Portable petroglyph, or just a pebble?

[englander]

I found this 'stone' whilst walking on a beach in Suffolk, England.

The distinctive pattern caught my eye but upon closer inspection I couldn't fathom whether the markings were applied by man or Mother Nature.

Depending on the viewing angle it looks like either a serpent's head or something akin to a dolphin's smile. There's even a small stone embedded where the dolphin's eye would be!

Likely it's all in my imagination but it's a fascinating and very tactile object nonetheless, and I'd love to learn more about - if indeed it served any purpose at all. It sits beautifully in one's hand with thumb and forefinger wrapped around it.

Would could it be? Any ideas anyone?

[Rio Del Norte]

Very cool either way...

[englander]

It certainly is! Whatever the outcome, I cherish it.

[Kentucky point]

We need painshill to take a look at this. I have no idea, because it looks too weird to be natural, but I'm not seeing any indication really that it's man made. Plus, it's English, and I'm no authority on British artifacts.

[Cecilia]

....one day, maybe!

[englander]

I was kinda secretly hoping it was someone's little work of art but am happy to bow to superior knowledge!

[englander]

I was kinda secretly hoping it was someone's little work of art but am happy to bow to superior knowledge!

[painshill]

Welcome to the forum from another Redcoat.

If you look closely within the 'grooves' I think you will see that there are geologic features within them, indicating that they haven't been carved or pecked out. It's not an artefact, but it's not 'just a pebble' either. The resemblance to an animal head in overall form is just coincidental, but I think you have what is left of a very heavily eroded fossil.

Perhaps a Poriferan (sponge) like this:


... or a 'brain coral', like this:

[Kentucky point]

Redcoat, lol!

[englander]

There is a definite resemblance but upon closer inspection of my little find, it doesn't have the rivulets of the second example you've posted, it's more akin to the first one, with definite circular patterning here and there. Thank you for your feedback.

[Cecilia]

How about an animal-head-resembling rock etched by ancient tiny animals called Graptolithia? Love name’s Greek etymology: writing + rock. This doesn’t look like the hieroglyph-looking patterns I’ve seen, but ain’t seen them all! (Really just wanted show knew word, and also that folks finding these fossils often mistake them for hieroglyphs)

Regardless, I’d put that wonderful little object on display in living room!

[englander]

It would have been so romantic so have found a discarded piece of ancient art, I concur! As you imply though, it is rather lovely.

[gregszybala]

I vote fossilized brain!!!

[englander]

From one particular angle, that's exactly what it looks like!

[painshill]

Graptolithia don't leave deep grooves like that. The traces they leave are generally just shallow surface marks and usually of a meandering nature crossing one another, or isolated patterns sometime mistaken for hieroglyphic squiggles. This would be typical (pictures from' blacksmoker.wordpress.com'):

[Cecilia]

Beautiful and so fascinating when imagine how made!

[englander]

Beautiful. Are they from your private collection?

[painshill]

Not my specimens. I have some, but not as good for illustrative purposes as these. The attribution for the pictures is at the top of the post.

[Lindenmeier-Man]

I think painshill is correct... The fossil sponges are a very desirable for collectors..

[painshill]

We have both sponge and coral fossils (as well as the usual array of other marine organisms) but on balance this is more likely to be sponge, which is very common in many regions of the UK. I used to live on the Norfolk coast (the next county up from Suffolk where the OP is) and the Sheringham/Overstrand/West Runton area would be the nearest location for coral fossils. They nevertheless may end up as eroded specimens on any of the beaches along that eastern coast. The whole area is flint-rich, with the flints deriving from vast accumulations of tiny needle-like spicules of silica from decomposed sponges. Those same deposits also include plenty of intact fossil sponges and fossil casts in various states of preservation (notably from the cliffs at Corton in Suffolk) as well as echinoids, ammonites and belemnites among other things.

[englander]

If is indeed a piece of fossilized coral, would it be as dense and weigh as heavy as a stone?

[painshill]

Yes it would likely be as heavy as stone if it's a replacement fossil. Effectively, it has become 'stone' and is in a matrix of stone. However, the fossil itself seems to be largely gone (by erosion) and what is left is a negative impression in a stone matrix of the fossil that once existed.

