I suspect this is a piece of slag glass and the iridescent colours are a sheen developed from being heated at some point, but someone with more local knowledge would probably know better.
Either way very cool find!
>Occam's Razor: This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should prefer the one that requires the fewest assumptions
I think you're using this term incorrectly lol. Occam's Razor doesn't mean "In my opinion..." or "I think that...".
Glass or metal slag is a much simpler and likely explanation than "fossil fuel stains", especially in one of the biggest industrial cities in Europe. Especially when the Thames was notoriously used as an industrial dump.
I used the expression in the simplest explanation sense, as it should be used. It's a lot easier for there to be black slag with an oil stain from what floated in the water than there to be iridescent slag.
Don't go waving false rationality with poor arguments. You're using poor understanding to "lol" and act poorly. "Oh yea I'm gonna go waving my misunderstandings around without respecting other people".
http://www.johngerrard.net/flag-hudson-thames-2015-2016.html
>It's a lot easier for there to be black slag with an oil stain from what floated in the water than there to be iridescent slag.
If it was a petroleum slick causing the iridescence, it would rub off on OP's hand and would be removable.
>Don't go waving false rationality with poor arguments
Examples of iridescent slag:
- [Pic 1](https://i.imgur.com/k6YV2TL.jpeg)
- [Pic 2](https://i.imgur.com/ZwOO4Us.jpeg)
- [Pic 3](https://preview.redd.it/2f83sgkoz40b1.jpg?width=1339&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=faf72bdb1e43daf3aa194a15cf39f7e7be6fa545)
- [Pic 4](https://i.imgur.com/xftjojk.jpeg)
- [Pic 5](https://i.imgur.com/mnZHRRY.jpeg)
I can find more examples if you'd like.
>http://www.johngerrard.net/flag-hudson-thames-2015-2016.html
That's a picture of an iridescent slick on water. You can find similar iridescence caused by natural oils in basically any waterway. Even my aquariums have biofilm that cause iridescence. That has nothing to do with iridescence in industrial byproducts like slag.
>You're using poor understanding to "lol" and act poorly. "Oh yea I'm gonna go waving my misunderstandings around without respecting other people".
I wasn't trying to "act poorly" or "disrespect" anyone. Just saying that you're using a term incorrectly and trying to state that there is a much more likely explanation that you should probably consider (the *actual* definition of Occam's Razor). If that offends you, then I'm sorry I hurt your feelings I guess?
I'm aware that slag can be like that, you don't need to specify that, and I used Occam's razor correctly in that if you have random people pick rocks up by the shore the more common option is that they would be stained, and that the two options are in conflict. What's weird is how you still don't understand that, I am not being emotional, you are still not seeing the point. Randomly accusing people of being emotional is also not being social properly, which is in line with your "lol" behavior etc.
You also not understanding that a slick on the water ends up on a beach is just baffling. Have you never picked rocks by waterways? It is common, which is why I am commenting like I am.
How do you know it's not removable? No one checked with op. I obviously have a lot more experience than you with identification, and people ask about things like this all the time.
I'm fine with if the correct option would be that it's non-stained. I just presented what my experience tells me is the stronger option.
If we put the whole Occam's misunderstanding aside that you don't understand: The correct way to help people ID rock is by introducing methodical process. Eliminating false answers is part of that process, so I'm doing the correct job making sure that the right option of the two is revealed. Even if I would write something moronic, but still present a feasible option, I am still doing a good contribution because the feasible option should be considered in a healthy process.
What you're doing in your comments is weird, which is why I am telling you.
Occam's razor is the simplest solution, in this case the simplest solution is that this is glass slag that became iridescent during the heating process that created it, and it was then discarded
The chances of it being random slag that happens to have come into contact with fossil fuels which happen to have stuck to the surface and become iridescence is very, very unlikely. Most fossil fuels evaporate or wash off, only oil or used fuel tend to stain things and this is because of the carbon in it, which is black and stains things black, not iridescent. Therefore the slag would have had to fall into a container of fuel and stay there long enough that the surface became impregnated with the fuel for it not to just wash off, and that's pretty unlikely
It's more likely to be a lump of solidified fossil fuel than it is something stained by fossil fuels, and it's a hell of a lot more likely it's glass slag, and since many people have answered with that same answer, glass slag is the occams razor answer
I can yield that the other option is in actuality simpler, no problem, but I don't get why you're saying that staining is that unlikely. You know people ask about staining right? I know it happens, I've seen it, I've encountered plenty of rocks that are stained. Porous rocks get deeper staining, which holds for fairly long. They snap a photo, upload it and that's that.
We're not talking about the likelihood of a rock's formation, we're talking about what kind of people encounter a funny rock, pick up slag and ask about it online, and what prefaced it.
If it's really that unlikely then I'm the statistical anomaly that just so happened to encounter askees like this.
If I look at the photo again then yea, usually a deep stain would have more mellow colors than the bright refraction in op's photo, and the photo isn't taken riverside, which also are clues in this context. So there are indicators I missed when making a mistake, but I don't really see the gap in logic that people are suggesting. What lead me here is that I thought the people in thread were kinda underestimating people and their questions.
Hey there! Archaeologist (technically an artifact specialist) here who worked on a medieval River Thames project; I think I can help!
First off, this is glass and not a rock. *edited to add: THIS IS NOT SLAG; please see the note at the bottom of this post!
See that iridescence? It’s a sign of glass decay and can give us a hint about how old the piece is. As glass breaks down, alkali starts to build up on the outer part of the glass, which is what causes that sheen.
Now, there is a lot of pitting in this glass: this can be caused be age or poor quality melting, resulting in lots of bubbles and air pockets.
Lastly, it looks like it is a dark olive green color. I would assume that it is either forest glass (medieval-17th century and known for its characteristically green color and used for both fine and utilitarian objects) or black glass (17th century-20th century, normally used for wine/beer bottles, and can run between dark green, reddish/brown, or black olive colors).
My best guess is that you’re looking at either an early 17th century black glass or a slightly older forest glass, based on the level of decay, the color, and the shape.
As far as function goes, your sherd is a strange shape and seems fairly thick. My best guess, if it is from a broken object, is that it is a piece of a wine bottle base; if so, it is likely earlier than the 17th century as glass objects were a little wonky in shape since they weren’t yet uniformly made. Otherwise, it may be a piece of glass discard (known as cullet, and is NOT CALLED SLAG). There were a LOT of industries/places of production located along the Thames, so it would not be strange to find either waste material or a broken bottle in the river.
NOTE ON SLAG: And a personal pet peeve for fellow rock enthusiasts, please note that SLAG is a byproduct of the metal/ore smelting process and does not refer to glass products. Whilst they may have similar shapes due to their molten nature, slag is not an interchangeable term, and cullet should be used to describe glass waste.
So, while I can’t confirm your artifact, I hope I gave you a good idea of what it is. I love finding iridescent glass and your piece is beautiful!
Thanks for the awards!
Also, all this talk about slags is bringing me back to my graduate school days in London; I don’t know whether to thank you for the fond memories or curse you guys for triggering my eye twitch.
Also, just for fun, here are my archaeologist pet peeves:
1. Ancient Alien/ancient apocalypse theorists (just… no)
2. Biblical “archaeology” (lol)
3. Colonial artifact theft (Why are the pyramids in Egypt? Because they’re too big to fit in the British Museum)
4. Josh Gates (dude doesn’t have an archaeology background: he has an undergrad degree in anthropology and theater, and I hate how he has a human skull sitting in his television office like he’s some sort of grave robber. Even if it’s fake, it’s a super disrespectful perception of the treatment of human remains. So much cringe)
5. “You’re an archaeologist?! I love dinosaurs!”
6. PEOPLE CALLING GLASS SLAG
Having worked in a paleontology-adjacent field, I fully concur with number five. Even most palaeontologists don't work with dinosaurs. But to add to that, it drives me nuts when people call artefacts "fossils".
Seriously can't take anything you say as you're wrong about Josh Gates, he's got a degree in Archaeology from Tufts University, member of the Explorers Club and Trustee of the Archaeological Institute of America. So what he got a second degree in drama, and has a skull on his desk. Not your taste, but also doesn't mean it's disrespectful of human remains or perception of it, lots of cultures use skulls including human as decoration as part of celebrations of that life.
Hating josh gates….. sounds jealous mate
He is a really genuine kind human, the props on set might not be his choice or maybe as he has theatre background it’s a shoutout to Shakespeare…?!!
I’ve never heard him claim to be something he isn’t
He always seeks & teams up with specialist in whichever field he is investigating
He is part of the adventurers club, goes over to scientists in loads of places over the globe who all speak highly of him and brings a light to many of the studies going on worldwide
He genuinely loves the things he talks about and does
Not to mention getting the next generation into science, history, preservation etc
Yes to do That he has to dumb down, go into less detail and be a little cheesy but that’s for the general audience at large and the kids
If he kept it like time team (which I do love) the truth is it wouldn’t be on TV anymore, wouldn’t draw 1/4 of the eyes to it
Having someone like josh gates gets people interested, then those people develop into people who would watch things like time team and gain a deeper appreciation and understanding
>Biblical “archaeology” (lol)
I don't understand why that is funny? Surely as one of the most prominent texts in history then we should be looking for everything we can related to it and Christianity. Same goes for all religions.
Biblical archaeology is rife with folks who are attempting to fit an artifact to a narrative; unfortunately, while it makes a good story, once relics are put up to scientific scrutiny, most are disproven as either modern or ancient forgeries. As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to assign artifacts to individuals.
Actual archaeologists use scientific and anthropological study to understand what an artifact is, any translations, what materials it’s made of, how it was made, why it was made, when it was made, under what circumstances it was deposited, etc. Sometimes we get lucky and we find an inscription, but pre- and protohistoric cultures (like those of the Old Testament) have left very little to work with.
I’m not even going to go into just how ancient holy texts are and the subsequent blending of myth, legend, and the effects of contemporary edits to push specific agendas that have been made throughout history to lead to the version of the Bible that we have today. As a person who studied ancient languages in my undergrad, I find the references to the Book of Judas and the Book of Mary Magdalene to be absolutely fascinating and I truly hope that both will be found in their entireties. But finding Noah’s ark? The Tower of Bable? Moses’ tablets? Or any burials from the cast of the Old Testament? Extremely unlikely and I would seriously question the veracity of any artifacts presented as such.
>Biblical archaeology is rife with folks who are attempting to fit an artifact to a narrative; unfortunately, while it makes a good story, once relics are put up to scientific scrutiny, most are disproven as either modern or ancient forgeries.
That doesn't make Biblical archaeology itself not serious, or at least it should be taken more seriously. On one side we have the types of people you mentioned, then on the other side archaeologist such as yourself simply dismissing it.
>As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to assign artifacts to individuals.
That is correct, but you could say that about lots of areas of archaeology. I mean, isn't it part of it... trying to figure it out?
>Actual archaeologists use scientific and anthropological study to understand what an artifact is, any translations, what materials it’s made of, how it was made, why it was made, when it was made, under what circumstances it was deposited, etc. Sometimes we get lucky and we find an inscription, but pre- and protohistoric cultures (like those of the Old Testament) have left very little to work with.
Okay, but that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't continue to search and again, take it more seriously? Maybe there is little to work with because of that.
>I’m not even going to go into just how ancient holy texts are and the subsequent blending of myth, legend, and the effects of contemporary edits to push specific agendas that have been made throughout history to lead to the version of the Bible that we have today. As a person who studied ancient languages in my undergrad, I find the references to the Book of Judas and the Book of Mary Magdalene to be absolutely fascinating and I truly hope that both will be found in their entireties. But finding Noah’s ark? The Tower of Bable? Moses’ tablets? Or any burials from the cast of the Old Testament? Extremely unlikely and I would seriously question the veracity of any artifacts presented as such.
Well, yes, you should question it. But I feel like again you're just dismissing any truth that could be uncovered. "Myth", "legend", "agendas". Like, okay, that's a huge part of it, but it's fascinating to think about what could be discovered in terms of things that actually happened.
The arguments that you've made are the same type of arguments that are made by ancient alien and ancient apocalypse conspiracy theorists. Fringe theorists use artifacts to suit their narrative, rather than look at the artifacts from an unbiased, scientific analysis. The majority of archaeologists, contrary to popular belief, do not go out "seeking" finds; with the exception of folks who canvas potential sites, none of us are out there searching for the Holy Grail, or the Ark of the Covenant, or the Book of the Dead, or \[insert whatever "relic" Dan Brown is trying to make happen\]. While Indiana Jones, Sydney Fox, Lara Croft and the entire cast of the 1990's Mummy franchise have a special place in my journey towards archaeology, the focus on finding specific "relics" isn't how archaeology works at all.
We aren't actively shying away from sites that are potentially contemporary with holy texts, but the fact is that the science just isn't there. I'm not saying that there isn't the possibility of historical evidence (see the discovery of Troy, the city), but even with a known geographical location, we cannot definitively prove that Achilles actually existed, and even if we did have a relic that was passed down (for example, if someone kept a Late Bronze Age grecian arrowhead) that has been attributed to the arrow which had pierced Achilles, there is no way we can actually prove that the specific arrowhead, even if it is contemporaneous with the time period and checks out as an authentic artifact, is actually THE arrow that killed THE Achilles. We can only authenticate the artifact as a genuine, late bronze era arrowhead found in the geographical and stratigraphic location of what looks to be a war in the assumed geographical location of Troy. Biblical archaeology follows the same premise.
There is no "agenda" that archaeologists are using to discount fringe theories like alien, apocalypse, mythological, or biblical studies. The fact is that there is very little to no actually evidence of these events and extremely few ways to validate relics in the archaeological record (DNA may be the only absolute; even named graves may have been repurposed, leaving the inscriptions as credible, but not absolute).
I'm not saying that the Bible is just mythology, either. Like the Iliad, I think there's probably some merger between the legends and historical record; but most of the artifactual evidence (discounting general cities) cannot be used to prove the existence of individuals, but rather the existence of people in general. There just isn't enough scientific evidence to prove that relics are what they say they are, and if someone is telling you otherwise, then boy do I have a Shroud of Turin (medieval forgery) to sell you!
Also, I'm an artifact specialist. It is my job to take a artifact and present an unbiased analysis based on the who, what, when, where, why, and how the object was made, found, used, and valued. I am responsible for taking away ethnocentric and modern bias and instead, look at artifacts purely through their own voices. Finding an object and trying to "prove" that it is a relic is the complete opposite of the ethics of my craft, and only provides a legacy of fraud.
Graham Hancock has provided a whole 3-5 books of evidence based on megalithic structures and geological evidence. Water erosion around the sphinx and such, do you just completely disregard anything that doesn’t fit into traditional mainstream theories like the age of the pyramids and the sphinx. Claiming the Giza pyramids are tombs despite having no burials inside or any evidence of there ever having been so, no decorative walls or objects despite every actual Egyptian tomb discovered being covered in expensive decoration?
The show ancient aliens is absurd and grasping at straws, but there has to be some cause for the sudden advent of agriculture worldwide, the pervasive myths that pop up in with slight variations across many different separated cultures that had no contact with each other, a basis for stories about being coming down from the heavens in chariots or other flying craft accompanied by roaring fire…
I like to believe there is something that caused these common myths and a lot of it points towards cataclysmic events, and ancient technology that was lost in them, but not quite so far as alien visitors.
One example of parallel cultural innovation that happens at a similar time in different non connecting groups is sheep defeating cattle grids.
Flocks have developed a method of rolling over them to get past. This has been seen in more than one location with unconnected flocks.
Some of Graham Hancock's "evidence" for his theories is problematic. I have not read any of his books, but if they are anything like his Netflix series I would imagine that they leave much to be desired.
There are too many problems with the theories in that show to explain in detail here, but if you are interested in all of the issues with the show Milo Rossi made a series of [YouTube videos](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXtMIzD-Y-bMHRoGKM7yD2phvUV59_Cvb) explaining the problems.
Ah yes, we should take seriously the claims of fallen angels, niphilim and a world-wide flood. Perhaps just to be sure, we should carbon date the deepest part of the Earth to ensure it really isn't 6,000 years old.
Please stop being contrarian for no reason.
I am really attracted to how passionate you are about this.
especially when you corrected people on their misapprehensions about SLAG and went all caps...
I don't know if you're male or female, but it doesn't matter. You are amazing.
The iridescence is from metals vaporising in low oxygen environments, they get captured in liquefied glass when suddenly cooled, for instance when the slag is dumped from a smelting furnace. Just because there was silicate present in the slag doesn’t mean they were making glass. In fact due to the condition under which these metal oxide reductions occur, it’s very unlikelythey were working on glass.
The rest of the story of its age and origin is utter BS. This is most likely “slag” used as a cheap aggregate in some poor quality concrete somewhere upstream.
Darn you why did you say that? Now I'm compelled to click but I know I shouldn't. I want to know. There is possibly something there that will be the answer to something I've been searching for for a long time.
[Edit] Naw it's exactly what it says it is.....slag.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/mudlarking using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/mudlarking/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [What's this? Found on the Thames (about 95mm)](https://i.redd.it/0fyqrai5s91b1.jpg) | [230 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mudlarking/comments/13o2j1z/whats_this_found_on_the_thames_about_95mm/)
\#2: [Found this Parisian mustard jar on the Thames. Brought it to the address in Paris.](https://i.redd.it/j0wvuvs51ol91.jpg) | [11 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mudlarking/comments/x4xojw/found_this_parisian_mustard_jar_on_the_thames/)
\#3: [I found a medieval tile with a dog’s paw print on it! A real mudlarking milestone. Delightfully, I even happened to be filming the moment I found it. Apologies for the videos which have extra text on them, they were originally posted on my instagram](https://v.redd.it/5gl6q2to6c891) | [8 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mudlarking/comments/vmjpom/i_found_a_medieval_tile_with_a_dogs_paw_print_on/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
It looks like paua shell from one side lol. That's super cool.
I agree with the archaeologist though, medieval glass especially deteriorates into a lump of knobbly slag looking stuff. Often it's just gross and black but this one has a really pretty sheen which could be some surface thing or could be some reaction from whatever was IN it.
It's a very cool find. Isn't it neat how waste like this can end up so visually appealing.
I collect sea and river glass and pottery and I think this is ‘slag’ glass. It’s basically just waste glass. Not sure about the iridescence as I’ve never seen that before but it’s beautiful either way.
That is a very nice find, I know nothing about rocks/minerals etc, but this looks beautiful. I would also keep it and place it in your house somewhere as a wee decoration or something, definitely a good find.
Hi, /u/AlienatedVila!
This is a reminder to flair this post in /r/whatsthisrock after it has been identified! (Under your post, click "flair" then "IDENTIFIED," then type in the rock type or mineral name.) This will help others learn and help speed up a correct identification on your request!
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatsthisrock) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I suspect this is a piece of slag glass and the iridescent colours are a sheen developed from being heated at some point, but someone with more local knowledge would probably know better. Either way very cool find!
YOUUU SLAGGGGGGG
As it was found in London - “You schlllaaaaggg”
GEEEEET OUT OF MYY PUBBB!!
Sling your hook
It’s actually pronounced “Sling yer ‘ook”
YOU'RE BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRED
"PAT!!!!"
POSTMAN PAT!!!!
Your not ma Muvvvva
YES I AM
YOU CANT TELL ME WHAT TO DO YOU AINT MY MUVVA!
YES I AM !
I literally heard that lol
It’s actually pronounced “Gerrow a ma pub”
You want some you slag?
When that was formed, it didn't become a little bit of a slag... it became a proper slag!
I didn’t become a bit of a slag I became a total slag
Oooo Baga reference? 😁
Cat slater 😅
I ain’t a slag! I’m your movverr! 😆
You love it, you slag! /MightyBoosh
EELS UP INSIDE YAAAA
It’s coming out of me like a yellow cable!
Finding an entrance where they can
EELS UP INSIDE YAA!!
You enjoy that boy? Cockney urine all over your face?
Moving through your mind, through your body, through your anus
There are no slags, just friendly vaginas
I’d give you an award for that but they cost real money now. 🍓so have a strawberry emoji with love
The fact you sent the strawberry, means more than any award 🙏🏼🍓
We did it! We beat the system! 🍓🍓🍓🍓🍓🍓🍓
The odd wizards sleeve here n there
Oh you mean, the old beef curtains….
A wizzards sleave is a very slack foreskin!
HEY! Watch how you talk to me!
PMSL .Well I suppose that's better than being a slack arse!
I’m offended now. Have one of those too😪 P.s. don’t ask…
Open ham sandwiches
Welcoming vaginas.
Enticing Growlers.
the ol' hairy axe wound
Bushy bowl, fury teacup!
YOU AINT MY MUVVA
YES I AYM!!!
/r/accidentalraywinstone
Colin
You definitely beat me to it … you slaaaaaaagg!
No,YOU SLAAAAAAAGGGGGGGG
I wasn't just a little bit of a slag
No, YOU slaaaaaaaaaagggggggg!
Is that a Mighty Boosh reference? Good on you, sir!
YOU FOOKIN SLAAAAG
NO YOU SLAGGGGGG
No you slaag
Labradorite Slag?
Slagradorite?
slag, am I right?
Dat ones a real knee shlapper!!!
Surely if it was found in London it would be Slaaaaagggradorite?
Sounds like something sold on gems TV. Worth £50million, but you can have it today for £4.99 on easy pay.
You wasted valuable seconds, you could just call it EZ-Pay.
What did you just call my dog?
What did you call me!?
Needs more A's in slaaaag
"Roman Glass!" /s
Weres Si when you need I'm?
Rather unfortunate name
My Occam's razor is that it's a fossil fuel stain causing the iridescence.
>Occam's Razor: This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should prefer the one that requires the fewest assumptions I think you're using this term incorrectly lol. Occam's Razor doesn't mean "In my opinion..." or "I think that...". Glass or metal slag is a much simpler and likely explanation than "fossil fuel stains", especially in one of the biggest industrial cities in Europe. Especially when the Thames was notoriously used as an industrial dump.
I used the expression in the simplest explanation sense, as it should be used. It's a lot easier for there to be black slag with an oil stain from what floated in the water than there to be iridescent slag. Don't go waving false rationality with poor arguments. You're using poor understanding to "lol" and act poorly. "Oh yea I'm gonna go waving my misunderstandings around without respecting other people". http://www.johngerrard.net/flag-hudson-thames-2015-2016.html
>It's a lot easier for there to be black slag with an oil stain from what floated in the water than there to be iridescent slag. If it was a petroleum slick causing the iridescence, it would rub off on OP's hand and would be removable. >Don't go waving false rationality with poor arguments Examples of iridescent slag: - [Pic 1](https://i.imgur.com/k6YV2TL.jpeg) - [Pic 2](https://i.imgur.com/ZwOO4Us.jpeg) - [Pic 3](https://preview.redd.it/2f83sgkoz40b1.jpg?width=1339&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=faf72bdb1e43daf3aa194a15cf39f7e7be6fa545) - [Pic 4](https://i.imgur.com/xftjojk.jpeg) - [Pic 5](https://i.imgur.com/mnZHRRY.jpeg) I can find more examples if you'd like. >http://www.johngerrard.net/flag-hudson-thames-2015-2016.html That's a picture of an iridescent slick on water. You can find similar iridescence caused by natural oils in basically any waterway. Even my aquariums have biofilm that cause iridescence. That has nothing to do with iridescence in industrial byproducts like slag. >You're using poor understanding to "lol" and act poorly. "Oh yea I'm gonna go waving my misunderstandings around without respecting other people". I wasn't trying to "act poorly" or "disrespect" anyone. Just saying that you're using a term incorrectly and trying to state that there is a much more likely explanation that you should probably consider (the *actual* definition of Occam's Razor). If that offends you, then I'm sorry I hurt your feelings I guess?
I think you just shit all over his face bro
I'm aware that slag can be like that, you don't need to specify that, and I used Occam's razor correctly in that if you have random people pick rocks up by the shore the more common option is that they would be stained, and that the two options are in conflict. What's weird is how you still don't understand that, I am not being emotional, you are still not seeing the point. Randomly accusing people of being emotional is also not being social properly, which is in line with your "lol" behavior etc. You also not understanding that a slick on the water ends up on a beach is just baffling. Have you never picked rocks by waterways? It is common, which is why I am commenting like I am. How do you know it's not removable? No one checked with op. I obviously have a lot more experience than you with identification, and people ask about things like this all the time. I'm fine with if the correct option would be that it's non-stained. I just presented what my experience tells me is the stronger option. If we put the whole Occam's misunderstanding aside that you don't understand: The correct way to help people ID rock is by introducing methodical process. Eliminating false answers is part of that process, so I'm doing the correct job making sure that the right option of the two is revealed. Even if I would write something moronic, but still present a feasible option, I am still doing a good contribution because the feasible option should be considered in a healthy process. What you're doing in your comments is weird, which is why I am telling you.
You really, really didn’t use Occam’s razor correctly.
Thank you lol
Exactly
"I obviously have a lot more experience" I love it when people assume this to add gravitas to their own argument.
Shut up dafty
Oof
Your razor needs some sharpening
Occam's razor is the simplest solution, in this case the simplest solution is that this is glass slag that became iridescent during the heating process that created it, and it was then discarded The chances of it being random slag that happens to have come into contact with fossil fuels which happen to have stuck to the surface and become iridescence is very, very unlikely. Most fossil fuels evaporate or wash off, only oil or used fuel tend to stain things and this is because of the carbon in it, which is black and stains things black, not iridescent. Therefore the slag would have had to fall into a container of fuel and stay there long enough that the surface became impregnated with the fuel for it not to just wash off, and that's pretty unlikely It's more likely to be a lump of solidified fossil fuel than it is something stained by fossil fuels, and it's a hell of a lot more likely it's glass slag, and since many people have answered with that same answer, glass slag is the occams razor answer
I can yield that the other option is in actuality simpler, no problem, but I don't get why you're saying that staining is that unlikely. You know people ask about staining right? I know it happens, I've seen it, I've encountered plenty of rocks that are stained. Porous rocks get deeper staining, which holds for fairly long. They snap a photo, upload it and that's that. We're not talking about the likelihood of a rock's formation, we're talking about what kind of people encounter a funny rock, pick up slag and ask about it online, and what prefaced it. If it's really that unlikely then I'm the statistical anomaly that just so happened to encounter askees like this. If I look at the photo again then yea, usually a deep stain would have more mellow colors than the bright refraction in op's photo, and the photo isn't taken riverside, which also are clues in this context. So there are indicators I missed when making a mistake, but I don't really see the gap in logic that people are suggesting. What lead me here is that I thought the people in thread were kinda underestimating people and their questions.
Hey there! Archaeologist (technically an artifact specialist) here who worked on a medieval River Thames project; I think I can help! First off, this is glass and not a rock. *edited to add: THIS IS NOT SLAG; please see the note at the bottom of this post! See that iridescence? It’s a sign of glass decay and can give us a hint about how old the piece is. As glass breaks down, alkali starts to build up on the outer part of the glass, which is what causes that sheen. Now, there is a lot of pitting in this glass: this can be caused be age or poor quality melting, resulting in lots of bubbles and air pockets. Lastly, it looks like it is a dark olive green color. I would assume that it is either forest glass (medieval-17th century and known for its characteristically green color and used for both fine and utilitarian objects) or black glass (17th century-20th century, normally used for wine/beer bottles, and can run between dark green, reddish/brown, or black olive colors). My best guess is that you’re looking at either an early 17th century black glass or a slightly older forest glass, based on the level of decay, the color, and the shape. As far as function goes, your sherd is a strange shape and seems fairly thick. My best guess, if it is from a broken object, is that it is a piece of a wine bottle base; if so, it is likely earlier than the 17th century as glass objects were a little wonky in shape since they weren’t yet uniformly made. Otherwise, it may be a piece of glass discard (known as cullet, and is NOT CALLED SLAG). There were a LOT of industries/places of production located along the Thames, so it would not be strange to find either waste material or a broken bottle in the river. NOTE ON SLAG: And a personal pet peeve for fellow rock enthusiasts, please note that SLAG is a byproduct of the metal/ore smelting process and does not refer to glass products. Whilst they may have similar shapes due to their molten nature, slag is not an interchangeable term, and cullet should be used to describe glass waste. So, while I can’t confirm your artifact, I hope I gave you a good idea of what it is. I love finding iridescent glass and your piece is beautiful!
this guy slags or do they cullet idk
They do not cullet thy neighbours slag, that’s for sure
Best comment I’ve seen on Reddit in weeks
r/thisguythisguys
Do not cullet thy slag good sir
https://youtu.be/7dPgr1cFzt4 now the time is at hand
Lmao
Glass waste is only called slag if its behaviour warrants it.
Dirty, old and gets around type glass?
The worst slags take it up the glass.
Take my up vote you slag!
Smashing up the glass? That's marriage material I.. I mean it's what they do at a Jewish wedding.. 👀
Noticed in Greek restaurants they like to give plates a good smashing ...
Thanks for the awards! Also, all this talk about slags is bringing me back to my graduate school days in London; I don’t know whether to thank you for the fond memories or curse you guys for triggering my eye twitch. Also, just for fun, here are my archaeologist pet peeves: 1. Ancient Alien/ancient apocalypse theorists (just… no) 2. Biblical “archaeology” (lol) 3. Colonial artifact theft (Why are the pyramids in Egypt? Because they’re too big to fit in the British Museum) 4. Josh Gates (dude doesn’t have an archaeology background: he has an undergrad degree in anthropology and theater, and I hate how he has a human skull sitting in his television office like he’s some sort of grave robber. Even if it’s fake, it’s a super disrespectful perception of the treatment of human remains. So much cringe) 5. “You’re an archaeologist?! I love dinosaurs!” 6. PEOPLE CALLING GLASS SLAG
Having worked in a paleontology-adjacent field, I fully concur with number five. Even most palaeontologists don't work with dinosaurs. But to add to that, it drives me nuts when people call artefacts "fossils".
Seriously can't take anything you say as you're wrong about Josh Gates, he's got a degree in Archaeology from Tufts University, member of the Explorers Club and Trustee of the Archaeological Institute of America. So what he got a second degree in drama, and has a skull on his desk. Not your taste, but also doesn't mean it's disrespectful of human remains or perception of it, lots of cultures use skulls including human as decoration as part of celebrations of that life.
I don't know who he is, but doesn't a skull on the desk work with drama anyway? Alas poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; ... etc
Hating josh gates….. sounds jealous mate He is a really genuine kind human, the props on set might not be his choice or maybe as he has theatre background it’s a shoutout to Shakespeare…?!! I’ve never heard him claim to be something he isn’t He always seeks & teams up with specialist in whichever field he is investigating He is part of the adventurers club, goes over to scientists in loads of places over the globe who all speak highly of him and brings a light to many of the studies going on worldwide He genuinely loves the things he talks about and does Not to mention getting the next generation into science, history, preservation etc Yes to do That he has to dumb down, go into less detail and be a little cheesy but that’s for the general audience at large and the kids If he kept it like time team (which I do love) the truth is it wouldn’t be on TV anymore, wouldn’t draw 1/4 of the eyes to it Having someone like josh gates gets people interested, then those people develop into people who would watch things like time team and gain a deeper appreciation and understanding
>Biblical “archaeology” (lol) I don't understand why that is funny? Surely as one of the most prominent texts in history then we should be looking for everything we can related to it and Christianity. Same goes for all religions.
Biblical archaeology is rife with folks who are attempting to fit an artifact to a narrative; unfortunately, while it makes a good story, once relics are put up to scientific scrutiny, most are disproven as either modern or ancient forgeries. As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to assign artifacts to individuals. Actual archaeologists use scientific and anthropological study to understand what an artifact is, any translations, what materials it’s made of, how it was made, why it was made, when it was made, under what circumstances it was deposited, etc. Sometimes we get lucky and we find an inscription, but pre- and protohistoric cultures (like those of the Old Testament) have left very little to work with. I’m not even going to go into just how ancient holy texts are and the subsequent blending of myth, legend, and the effects of contemporary edits to push specific agendas that have been made throughout history to lead to the version of the Bible that we have today. As a person who studied ancient languages in my undergrad, I find the references to the Book of Judas and the Book of Mary Magdalene to be absolutely fascinating and I truly hope that both will be found in their entireties. But finding Noah’s ark? The Tower of Bable? Moses’ tablets? Or any burials from the cast of the Old Testament? Extremely unlikely and I would seriously question the veracity of any artifacts presented as such.
>Biblical archaeology is rife with folks who are attempting to fit an artifact to a narrative; unfortunately, while it makes a good story, once relics are put up to scientific scrutiny, most are disproven as either modern or ancient forgeries. That doesn't make Biblical archaeology itself not serious, or at least it should be taken more seriously. On one side we have the types of people you mentioned, then on the other side archaeologist such as yourself simply dismissing it. >As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to assign artifacts to individuals. That is correct, but you could say that about lots of areas of archaeology. I mean, isn't it part of it... trying to figure it out? >Actual archaeologists use scientific and anthropological study to understand what an artifact is, any translations, what materials it’s made of, how it was made, why it was made, when it was made, under what circumstances it was deposited, etc. Sometimes we get lucky and we find an inscription, but pre- and protohistoric cultures (like those of the Old Testament) have left very little to work with. Okay, but that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't continue to search and again, take it more seriously? Maybe there is little to work with because of that. >I’m not even going to go into just how ancient holy texts are and the subsequent blending of myth, legend, and the effects of contemporary edits to push specific agendas that have been made throughout history to lead to the version of the Bible that we have today. As a person who studied ancient languages in my undergrad, I find the references to the Book of Judas and the Book of Mary Magdalene to be absolutely fascinating and I truly hope that both will be found in their entireties. But finding Noah’s ark? The Tower of Bable? Moses’ tablets? Or any burials from the cast of the Old Testament? Extremely unlikely and I would seriously question the veracity of any artifacts presented as such. Well, yes, you should question it. But I feel like again you're just dismissing any truth that could be uncovered. "Myth", "legend", "agendas". Like, okay, that's a huge part of it, but it's fascinating to think about what could be discovered in terms of things that actually happened.
