#1. An Ancient Trading Post?
          (An unfinished study)

           Three interrelated reports that relate to the tentative hypothesis are included in this document:    #1a) A description of the site plus a statement and evaluation of the tentative hypothesis;  #1b) The glyph-bearing stones;  and #1c) The holey stones [that were atop the rubble blanket at Boat Harbor].  These reports are preliminary in that additional data continues to be sought by this ever-aging nonagenarian.

Introduction.  Since coming to Gros Cap in October 2009, a number of residents of Mackinac and Chippewa counties, which constitute the eastern part of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, have had me identify rocks that they have collected. Most of those rocks have been stones picked up from glacial, glacio-fluvial, or beach deposits within these counties.  One of those specimens, a glyph-bearing loose rock -- i.e., a stone – led to the research and the hypothesis that is tentatively suggested in Report #1 of this tripartite document.   

              Activities that led to preparing these reports can be chronicled as follows: Photography and study of the  glyph-bearing stone, which was found atop rubble on the shore of Boat Harbor;  several visits to the site  –  most along with  others who joined the search for additional specimens;  investigation of the literature, including maps and aerial photographs of the area;  contacting people familiar with the history of area to see if they, or anyone they knew, had possibly pertinent oral historical information about the site;  field checks and collecting in nearby areas with similar rubble ground-covers or possibly related bedrock;  discussing, with several people, mostly via email, facts and fancies about my data, preliminary conclusions and speculations.

               Readers of this report, now anticipated to be an ongoing study, should keep in mind, especially while reviewing Report #1a, the fact that neither my education nor my professional activities have been in the fields of glyphology or archaeology. – Professionals in those fields will, of course, readily recognize the need for this disclaimer.

Report #1A. Boat Harbor:  Description and Tentative Hypothesis about its "ancient" role

The site (Location and Description)

        Location.  Boat Harbor is in the southeastern part of Poupard Bay, in the NW¼ of sec. 5, T.40N. - R.4W.,  Moran Township,  Mackinac County, Michigan.    Although  it is often not readily accessible by road, the near-shore area is only ~0.25 mile southwest of the northern junction of Gros Cap Road and Michigan Route 2 – i.e., approximately six miles (as the crow flies) west-northwest of Saint Ignace.   Per Google Earth, the central part of the area has the following coordinates:  45^o53'42.89"N. Latitude   and   84^o50'25.68"W. Longitude;  its elevation  is given as 579 feet (177 meters) above MSL  See Figure #1A-1.

Figure #1A-1. Location of Boat Harbor.  The left, regional map shows the shoreline from northwest of Epoufette (upper left) southeastward to the Straits of Mackinac -- i.e., to the northern end of “Big Mac” bridge (lower right of center).  These two maps depict only the general shape of the current coastline, a shape that has changed and continues to be modified, sometimes rather markedly, with only small changes of the water level of Lake Michigan.  During July of 2016, about 90 percent of the Boat Harbor rubble blanket was above the level of Lake Michigan;  breaking storm waves, however, now and then reduced that percentage, though seldom by any noteworthy amount.  Contrariwise, during most of 2017, much of the area was below the water level of both calm and rough conditions.   

        Description.  A typical part of the rubble, as it appeared in 2016 is shown as Figure #1A-2a.

         Figure #1A-2b.  Selected atypical fragments from the rubble.   Note in particular:  The diverse shapes of the fragments of dolomite*1-1*/  –  [Throughout this report, the preceding indication  –  i.e., * X */ with a numberical indication replacing the X – will indicate the occurrence of  a  footnote;  this one (1-1) is on the following page].   Notice especially  1. the fact that the edges and larger surfaces of these fragments are less abraded than most of the fragments of the typical”

---------------------------------------------
Footnote   1-1. This designation (i.e., dolomite), actually a mineral name, is used throughout this report rather than dolostone, a more appropriate rock name, because the mineral name has been, and continues to be, widely applied to sedimentary rocks that consist wholly, or largely, of the mineral dolomite.  Although some of the dolomite loose rocks (i.e., stones)  that constitute a large percentage of the fragments of the rubble blankets at Boat Harbor and nearby areas contain noteworthy calcite, all are referred to as dolomite in this tripartite report.
 --------------------------------------------- 

            Although the dolomite fragments range from granule to boulder size, most of them are of pebble and small cobble size.  In terms of roundness, these fragments range from angular to well-rounded, with a large percentage of them angular to subangular with all or most of their edges slightly rounded and their other surfaces abraded.  Diverse sphericities -- i.e., shapes – occur:  Some of them are roughly discoidal or subprismatic;  others are so irregularly shaped that they can hardly be described by words.  Most of the fragments are light tan or light gray;  the surfaces of some of them, however, include dark brown spots and/or a partial to complete coating;  indeed, parts of most of the fragments that are beneath bordering or otherwise overhanging trees and bushes are stained, apparently as the result of changes imposed by solutions that “dripped” from the overgrowth. 

           Differences that led to the out-of-place appearance of the holey stones, as well as of the large glyph-bearing stone, seemed at first to depend upon lithological differences between the holey stones and the so-to-speak typical fragments of the rubble that blanketed the site.  Later, however, additional information and considerations relating to these stones led to a quite different explanation – i.e., these holey stones, as well as the glyph-bearing stones, were likely brought to the area by humans.  This conclusion, granted tentative, is based on the following information and considerations: 

A.   No glyph-bearing stones like those found at Boat Harbor   

are known to have been found elsewhere within the region -- see Report #1B.

Explanation (Tentative hypothesis)

                   The second tenet -- i.e., the presence of these stones at the site supports the suggestion that the site was a trading post – needs to be established, or at least considered to be a good possibility.  However, if that identity is accepted as possible, the time or times that the site had such a role remain in question.  Perhaps future research will provide pertinent data.  Currently, the only apparently acceptable statement relating to the time frame is:  The “trading post” was present post-Pleistocene and pre-local recorded or known history.  The number of times it was present is unknown.  One could, of course, make a case for multiple times based on the differences of the two or three apparently different characteristics and occurrences of the diverse glyph-bearing specimens as well as the differences between all those specimens and the holey stones.  I shall not.

Supporting Data
            The above tentative conclusion, which has both the glyph-bearing and holey stones brought into the Boat Harbor area by humans, is based on the following empirical evidence and considerations: 

                           2. The presence of several holey stones – i.e., those described in Report #3 – atop or within this rubble deposit, whereas none, or only one or two, that even roughly resemble these holey stones were found to occur within any nearby rubble deposit *1-3*/.

---------------------------------------------
Footnote  1-3. Similar nearby rubble “deposits” were examined in July and August of 2016:  Each of the accumulations was either awash Lake Michigan or only a few feet from, and above, the then-existing shoreline.  Those rubbles are located sporadically along Lake Michigan between the marshland southeast of Pointe aux Chenes and “Sand Bay,” which is near the northern end of Boulevard Drive, about one half mile south of its junction with Pte. LaBarbe Road. 

---------------------------------------------
                      3. The general consensus that the patterns on the glyph-bearing stones were incised by humans (see Report #1B). 
                          4. The conjecture that the holey stones must have had some use (e.g., to produce something) or intrinsic characteristics that made them something to be possessed.   Either of those roles would provide at least subjective support for the possibility that these holey stones were brought to this harbor by humans. This aspect is treated further in Report #3, subsection Why were these holey stones brought to Boat Harbor?.]
                          5. An additional fact that seems to be of particular importance so far as the use of Boat Harbor in the past, was brought to mind by a critical reader:    

Boat Harbor was, until fairly recently (i.e., before dredging and building of relatively large docks here and there within the area), one of a few – perhaps the only  – place between the Straits of Mackinac and Epoufette (See Fig. #1a-1) where near-shore water depths could serve watercrafts other than, for example, canoes.           But, even though this is true, only a cursory examination of charts of today’s near shore line and topographic maps of this area and of Google Earth aerial  photographic views of the area and adjoining region indicate the existence of several rather diverse former shorelines, some of which might have had other near shore, deeper water.  So, if the tentatively suggested hypothesis has any applicability, it would appear to follow that this suggested “trading post” most likely existed at times when the shoreline was not greatly different from that of the current shoreline. 

                           6. The preceding information and inquiries made about it led to my being told that the remains of a crib is on the bottom of the bay about fifty feet directly northwest of the area where the glyph-bearing and holey stones were found.  Son-in-law Bob Brown found that they are six to eight feet (~two to three meters) below the present water level of Lake Michigan, and also that a sub-lake ledge is just shoreward from the remains.  These relations seem to indicate that when used (apparently as part of a dock) Lake Michigan may have been several feet below any measured former lake levels;  if this premise is true, use of the dock would seem to predate (local) historical times.  [Next summer I shall try to get more information about this structure -- perhaps some dateable hardware or possibly part of the wood can be collected and dated by dendrochronology.]

                           7.  A rust (limonite)-coated stone (see Fig. #1a-5) was found in the same part of the Boat Harbor rubble blanket as the glyph-bearing and holey stones.   To date, no explanation of  its origin has been found to be plausible;  perhaps it had something to do with metal working , . . .  [This item, perhaps better an add-on,  may have no real place on this list.  That said, it is here, though it may relate better to items 1 and 2.]                     

       Figure #1A-5.  A rust (limonite)-coated  stone found atop the Boat Harbor rubble blanket.  Left, the bottom, as found;  Center, the top, as found; . Right, a sawn and polished surface. – According to X-ray analysis, the stone consists largely of white to off-white quartz and plagioclase feldspar plus some illite, and a dark green-black amphibole (George Robinson, personal communication, 27 February 2017).  The origins of this rock and its external coating are not known. . [As the Lincoln pennies indicate, the polished surface is shown at a scale that differs from that of the two originally exposed surfaces of this specimen.] 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS for all three reports

            Caroline B. Cheeseman found the larger glyph-bearing stone.  Krista D(ietrich) Brown found the smaller glyph-bearing stone one of the times when she and her husband, Robert B. Brown, took me to Boat Harbor;  Krista also helped me collect holey stones while there.  Kurt R. Dietrich spent several days helping me navigate and searching for additional glyph-bearing and holey stones in the Boat Harbor and nearby rubble-blanketed areas.  Richard S. Dietrich helped me navigate the rubble deposit where figures #1a-3 and #1a-4 were photographed.  Reed Wicander, Adjunct Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia and Professor emeritus, Central Michigan University, identified the fossil shown in the Addendum.  David D. Ginsburg, Research Librarian and Professor emeritus, Central Michigan University, formatted the cited references.  Reed and David also furnished literature not readily available to me at this remote location.  James J. Brown, Jr., Krista D. Brown, Robert B. Brown, Robert T. Butka, Kurt R. Dietrich, Richard S. Dietrich, John K. Evashevski, Lucy A. Evashevski, Craig A. Gibson, David D. Ginsburg, Daniel R. McGuire, and Reed Wicander critically read and/or discussed the content of one or more of the preliminary versions of each of the three parts of this tripartite report and/or a short version that included information included in  these reports. 
                        I gratefully acknowledge their contributions.          

References cited

Dietrich, R.V. 1988.  The Geological History of Beaver Island.   Journal of Beaver Island History, 3:59-77. 

Hough, J. L. 1958.  Geology of the Great Lakes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 313p. 

Whitney, G.D.  1997. Soil survey of Mackinac County, Michigan. Part 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Resources Conservation Service
  (accessed 22 January 2017)

Report #1B. The glyph-bearing stones from Boat Harbor, Gros Cap, Michigan   

Identity of these stones

           The glyph-bearing stones are dolomite.  To date, the formations from which they came has not been established.  The two of these stones, which are shown in Figures #1b -1a & 1b, were found in 2016,  The larger one was atop the rubble blanket at Boat Harbor, the smaller one partly in, but mostly out of, the rubble.

          In September 2017, two additional glyph-bearing stones were found as fragments within the rubble that was continuous with rubble blanket but a few feet farther from the shore at Boat Harbor.  These glyph-bearing stones  (See Fig. #1B-2) are the specimens referred to as anomalies in Report #1 (page 10, line 9).  That designation relates to the fact that both their characteristics and their occurrences differ from those of the first found glyph-bearing specimens:  They are smaller  (see Fig.2-2);  their shapes are similar to the shapes of the “typical” rubble fragments;  the characteristics of their incised patterns, especially of the larger one, differ from those of the glyph-bearing specimens found in 2016;  [and]  these 2017 specimens occurred as integral parts of the rubble.  One wonders if these specimens may have been so-to-speak “throwaways” or perhaps fragments that were broken off larger fragments, discarded, and subsequently  easily incorporated into the rubble proper.  Many alternatives, some involving time and originators of the inscriptions, can be made;  until more information about the incised forms becomes known, none of the alternatives seems worth recording.

