Possible broken/"throwaway" stone bowl

USNFLYR

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
292
Reaction score
417
Golden Thread
0
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
5279B444-A7F5-47E6-855B-484B67412FAE.webp1EA7780D-B42E-4DFC-93AA-01478C0C0A8D.webp0404F56D-170C-474D-8586-B4BAA5D29FA5.webp6DE25EDC-7C86-4D0A-A1F4-177FDFE9691D.webp
52429548-8047-42E1-838C-08E38A2755D7.webp

Once again I seek out the advice of the many Native American relic collectors to see if I stumbled
On something "collectible". On my latest low tide stroll along a small tributary to the Columbia River I found this river rock. I believe the stone was a failed attempt of a bowl/mortar that broke apart during the chiseling phase. The bottom is flat. The outer (rim) is rounded and smooth. The surface of the indented inner rim is rough, angled and conforms to the circular outer rim. I note some spiked chips (like serrated teeth) that MAY BE the area of the break. The clean fracture could’ve also come from an accidental drop?

This sub thread has very gracious members that seem to respond with advice and solutions. I hope that tradition continues...and thanks in advance for anyone that chimes in!
 

Last edited:
Upvote 0
Hey friend. Just my observations. The inside of the "bowl" does not look wallowed out and polished enough from usage to me. It looks like a layer just eroded off or detached in some natural manner. The outer sides look smooth from water wear. I'll always consider other opinions but it looks natural to me. Like you, I would certainly have given it a good once over before I left it where I found it!
 

Hey friend. Just my observations. The inside of the "bowl" does not look wallowed out and polished enough from usage to me. It looks like a layer just eroded off or detached in some natural manner. The outer sides look smooth from water wear. I'll always consider other opinions but it looks natural to me. Like you, I would certainly have given it a good once over before I left it where I found it!
 

Thanks. I also do not see any wear in the inner areas or side walls. My theory is the bowl was never completed so that surface hadn’t yet been worn down. I am not sure the methodology the tribal people used. Did they search for perfect rocks, find the correct rock for a purpose (mortar/anchor/net weight etc) and begin the hard chore of chiseling to form it? This stone is very flat at the base and sides rounded. It would be ideal to transform it into a bowl.

I do see three places where it broke. 1) Small section at tip 2) long fracture length wise and 3) upper area. The fractures are not eroded or weathered. I found the stone half buried in a bank, so I surmise the river did not act on the edges.

It in fact could be natural. But I’ll keep researching as the remaining circular (bowl) looks to have been worked. Intriguing. Hopefully other experts can chime in too.

Thanks again!
 

Last edited:
It does appear that it may have been an early stage bowl...discarded upon break. Maybe seek out other examples.
 

I did find some examples of broken mortar/grinding/matate stones but most were broken off after years of service. I did research on the way Native Americans made stone tools, etc. They generally started the act of hammering and chiseling at quarry sites then brought them back to their settlements to do the final work of smoothing edges etc. The area I found this is near a shoreline that only has basaltic boulders and rocks. So maybe they quarried rocks nearby?

Below is a link that shows other (SW) Native Stones that have broken. I can’t post photos due to copyright warning.

https://quarriesandbeyond.org/states/ca/structures/ca-san_diego_mission_7_a_indian_displays.html
 

In my part of the country metates were formed solely by grinding. They found a rock of a suitable diameter so didn't have to chip anything out. Mocajetes on the other hand, appear to have involved some chipping.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom