How old is this?

slowburner

Would anyone care to hazard a guess as to the period of this fragment. It was found about 120 cm below the surface although I cannot say definitively that the ground has not been excavated in contemporary times. The black floral motifs are almost certainly hand painted. Apologies for the poor quality of the image. If anyone is interested, I will post a better picture. Thanks.[Embedded Image Removed]

Tiercel Dave

Can't see any picture!

slowburner

oops:D
Not too sure what happened there! I can see the picture perfectly - what are you (not) seeing?

slowburner

And while you are here, do you think the marks on this stone are natural or man made? I would appreciate any opinion

Tiercel Dave

Will take a guess at 'Spongeware Pottery'. Popular from 1830's or thereabouts.
How big is the stone, the 'side' facing seems to be flattened!
Dave

slowburner

Tiercel Dave wrote: »

Will take a guess at 'Spongeware Pottery'. Popular from 1830's or thereabouts.
How big is the stone, the 'side' facing seems to be flattened!
Dave

Thanks for the info on the pottery Dave.
The stone is about 18"/450mm across and about 10"/250mm deep.
The attached photos might give a better idea of size and a more detailed look at the 'flat' side.

Wibbs

That stone is interesting alright. You do get geofacts that have incised lines, but they seem consistent in depth and are also going at right angles against each other in all sorts of directions. It looks maybe manmade to me. For what purpose god knows. It could be simply a geofact of glacial action that looks more ordered but isn't. I threw it into Photoshop and inverted and fiddled with the contrast. Inversion(negative) seems to give the biggest effect.

slowburner

Wibbs wrote: »

That stone is interesting alright. You do get geofacts that have incised lines, but they seem consistent in depth and are also going at right angles against each other in all sorts of directions. It looks maybe manmade to me. For what purpose god knows. It could be simply a geofact of glacial action that looks more ordered but isn't. I threw it into Photoshop and inverted and fiddled with the contrast. Inversion(negative) seems to give the biggest effect.

Thanks Wibbs for my new bedroom poster, I'm going to put it over my bed - right beside Jimi Hendrix But seriously, I appreciate your input and thanks for taking the time to do this especially seeing as it is unlikely to be palaeolithic .

Have I done a bad thing archaeologically by turning the stone over? There was nothing of note underneath and I put the stone back exactly where it was, without disturbing any context. The exposed side of the stone drew my attention initially because there were a few curious marks on it.
I really can't see how nature could cause these marks. I could understand if there was a uniformity of direction like the striations caused when a stone is abraded through glacial action. For glacial action to have done this, the stone would have to be turned, compressed against a harder surface, turned several more times etc. - hardly probable.
The other thing which makes me think the marks are man made is that all the crevices are oblong.
If they were natural, the force applied would have been even; this would have left a mark that was even in width from start to finish?
I suppose the other factor is the context. Undoubtedly the quartz stone nearby is hand hewn.

Me and posting pictures don't get along too well but hopefully this will work.
If you look at the long arrowed line which we might take as the datum, you will see that it is intersected by a totally different feature compared to the other marks. It is wider, and has a grain inconsistent with all other features.
Could the stone have been used for butchery of some kind?

DeepSleeper

My guess is that the stone was struck by the tip of a plough many times over the years before eventually being brought up to the surface - Is the surrounding land good enough to plough (even if it isn't ploughed these days)? Here's an image of a plough-scarred stone from Wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plough_marks_2.JPG

looksee

Could it have been used on a regular basis for sharpening knives or scythes etc.?

Wibbs

DeepSleeper wrote: »

My guess is that the stone was struck by the tip of a plough many times over the years before eventually being brought up to the surface - Is the surrounding land good enough to plough (even if it isn't ploughed these days)? Here's an image of a plough-scarred stone from Wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plough_marks_2.JPG

That looks very similar alright.

slowburner

DeepSleeper wrote: »

My guess is that the stone was struck by the tip of a plough many times over the years before eventually being brought up to the surface - Is the surrounding land good enough to plough (even if it isn't ploughed these days)? Here's an image of a plough-scarred stone from Wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plough_marks_2.JPG

That's a heck of a good stab at the origin of the marks on 'my' stone, I have to admit. I can definitely see the similarities.
I am maintaining that the marks on my stone were made by some kind of activity much more intimate than a plough. I am convinced that there was nothing more than a human hand and a hard tool/s involved.
I agree that the image in your link resembles the marks pretty closely as an overall impression. But, there are some significant differences on closer scrutiny.

• Not one of the marks in the photo showing plough damage are straight. All of the marks on 'my' stone are perfectly straight.

If the marks on my stone had been caused by a plough, the stone would have to have remained in place as the blades were drawn over it. Then the stone would have to be turned a few degrees, fixed in place and then the plough blades would have to be drawn over it again. Then it would have to be turned again and refixed etc. etc. that's the only way I can conceive of a plough making such marks, apart from changing the directions in which the field is ploughed. I think ploughing tends to be in roughly the same direction in fields, but I am prepared to stand corrected on this.

• The stone is not in a field which has been ploughed

The stone is actually in a planted forest. The topography would make ploughing impossible. The nearest field has indeed been ploughed and this continues presently. Theoretically, it could be imagined that the stone was in the field at some point, was damaged several times by ploughs and was eventually picked up and deposited where it now lies. If this had happened, then surely there would be others with similar markings but this stone is the only one with these marks - that's what drew me to it in the first place.

• Then there is the matter of what I can only describe as a channel. I tried to highlight this in my last attachment - maybe it didn't work. It is pretty clear that something carved a channel from the top of the stone (in the photo) down to about 1/3 the total length of the stone. There are very clear marks of a side to side abrasion in the channel. there is no way, that I can think of, that any agricultural practice could have made this particular feature.*

Here's the arrowed photo again, the two short arrows delineate the channel.

*I always think bulleted posts look as if the poster is angry - I'm not at all

Degsy

slowburner wrote: »

Could the stone have been used for butchery of some kind?

Stone makes a very poor butchers block,blunting or breaking any implement struck against it.

slowburner

Degsy wrote: »

Stone makes a very poor butchers block,blunting or breaking any implement struck against it.

Fair point.
Is anyone else seeing the channel which I have marked with the arrows in the image above?

Degsy

slowburner wrote: »

Fair point.
Is anyone else seeing the channel which I have marked with the arrows in the image above?

They're plough marks nothing more..the stone was probably moved around several times during its lifetime,plowed over,grubbed up,buried,ploughed over etc etc..over many hundreds or thousands of years.

slowburner

It isn't somewhere it could have been ploughed and no other stones nearby have similar marks.
I just can't see how repeated ploughing could have made the channel which has marks of a side to side abrasion, either.

slowburner

[Embedded Image Removed]

Degsy

slowburner wrote: »

It isn't somewhere it could have been ploughed and no other stones nearby have similar marks.
I just can't see how repeated ploughing could have made the channel which has marks of a side to side abrasion, either.

It could have been brought from a nearby(or faraway location) and dumped there..they're ploughing marks or maybe somebody was practising on the stone with a masonry chisel and a hammer..it really doesnt matter its not interesting at all.

slowburner

Degsy wrote: »

It could have been brought from a nearby(or faraway location) and dumped there..they're ploughing marks or maybe somebody was practising on the stone with a masonry chisel and a hammer..it really doesnt matter its not interesting at all.

Not to you perhaps.

JMSE

I'm going for plough marks for the criss-cross features, then for the wide channel I'm guessing at forest machinery of some sort, they use track machines and hydraulic claws and saws. I dont think it would ever have been reburied after coming to the surface, that kind of a stone would be useful to a farmer for walls up until the last century

snowdaisy

Hi slowburner, i'm afraid i think tis plough markings too, ploughing often changed direction in different years when land was redistributed. The side to side abrasion is unclear in the photo although i see the channels. i dont think its a major find unfortunately, it could have been moved from the ploughed area to here for building etc.
I'm a bit confused form your posts - you say it was found 120cm down and 'in context' but there's moss growing on it so its obviously been exposed for quite some time.
I assume you found it on the surface, you did no damage just turning it over and then turning it back again in this case though.
Pottery looks 19 th century alright.
Def keep looking and anything you think is a major find ring the National Museum in Dublin, get a discovery report form, fill it in and send it off, if they think its worth a closer look they'll come out to see it.

slowburner

snowdaisy wrote: »

Hi slowburner, i'm afraid i think tis plough markings too, ploughing often changed direction in different years when land was redistributed. The side to side abrasion is unclear in the photo although i see the channels. i dont think its a major find unfortunately, it could have been moved from the ploughed area to here for building etc.
I'm a bit confused form your posts - you say it was found 120cm down and 'in context' but there's moss growing on it so its obviously been exposed for quite some time.
I assume you found it on the surface, you did no damage just turning it over and then turning it back again in this case though.
Pottery looks 19 th century alright.
Def keep looking and anything you think is a major find ring the National Museum in Dublin, get a discovery report form, fill it in and send it off, if they think its worth a closer look they'll come out to see it.

Thanks Snowdaisy. Nicely put, I appreciate it .

Apologies for the confusion; the pottery fragment was 120 cm beneath the surface - the stone and the pottery are completely unrelated.
I never really thought of the stone as a major find - I was just really curious to know how the marks were made, they are obviously man made but was it deliberate or accidental - that's all I was interested in really.
I still find it hard to get my head around the fact that this is the only stone in the area with these marks. Indeed, in the nearest field, there is a pile of stones which the farmer has taken out, many of them are bigger - not one of them had similar marks as far as I could see. I found a lovely fragment of an 18th C bottle there, by the way.
Don't laugh - I know I am being silly. My first thought when I saw the stone was that the marks were caused by the impact of an axe. It is possible that there were beheadings roughly where I found the stone, but I can't imagine a stone would make a good block.
No harm in getting the eye in all the same.

I just have to begrudgingly accept the opinions of those with more training and experience - ok they are plough marks

slowburner

Seems I'm not alone in 'misreading' these stones :pac:
http://www.flavinscorner.com/lakelines.htm

slowburner

Might this glass bottle fragment be 18thC ? It is difficult to see from the picture, but the punt is very irregular and the glass itself is almost certainly hand blown.

Degsy

slowburner wrote: »

Might this glass bottle fragment be 18thC ? It is difficult to see from the picture, but the punt is very irregular and the glass itself is almost certainly hand blown.

Almost certainly Victorian..probably from a case gin bottle.