I must respectively disagree with the common consensus here, regarding the specimen at hand. Yes, this is a form of Hematite Iron (Fe2O3) or possibly (Fe4O5), and agreed, this is not a meteorite.
The sample in question is actually an "impactite," formed from vaporized/melted (Fe) during an asteroid impact event involving extreme heat/pressure circumstances.
I can imagine the previous posters are crying "bloody murder it is," at this very moment of reading. I get that. However, true science involves the "consideration" of new evidence presented and the observation thereof. Here's my new evidence for all to ponder and ultimately decide upon yourselves.
Figure 1: The photo (above) shows impact-related samples (exhibiting known reoccurring Tektite Shapes) that exactly match the characteristics from the originally posted iron-rich object in question. These samples have had XRF and ICP (ppm) Tests performed with very interesting results. The Iron (Fe) measures an average of 95% weight, and many exotic trace elements exceed normal (ppm) numbers. However, these are merely claims that accompany a photograph. The true evidence here is the notation of Size/Distribution evidence, as found within the study of Impact-Related objects such as Tektites/Spherules. Meaning, the materials formed within the confines of an impact-related event exhibit a Size Limitation. The same process as Hailstones falling in your yard. All of the pieces developed from the same process and each hailstone will always be a similar size as the one next to it.
Iron-Rich Concretions have no size limit. It's purely dependent upon the chemical nucleation via particles and water/liquid transfer. The size limit should vary widely, with some the size of a coin, and some the size of a bowling ball or larger. Concretions also contain an abundant amount of the host constituent, usually (Si) Silicon Rock. How would an object achieve 95% pure Iron Particles under those terrestrial-concretionary circumstances?
Please correct me if I'm wrong regarding any of this data.
Figure 2: Showing a rare "in situ" example of the iron material in question, embedded within a gray stone matrix, and a broken/sliced sample, both exhibiting a radial crystalline structure. This photo illustrates and promotes the ultimate question.
Did the Iron-Rich Sample form inside the gray rock matrix via water flow, or was it deposited there by other circumstances?
That's the real question here. Is it not?
Figure 3: A 60x view exhibiting black glassy micro-particles interpreted as micro-tektites from the gray rock matrix featured in Figure 2 (above). Such evidence is a common diagnostic feature well-studied within the field of asteroid impact-related science.
Figure 4: Reveals a shocked melt vein exhibiting (PDFs) planar deformation features (from figure 2 sample), a diagnostic feature "only" found and observed within impact-related and generated events involving extreme heat/pressure on the materials involved.
Does this conclusively prove the Iron sample was involved and created during an asteroid impact event? Well, it should certainly "suggest" it. However, one more important question should be promoted. If the Iron sample was deposited within a rock matrix showing clear and definitive signs of high-pressure impact-related shock, does the Iron-Rich Material also show signs/evidence of High Pressure Shock Deformation?
It's a fair observational scientific question, and yes...it does.
Figure 5: Showing a 60x view of the radial crystalline structure of the Iron Samples in questions. The structure shows evidence of "Iron Deformation Twinning" and "Shear Faulting," a feature only observed within High-Pressure experiments conducted in iron alloy research. Google it and tell me it ain't so.
Well, I've presented my case and I'm curios as to what the interpretations and replies will be.