is this stone,bone,antler,ivory.or swordfish bill ?

Ivory has layers like tree rings,I dont see it.A sword fish bill is bone.Shave a small piece off and burn it,if it smells like crap then its antler lol.
 

Can you please post a photo so we can see the entire object?
 

Heres a picture.
 

Attachments

  • ForumRunner_20131205_215900.png
    ForumRunner_20131205_215900.png
    353.7 KB · Views: 176
Ha I had a feeling it was this... You're in the right spot to get answers
Honestly that looks like tooth material a little.. I don't think it's ivory considering where it was found I would look at the possibility of it being walrus tusk
 

The only issue is would walrus tusk keep 4,000 years in maines soil without any decay or stain?
 

That may be issue number two to figure out.. If you can get back to the spot a soil sample might do some good the pH is very important... As well as how much oxygen or lack thereof there was available to get to that piece.
The material of tusk will definitely last better than bone.
I would focus on one thing at a time
 

You haven't provided the size of the object. Antler IS bone. This piece, assuming it is bone, is unlikely to have survived any length of time without taking on a stain or patina.

A forum which offers only images is NOT the right place for answers, if you believe that this object is an archeological specimen. Take the object to a museum or university archie for evaluation of age and origin. Then let us hear what you find out.
 

Eventually i'll get it looked at.I just thought someone might be able to distinguish what type of stone it might be .
 

It's definitely not stone.
While I don't know the exact circumstances of how you pull that from the ground I have a hard time believing that it's very old
 

Thats why i have a hard time believing its not stone.It has already been dated at between 4,000-and 3,800 yrs. old.This guy specializes in maritime archaic indians.I have other slate points using the same ground technology .The age is pretty certain the material is not.
 

I remember your response and your explanation... What it sounded like to me was he gave a date range to the style of implement.
I don't think he ever verified its authenticity or its material correct me if I'm wrong
 

No he never authenticated it.Wouldnt expect him to without him examining it.He first said it was a bone or antler barbed harpoon or point.I got a whole assortment of artifacts coming from the same site.These are all moorehead phase.I understand your skepticism.But dont doubt its authenticity.It was dug by myself.Your not the first to question it.But one thing all these archeologists had in common they didnt doubt it being real...
 

I know where you're coming from if it were my hands that pulled it from the ground I would doubt it.. My mind would be going places like who saw that I was digging here and who would put this here.
I've seen Inuit examples exactly like it.
I've also seen reproductions
I've seen very similar ground slate pieces from the archaic maritime tradition in your area as well.. Any archaeologist worth his salt would not make a decision on it being authentic or not without having handled it
 

Last edited:
The first thing that came to mind was cool i found some later type of point.Then i went the inuit route.This was fresh dug that day by me with no one else around.The same depth as everything else except the pottery shards which are always on top.Will get it looked at.Im trying to get an archeolgist to come to the historical society where i keep my collection.
 

Please keep us updated I looked at the magnified photos as close as I could I do see some mineral staining in the pitted areas.. just based on that and the fact I don't see any striations or grinding that look repetitive like modern machines I would say it's probably from the 1800's
There is mixing in most sites at some point it could have even been thrown in a hole that was dug back then... Or even some natural event that caused erosion and material to be deposited at a lower level
 

Last edited:
mainejman said:
No he never authenticated it.Wouldnt expect him to without him examining it.He first said it was a bone or antler barbed harpoon or point.I got a whole assortment of artifacts coming from the same site.These are all moorehead phase.I understand your skepticism.But dont doubt its authenticity.It was dug by myself.Your not the first to question it.But one thing all these archeologists had in common they didnt doubt it being real...
Click to expand...

Which archies would those be? What archeologists have examined the object in-hand? Which of those have looked at the site of the find?
 

No archeologists have held it .If this would have happened i wouldnt be asking for help.I have sent pics to arthur spiess and the northeast archeological research center.Both say archaic....mr spiess says beautiful point usually that style is made of dark slate ground .He says 4,000-3,800 yrs old.Thanks for your help.But am starting to feel like i got to prove my self.This is where i get off this train.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

post your teeth

⬅️ Previous Thread

Fossil shell and bone

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
High Plains Prospectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top