and another tool

The question is rather odd, as there has not been sufficient time for organic materials from the historical period (in any part of the world) to fossilize. The fact that both ancient hominids and modern humans have used various ex tempore unshaped tools does not make every odd-looking rock an ancient tool -- there has to be evidence at least of use if evidence of shaping is not available. The objects in the photographs appear to be natural stones, rather oddly formed, but natural nevertheless. Without knowing the type of rock and the find context it is difficult to judge how long they have had their present shape, but the rounding of the corners through natural erosion suggests quite a long time, probably several thousand years at the least. No visible part of either object suggests human shaping; the original forms seem to have come about through natural fractioning, nor do they resemble any "standard" tool forms I am familiar with. If someone else can suggest parallels among unequivocal worked tools, I too would be interested to hear about them. The photographs show no evidence of controlled wear and the shapes are not suitable for hammerstones, which are probably the most common use of natural cobbles. In sum, I would hesitate to identify the objects as man-made, let alone as tools of any description.

I infer that the questioner thinks these items could be fossilized materials that were used as tools. If so. these would be termed "expediency tools" -- i.e. used but unshaped natural objects.  I see no evidence of deliberate shaping or modification of these objects.  I agree strongly with Jarmo Kankaapaa's response. 

 I also agree with Jarmo Kankaapää and Shipman. Anyway the rocks photographed don't seem to be fossils, just stones, like quarzite or quartz, showing old natural fractures.

The tools are fossilized tools. The cutting tool is thread. The fossilized thread which I show on the photos is the evidence. The cutting marks cannot be nature making.

As far as we can see on the picture, the (sandstone ?) pebble looks 100% natural. No fossil thread at all, but thin internal rows of dark minerals.

I totally agree with Bertrand Poissonnier. The darker lines are obviously natural and were probably caused by an ancient sedimentary process (ask a professional geologist). This is frequent on sandstone pebbles. If you think this stone and the others above are tools, you have to demonstrate it (by using microwear analysis, for example).

Observe carefully, you can find that the fossilized thread is as thin as a hair and it was winded one segment across another, so I confirm that it was not caused by an ancient sedimentary process.

It was fossilized in deep cave. If you known how hard it was, you would not call it sandstone. The thread is the fossil thread.

My dear, you should take courses in geology.

From the pictures provided, I have to agree with those others who have commented and say that these appears to be natural. The black lines in the third set of images look like mineral bands as Bertrand has stated. This pebble also looks rolled - is it from a fluvial context? Striations on the surface may result from abrasion in riverine environments. The small cleft in the middle of the surface looks like a natural fracture that has worn down due to rolling as well.

None of them seem to show signs of visible polish from the pictures, so I would be doubtful that they had been used from any kind of rubbing activity. If you want to look for signs of use on these, then SEM microwear analysis is going to be the way forward and you'll need an experimental reference collection for comparison. I'd also take them to a geologist as Jean-Loïc has suggested to establish whether there are mineral inclusions within them as others have suggested.

Mr. Jean-Loïc Le Quellec

You do not believe it’s a fossil, so I show you another fossilized tool and a big tooth which I collected at same site.

And another fossilized horn tool

These objects are similar to the kinds of thing that visitors regularly bring to Manchester Museum. Invariably they look like some kind of prehistoric stone tool but almost always turn out to be natural. Something that has the profile of a knife but is made out of a relatively soft laminated stone is unlikely to be a prehistoric artefact, for instance. Then there are ambiguous things that look like they ought to have been used for something... Most of the time we just can't tell. Unless there's real evidence of use I'm inclined to be very cautious and not treat t hem as artefacts..

Dear Bryan Sitch

From the photos, every expert has seen that the fossils are very hard. They are too hard to hammer to pieces, I have tried. If you always met same kind of stone, next time I hope you take them cautiously. And at same time I show a fossilized bone with teeth marks and small hole that eaten by worms on the surfacce. they  were cellected at same  site..

Thank you for your generous reply.

I have to agree with Frederik Fouls and all the other posts

Unfortunately for us, nature has a way of creating objects that look like and feel like anthropic tools or ware. In these cases, they all apear natural to me.

Geology has many ways of creating the different shapes that you show us here. The first pictures show quartz or quartzite typical structures : straight faces on some areas, round ones on the other. Other photos you have shown us shows typical water wear, especially the last one.

Furthermore you should enquire more about where and how you found those stones. Context will most of the time tell you more about your objects than your objects themselves.

You make mistakes, the first one had to have stayed in the water for some time after it fossilized but it must be in calm water, so the small holes on the surface eaten by warms have not been worn away. If the others have been in the water, they would be look like the first one.  

The pitting on the above is not necessarily the result of worms as you have posited. It could also be the result of fluvial action or wind abrasion, amongst a host of other causes. I am doubtful that this is fossilised bone - have you actually had it verified by a palaeontological expert? Can you also provide the context of where this was found?

Pay your attention to the first one. There are some small holes eaten by bugs on the cross section surface, so the shaping was before it was eaten and fossilized.

Please see attached stone 'tool' found by a colleague in a rather isolated wood. It is sub-square with a scar where it appears to have been used as a hammer-stone. It is of the right sort of size and shape to fit comfortably in the hand but its suitability for use is really coincidental. There are many things in the natural world that have been used in this way without them being intentional artefacts. And many objects that might look as though they are intentional but are in fact shaped by natural processes. If we started collecting this sort of thing we would be repeating the mistake made in the early 20th century when collecting 'eoliths' or 'dawn-stones' was popular.

Not the only one have the small hole eaten by bugs, I show you more.

There are several items due to the different specialties of the people who have responded:

- No tools, at least not have been modified by the man to suit any use.

- They aren't fossils. They have neither the external appearance, internal structure or texture to assign to any known taxon.

- Very probably be pebbles of fluvial origin: shape, texture and rounded surface, including small marks and holes, are perfectly compatible with typical fluvial erosion on hard rocks.

- Most likely its nature is of quartzite, sandstone or in some case quartz. Thin laminations are compatible with sedimentary laminations or tectonic foliations.

Add: the hardness of the material is not compatible with any known taphonomic process occurred in the last two million years (the age of man sensu lato). On the contrary, has all the appearance of being due to metamorphic processes (recrystallization of quartz) that occur in the interior of the earth and need an orogenic event, exhumation and subsequent erosion to retrieve samples to surface. The age of the rocks must be Pre-Cenozoic (at least more than 66 million years before present and the origin of man).

Sure that in the place you find this the stones must be a lot of other similar stones but with other shapes, bigger and smaller.

Show the stones to a geologist or a paleontologist as others recomended before.

I have emphasized that only the first one has stayed in water. If others have been in the water, it would look like the one attached below. I just putted it in the water about one month.

From the evidences, maybe the origin of man is underestimated.

Pay you attention to the two small flaws. They were formed before fossilizing.

For me, this is defintively NOT a fossil. If you think it is one, then you have to PROVE it, and not only make assertions. You are saying that "From the evidences, maybe the origin of man is underestimated", but strong claims need strong evidence. So, once again (and the last one as far as I am concerned), please show your stones to a professional and well-trained geologist.

I would politely suggest that you familiarise yourself with some of the common features of natural rocks, particularly erosional features of cobbles and boulders. If you do not have access to online journals a simple internet search will suffice.

I think you will find that a simple google image search of 'spalling' or 'chatter' marks on glacial and fluvial rock surfaces will show you many things you would interpret as being man made, and they are perfectly natural.

Similarly i suggest you google 'cross bedding in quartzite' to reinterpret you thread marks. A very simple test here would be to break the rock open, I am sure you will find the laminated features are throughout the rock, and not just on the surface. Then you will know for sure it is a natural rock feature.

For my own benefit i googled 'man made tools' and notice that everything is far more deliberately shaped than anything in your pictures, which do not look like they serve any purpose, nor do they look like any bone, horn or stick which you say they started as.

My only other thought is that this is simply a joke!

First, I reinterpret the thread mark. It is as thin as a hair. Observing carefully, you will find that one section is across another and the marks are on the surface, just using sandpaper can polish it away. I have tried polishing same marks on another one. The fossil is too hard to break so it is not the laminated rock as you thought. Your suggestion is not a good idea. If I do so, some experts who have seen it, their heart will be broken. The artifacts of site SD are from deep cave. Know more about deep cave archaeology.

This is a fossil because it absorbs sweat heavily. And from the two flaws, the object before fossilizing was formed of long-fibre. The dark color was left by hominid’s finger.

I was wrong. I thought it was about questions here, but obviously, it is only assertions. So I stop to participate. Good luck!

Strong claims need strong evidence, yes, another.

Worse than being blind is not wanting to see...

I also stop participating and wasting my time here.

I am not sure why but i find myself drawn to this thread, it is fascinating for many strange reasons! I would like to pose another couple of questions!

You say you were able to remove the thread marks with sandpaper. As you say the features are very fine, and so simple material preparation dictates you must then use a fine polishing cloth to finish the surface. A coarse sandpaper finish will obviously mask any fine features.

You say you cannot break the sample as future experts will be upset. I am certain having seen retractions occur in the past that they will be more upset if your claims turn out to be wrong. Instead of smashing it with a hammer,  cut it with a diamond trim/slab saw (I am sure some one at the Kunming University can do this, massive geology dept!). Then simply polish the flat surface to look at the interior. That will silence your critics, and the majority of your sample will be perfectly preserved.

My third point with the 'thread mark' sample is the marks themselves, you say they are "fine like a hair", which is a perfectly reasonable size for minerals. I am interested in what thread this fine would be used for any shaping or holding purpose as typical thread marks, e.g. hafting marks, are coarse usually as a result of twine use. Fine hair would break on tools. Also the marks clearly cover almost the entire surface, if they can be removed by sandpaper as you say how have they survived many thousands of years of fluvial/physical erosion so perfectly!! your many statements seem difficult to resolve in this way.

Your latest picture you seem to be holding as if you suggest it is a simple hammer stone of some kind. And yet the 'hammer' surface is the smoothest, least broken surface on the whole thing, so where is the evidence it ever hammered? Hammer stones need to look like they were used as a hammer at least!

I would be thrilled if you presented anything that wasn't simply a coincidental shape, and convinced me of these fossilised tool, but sadly i am still in doubt. For real excitement i would maybe arrange a sabbatical touring the cobble beaches of Western Europe. You will find thousands upon thousands of items that you would see as fossilised tools, which no one else has yet to interpret in this way! (sorry everyone, couldn't resist)

Pay your attention to the polished area.

Alison, if you wanted to rephrase the question as "Do you think there are some tools that were judged mistakenly as lithic tools?" for your students then a short seminar on the eolith debate from the early 20th century would make for an excellent multidisciplinary introduction. You could bring in original papers from the early 1900s and support the evidence with modern archaeology/geology to look at the differences in taphonomy and erosion between lithic artefacts and stones that have been misinterpreted as tools. It would also be a glimpse into the history of archaeology as well.

Dear Chun Liu,

I asked you earlier to do some background research on cross-bedding. The latest pictures you have shown are absolutely classic cross-bedded geological features. They are formed from the down-current migration of sedimentary bedforms such as ripples moving downstream on a riverbed.

Your latest sample also clearly shows a fractured surface (bottom part of the second photo) and clearly shows that the cross bedded features appear within the sample. Previously you said this was only on the surface and could be removed with sandpaper. 

You are actually showing us pictures that disprove your theories!

As you have now shown you have multiple samples of this cross-bedding, I implore you to slice one open, polish it, and see that this is a geological, and not man-made feature

I show clearer photos. Magnifying the photos, you can see a lot of minuteness piece of original substance. And in the red circle area, the strings have broken. so your suggestion is not necessary.

Hello again, 

Thank you for the high resolution images, they are an excellent addition. The third image clearly shows the broken end of the rock sample, and the cross beds (especially light and dark bands) are visible continuing in the interior, supporting geological origin and not a surface feature.

Slice, polish and prove me wrong!

However i think we have been unfair in concentrating on the geology examples as this is obviously not your subject area. Therefore i have two questions looking from an archaeological point of view which hopefully you can answer about your samples. They should be easy to answer with one photo and one drawing.

You are clearly convinced these samples are fossilised tools. Therefore you must have seen specimens in the literature which are non-fossilised, but show the same features. I have some (limited) experience trying to make hafted tools, and the most obvious thing to me is that real tools with hafting marks are grooved in some way (to make the haft secure), and also cover a small area of the tool head, because there is still either a hammer or sharp surface exposed. In your samples the 'thread marks' cover every surface on all sides. So...

I am very intrigued by this topic, and willing to be satisfied by good evidence

Below is an image of cross-bedded rocks in the field almost identical to your sample. Hopefully your samples look more like the archaeological example you can provide to question 1.

I am so sorry I took so long to answer your questions. Because I just can use my spare time to do so and English is not my motherland language. You have so many questions; I do my best to answer one by one.