[Cecilia]

Yes, fellas, I know! That’s why admitted just showing off. Perhaps behavior inappropriate (although such much more self-controllable now); perhaps irrelevance informational to next “hieroglyph” finder. Also, compelled to post admiration of object, so natural inclination to add-lib indulged. Will consider responses of two favorite members sincerely, and govern future self accordingly!

[Olden]

It reminds me of an early Keith Haring - cool find Englander!

[Cecilia]

Englander, your wonderous whatever is fodder for hungry imaginations! It certainly does appear to be, in fact, fossilized sponge or brain coral, but non-factually.......wow! That part of our brain that allows us to see elephants in the clouds and the Virgin Mary in our taco, may very well form opinion that it’s head of small, fierce sea dragon wearing elaborate & bizarre royal crown. Its domestic display will evoke much more stimulating conversation from dinner guests than a coffee-table picture book!

If you found this on a shingle (right word, still in usage?) beach in Suffolk, you are not only one incredibly observant eagle-eyed beachcomber, you are very serendipitous as well! Long ago, I visited shingle beaches in Sussex and Dorset, counties Kerry & Cork in Ireland, and one somewhere in Wales. My memory of beach names (except for Brighton!) may have faded, but not of the rocks’ shimmer in the sun nor of their colors’ brilliance when just touched by the sea.... bright, bright purples, and greens, and blues, and grays.....o, my!

[englander]

Oh I could while my life away beachcombing (if I only there was time to go to the beach more often). The fascination started in childhood and it's never left me. Maybe that's where my vivid imagination kicks in from, seeing all sorts from all angles in whatever I happen to stumble upon. This particular find was indeed fortuitous and, prior to discovering this forum, I spent hours just pondering over what it could be.

I shall bow to you generous folks' superior wisdom and accept, albeit reluctantly, that it's a fossilized coral (although am still puzzled how the fossil part has melded into a piece of stone/rock). That said, it shall nonetheless remain a treasure to me.

[englander]

May I thank all of you who responded. I very much appreciate your input and expertise.

Happy hunting!

[englander]

A further insight which may be of interest to some of you, having done some more research it could be a bryozoa fossil from Suffolk's Coralline Crag:

https://www.therockgallery.co.uk/bryozoa---coralline-crag---suffolk-3369-p.asp

[painshill]

I would still say that the pattern is more consistent with sponge than coral (or bryozoan) but we don't have enough of it left to be sure. Re the question about "how

the fossil part has melded into a piece of stone/rock", fossils of this type are formed in a silty/sandy sediment which hardens and then lithifies (turns into rock). Within it, there's an organism which progressively decays and is replaced by a mineral. What you end up with is a perfect cast of the original organism encased within a matrix. Both are cemented sediments and effectivley now what we would call 'stone' but the cast and the matrix have different cmpositions and so, inevitably, different hardnesses/resistance to erosion. If the surface of the fossil is exposed as a result of the rock breaking, then those differences in hardness/resistance determine what pattern will ultimately remain. The pictures below are of brachiopods, but the same principles apply to other marine sedimentary fossils.

Here, we have a brachiopod (a bit flattened) where the mineral replacement is by something hard and resistant (such as silica for example). It's in a softer and less resistant matrix which erodes more readily to leave the cast of the fossil standing proud:

Here we have a brachiopod where the mineral replacement was by something soft and less resistant (such as calcite for example). It's in a harder and more resistant matrix which doesn't erode readily but retains the contouring of the now lost fossil as a negative impression:

[pictures from 'discoveringfossils.co.uk' website]

[Cecilia]

Pain (must nickname you; consider it show of affection), is a concretion formed in a similar manner? I know there’s always(?) pebble, shell, little creature at center if bust open....

[painshill]

Essentially yes, Cecilia. The factors that determine whether a 3D replacement fossil forms within a sedimentary deposit on a bedding plane or inside a discrete nodule/concretion within the overall sediment are the speed at which the organism decomposes and the speed with which the sediment lithifies. Concretions/nodules begin to form around the organism before the sediment has fully lithified and are often triggered by the early release of decomposition products from the decaying organic matter.

[englander]

Many thanks for that explainination, painshill. That makes perfect sense. I went on to read at http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/...on_fossils.htm and found this image which is pretty much what I've got, albeit with sponge remains and not a shell: