occurs when a organic material has been replaced by minerals (mostly silica, quartz) in an anaerobic environment (lack of oxygen). The silicification process occurred here in a water environment probably. From what I've researched the blue/green color is from contaminating elements such as cobalt, chromium or copper. A carbon contaminating element would be black. I was believing Mr. GB but I was wanting to see him say more than a deer antler fossil and provide a lil more proof. I'll give him partial credit (pictures can be hard to decipher really). When I Google images of silicified wood I could immediately see similarities and when I did fossilized antler none of the pictures looks like what I have in hand. Thanks for all the help!
 
Last edited:
Not really crazy about the fact that you were trying to play a game to get me to spend more time putting information out on the thread.
Look how quickly you just copied and pasted Wikipedia.
I said it looked like a fossil.. I still think it is..wood bone..coral even..One or the other.
I wasn't looking for credit for anything I was just trying to genuinely help you out... I wasn't playing a game
 
Last edited:
Dang, GB I wanna believe you. I think you may be leaving out some info to help me make this decision. My question is since you think this is a fossil: isn't there a process that makes fossils harder over time? Silicification or petrification? It may be what your saying but I'm seeing a mineral here that has formed from natural processes over 10s of 1000s of years. You are about to make this a learning thread for me but I'm not convinced that it's actually from a deer yet. Why not a dinosaur? There is a range of age from the animals living now to animals living millions of years ago. This has to fall in between that range if truly a fossil.

i think it looks like a fibrous mineral as well, but the photos are really not good enough to fairly judge, IMO. But, bear in mind that some types of fossilization involves the mineralization of the organism. In other words, many fossils are minerals!! They've become minerals!
Fossil trilobites made of calcite, shells opalized, etc. Some fossilization involves the organic matter being replaced by mineral. Long story short, a fossil is a fossil, but when the fossilization process involves mineralization of the organism, the result is a fossil that is a mineral. Where did you find it? If Florida, it's not dinosaur, if it's a fossil at all. The entire state of Florida is geologically young.

This page describes types of fossilization:

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord/fossilization/fossilization.htm

From this link:

"Replacement takes place when water dissolves the original hard parts and replaces them with mineral matter. This chemical action may take place slowly, reproducing the microscopic structures of the original organism. Bone, shells and wood are often well preserved in this manner. The most common replacement minerals are calcite, silica, pyrite and hematite. The snails of the Green River Formation in Wyoming are often replaced by silica, a variation of quartz. The ammonites and goniatites of Europe and North Africa are commonly replaced by hematite, which is an iron mineral similar to, but more stable than pyrite. When the original hard parts are replaced quickly they often loose all trace of their original structure, leaving the original shape, but no detail. Agatized woods are often preserved in this manner, (agate is a form of quartz).

Perimineralization
Permineralization takes place when ground water carrying dissolved minerals infiltrates the microscopic pores and cavities in bone, wood or shell. The minerals being deposited produce stony fossils that still contain a good deal of their original solid material. Bones, teeth and many marine organisms are preserved in this way. The fossil wood from the Petrified Forest of Arizona are a famous example of this type of preservation. The fossil teeth and bones of the Oligocene badlands of South Dakota and Nebraska are also common example of this type of fossilization, as well as the extensive deposits of Jurassic dinosaur bones in Utah and Colorado.


Pyritization is a Permineralization process involving sulfur and iron, and can result is formation of exquisite fossils and soft-tissue preservation. Organisms are pyritized when they are in marine sediments saturated with iron sulfides. Pyrite is iron sulfide (FeS2). As organic matter decays it releases sulfide which reacts with dissolved iron in the surrounding waters. Pyrite replaces carbonate shell material due to an undersaturation of carbonate in the surrounding waters. Some plants are also pyritized when they are in a clay terrain, but to a lesser extent than in a marine environment. Pyritized fossils are varied and particularly beautiful, such as this Jurassic Quenstedticeras ammonite and fossils from the Bundenbach Hunsruck Slate in Germany."
--------------------------------------------------
So, you see, some fossilization processes involve an organism becoming a mineral!