[Note:  Although neither of the following bits of information seems directly related to the glyph-bearing stones treated in this report, both occurrences seem noteworthy here: 

               1. On May 4, 2017, a newspaper report dated May 7, 1892 was republished  (Anon., 2017) that records the discovery of a “flat and diamond shaped [stone ...;] on one side are hieroglyphics, which present the appearance of having been made by human hands” during  digging of a ditch near the St. Ignace Court house.  To date, I have found no additional information about this stone.

     2. In mid-August, 2016, I was told that a stone with “hieroglyphics” on it had been found by Brevort Lake resident Robert Frazer in rubble at a quarry that is about one mile east of, and 170 feet (52 meters) higher than Boat Harbor.  Frazer actually had two specimens (see Fig. #1B-3).  As can be seen, the inscriptions on each of these stones differ markedly from those on the Boat Harbor specimens.  It seems  that any bearing these stones have on the tentatively suggested hypothesis (Report #1), is moot.

Who incised the patterns?

              The fact that the “incised” *2-1*/ surfaces of the Boat Harbor specimens have undergone weathering and erosion makes definitive statements about their original characteristics speculative.   In addition, no fragments of “tools” – e.g.,
---------------------------------------- 

Footnote    2-1.  “incised” is used in this report to indicate mode of formation of the following patterns that characterize the glyph-bearing” surfaces of these rocks. It should not be considered to indicate any particular mode of formation – e.g., the use of tools versus etching. 
----------------------------------------               

            An expert glyphologist might be able to say several definitive things about these surfaces – e.g., who may have made them, when they were made, and their intent/function(s).  --  [To date, no contacted glyphologist has opted to look at these specimens.]

Figure #1B-4a. Features within the circles and ovals appear NOT to resemble forms known to be natural. (photo by Caroline Cheeseman)

               Figure #1B-4c. Close-ups that feature a few of the diverse, albeit eroded, edges of the “incised” lines on these stones.

               Figure #1B-4d.   A roughly similar pattern that is on both specimens: 

                  Left, part of the larger specimen;   center, part of the smaller specimen.  These two are shown at the same scale in these photographs.    

                  Right, enlargement of the center photo and its surrounding area.  -- This is included to facilitate comparison of, for example, the lower ends of the “characters” and the surrounding rectilinear “frames” of the smaller specimen with those of the larger glyph-bearing specimen, as shown on the left.

                  Internet searches were made (in 2016) using images and keywords, both individually and in combination, to see if any similarly appearing surfaces were recorded on-line.  The following were among the “hits” made during the searches, followed by a clause that relates to overall differences or similarities between their patterns and those on the Boat Harbor glyph-bearing stones:   Early Sumerian Cuneiform (dated 8,000-3,000 BCE) – some of these patterns (including both 

---------------------------------------------
Footnotes  2-2.  A.  Images of the preceding “glyphs” are available on-line.  No particular reference, other than the one given, seems to warrant citation here.  

                                B. Comments in this paragraph do not refer to the specimens shown in Figure #1B-3.

---------------------------------------------

What was the function of the glyph-bearing stones found at Boat Harbor?
             To date, no function for these stones that seems noteworthy has come to mind or been suggested by anyone who has seen these specimens or photographs of them.   
                More than a year after the preceding paragraph was written, David Ginsburg (personal communication, email – dated 28 August 2017),  a critical reader of an earlier manuscript of this report, directed my attention to an article by Albaz et al. (2017) and suggested that the Bar Harbor glyph-bearing stones might have been part of a board game.  This led to reminisces of my small home town which included not only a general store but also a "pool hall", which were activity hubs of that town, and led me to the following question:   If the holey stones described in Report #3 were marketed, could these glyph-bearing stones have been used as game boards or for keeping scores in a neighboring “game parlor” at the hypothesized trading post?  (Certainly both such enterprises might well be located at such a place!).  Further considerations, however, have led me to think that the original patterns on these glyph-bearing stones seem likely to have been too intricate for such use.  Consequently, although it seems prudent to mention this possibility, it also is something that I have neither the knowledge nor background to pursue further.

            Two, so-to-speak, interrelated, questions appear to pertain:   Does each line, ‘character’ or section of the pattern on the larger glyph-bearing stone have a meaning?       OR      Alternatively, does the whole surface of the specimen constitute an image that depicts some entity?

           The immediate answer to the each line or ‘character’ possibility seems to be NO!, at least not one that can be translated.  This opinion is based largely on characteristics of the lines (See Figs. #1B-4b & 4c) and the presence of so much apparent repetition.  [Granted, the original, incised surface may have exhibited characteristics, now weathered and eroded away, that would have indicated otherwise.  Also, one must admit that even using only the currently available surface, any imaginative story teller (I think of my Grandfather Vincent and his reputation along this line) might very well come up with one or more interesting “translations.”]  

References Cited

Albz, Shira,  Shai, Itzhaq,  Haskel, J.G., and Maeir, A.M.   2017.  Board games in biblical Gath.  Biblical Archaeology Review 43(5):22, 68.

Anon.  2017.   Looking Back [125 years ago], The St. Ignace News,  Saturday, May 7, 1892]  The St. Ignace News, May 4, 2017., p. 20.

Dietrich, R.V.  2017.  Do You See What I See? – Rocks, minerals, wood, clouds and a peach pit.  Ripon,WI:the author.   120p.

Miragaya, Karel.  2015.  Ancient Sumerian cuneiform writing engraved in a stone.  123RF.  <http://www.123rf.com/photo_3302013_stock-photo.html>.  (accessed 29 December 2015).  

Report #1C. The holey stones from Boat Harbor, Gros Cap, Michigan   

Notes:

        The main part of this report is about the holey stones that were found atop, or in part within the rubble-blanket at Boat Harbor and how this occurrence is thought to relate to the tentatively suggested hypothesis given in Report #1A – i.e., the possibility that an onshore area south of Boat Harbor may have been a trading post one or more times in the so-to-speak ancient past.

          While preparing this report, certain aspects of holey stones as a group seemed also to warrant consideration: The Appendix to this Report (#3) includes two of them – i.e., a brief, probably applicable geological history that relates to the holey stones and conclusions related to the origin of the Boat Harbor stones.  Two others -- 1. A list of previously recorded synonyms of holey stone.   and   2. A brief review and evaluation of or comments about suggestions previously recorded for the formation of holey stones that are at least roughly similar to those collected at Boat Harbor – which seem not worth publication;  a copy of these can be sent to anyone who requests them. 

Definition

            The designation of holey stone, as used in this document, is strictly descriptive – i.e., no origin of these stones (other than their being of natural occurrence) is included or implied. 

 
         Figure #1C-1.  Four differently shaped holey stone cobbles from Boat Harbor:  The scale is a 12 inch ruler;  the third dimension (i.e., perpendicular to the main surfaces, as shown) for these stones is  ~2 inches (~5 cm).  A. irregular shape, well-rounded edges;   B. sub-prismoidal, rounded edges;   C. ovoidal shape;   D. roughly discoidal shape, rounded edges. [These stones have been washed and brushed with plastic bristles.]  

Figure #1C-2.  The two sides of specimen D Figure #3-1.  This specimen could have been easily spotted and collected for this study regardless of which one of these two surfaces was exposed.

Why, how, and when did these holey stones get to Boat Harbor?  

        These questions arose as a consequence of the conclusion, albeit speculative, that these stones did NOT get to Boat Harbor as the result of natural transport.  

    Why? This question, stated otherwise is:  What activity or activities may

account for the presence of the more than a score of holey stones at Boat Harbor?  –  Two possible answers seem obvious:  1. These stones were dumped there.  OR 

2. They were brought to the site for some particular on-site use and/or because they had some intrinsic value and were brought here to market to those who stopped at the harbor.  As noted in Report #1a, the possibility that the holey stones were dumped at the site seems highly unlikely.  Therefore, the just alluded-to alternatives – i.e., these stones were brought there to use and/or to market –  warrant special consideration.

