• WTB / WTS / WTT ADS
    All Advertisements, including Want to Buy, Want to Sell, Want to Trade, Belong in the MARKETPLACE ONLY. Any new threads posted offering an item for sale, looking to trade or buy an item which are posted outside of Marketplace will be deleted without notice or warning. Existing threads will be moved to marketplace.
  • Marketplace Feedback Ratings
    The Marketplace feedback ratings system is now back. You can now leave feedback for your Buy / Sell / Trade transactions. Instructions on how to leave feedback ratings can be found HERE

Question for science geeks...

Pluribus

Testudo Sicario & Mediocris Albus Diaboli
Bronze Contributor
FALaholic #
5600
Joined
Feb 17, 2002
Posts
8,245
Location
Wichita, America
Feedback: 120 / 0 / 0
I found these two pieces in the Flint Hills of SE Ks near Cherryvale, Kansas about 40 years ago. Hay-sus and the angel don’t mind that it’s millions of years old instead of only 6000 or so.
A1288920-56B2-410E-9DA1-001B6053DC0E.jpeg CF43CAB5-A08E-467D-A7CA-E46261415EDB.jpeg I
8701AF57-DA79-4916-9CA8-8110B1A802DB.jpeg
 

allamerican401

Well-known member
FALaholic #
77335
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
1,386
Location
Braidwood, IL
Feedback: 17 / 0 / 0

jdowney

Well-known member
FALaholic #
51306
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Posts
336
Location
New Mexico
Feedback: 18 / 0 / 0
Maybe.

It's just awfully funny how well the profile fits my hand....

That and I've seen many examples of tool handles having the same shaped ends..
Opal is the one silicate that could form at low pressure and fairly short time frames. I would still expect it to need far deeper than a few inches of soil covering it however. It has to form below the water table so that oxygen is largely displaced and the wood doesn't decay within a few years of being buried. So while possible, the series circumstances necessary for this to be a petrified tool handle are very unlikely to have happened.
 

Stranger

Well-known member
FALaholic #
3555
Joined
Jul 3, 2001
Posts
10,582
Location
Oklahoma
Feedback: 78 / 0 / 0
Nice find! Take it to your local university and have them take a look at it.

Long ago plants came up with lignin, which is what makes wood woody. For a hundred million years or so nothing had evolved the enzymes needed to break lignin down and digest it, so dead wood just piled up. Today we call those piles coal. Most petrified wood is from this era. After fungi and bacteria came up with the required enzymes, most wood decayed and was recycled into the biosphere, leaving few fossils. Your specimen is probably from this pre-enzyme era. Duck Duck Go lignin and see how old it probably is. I recall 300 mya but I am probably wrong.
Careful about taking it to a university. They might claim its a Native American artifact and confiscate it. ;)

Your comment regarding lignin (e.g. nature's best cross-linked polymer) is interesting. However, I thought the extensive Permian and Cretaceous coal deposits refuted the hypothesis that coals formed due to a lack of wood-decaying organisms. Fungal and bacterial lignin degradation was alive and kicking back then. Thus, coal accumulation was likely a result of prevailing environmental conditions (e.g. tropical conditions and tectonics). It's a neat idea, but the logical foundation is flawed. One could claim we only see fossils of certain animals because bacteria and fungi hadn't evolved to degrade them, when more likely it was just environmental conditions.
 

STG_58_guy

I'm not this cute IRL
Platinum Contributor
Bronze Contributor
FALaholic #
65886
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Posts
16,028
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Feedback: 68 / 0 / 0
Careful about taking it to a university. They might claim its a Native American artifact and confiscate it. ;)

Your comment regarding lignin (e.g. nature's best cross-linked polymer) is interesting. However, I thought the extensive Permian and Cretaceous coal deposits refuted the hypothesis that coals formed due to a lack of wood-decaying organisms. Fungal and bacterial lignin degradation was alive and kicking back then. Thus, coal accumulation was likely a result of prevailing environmental conditions (e.g. tropical conditions and tectonics). It's a neat idea, but the logical foundation is flawed. One could claim we only see fossils of certain animals because bacteria and fungi hadn't evolved to degrade them, when more likely it was just environmental conditions.
My reading suggests the emzyme hypothesis is correct. But I don't know. For animals, it certainly is the prevailing conditions. But we don't find beds of animal fossils 10 feet thick that cover square miles.
 

Stranger

Well-known member
FALaholic #
3555
Joined
Jul 3, 2001
Posts
10,582
Location
Oklahoma
Feedback: 78 / 0 / 0
My reading suggests the emzyme hypothesis is correct. But I don't know. But we don't find beds of animal fossils 10 feet thick that cover square miles.
Prevailing theories change as new information comes to light.

We do find a plethora of fossilized animals in coal beds. They aren't "thick" because animals are mobile and can remove themselves from increasingly unfavorable and/or deadly conditions while plant life cannot.
 
Top