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossilsarchive/permin.html
 
Last edited:
Thanks I like a more specific answer. I live in NC and in the geological formation known as the Sauratown Mtns where the creeks are embedded with gneiss and quartzite. This mountain range is quartzite monadocks which used to be ancient beach sands along the Iapetus Ocean 400-600 millions years ago. Anyways, I know I was right when I said it was a mineral b/c I knew that silicification creates crystal structure. For someone to learn more about this process, a more lengthy answer may be needed anyway since pictures are hard to decipher. A broad answer, in this example, was given and someone could read this thread and think GB was wrong. I actually tried helping him out but he failed to give more proof. And yes Wikipedia is quick and easy to get a description or definition. The only part I actually did copy was the contaminants or should I say the elemental impurities which brought about the chemical change. The rest I knew by memory. And silicification is a very important process. For example, quartzite or silicified sandstone is a very important material used by Native Americans for 1000s of years. It is the most important material to manufacture stone tools. "Understanding Stone Tools & Archaeological Sites," has been a very important resource I have used to gain a better understanding of what all Native Americans did in survival situations. Also, more silicification usually means less patina and less silicification usually means more patina. However, just as Fieldhunter stated NC has very acidic soils which is more aggressive to breakdown artifacts. I just briefly explained basic principles of silicification and lithic materials. Charl briefly explained two more important chemical changing process in the geological world and thus stating that what I found could possibly be a fossil that is a mineral. GB and I are probably both right about the sample I found.
 
Last edited:
Geeesh.. Why not just take for granted that some of us know what we are talking about ... But don't feel the need or desire to write a thesis with every response.
"I'll name that item in ten words or less Alex" lol.
"Fossil"
I bet your responses will get more abbreviated after over 10,000 posts.
My new name for you is "Yikes" :-)
 
Last edited:
You probably wasn't very good at giving your thesis in school was you? Lol, some can write two sentences and feel they completely answered the question. Then some would provide more examples and completely describe the natural elements of what occurred in the process. The only difference would be whether the teacher wanted to grade who as the "A" student and who was the "A+" student. I never made anything less than a 99 in history/geography and even earth/natural science in school. I like the quick reply. You must hang out here. I've done worked, jogged 3 miles and ready to expand my knowledge for the day.
 
Last edited:
Tomorrow I'm going to drive 2hrs to spend the day hunting for artifacts, panning for gold and metal detecting. Might as well try to kill two birds with one stone. When I get serious about finding something, I will put all my effort into putting myself in the right location to find a piece of history. Nothing about this hobby is easy.
 
Was you???
Good day Yikes
Careful not to poke your head with anything sharp while you're out there
 
But hey I do believe two minds are stronger than one! You can make up for the other's loss. Thus, a completely flowing systematic process is created. Just like in nature, when work is applied. You need work on your people skills. Watch out for the coral down there, you could slice your toe and get an infection.
 
Last edited:
I feel like seconding the "yikes". Lol. So anyway, if you ever get a chance to photograph the piece in question in focus, outdoors in sunlight might help, do so and we may very well be able to give you a definitive answer. GB, I can't tell what kind of fossil it is from his photo. If he found it in Florida, I'll take your word for recognition value since you have a lot of experience fossil collecting in Florida. As far as "liking a more specific answer", rockheadhunter421, that's where better photos come in. The answer I gave you explained a couple of process that create fossils, which you clearly did not understand, since you did not understand fossils can be mineralized or you would not have been questioning GB in the exact fashion you were. That's why I thought it would help if I offered what I did. Maybe not. But a nice close up in focus probably would have helped.

"And silicification is a very important process. For example, quartzite or silicified sandstone is a very important material used by Native Americans for 1000s of years. It is the most important material to manufacture stone tools."

Yes, quartzite was a commonly used lithic. The most important? I have no idea where you get that from....
 
Last edited:
Nice finds boss !!!
 
[QUOTE/]"And silicification is a very important process. For example, quartzite or silicified sandstone is a very important material used by Native Americans for 1000s of years. It is the most important material to manufacture stone tools."

Yes, quartzite was a commonly used lithic. The most important? I have no idea where you get that from....[/QUOTE]

Quote from "Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites" by Brian P. Kooyman. The book was used as a textbook for archaeology students. Quartzite can have varying silica contents though. Silica content is in flint, chert, rhyolite, obsidian, silicified slate, silicified shale, silicified sandstone, silicified siltstone, silicified clay and many more. All materials listed here has been used for survival situations for 1000s of years. So why wouldn't you think it's not important. Native Americans gained knowledge to use the most silica containing materials that had the quality they desired for manufacturing tools. There is many other types of tools used; for example, ground stone tools (You can Google it). There is much technology the Native Americans had at that time and they probably had ways to perform tests. However, quality wasn't always desired for a survival situation. If you've been in a survival situation or read about primitive skills, you can find that a local material can be suitable enough to lengthen your chances of survival. After being in that situation long enough, you should soon desire materials with silica content to make your tools. Then you will set up camp there, and call that place home, if all other essentials are supplied in that environment. Another effective primitive technology involves stone boiling or the use of cooking balls which were probably first develop by the Archaic Indians. There is many more Native American derived technologies that can be used today.
 

See if you can find that information in Wikipedia. That is from the collection of resources in my mind, the ones I remember reading about. As for giving me a polite and correct response on this thread with an in-hand example, NCFieldhunter deserves the A+. Thanks to the others also who complimented my finds even though they were off-topic in this forum. WOOHOO! HAPPY HUNTIN!
 
[QUOTE/]=Robot;3933805]The marble appears as one I highly collected as a kid - an Agate
Probable from the Akro Agate Company 1910 - 1951 [/QUOTE]

Wow! Looks like you guess right. I didn't know if anyone was going figure it out or not. I really appreciate your response.
 
[QUOTE/]"And silicification is a very important process. For example, quartzite or silicified sandstone is a very important material used by Native Americans for 1000s of years. It is the most important material to manufacture stone tools."

Yes, quartzite was a commonly used lithic. The most important? I have no idea where you get that from....

Quote from "Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites" by Brian P. Kooyman. The book was used as a textbook for archaeology students. Quartzite can have varying silica contents though. Silica content is in flint, chert, rhyolite, obsidian, silicified slate, silicified shale, silicified sandstone, silicified siltstone, silicified clay and many more. All materials listed here has been used for survival situations for 1000s of years. So why wouldn't you think it's not important. Native Americans gained knowledge to use the most silica containing materials that had the quality they desired for manufacturing tools. There is many other types of tools used; for example, ground stone tools (You can Google it). There is much technology the Native Americans had at that time and they probably had ways to perform tests. However, quality wasn't always desired for a survival situation. If you've been in a survival situation or read about primitive skills, you can find that a local material can be suitable enough to lengthen your chances of survival. After being in that situation long enough, you should soon desire materials with silica content to make your tools. Then you will set up camp there, and call that place home, if all other essentials are supplied in that environment. Another effective primitive technology involves stone boiling or the use of cooking balls which were probably first develop by the Archaic Indians. There is many more Native American derived technologies that can be used today.[/QUOTE]



"So why wouldn't you think it's not important?"
Double negative?
Whatever, I know what you're saying. But, as noted, quartzite or silicified sandstone was NOT the most important lithic used to manufacture stone tools. It was less desirable then other lithics and more difficult to knapp. Just correcting your misstatement. Never said it was not important period, (they used it a lot in RI as well), and you know very well I did not say that. You know full well what I said, so you can stop playing games by putting words in my mouth anytime now. No reply necessary, though. Feel free to create your own observations whether they're correct or mistaken. Peace brother, and good luck hunting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom