Mystery marks on stone

[stripee]

I found this small stone today on the hillside. It's 3cm in length. I don't know if a small rodent could do these marks..anyone have any ideas? thanks

[Hedge Witch]

Stone used by a farmer sharpening a tool.


I wonder if might help to post this in "Geography" as someone may know how hard this stone is. I think it's a sandstone myself, and it'd destroy teeth.

[stripee]

Possibly hedge witch! Although, no farmer's been on this hillside for a long time.
I've just had a look at it under a magnifying glass and it does look a bit like marks from a small knife.

[stripee]

At home the family think it's slate. Possibly with a small amount of other types of stone. If slate it's quite easy to mark with teeth?

[Tracey.A]

I've no idea, could it be a fossil of some kind?

Tracey

[ChrisJB]

It does look like a sandstone and the marks do not look like a fossil. I think they are man made as well.

Regards, Chris

[Tursiops2]

That's definitely a "worked" stone of some sort, and a whetstone seems eminently plausible. Could be quite old, worth dropping it in to your local museum next time you're passing
T2

[Wild-Woman]

Originally Posted by Tursiops2

That's definitely a "worked" stone of some sort, and a whetstone seems eminently plausible. Could be quite old, worth dropping it in to your local museum next time you're passing
T2

I agree.This would be of interest to archeologists.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Tursiops2

That's definitely a "worked" stone of some sort, and a whetstone seems eminently plausible.

I'd agree that it appears to be worked, but grooves like that would indicate an edge being removed, rather than being put on. In other words, a tool being blunted rather than sharpened. A rather unlikely scenario, I would think.

Jim

[Dogghound]

It looks like a fossil of a fern to me.

[Hedge Witch]

I'd agree that it appears to be worked, but grooves like that would indicate an edge being removed, rather than being put on. In other words, a tool being blunted rather than sharpened. A rather unlikely scenario, I would think.

Jim

Actually, they do look a bit like that - that was nagging in the back of my mind.

Very intriguing stone.

It looks like the worker was trying to shape the edge of the stone, possibly?

[Hedge Witch]

Originally Posted by Dogghound

It looks like a fossil of a fern to me.

But I don't think they are in the same plane

[Dogghound]

probrably not then in that case.

[stripee]

Very interesting replies thank you everybody. The marks follow the edge of the stone, and are irregular in length so not a decorative edge to something and rough to the touch, I think I will ask at the museum next time I'm near. I'll go back to where I found it and see if there is anything. A couple of years ago I cleared bracken from where it was found so the rain etc may have exposed it.

[Tursiops2]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

I'd agree that it appears to be worked, but grooves like that would indicate an edge being removed, rather than being put on. In other words, a tool being blunted rather than sharpened. A rather unlikely scenario, I would think.

Jim

Fair point, didn't think that through . A bit of a puzzler really. I can't see it being a fossil - from the elliptical cross-section and the otherwise smooth surface, it's either a water-worn stone or it's been ground down to that shape. Either way, those abrasions have been added after the initial shaping process, so it's been used for something.

Stripee, your photos only seem to show one side of the stone. Do those striations appear on the reverse? I'm wondering if it's been worked to produce a serrated cutting edge.
T2

[Tursiops2]

Thinking a bit further, a whetstone is still a possibility, but used to maintain a point rather than an edge to a blade?
T2

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Tursiops2

Thinking a bit further, a whetstone is still a possibility, but used to maintain a point rather than a cutting edge?

Good deduction! Maybe for a bone, bronze or steel needle/pin?

Jim

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Tursiops2

Thinking a bit further, a whetstone is still a possibility, but used to maintain a point rather than an edge to a blade?
T2

I doubt this would be the case. Given that the stone is 3cm long the grooves can't be much more than 5mm long. When you sharpen a point with a stone you stroke it along (or back and forth) a flat area of the stone over a much longer length.

If you look closely at the grooves there appear* to be "chatter" marks in the grooves (small ridges at right angles to the length of the groove caused by vibration of whatever made the groove as it scraped along). This would seem to indicate something on edge, like a tooth or pair of them! But this does seem unlikely unless it was used by a rodent dentist - "Your teeth are terribly overgrown mousey, chew on this for a while"

*On the other hand it may simply be banding within the stone.

Also the stone was longer originally, it has clearly snapped off after the grooves were formed (there is half a groove on the end of the stone). Go back and find the rest of it.

So to sum up, I've no idea!


Andy

[squishy]

it looks like a fossil of a fern, but like said, its across the stone, so i cant see how it could be

maybe from bands of minerals that have been eroded away before the stone itself?

i really have no idea, those are just speculations


i dont think its from sharpening a tool, because, as said, you drag the blade across, flat along the object to sharpen it. to make those marking with a knife would blunt it. the idea of a needle or point seems to fit. like suggested drop in on a museum and see what they think.
this is a real puzzler

[stripee]

Originally Posted by Tursiops2

Stripee, your photos only seem to show one side of the stone. Do those striations appear on the reverse? I'm wondering if it's been worked to produce a serrated cutting edge.
T2

There are no other marks apart from natural ones on any other sides of the stone. I compared it to an ancient small scraper flint, where the stone has been removed with a sharp point from another stone or bone and there is no resemblance.
Over the years I've found many things chucked away in the woods or bracken from the last few centuries, old pottery, glass bits of old leather shoes and cauldrons. So it could be any date.
Or it could be a fern Thanks for guesses,
I will take it to the museum as I said above when next in that direction. And will have another look on the hillside (maybe not today as its pouring with rain).
It is indeed a puzzle.

[Hedge Witch]

I have a problem with the colour of the grooved area - it's grey. Freshly damaged/broken stone would have a lighter, sandy colour. I would imagine an older surface to acquire the same colour as the top of the stone. Neither of these colours matches the grooved surface.

If it were me I'd see what would happen if I used an iron file on an identical piece of stone (not the same one in case it's a museum piece). Files always seem to oxidize to this shade of grey. A file should be capable of producing clean grooves in this sandstone similar to those we see.

[stripee]

Will have to do some experiments HedgeWitch

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by AndyC

If you look closely at the grooves there appear* to be "chatter" marks in the grooves (small ridges at right angles to the length of the groove caused by vibration of whatever made the groove as it scraped along). This would seem to indicate something on edge, like a tooth or pair of them! But this does seem unlikely unless it was used by a rodent dentist - "Your teeth are terribly overgrown mousey, chew on this for a while"

Andy

You could be on to something here. They do look like gnaw marks! I'm no rodent expert and was wondering whether or nor a rodent would gnaw a lump of soft sandstone? The small ridges at right angles to the 'teeth marks', look like very small scale bedding within the sandstone to me.

Regards, Chris

[thunder]

Originally Posted by Hedge Witch

I have a problem with the colour of the grooved area - it's grey. Freshly damaged/broken stone would have a lighter, sandy colour. I would imagine an older surface to acquire the same colour as the top of the stone. Neither of these colours matches the grooved surface.

If it were me I'd see what would happen if I used an iron file on an identical piece of stone (not the same one in case it's a museum piece). Files always seem to oxidize to this shade of grey. A file should be capable of producing clean grooves in this sandstone similar to those we see.

Maybe marks from tackety boots?

henrya

[Venger]

Originally Posted by Tursiops2

Stripee, your photos only seem to show one side of the stone. Do those striations appear on the reverse? I'm wondering if it's been worked to produce a serrated cutting edge.
T2

Sandstone or slate doesn't fracture into usable flakes so it's highly unlikely to be a tool (it's to soft).
It depends on how soft the stone is.
Puts me in mind of when Ray Mears made a longbow using only Neolithic methods.
Using a firmer stone he gouged out sand from the sandstone onto leather to form a Neolithic sandpaper.
Though I'm sure the gouge was deeper, but that depends on the gouging stone I guess.