True!

WP shows disappointingly at "Dorchester pot", with the OP's source in full, that the simplest explanation is just mistransmission of the finding data, providing evidence of the pot being 19th-century in origin. As I said there is not a direct YEC explanation for finding human artifacts within granite. Since Scientific American said the results were being submitted to verification we can infer any such process ended in quiet rejection. Also it's probable based on custody that the OP photo is not that of the artifact. In those days of course Scientific American could still get away with attributing the pot to Tubal-Cain! (He's the man for whom the modern Hebrew name is now "Vulcan".)

I'll plug again that it's worth reading the "Pleochroic halo" article in WP, which makes no reference to the difficulty making any mainstream explanation of the effect work, and then searching for articles on particularly the polonium halos that show the difficulty. There you have something in granite that didn't get there by simple means. But recapitulating those physics is beyond my scope today. Verbum sat.

(Add: I also see that John D. Morris, whom I greatly respect, has suggested backing off from insistence that the Paluxy tracks are necessarily human, as there is a strong battle over custody of those evidences as well and over erosional changes, so I cannot affirm this particular evidence other than to say the whole history of that discovery needs further investigation for resolution of loose ends.)