Stone found in turf

SeaFields

Hi folks,

Any idea on what the below could be? The father in law found it in a sod of turf. It certainly looks to have been hand made. The hole in the centre has marks around it suggesting it was bored out and there are other scratches and such around the whole thing.

Wibbs

Loom weight or fishing net weight?

Tordelback

Wibbs wrote: »

Loom weight or fishing net weight?

Both are very possible, and either way that's a pretty serious find - well done! If it's a loom weight it could be indicating the vicinity of an early-medieval or medieval settlement, and if it's a net weight, fishing activity potentially far earlier. You should report it to the Duty Officer in the National Museum ASAP, and try to get an idea of where the turf was cut. Was it blanket bog or raised bog?

SeaFields

Its a blanket bog.

The sea would be very close to the area the turf was cut so that would lend argument towards the fishing net weight I imagine. It is his own turf so he knows exactly where it came from. And he was very excited about the whole thing!

What does reporting it involve? And would they likely want to see the area or want to see the stone?

Rantan

I'm not an archaeologist so am open to contradiction but üas far as I know all artefacts essentially belong to the state and you are legally obliged to report it. The museum will most likely need to inspect the area it was found to understand its context and if further investigation is needed. Please report this op, it's the right thing to do. U have in your hand a tangible piece of the history of Ireland. In cases of exceptional importance ie the ardagh chalice.. There may be a reward.

slowburner

SeaFields wrote: »

Its a blanket bog.

The sea would be very close to the area the turf was cut so that would lend argument towards the fishing net weight I imagine. It is his own turf so he knows exactly where it came from. And he was very excited about the whole thing!

What does reporting it involve? And would they likely want to see the area or want to see the stone?

Contact the NMI. The details are in the sticky on the laws on archaeology etc.
You will be sent out a form which you fill in and return.
A visit is pretty unlikely in this instance. Well done for reporting it.

It is a spindle whorl.

SeaFields

slowburner wrote: »

It is a spindle whorl.

What kind of time period would we likely be looking at if it's that?

Widdershins

I was thinking Quern Stone.

slowburner

SeaFields wrote: »

What kind of time period would we likely be looking at if it's that?

Anywhere from the Neolithic to the Medieval period.
Its position in the peat relative to the surface or pre-bog surface might give some indication of when it was deposited. However, there are a number of factors that could skew this impression so depth in the peat is not necessarily a reliable indication of age.
The way the central aperture has been bored on this one could indicate that it is an early version.

slowburner

Widdershins wrote: »

I was thinking Quern Stone.

Much too small.

RDM_83 again

slowburner wrote: »

Widdershins wrote: »

I was thinking Quern Stone.

Much too small.

This is a Quern stone (scale in pic is 1 meter)

Coles

Any update on this?

Donalde

Spindle whorl or Tuyere
For photos of very similar looking items see Paul Rondelez thesis on Ironworking in late medieval Ireland c. 1200 to 1600 at Cork Open Research Archive Vol 1 page 172

mickdw

Is there a possibility of not having a fire next winter if this is reported?

Widdershins

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This is a Quern stone (scale in pic is 1 meter)

Yes they are often huge. There's a smaller disc that goes on top of that big one, I don't know what it's called. Thought it might be that.

Alcoheda

Looks about the right size for a friction fire flywheel

slowburner

Widdershins wrote: »

Yes they are often huge. There's a smaller disc that goes on top of that big one, I don't know what it's called. Thought it might be that.

Upper stone, and lower stone!

looksee

Its a bit big for a spindle whorl, and not all that symmetrical.

slowburner

looksee wrote: »

Its a bit big for a spindle whorl, and not all that symmetrical.

It is large, but by modern standards. I would not be overly concerned about regularity. It has been in a bog for a long time, and subjected to numerous taphonomic processes. Possibly even including a life before the bog formed. It would be interesting to learn where it was found in the stratigraphy.
The morphology of the central perforation hints at an early date. That perforation was not made with tools or with a technique we would recognise today, except where the 'V' profile was formed by repeated wear from a tapered rod. Similar wear patterns occur on early spud stones, and in the cups of cupmarks. Where the patterns are not a product of wear, they are usually thought to have been made by pecking.
Later spindle whorls have a regular, symmetrical bore to receive regular, symmetrical dowels. Early spindle whorls did not have the luxury of symmetrical dowels, especially if those dowels were made with primitive tools.
However, the possibility that this is a fishing weight (as Wibbs suggested) is also worth bearing in mind.
Context is everything. This is a classic example of how we would be able to make a more definitive statement, if we had a more informed context.
Isolated things tell us very little. It is the context surrounding the things, and the things in context that inform us about the past.