archaeologyfieldwork.com - Info wanted on Montana stone

Topic ID #12595 - posted 6/28/2011 7:09 PM

Info wanted on Montana stone

baddhabit

I am an avid rock hunter and found this stone on our farm in Montana. I would like to find out about its origin. I have talked to local Native American experts and have been told it pre-dates the tribes of the area.

The Matyiah Stone

artifacts

Post ID#18850 - replied 7/16/2011 12:37 PM

baddhabit

Here's another view showing a little more detail.

Post ID#18856 - replied 7/18/2011 4:44 AM

Dwarmour

The best thing for you to do is take it into a university and speak with an archaeologist. The rock looks interesting for sure.

Post ID#18863 - replied 7/19/2011 6:20 AM

scottyj432

Where in Montana did you find this stone?

Post ID#18867 - replied 7/20/2011 3:37 PM

baddhabit

I found it on our farm in the northeast corner of the state. Approx. 20 miles south of Canada. I have found other interesting stones in the area. Here is another one that appears to have eyes carved into it.

I don't know if the two are from the same basic time or if they have any relation to each other. But I'm trying to learn more and am very interested. Any help would be appreciated!

Post ID#18868 - replied 7/20/2011 3:40 PM

fresno

My impression from looking at the first two images is that it's natural. To be sure, though, the grooves would have to be examined under a microscope to check for use wear. What's it made of?

Post ID#18870 - replied 7/20/2011 8:29 PM

marehart

Natural? What would it take before you thought something was artificial--a price tag?

Post ID#18872 - replied 7/21/2011 12:27 PM

fresno

Your sarcastic remark notwithstanding, sure, it looks like rock art , but could it be a trace fossil (i.e., agrichnial farming trace)? Is it a sedimentary rock? Do the grooves exhibit tool marks? Are there "designs" on the opposite side? Was the stone found on an archaeological site?

Post ID#18874 - replied 7/21/2011 1:45 PM

prisoner

The first one looks natural to me, but you can't really tell much from a photo on the web. The second one could be culturall modifiedy, but again a closer examination is required. As Dwarmour suggested, I would find a geologist or arhcaeologist you can show it to and get their opinion. Especially someone that is relatively local and knows the area rocks, where they occur, how they weather and fracture, and what other rocks in the area look like.

Post ID#18877 - replied 7/21/2011 7:58 PM

marehart

Agree it should be looked at by a Prof and lab.

With the second pic of the first 'artifact' there is the appearance of of engraving, relief carving, and geometric patterning. Aside from major league evaluation, I stand by my (only slightly) sarcastic remark.

If anything, the second 'artifact' looks to me like it might be a geofact.

Post ID#18879 - replied 7/23/2011 2:09 PM

baddhabit

Thanks for the comments! Fresno - the patterns cover the entire surface of the stone, however, the side not seen was exposed and is eroded. No, it is not from an archaeological site. The only thing people look for around here are dinosaurs. Not that that is a bad thing, but there are some indicators that habitation here goes a good ways back in history. Stone tools are abundant and have made my rock hunting very exciting and that is what led to the discovery of the dispayed stone. Though I have no formal training, other than lots of reading, I wonder at what early civilization was like here. I talked with a professor of Native American studies at a local community college and he believes the stone predates the local Native Americans.

Post ID#18882 - replied 7/25/2011 9:35 AM

FireArch

Moderator

Didnt we see a rock just like this one - maybe even the same one??? - before? I know we discussed this on the last iteration of AFW.com.

Pretty sure someone came up with the answer as being a fossilized something or other - I cant remember what it was; some sort of plant or coral thingy.

Post ID#18884 - replied 7/25/2011 1:08 PM

scottyj432

It looks like fossilized coral--the first photo that is--not sure about the second smaller rock. Eastern MT was once a great inland see and fossilized marine creatures, including coral, are common throughout that part of the state. Later in geologic time, the same area was very swampy and hence the reason they find so many dinosaurs in that region.

Post ID#18885 - replied 7/25/2011 5:13 PM

StarRider

I thought the same rock had been posted here before also.

Post ID#18886 - replied 7/25/2011 8:33 PM

marehart

How 'bout it Badhabit?

Post ID#18888 - replied 7/26/2011 3:56 PM

marehart

Good point about fossil coral; got any pictures of similar stuff?

Post ID#18889 - replied 7/26/2011 6:07 PM

baddhabit

Yep, posted it before. But have been gone for awhile, came back and couldn't find the old post. Still looking for input. I did find another piece of what looks to be fossil coral. (see pic) It was about the same size. I say 'was' cuz I can't find it now, but the definitley could have been the same material, it just seems the first one has been 'improved' upon.

Post ID#18890 - replied 7/26/2011 6:58 PM

marehart

IMHO think you might might have something here. Take it to the U and have it evaluated.

Post ID#18894 - replied 7/31/2011 4:16 PM

marehart

Badhabit;

don't just let this linger. Please take it to the University and get it evaluated AND

most importantly, let us know on this blog what was the result!

Good Luck.

	Next topic: "Human evolution’s tide may have turned on lake and sea shores"
	Previous topic: "Archaeologists give tentative name to Louisiana shipwreck"
	Looking for something else? Show recent posts in Discussion