New Members muv Posted March 2, 2019 New Members Share Posted March 2, 2019 My daughter found this on the banks of river Thames (London, UK) several years ago. It's 36 mm long. Can this be a part of a once-living thing or just a geological mineral? We are complete amateurs in Palaeontology, but have always hoped it's a tooth or a claw. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 Welcome to TFF! This looks like a worn horse tooth (incisor), probably not very old. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelivingdead531 Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 Agreed, but still a really neat find in my book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Members muv Posted March 3, 2019 Author New Members Share Posted March 3, 2019 Many thanks both. A bit of a disappointment for my daughter, but still very interesting. Just out of curiosity: how old can it possibly be? Up to 100 years? 1000? It feels on touch like a piece of polished stone - but maybe this is how a tooth should feel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 The remnant of cementum on the root would tend to indicate an age less than one hundred years. I would think there is always a chance that the river has claimed sediments which preserved it for several thousand years though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pemphix Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 The tooth would be very small for a horse with 36mm (but i'm not an expert on mammals though). Since the uppermost part of the strata of London consist mostly of tertiary and quartenary sediments, you may expect fossils from this period including remains like the discussed piece. On the other hand, like already said some signs of the piece indicates that the piece is not very old (in geological means), some hundred years maybe if ever. How they came in the river ? It was not unusual that remains (from butcher or so) of them were putted in the river to get rid of them in former times..and there were a lot of battles during the last hundred of years, too. So there were a lot of possibilitys how the piece came into the river.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_London 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronzviking Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 I agree with @Pemphix that I thought it was small for a horse tooth. It could be a juvenile or deciduous incisor horse tooth or something else? To me it looks mineralized but I'm no expert. Let's ask for more help from the experts @Harry Pristis @PrehistoricFlorida Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Members muv Posted March 3, 2019 Author New Members Share Posted March 3, 2019 I guess it could be a young horse, or maybe a donkey? The tooth was found on the beach in Greenwich where a couple of years later a huge number of bones came from the silt to the surface. The most credible explanation I found online at the time was that these were discarded from the kitchens of Henri VIII's Greenwich Palace which stood at that place before it was demolished in 1660 for rebuilding (which was never completed). So I think we'll take this as the primary theory for the source of our tooth. I understand that in any case this has little to do with fossils. Thanks a lot for shedding some light on it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Members muv Posted March 3, 2019 Author New Members Share Posted March 3, 2019 Just read @Bronzviking's post. Is there a way for us non-specialists to tell whether it's mineralised? And what age would it indicate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 If it were mineralised it would seem heavy for its size. I'm not expert, but i'd say that the time taken for mineralisation dépends on a lot of factors : matrix, weather, temperature, conditions of burying, etc... 1 "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 In my estimation, this tooth is not from an adult horse. I doubt that it's a deciduous horse tooth. Horse incisors have triangular roots with the long sides compressed and tapering. This tooth does appear to have an infundibulum, but that may be an effect of the camera. It's not a pig tooth, but I would research other domestic animals butchered in the past say 200 years. My own collection is short on incisors of domesticated animals such as sheep. 6 http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoNoel Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Maybe a goat incisor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Harry Pristis said: In my estimation, this tooth is not from an adult horse. I doubt that it's a deciduous horse tooth. Horse incisors have triangular roots with the long sides compressed and tapering. Could it be a deer or elk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zenmaster6 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Judging the location and the shape, I would say its an old cervidae incisor. Old as in the last couple decades. very slightly large for a deer. Could also be moose. (I heard moose were introduced to the UK but I'm not sure how common they are.) But probably not an elk (due to shape) However I wouldn't be disappointed at all. You indeed found a tooth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Moose (larger), and whitetail deer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 I don't think it's a cervid incisor either, though the tooth is worn considerably more than Rockwood's or my examples. Furthermore, the root doesn't match the cervid teeth. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 5 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said: I don't think it's a cervid incisor either, though the tooth is worn considerably more than Rockwood's or my examples. Furthermore, the root doesn't match the cervid teeth. Oh well, strike two-- and I am out..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronzviking Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 3 hours ago, ynot said: Oh well, strike two-- and I am out..... You have one more guess, Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 On 04/03/2019 at 8:03 PM, ynot said: Oh well, strike two-- and I am out..... 2 "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalmayshun Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 thanks to the post, I am adding great information to my off line file.. Thanks to @Harry Pristis I NOW HAVE GREAT INFO ON HORSE TEETH, AS WELL AS A SELECTION OF OTHERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now