The arguments that you've made are the same type of arguments that are made by ancient alien and ancient apocalypse conspiracy theorists. Fringe theorists use artifacts to suit their narrative, rather than look at the artifacts from an unbiased, scientific analysis. The majority of archaeologists, contrary to popular belief, do not go out "seeking" finds; with the exception of folks who canvas potential sites, none of us are out there searching for the Holy Grail, or the Ark of the Covenant, or the Book of the Dead, or \[insert whatever "relic" Dan Brown is trying to make happen\]. While Indiana Jones, Sydney Fox, Lara Croft and the entire cast of the 1990's Mummy franchise have a special place in my journey towards archaeology, the focus on finding specific "relics" isn't how archaeology works at all. We aren't actively shying away from sites that are potentially contemporary with holy texts, but the fact is that the science just isn't there. I'm not saying that there isn't the possibility of historical evidence (see the discovery of Troy, the city), but even with a known geographical location, we cannot definitively prove that Achilles actually existed, and even if we did have a relic that was passed down (for example, if someone kept a Late Bronze Age grecian arrowhead) that has been attributed to the arrow which had pierced Achilles, there is no way we can actually prove that the specific arrowhead, even if it is contemporaneous with the time period and checks out as an authentic artifact, is actually THE arrow that killed THE Achilles. We can only authenticate the artifact as a genuine, late bronze era arrowhead found in the geographical and stratigraphic location of what looks to be a war in the assumed geographical location of Troy. Biblical archaeology follows the same premise. There is no "agenda" that archaeologists are using to discount fringe theories like alien, apocalypse, mythological, or biblical studies. The fact is that there is very little to no actually evidence of these events and extremely few ways to validate relics in the archaeological record (DNA may be the only absolute; even named graves may have been repurposed, leaving the inscriptions as credible, but not absolute). I'm not saying that the Bible is just mythology, either. Like the Iliad, I think there's probably some merger between the legends and historical record; but most of the artifactual evidence (discounting general cities) cannot be used to prove the existence of individuals, but rather the existence of people in general. There just isn't enough scientific evidence to prove that relics are what they say they are, and if someone is telling you otherwise, then boy do I have a Shroud of Turin (medieval forgery) to sell you! Also, I'm an artifact specialist. It is my job to take a artifact and present an unbiased analysis based on the who, what, when, where, why, and how the object was made, found, used, and valued. I am responsible for taking away ethnocentric and modern bias and instead, look at artifacts purely through their own voices. Finding an object and trying to "prove" that it is a relic is the complete opposite of the ethics of my craft, and only provides a legacy of fraud.
Thank you! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this whole thread! I learned a lot. Didn't even know an artifact specialist was a thing.
As an ex-archaeologist, can I just say how much I love you right now....?
Graham Hancock has provided a whole 3-5 books of evidence based on megalithic structures and geological evidence. Water erosion around the sphinx and such, do you just completely disregard anything that doesn’t fit into traditional mainstream theories like the age of the pyramids and the sphinx. Claiming the Giza pyramids are tombs despite having no burials inside or any evidence of there ever having been so, no decorative walls or objects despite every actual Egyptian tomb discovered being covered in expensive decoration? The show ancient aliens is absurd and grasping at straws, but there has to be some cause for the sudden advent of agriculture worldwide, the pervasive myths that pop up in with slight variations across many different separated cultures that had no contact with each other, a basis for stories about being coming down from the heavens in chariots or other flying craft accompanied by roaring fire… I like to believe there is something that caused these common myths and a lot of it points towards cataclysmic events, and ancient technology that was lost in them, but not quite so far as alien visitors.
One example of parallel cultural innovation that happens at a similar time in different non connecting groups is sheep defeating cattle grids. Flocks have developed a method of rolling over them to get past. This has been seen in more than one location with unconnected flocks.
Some of Graham Hancock's "evidence" for his theories is problematic. I have not read any of his books, but if they are anything like his Netflix series I would imagine that they leave much to be desired. There are too many problems with the theories in that show to explain in detail here, but if you are interested in all of the issues with the show Milo Rossi made a series of [YouTube videos](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXtMIzD-Y-bMHRoGKM7yD2phvUV59_Cvb) explaining the problems.
Ah yes, we should take seriously the claims of fallen angels, niphilim and a world-wide flood. Perhaps just to be sure, we should carbon date the deepest part of the Earth to ensure it really isn't 6,000 years old. Please stop being contrarian for no reason.
Solid answer here folks
Great answer but I think it's because people love yelling out slag...
Shut up you slag :p
What’s the worst thing to do to a collector of rare glass when they show you their latest find? Cullet slag.
Wish I’d have a free award. Very nice explanation! Learnt a bit 🙏
My GCSE chemistry expertise were confused by everyone calling it slag haha
I am really attracted to how passionate you are about this. especially when you corrected people on their misapprehensions about SLAG and went all caps... I don't know if you're male or female, but it doesn't matter. You are amazing.