You attached a picture to prove your frame of reference; you confirmed that it is cross-bedded rocks (the laminated rock). Do you have observed it carefully, especially the circled area. Some students are watching, so you are obliged to explain how it laminated, layer by layer.

Yes, it is very clear nothing about string and thread. But my view on the imagine is absolutely different; hope you can offer four sides clear pictures. And beg you Slice, polish and prove me wrong!

Your request‘I would like to see a sample photograph from a reputable collection of non-fossilized tools (preferably published literature) which show the same marks which are fossilized in your sample in your picture above’.

I have no non-fossilized tool with same marks. This kind of cut marts cannot appear on stone tools. Even suing nowadays tools, it is impassable.   

Haha, i notice you only ask me more questions without providing any answers to my questions. Oh well.

Do not be worried about students watching. Cross-bedding is one of the most fundamental sedimentary structures seen in rocks, and every geology student learns how these form (usually in their first year).

Below is a link to MIT lecture notes for cross bedding and sedimentary structures, it includes 3D drawings showing from all angles. Hopefully this is a good enough university for you. Please google "cross bedding lecture notes" and you will find LOTS and LOTS of examples as i said before.

I also attach a picture below of a rock sample cut open and polished to show the cross bedding inside as you ask. It is from an Oxford University collection, again an exceptional university you can trust i hope!

Now i have answered your questions...

There are many examples of non-fossilised tools made of bone and horn, many very famous sites with huge collections of tools. And yet none look like your "fossilised examples". Please show me anything which we know is a genuine tool that looks like your sample. Anything at all - bone, horn, fossilised, non fossilised. If you cannot show that first it was a tool before it became fossilised, then it is just a rock!

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/12-090-introduction-to-fluid-motions-sediment-transport-and-current-generated-sedimentary-structures-fall-2006/course-textbook/ch16.pdf

About hafted tool, hafts appeared after some development of hominids that I have read from books.

The tool are called hand ax. Most of The tools were designed for both hands holding .later, I will show.

A hand axe must show some evidence that a man has shaped it to produce a cutting surface. e.g. concoidal fracture. Look at any museum specimen of a hand axe! This is a rock

I refer to the quote from earlier in this thread...

"If we started collecting this sort of thing we would be repeating the mistake made in the early 20th century when collecting 'eoliths' or 'dawn-stones' was popular."

Handaxes of the Lower Palaeolithic don't look like what you have in that image. They have visibly modified and shaped surfaces. Here is one from Bose, China that is over 800,000 years old from the Smithsonian collections. (sourced from: http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/imagecache/inline_blog_portrait/images/portrait/3.3.4-30_handaxe_bose_jdhd_p.jpg).

Here is the rather wonderful Olduvai hand axe at the British Museum. Dated at 1.2 - 1.4 million years old. It shows the same evidence of shaping.

Even the really really old tools at this (incredibly famous) location still have to show some evidence of deliberate shaping or a useful purpose. The stone choppers are reckoned to be closer to 2 million years old and are simple, with fractures only on one side. But it is still evidence. Of which you still have none

There are carbonized plant pieces in the red circled area. so Would you please offer four sides clear pictures. And beg you Slice, polish and prove me wrong!

This is a rock in the outdoors, it has actual plants and moss/lichen living on it. They are not "carbonised", they are alive! 

I have clearly shown you the same structures you think are fossils in both field photos and a sliced and polished picture above (6 posts up). There is nothing left for me to prove about natural formation of these features.

You are clearly avoiding the questions about your samples. 

It is fossilized tool. Using wore the part.

It the circled area had been worn from use, I would expect to see some form of polish or abrasion to the area that differs from the surrounding surface. This does not appear to be present. In addition, I could go to the river down the road from my house and find rocks similar to these all over the pebble banks that are unfortunately not tools but instead products of natural fracture and erosion.

I may see if we can invite someone with more 'early human tool' expertise to describe these features you are showing us!

I'm afraid I can't see anything on the photgraph of this object that suggests it has been used - as Freddie points out, no polish orabrasion, nor constrained areas of incipient cones (percussion features from use as a hard hammer).

Thank you Beccy Scott. 

At least I now know that I am not going mad here! If someone with your expertise thinks there is no evidence that these rocks have been used as tools I can finally stop following this thread :)

Mr. Richard J M Taylor.

What I mean is using some pictures and photos to explain, So that I can understand easily.

Although I don't normally credit Wikipedia as an overly accurate source of information, their pages on cross bedding may be useful if you can access it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-bedding

You might also find their page on sedimentary lamination useful as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamination_(geology)

While it appears that much of what you have found is likely to be natural and formed from a combination of geological processes and erosion, I still commend your interest in Prehistory and would actively encourage you to continue looking for artefacts from early hominins - just remember to report your finds to your local museum. However, I would ask that you spend a little time researching the types of tools commonly associated to early hominins. A great source to start would be Inizian, Reduron-Ballinger, Roche & Tixier's Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone (in English unfortunately), which can be found as a PDF online: http://www.mae.u-paris10.fr/prehistoire/IMG/pdf/Technology_and_Terminology_of_Knapped_Stone.pdf

Thank you for your suggestion. I use the website a lot. Observing carefully, the object can tell you the truth. You think it is a Cross-bedding  rocks,good!

I show two broken tools which was winded with treads or strings that left marks on the surface.

The truth appears, but I am really very upset.

A perfect hand ax which was reused as a spool is broken. your suggestion is good or not. The pattern of the strings on the two sides cannot be matched. The evidence was overlooked.

the evidences are also overlooked.

Dear all

Are they stone tools or wooden tools or fossilized wooden tools?

Simply by weight or hardness may discriminate between wood and stone, but with the low resolution of the images and polished surfaces is very difficult to say anything about the material of these samples.

They could be made of wood, or some metamorphic rock, such as quartzite, sillimanite, etc. The images do not indicate clearly anything.

Both look like stone axes or adzes, but the pictures are not informative enough.

Dear all

Using weight and hardness to discriminate stone tool and fossilized tool and wooden tool is most simple way. But using them superlatively is scientific way. Quartzite, sillimanite, or fossil have different specific gravity, hardness, tenacity, toughness. But the tools we have no chance to do the tasting to them, for they are belongs to a museum.

If they are wooden tools or fossilized wooden tool, they will keep some wood feature.  One can try using Quartzite and wood to polish tools respectively. Observing the faces and edges, one will know the difference.

the vein of wood and stone is very different.

Dear all

What did the stone axes chop? The brittlement of a stone is the harder the higher in the common situation.

Dear all

Are there effective methods which can discriminate fossilized toots and stone tools? Could the Content of carbon element  be used as benchmark?

I think that the substance on the surface is greasy dirt.

Could you clarify what you mean by fossilised tools and stone tools? These are not terms that are in common usage. Are you implying that some might be fossils which co-incidentally look like artefacts, or are you asking if some have been worked from fossil material rather than modern wood?

Jana

I concur that the first batch of photos are of rocks that could be found in any of tens of thousands of streams around the world.  Nature sometimes makes odd shapes for humans to take interest in.

For the second batch of photos, I don't have an opinion regarding the top photo without see and holding the object.  Assuming the second photo is a different object, it does have more of the appearance of an object shaped by human grinding against another stone, either for grinding food/pigments or to form it into a tool such as a stone axe, but from the photo I won't rule out that it is entirely natural. 

Assuming it is a tool, there are actually 4 options: 1) stone tool, 2) wood tool, 3) wood tool that has been petrified, and 4) a tool made from petrified wood.  There are also some geologic materials that have no connection to plants that appear to be somewhat like wood.  I wouldn't have any trouble distinguishing between the four if I was holding the object.  As was stated, non-destructively testing the hardness, specific gravity, and observation under a microscope would confirm the tactile results.  A record of provenance and associated materials would also be very helpful in supporting any assessment.

For the last batch of photos, I would again say that there exists the possibility that they were shaped by human grinding against other stone material.  Again, I wouldn't form an opinion without seeing and holding the objects.  Nature could have made them.

One final comment: it is always very useful to have some sort of scale in photos of objects like these.  The weave of the cloth constrains the range of size, but without knowing if the cloth was a fine weave such as would be used in a western men's suite or a course weave like in burlap or a rug it is hard to be sure what one is looking at.

On a more general note, I think that it is much more common for people to falsely conclude that an object is a shaped tool and relatively rare for a shaped tool to be overlooked as a natural object.  Once a person starts shaping a tool, it is a very small thing to shape significantly to make it a better tool.  Just watch a group of children start to make anything out of natural material.  They may begin with a relatively unaltered object, but if they spend any time at all using the object they will take the time to refine the object.

Dear all

I are using fossilized tool to mean that a tool which was made of bone, or tooth or wood has fossilized wholly or partially , just like the one below.

