Mystery Artefact

[BAJR]

Yeah you are right DDL indeed thats what these images are the first step of, and also when I noticed that this was both non-random made made repetative marks and also there was no 'real' pattern other than short linear 'cuts' with some 45 deg cross cuts

You then find there are a fkin load of them!

And thank Dino, we now have 4 of them...(got my hands on teh box of finds!) I have to confess that I first thought they were glacial scratches. :face-confused: but the old maxim held... easier to discount later than make mistake now.

[Wax]

Now I have looked at these on a much better browser they are amazingly like one or two stones I have randomly collected over the years. I picked them up in non archaeological contexts ( edges of fields) after finding one on an excavation that was associated with a Bronze Age site ( in a sealed context that would not have been subject to the plough from at least the Roman era). We never really knew what it was but it was fully recorded I will see if I can fish the reference out. It is the angled cuts across straight lines that are the indicator to me.

I have often wondered how to tell what kind of implement made the marks and what plough marks on stones look like

[kevin wooldridge]

I am pretty certain that a laser scan will answer some of your questions as you would be able to look at the depth and base of the incisions and could probably work out whether they overlap and identify later 'scratches' from earlier 'scratches'... I'd have though there might be a number of research facilities especially amongst the Scottish universities who'd be interested in doing this as a one off.....

[Dinosaur]

I have often wondered how to tell what kind of implement made the marks and what plough marks on stones look like

A lot of the plough marks that I've been happy are plough marks have had a deep 'v'-shaped impact end then shallow towards the other, presumably because the plough is either pushing the stone down or riding up over it. Others run from end to end and are deeper in the middle cos the stone's held firm and the plough's just gone level where the rock sticks up more in the middle. Depends on the geology too, not simple. Helps if the orientation of the rock was recorded 'in situ'. If you want to see good examples of 'sharpening' wear (although this has been disputed) go see the Roman troughs/cisterns at Corbridge - have had almost identical on a cistern panel from Catterick. Hardly any individual cuts, more broad grooves and general wearing down of the stone into a deep 'u'-shape

[Digger]

Looks like my cutting board. Think residue analysis would be the go. Some tests are quite cheap and easy (Iodine fuming for fatty acids etc) depends how far you need or want to go.

[Boxoffrogs]

leather working stone by my reckoning

[Jack]

Stones with scratches on?

[BAJR]

Very good Jack, now go to the back of the class and colour in using only soft crayons!

[Jack]

Grin.

Without further evidence how can they be anything more?

[Wax]

I find my self agreeing with Digger my veggie chopping board has the same pattern of marks