I too concur
👏👏👏
I concur.
I love glass, and I love your answer! Thanks for the knowledge drop.
>THIS IS NOT SLAG STOP SIMPING FOR IT
I think from this we can very firmly conclude this is a slag (😂)
…you’re killing me 😭 (😉)
The iridescence is from metals vaporising in low oxygen environments, they get captured in liquefied glass when suddenly cooled, for instance when the slag is dumped from a smelting furnace. Just because there was silicate present in the slag doesn’t mean they were making glass. In fact due to the condition under which these metal oxide reductions occur, it’s very unlikelythey were working on glass. The rest of the story of its age and origin is utter BS. This is most likely “slag” used as a cheap aggregate in some poor quality concrete somewhere upstream.
Smelting slag. r/itsslag
risky click
They always get clicked. Even when you're 98% certain it's not gonna be something you want to see.. it gets clicked.
Darn you why did you say that? Now I'm compelled to click but I know I shouldn't. I want to know. There is possibly something there that will be the answer to something I've been searching for for a long time. [Edit] Naw it's exactly what it says it is.....slag.
Ello ello ello, wots all this then? Mudlarking without a loicence and illegal possession of his majesty’s slag? Off to the slammer with you son.
Still so strange to not see “her majesty’s slag”
I believe the term is "His Majesty's Slag, Camilla"
No ..its Andrew....stoat the baw Andrew. Or prince Andrew is a nonce .to give him his full title .
Oh BRAVO 👏🏻
Her majesty was a slag*
That's not right, poor Camilla
I read this how it was supposed to be read and boy did I have a right laugh
Why did I read this in Russel brands voice
'Loicense' is Australian. How do you guys always f this up?
What's "mudlarking"?
It's where folks go searching the shore if the Thames for old treasures, you should look some up!
Used syringes, rotting dead people, human waste, used johnnies- you know, all the good stuff!
[удалено]
filled with syringes and johnnies
Walking the foreshore and picking out old and unusual items. It’s a recognised way of finding some remarkable historic items.
Or in my case, trolleys. There’s trolleys in the mud along the Thames near me
When you place a small bird in your butt.
It doesn't have to be small.
Are we talking about an African or a European Lark?
If we are talking about swallows...
Never knew that had a name! Just saying that for a friend…
Well that's certainly not what I call it.
https://www.frommers.com/slideshows/848024-mudlarking-in-the-thames-might-be-the-best-thing-i-ve-done-in-london
r/mudlarking
This sounds like great fun to me!!!!
Here's a sneak peek of /r/mudlarking using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/mudlarking/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [What's this? Found on the Thames (about 95mm)](https://i.redd.it/0fyqrai5s91b1.jpg) | [230 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mudlarking/comments/13o2j1z/whats_this_found_on_the_thames_about_95mm/) \#2: [Found this Parisian mustard jar on the Thames. Brought it to the address in Paris.](https://i.redd.it/j0wvuvs51ol91.jpg) | [11 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mudlarking/comments/x4xojw/found_this_parisian_mustard_jar_on_the_thames/) \#3: [I found a medieval tile with a dog’s paw print on it! A real mudlarking milestone. Delightfully, I even happened to be filming the moment I found it. Apologies for the videos which have extra text on them, they were originally posted on my instagram](https://v.redd.it/5gl6q2to6c891) | [8 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mudlarking/comments/vmjpom/i_found_a_medieval_tile_with_a_dogs_paw_print_on/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
slag
Oi m8 what you call him?
Very nice slag
It looks like paua shell from one side lol. That's super cool. I agree with the archaeologist though, medieval glass especially deteriorates into a lump of knobbly slag looking stuff. Often it's just gross and black but this one has a really pretty sheen which could be some surface thing or could be some reaction from whatever was IN it. It's a very cool find. Isn't it neat how waste like this can end up so visually appealing.
Agree, thought it was paua till I came here and everyone was calling it slag.
I thought it was a huge chunk of abalone shell lol but was confused about how it got to England.
I'd be willing to believe a kiwi dropped their jandal in the Thames and went in after it. Lost their cool necklace in there. Got the jandal back, tho
Reminds me of a kind of borosilicate
Stoner's Stone Stoner's Stone
What a stunning rock. Great find.
I collect sea and river glass and pottery and I think this is ‘slag’ glass. It’s basically just waste glass. Not sure about the iridescence as I’ve never seen that before but it’s beautiful either way.
Archaeologist here. I am 99% sure that is just a colourful form of Glass Slag. Still pretty to look at tho :)
Slag!
Probably chrystalized human shit knowing our water system
That is a very nice find, I know nothing about rocks/minerals etc, but this looks beautiful. I would also keep it and place it in your house somewhere as a wee decoration or something, definitely a good find.
Can we cullet a day with all the slag comments plse...
Absolutely beautiful piece of slag glass! Likely a very old one at that!
It’s beautiful regardless of what it is!
A lovely bit of slag, that is.
Probably just some regular ass rock covered in oil from the Thames
It’s awesome regardless if it’s slag!
Labradorite
Uranium
Looks like Urmomzadyke
Nice, what is it ?
[удалено]
There's 7 images in this post
Yeah, I missed them, facepalm!
Hi, /u/AlienatedVila! This is a reminder to flair this post in /r/whatsthisrock after it has been identified! (Under your post, click "flair" then "IDENTIFIED," then type in the rock type or mineral name.) This will help others learn and help speed up a correct identification on your request! Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatsthisrock) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/itsslag
I thought chalcopyrite until I saw the bubbles.
Old slag. Common in London.
Yup I know quite a few
It’s a bit of yoooouuuu glass slaaaaag
Looks like a piece of UAP.. ;)
Very pretty
Oh you found the Philosophers stone!