It was made of thighbone. It was cut out of a part.

One grown up obeying DNA is quite distinct from one shaped by nature.

Thank you for the clarification. The photo you show looks very much to me as if it is made of rock. Have you established the hardness of this material on the Mohr scale?

Jana 

I feel that if you can access some X-ray diffraction analysis you would be able, in a non-destrustuve way, to establish that the material you are looking at in in fact a standard rock type, and not fossil material as you seem to suggest. 

Jana

Dear Jana M. Horak 

Dear all

About the hardness of the tools are very different. All were collected in building sites. The one staying in the air not long is very hard. I have hammered a one same as ss1-4. It is too hart to broken. I have tried to hammer SZA-3 to broken, but left no hammered tails on it. But the one as SCH-1 has stayed in air and rain for a long time. It is easy to break.  On the Mohr scale, I have no the appliance.

Dear Jana M. Horak 

Dear all 

On X-Ray Diffraction Analysis, it is a good idea. Do any scientists give the analysis to the stone tool in the museum? I hope some scientists can offer the test to my tools.

X-Ray Diffraction Analysis “The investigation of the structure of a substance by methods that make use of the spatial distribution and intensities of X radiation scattered by the object under study. Like neutron diffraction and electron diffraction analysis, X_ray diffractionanalysis investigates structure through the use of diffraction. When X_radiation interacts with the electrons of a substance,the X rays are diffracted. The diffraction pattern depends on the wavelength of the X rays employed and on the structure of theobject. Radiation of wavelength ~ 1 angstrom (Å), that is, of the order of atomic dimensions, is used to investigate atomicstructure. The methods of X_ray diffraction analysis are used to study, for example, metals, alloys, minerals, inorganic andorganic compounds, polymers, amorphous materials, liquids, gases, and the molecules of proteins and nucleic acids. X_ray diffraction analysis has been used most successfully to establish the atomic structure of crystalline substances becausecrystals have a rigid periodicity of structure and constitute naturally produced diffraction gratings for X rays.”

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/X-ray+diffraction+analysis

Dear all

I judge that it is fossilized broken tool, because it was with half circle substance which like harden cloth, when I found it. Because it has stayed in the air for a long time (road building site), so it is broken. If you observe carefully, you can see the trail and a little remain.  

Dear Chun

The images you post are quite clearly rocks, formed in general through sedimentary processes (one may be a volcanic rock) and which have the been eroded and formed into unusual shapes. I have numerous rocks in our collection which have ben assumed to represent a fossilised item but are just odd shaped rocks. Fossilisation processes are can be differentiated from sedimentary process. For instance many of your rocks show the detrital nature of the grains they are made from.

Jana

Dear Chun, beyond doubt this is again clearly another very old cuartzitic stone, eroded and rounded in a fluvial stream, not a "fossilized tool". Not human works on it.

Please just show your samples to a geologist or a paleontologist.

Best,

Javier Martínez-Salanova

Jana, sorry for my comment, similar to yours. You must sendt it while I was writing mine. Greetings,

Javier Martinez-Salanova

Javier

No problem at all. It seems pointless to continue this discussion without a basic understanding of geological process and the ability to identify common rocks types. Chun, can I re-enforce Javier's comments, please just find a competent geologist so   they can identify these samples for you and confirm geological origin. There are many real artefacts out there to study, I would focus your efforts on them!

Best wishes

Jana

Dear all

More clear picture of the fossilized cloth.

What is this fossilised cloth made from? It looks like part of a vein or a mineral precipitate to me. I think you need to refer to specimens and artefacts in a neutral way until you know what they are. Is there any data apart from visual?

Jana

Dear Jana M. Horak 

I have seen the cloth when it was whole. It is half-moon buckle. I torn it off easily.  It is fossilized but not heavy. I cannot recognize what cloth made from. It left unclear trail.

Dear all

The fossilized broken tooth with biosignature  is at same site.

Dear all

two tools with fossilized blood.

Those yellow and red patches appear iron oxides or hydroxides (hematite, goethite) or similar mineralizations over the stone surface, not fossilized blood. One of the samples shows Liesegang rings.

All your samples are simple river pebbles. As the clouds in the sky, may have curious shapes, but not are the objects that look alike.

Please take a course in basic geology or archeology.

Best,

Javier Martínez-Salanova

Dear all

It is not so complicated. The red under the yellow is dried blood. I don’t have a microscope and I do not want to destroy the specimen, form rigid point, so I do not know it’s real state, fossilized or not . But it is the truth that the bloods have preserved. About the yellow material is sandy soil that the blood stuck. If the iron in the blood affected the color, it waits to be proofed.  

By the way attaching more clear pictures .

Dear all

About if they are River pebbles? First pay your attention on the very little particle on the surface, second on the substance like cloth or paper, which has fossilized with the tool. If it is a river pebble, the substances have been washed away. Third still on the surface, the surfaces are not as smooth as a pebble surface.

This is not really a good forum for answering questions such as this. Your specimens should be examined by a geologist, who can actually see and feel them. Also, it's pointless to ask a question if you already have made up your mind. (I acknowledge that these points made been made by other responders.) Regarding the cloth: certainly there are buried and preserved textiles from many cultures. Costal Peru is full of them. We don't call them "fossils", however. Re the "fossilized broken tooth with biosignature". What is the "biosignature" and how did you identify it? Biosignatures and ancient blood are notoriously difficult to identify partly because of modern contamination. A brown stain on a rock does not qualify without careful examination using current technology.

Dear all

“It’s pointless to ask a question if you already have made up your mind.”

About the perception, I think it isn’t a scientific view. If I use a more tactful word, it isn’t democracy.

My question is “Do you think there are some fossilized tools that were judged mistakenly as lithic tools in historic archeology?’

So I think I can state my views and present the proofs for the discussion.

Dear all

On the problem of experts- geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, paleoanthropologist etc., On RG there are gathered all disciplines scientists, so it is perfect platform for scientific problem discussion.

For local experts, I have visited a lot, public research institutions and retired experts. That is why my earliest a lot of collections were destroyed or throw away.

7 years ago, a friend introduced me to visiting a couple of famous retired geologists who have a store which sells special stones including fossils. When we arrived at their store, only the wife was there. Just having a glance at the specimens, the wife called to her husband immediately asking her husband to back for a look.

Yes, he returned very soon. But the couples forced me to drop the specimens into their trash can. They told me that a lot of people let them judge stones. All the stones which were judged wealth less by them were dropped in the trash can. Later the husband told me that he could help me to introduce good specimens to experts in their circle. Can I trust them?

A very famous paleoanthropologist told me that the clear pictures are enough for experience expert scientists.

About the sites I can say a word. The local experts know well. But how many samples were sold to abroad?

Dear all

The "fossilized broken tooth with biosignature"

Bio-signature means that a subject which is formed by DNA (it growth obey DNA) is different from a subject which shaped by nature or shaped by human.

The tooth Bio-signature is three diamond  form and proper bend. The broken- point also support mechanics analysis .

"So I think I can state my views and present the proofs for the discussion."

The pictures you show are in no sense "proofs". However, you have presented them, and virtually all of the responders judge them to be natural stones and not fossils. Nevertheless, you insist they are fossils, so there is probably nothing I or anyone else can say to convince you.

These are natural rocks. Nothing more

Dear all

What’s kind of nature rock? You should give the control specimens for compare.

Dear all

About this kind of white stone, a news report on our local archeology said it also had appeared in other archeology sites. But what kind of rock even our local geologists do not know. So welcome information on the white stone.

The surfaces are perfectly smooth. If it had been polished by river water, it had to be before they were stuck the blood.

Dear all

Other two fossilized tools with ancient bloodstain.

Chun, the type of rock, as we have said several times, is quartzite (one of the hardest metamorphic rocks, formed mainly by cemented and recrystallized quartz grains) or quartz sandstone, broken and rounded by fluvial erosion and transport.

They were probably sandy sediments of Paleozoic age in origin, burried, metamorphised and deformed (during an old orogenic event), lifted and exhumed (during another and younger orogenic event, probably during the Cenozoic times) and then eroded and carried by fluvial flows from its original outcrop.

All external forms, grooves, holes, stains and internal structures are natural and common in these rocks, after passing through the mentioned processes.

Its my last comment here. Luck,

Javier Martínez-Salanova

Unfortunately, you didn't indicate where and under what conditions you found these objects. Without information about their location, conditions of discovery (e.g., loose on the ground or in an identifiable geological layer), estimated age, and surrounding artifacts, even if the are fossils (which I and every other responder doubt) they are worthless from a scientific viewpoint. If you are sure they are fossils, then display them in your home so that you and your friends can enjoy them.