Fossil found 1/10/09.

Ancient History, Lost Civilizations and related topics

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby lost_shaman » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:55 pm

On a small trip with the intention to look for lithic artifacts a friend and I stopped, as an after thought, to walk down the Pease river. Within a couple hundred feet of the bridge we came across a Gravel bar exposed to the surface. We didn't find any artifacts but I picked up an interesting and well preserved fossilized bone.

I admit that I don't know what it is.

That being said I think it might be a toe bone.

Image


ImageImageImage

Anyone that can ID the fossil bone or make educated guesses as to what it might be would be appreciated.

It was also interesting to me that the fossil changed color dramatically after I had removed it from the river bed. When I first picked it up it was a nearly uniform milk chocolate color darker than the wood table it is phographed on, as it dried out over the next few days different parts of the fossil began changing into lighter colors until it basically looks like what you see in the pictures taken 4 days after the fossil was picked up. You can also see in the bottom picture a good view of the salt crystals that formed as the fossil dried out (the very distinct white patch visible in the bottom right picture above and in smaller patches visible in the other three pictures).
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am


Re: Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby mavn » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:33 pm

These are very interesting photos and I appreciate the fact that you have shared them here. Although I am not an authority on fossils I too like to find old artifacts such as this when I venture out into the wilderness. It seems that especially in areas near water interesting items can be found. These are the type of locations where I have found old rock art sites. Could the salt have been left as a residue on your fossil from the water perhaps? Also, could the whiteness after drying out be the calcium or calcite within the fossil itself (just wondering)? And where is the Pease River? Are there any signs in the area that cultures might have existed there long ago? Is there a Native American tribe who inhabited the area or signs of very old mining activity? Just curious - thanks! :)

mavn
mavn
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:50 am

Re: Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:07 pm

mavn wrote:Could the salt have been left as a residue on your fossil from the water perhaps?


Hey mavn,

Yes, definately; rather in the fossil. The water is fairly salty and salt was visible all over the place because we hadn't had any precipitation to wash it away in months at the time I picked the fossil up. The fossil is fairly porous and subsequently had some of this salty river water inside of it which slowly evaporated off and this lead to the salt build up that I pointed out.


mavn wrote: Also, could the whiteness after drying out be the calcium or calcite within the fossil itself (just wondering)?


I guess that could be possible, but I'm pretty sure it was mainly just salt from the river water inside the fossil.


mavn wrote: And where is the Pease River? Are there any signs in the area that cultures might have existed there long ago? Is there a Native American tribe who inhabited the area or signs of very old mining activity? Just curious - thanks! :)

mavn


The Pease River is a tributary of the Red River, in North Texas. The Pease flows into the Red just a few miles downstream from where I picked up the Fossil just North and East of Vernon, Tx.

Yes, there are signs of ancient cultures in the general area. A friend and myself had just found a site about 5 miles away from the spot I picked up the fossil on the Red river just 2 days earlier as a matter of fact. There I picked up a very small delicately worked drill/perforator. I know of other sites further away on creeks feeding into the Red and Pease rivers where we have found artifacts, Paleo, Archaic, and late prehistoric sites. Historically, I believe the Comanche tribe would have been in the area.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby mavn » Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:49 pm

yes, that is very interesting information and I believe the Red River area in Texas is where my daughter's great grandmother was born. She passed away well into her eighties about 20 years ago however she had talked to me at one time about her childhood. Her mother was of Cherokee descent and they lived on a reservation in North Eastern Texas. Their ancestors belonged to a group of Cherokee people who left Tennessee before the time of the Trail of Tears because they did not want to conform to the White mans ways. I believe she said they joined with other tribes (possibly Comanche) who felt the same way and became one Tribe in Texas. She left the reservation and moved to Seattle when she was fifteen. So now I am even more interested in what you are discovering in this area!
mavn
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:50 am

Re: Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby mavn » Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:43 am

Could this fossil possibly be of a prehistoric camel or deer hoof? Just guessing - Both kinds of animals are in the fossil record for the Southwest.
mavn
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:50 am

Re: Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby lost_shaman » Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:46 pm

mavn wrote:Could this fossil possibly be of a prehistoric camel or deer hoof? Just guessing - Both kinds of animals are in the fossil record for the Southwest.


I'm pretty sure it isn't either of those, but I honestly don't have a clue what the fossil belongs to.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby mavn » Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:29 am

LS - I was at the Pacific Science Museum in Seattle yesterday and saw various interesting skeletons (including Lucy by the way). I am now fairly convinced that this bone looks like part of the pelvic bone (sacrum) of an animal or ? If so, this bone would be the last part of the vertabrae and would connect to the tailbone. An added note of interest is the fact that the human sacrum bone had a sacred purpose in Mayan ritual called kul or kuul.
mavn
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:50 am

Re: Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby lost_shaman » Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:31 pm

mavn wrote:LS - I was at the Pacific Science Museum in Seattle yesterday and saw various interesting skeletons (including Lucy by the way). I am now fairly convinced that this bone looks like part of the pelvic bone (sacrum) of an animal or ? If so, this bone would be the last part of the vertabrae and would connect to the tailbone. An added note of interest is the fact that the human sacrum bone had a sacred purpose in Mayan ritual called kul or kuul.


Brilliant mavn! I believe you're right. I suspected that it was either associated with the spine or an extremity. Looking at it, it's obvious to me it was connected to another bone but it would have been the last bone. So yeah that makes sense. Thanks.

Any idea what it might have belonged to?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby mavn » Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:40 am

Thanks LS - I think more research will probably be necessary in order to answer that question.
mavn
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:50 am

Re: Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby Cogburn » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:06 pm

Can't help thinking the OP image looks like a Carcharodon tooth, with some fossilized root tissue attached.

http://s63.photobucket.com/albums/h145/ ... VES005.jpg

Given it was found in Texas I don't see that as being impossible.

Don't suppose you have any photographs of the object in situ?
User avatar
Cogburn
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: Fossil found 1/10/09.

Postby lost_shaman » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:33 am

Hey Cogburn,

No unfortunately I don't have an in situ photo. It's kinda sad because I wish I had in situ pictures of everything I've been finding but I don't have even one. Anyway, like most often is the case this fossil was picked up and in my hand before I even realized that it wasn't just a strange looking rock. Too late for in situ pictures at that point.

As for being a tooth... I can see how one might suggest that, but it is not a tooth and that's likely my fault for posting poor quality pictures. I'm sorry for that, I just recently discovered that the camera I've been using has a "Close-up" mode in the Auto settings. But it is clearly a bone and exhibits bone structure.

Here's a better close-up of the underside.

Image
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am


Google

Return to Archaeology & Paleontology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron