Here is a big ( 30 inches) across fossil that the farmer dragged up when ploughing a couple of years ago. It has what appears a worn out bowl like a ball and socket joint. Its in the dordogne and was found at the top of a slope to a valley we have found smaller ones in limestone but this one looks like sandstone .We also have 5 inch one in a flint like material any ideas would be appreciated.
I'm not convinced it's a fossil. I think it's jus t a big rock that happens to be the shape of a bone. I've forgot the name of the rock, but it looks very firmiluar. I may be wrong but I am almost surtain it is just a big rock. Rocks can come in all different shapes and sizes.
I agree with Dan - it is very probably not a fossil.
It is an usual shape, but I think that reflects how it had become eroded before it broke into the smaller piece you have today.
The smaller one in a flint-like material is probably flint, especially if you have limestone in the area.
Flints come in all sorts of weird and symmetrical shapes, most of them are not fossils in themselves (but many flints contain smaller fossils within them).
Okay thanks for your answers. I beleive you could be right but I dont think so as we have several stones the same shape but different sizes. This to me seems unlikely in nature that stones/rocks can erode to complex similar shapes. Are you saying it is too large to be a fossil ? or it s not a bone fossil shape ? Also how do you explain the worn out perfectly smooth round socket part. When I go back to next year I will take more detailed pictures.
cheers Tarzans dad
PS. Mike its leaning aginst a paper mulberry tree.
Message was edited by: tarzans dad
It is definietly not a bone. The shape doesn't mach any bones, it has the wrong texture and it is too large. Bones can be that big, but only when complete or nearly complete. It was have the socket shape thing because of erosion. It will have been in water and it will have worn away.
Basically, it can't be a fossil because it is the wrong shape, the wrong texture and too large for something incomplete.
Dan's points are correct.
No harm in being skeptical; that's how we test theories and come up with alternative explanations.
In formulating possible explanations, one inevitably leans on one's own experience - which is why different folks come up with different ideas. I wonder if you have not experienced river-bed pot holes.. Here are a couple of examples, in which you can see repetition of well-rounded hollows (your putative bone sockets) and in the first of which you can imagine the fragments that could be formed by breakage of the narrow bits of rock between hollows.
Okay guys I concede defeat on this one but it certainly got the old ticker going when I rolled it over and saw the socket shape.Thanks mike for your very interesting links. I except now that its probably just a damn rockery piece and not an important fossil find. I think I may have run out of things for you guys to identify.