           So far as  possibile use of the stones on the site:  For untold ages, humans and other primates as well as several other animals, including birds, have used stones – e.g., as hammerstones and as the anvils upon which nuts (etc.) were placed to facilitate their cracking. [For early literature relating to this use see Ritchie (1929), and, so far as the Boat Harbor holey stones, see also Gray & Pape (2016).]   Indeed, holey stones similar to those found at Boat Harbor are said to have been used widely by Amerindians – e.g., the Ojibways and Hurons of this general region – to remove the shells of acorns, which they harvested and used as a staple of their diets (see Figure #1C-3);  they ate the “meat” of the acorns and extracted the acorns’ oils, which they used in, for example, cooking  [see, for example, Kuhnlein & Turner (1991, after Waug (1916, p.122-123)].  

The marketing possibility appears to fit the data better.  Among other things, it seems more likely that the Boat Harbor holey stones would have been abandoned by only one or so marketers than by a couple dozen or so workers, who would have apparently had to have abandoned their tools (i.e., their anvils, which would have been part of their very livelihood) virtually simultaneously – Granted, such a larger group could have been raided, ... or perhaps even shanghaied, . . .

     How? If either or both of the just mentioned possibilities obtained, the answer to this question is:  These holey stones were brought to Boat Harbor by Humans.  – Indeed, it is this previously stated conclusion, which seems best to explain the presence of these holey stones, as well as of the first two found glyph-bearing stones at Boat Harbor, that led to the introduction of the tentative hypothesis given in Report #1 – i.e., the  Boat Harbor site was a trading post one or more times during the past.

      When? No information has been found to indicate the time or times when the tentatively suggested “trading post” may have existed.   It seems safe only to say that it was post-Pleistocene glaciation, and pre-recorded and currently found oral local history.  The post-Pleistocene limit is based on the presence of glacially transported stones within the rubble;   [. . . *3-8*/];  [. . . *3-9*/];  the pre-recorded history limit speaks for itself.

------------------------------------------
Footnotes   3-8. Perhaps information about the holey stones found in Adams County, Ohio, which closely resemble those found at Bar Harbor, bears on this question.  Those

                      3-9. As previously noted (Report #1, page 9), the remains of a crib, the top of which is 6 to 8 feet (2 to 3 meters)below the present water level  of Lake Michigan, is about 50 feet (~15 meters) directly northwest of the area where the glyph-bearing and holey stones were found.  The following additional information about that former structure seems to support the pre-recorded (local) history date:  A nonagenarian has indicated that he frequently went swimming within the area as a youngster and does not recall even hearing about either the use or presence of any dock of which the crib remains would have been a part.  So, it seems quite possible that this former dock, if it was such, may have been used well before local historical times. 

REFERENCES CITED      

Gray & Pape. 2016.  How Do You Crack a Nut?. < http://graypape.com/how-do-you-crack-a-nut/ >  (accessed 31 January 2015).

Kuhnlein, H.V. and N.J. Turner. 1991.  Oaks. Traditional plant foods of Canadian indigenous peoples: Nutrition, botany and use. Food and nutrition in History and  Anthropology.  Amsterdam:Gordon and Breach  (Vol. 8, pp. 199-201).        
      <https://books.google.com/books?id=fPDErXqH8YYC&pg=PA199>(accessed 1 January 2016).

Ritchie, W.A.  1929.  Hammerstones, anvils and certain bitted stones.  Researches and transactions of the New York State Archeological Association. VII(No.2):29p.

Waugh, F. W. 1916.  Iroquis [sic] foods and food preparation.  Canada Geological survey Memoir 86, Anthropological series no.12.  Ottawa : Government Printing Bureau.  266p.  < http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924101546921/cu31924101546921_djvu.txt >  (accessed 4 December 2016).

Appendix.

Geological history relating to the Boat Harbor holey stones.

           Readily available evidence, some of which is speculative, appears to support the following geological history for the Boat Harbor holey stones:  

                   Deposition of parent *3-1*/ sediment in a northern part of the marine Michigan Basin  –  probably Late Silurian (~460-415 MYA *3-2*/).
                   Lithification – including dolomitization (diagenetic?) of those sediments   – (pre ~390 MYA).
                   Collapse of the above and associated rocks into subsurface “voids” to form the Mackinac Breccia  –  pre-Early Devonian (Dundee)  (~380 MYA) -- [Dissolution of Silurian Salina salt appears to have created the voids.]

                   Exposure of the “parent” rocks, including those within the Mackinac Breccia, to weathering and erosion, with separation of masses of the “parent” rocks from outcrops and incorporation of the loosened fragments into moving water – (~300 MYA).
                   Boring of the holes in the loose rocks that are now holey stones  – (~? ? ? MYA *3-3*/ ).      
                   Abrasion of the hole-bearing fragments  – (~? ? ? MYA *3-3*/  to present).

---------------------------------------------
Footnotes    3-1. Parent – this term, used as an adjective, refers to the sediment, the resulting lithified rock that became the holey-stones that are treated in this report, and the extended use – e.g., parent rocks – for the Lower Paleozoic associated formations.
                      3-2.  MYA – Million years ago.

---------------------------------------------

The above possible history notwithstanding, to date, the time(s) when the holes were bored into their host rocks, now loose stones, has not been established. It is only known that during this study no fragments of these rocks that contain such holes were found within the Mackinac Breccia*3-4*/ or in nearby exposures of the parent formations.  These apparent absences, at least permissively, support the conclusion that the holes were bored after the fragments were freed from outcrops of their “parent” formation and/or from rubble fragments of those parent rocks that were within the Mackinac Breccia.  This likelihood is supported by the fact that most of these holey stones have holes on both their top and bottom surfaces.
----------------------------------------
Footnote   3-4. Localities where constituents of the Mackinac Breccia were examined, as given on Google Earth, follow:  St. Anthony’s Stack near downtown St. Ignace (45º 53’ 04.59”N. – 83º43’34.90” W.);   unnamed masses on the western side of North State Street (Rte. B75), St. Ignace (45º53’05.64”N.–84º43’33.12”W.);  and  Gros Cap Rock, two localities northwest of St. Ignace  – Rest Stop on Rte. 2  (45º 53’ 02.16”N. – 84º50’08.69”W.) and along the eastern side of Gros Cap Road  (~ 45º 53’ 01.65”N. – 84º50’13.06”W.). 
----------------------------------------
How were the holes of these holey stones formed?

                     To date, the origin(s) of the holes of the holey stones found at Boat Harbor has(have) not been proved.  The possibility that they were formed by some boring creature – e.g., a boring clam – and subsequently modified by weathering and abrasion seems best to fit the facts.  Two alternatives that seem also to warrant further consideration are:  1. Borings by other invertebrates and  2. Differential weathering of, for example, a halite (salt) bearing dolomite. 

                              1. Other Mollusca (e.g., moon snails), and certain arthropods,  sponges, sea urchins, and worms, are known to have bored holes in sediments and/or rocks [see Frey (1975), Miller (2007), and Seilacher (2007)].  In addition, Weaver (2015), for example, has reported that “Some snails – particularly moon snails – soften a clam’s shell by using a boring organ that produces hydrochloric

acid, enzymes and other substances; [and]  subsequently, the snail rasps the softened clam shell with a hard plate called a radula, and a circular hole” is formed.  Could they also have done this to calcareous rocks (e.g., this dolomite)?

                         2. Differential weathering and/or erosion is widely accepted as the process responsible for the production of surfaces such as those shown in Figure #1CAp-1:  the configurations on this and similar surfaces of this formation are thought to have resulted from dissolution of masses (e.g., of gypsum) that were crystallized from solutions and deposited along with the enclosing calcareous sediment;  the surface shown, like many of them now found , also exhibit subsequent weathering and erosion. This mode of formation and subsequent history has also been suggested to have been been the originiation of holey-rocks that are similar to those found at Boat Harbor (Ehlers and Kesling, 1957, p. 5-6);  by implication the probable dissolved mineral matter was apparently thought to have been either halite crystals or globules.  This possible origin is considered unlikely, though not absolutely precluded, as the mode of formation of the holey stones found at Boat Harbor,  among other things,fresh cross-sections were made of two holey stone specimens, and neither was found to include any enclosed masses of halite or any other mineral that would have led to this mode of formation.

            Figure #1Cap-1.  Late Silurian-age Saint Ignace Dolomite (Bass Islands Group).  It is widely accepted that these surface features were formed as the result of dissolution of crystals of, for example, gypsum that were included within the original sediment.

---------------------------------------------------
Footnote    3-5. One feature, in particular, of these holey stones appears not only to support this conclusion, but also to indicate that the parent fragments were then in moving water:  Nearly all of the holes in these stones are on both sides of the stone’s two larger surfaces – i.e., their probable tops or bottoms whenever they were at rest, during any transport or, for example, now and then moved by breaking waves.  This  fact, if considered along with the widely accepted, above outlined, geological history of the region, indicates that the holes were likely formed when the fragments were in a non-marine environment.  In addition, it seems to follow, that at least some of the abrasion of these stones also occurred during the same general period although it seems that at least some of the abrasion has taken place more recently; indeed, it is occurring at least intermittently even now!
---------------------------------------------------- 

             It seems only prudent to direct attention to the fact that the above tentative conclusion about the origin of the holes of the holey stones found at Boat Harbor leads to an apparently troubling enigma:  According to malacologists and paleontologists whom I have contacted, boring clams are not known in freshwater environments or as fossils within sedimentary rocks that are known to have a freshwater precursor sediment.  This, despite the fact that the caption for a sketch in Moore, Lalicker & Fischer (1952, Fig.10-2) includes the following: “Burrowing types of pelecypods. A majority of this group of clams burrows in the soft mud, silt, or sand beneath shallow seas or on the floor of fresh-water bodies.”  And, the sketch includes a burrowing clam, “Pholas,” in rock. *3-6*/. 
----------------------------------------
Footnote   3-6. The following facts and comments pertain:  
                               Boring clams have been recorded as existing in rocks from  marine environments since Ordovician time (Miller, 2007, p.363). 
                              “Interesting that no references I’m aware of since 1952 mention freshwater boring clams.  I would think someone would have.  Perhaps Moore et al. was just making a general statement?  [and] I don’t think you can use the sketch as evidence of a freshwater environment.  I think it was just a general sketch.”  (Wicander, personal communication, 23 January 2017)

----------------------------------------
Notes:            As a “hard rock” petrologist, I leave the above, apparent lack of agreements, etc.to professional malacologists, paleontologists et al. to resolve.

                           The fact that a very high percentage of the literature about, for example, Paleozoic strata, is based on marine environments, might account for the lack of information about non-marine hole-boring invertebrates, if such ever did exist. 

                           Tangential research that might have led to information related to post-hole-formation environments that these rocks were in can be summarized:

           More than 500 holes in the holey stones from Boat Harbor were examined under magnification.  Nothing noteworthy was found in any of them.  Two other stones from the site, both of which have holes in them, were subsequently collected, similarly examined, and found to have something in one or more of their holes:   One of those stones, a rather typical rubble fragment, both size- and shape-wise, has several relatively small holes, some of which are coated as shown and described on Figure #3-4, A,  The other, a holey stone, which is petrographically like the typical holey stones of the site but it is shaped more like rounded stream cobbles, has two of several typical holes, one of which includes the features shown on  Figure #3-4, B).  To date, the identities of these included materials have not been determined;  I do not have the availability of the required laboratory setup.    More later, I hope!   

Figure #1Cap-4.    A. The width of the top of this hole is ~5/8^th inch (~1.6 cm.).  The vertical arrow points to the area shown in the closeup;  the small inset at the top is for those who see the larger photograph as a dome rather than a hole.  Similar growths are elsewhere on the fragment, both in a few nearby holes and sporadically on other surfaces.

                         B.  The hole in which the objects shown occur has a diameter of ~13/16 ^th inch (~ 2 cm) and a depth of  ~3/4^th  inch (~ 1.8 cm).  The longest dimension of the “growth,” that consists of two parts, each of which roughly resembles a barnacle, is approximately 3/16 ^th of an inch (~4 mm).  

                 Neither of these materials was identifiable by a professional biologist or a professional paleontologist who examined the specimens and the photographs, respectively.

REFERENCES CITED      

Ehlers, G.M. and R.V. Kesling.   1957.    Silurian Rocks of Michigan and their Correlation.
     <https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/48577/ID435.pdf >  {accessed 5 September 2017) 20p.

Frey, R.W. (editor). 1975.  The study of trace fossils: A synthesis of principles, problems, and procedures in ichnology. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Landes, K. K., Ehlers, G.M. and G.M. Stanley. 1945.  Geology of the Mackinac Straits Region and Sub Surface Geology of the Northern Southern Peninsula.  Michigan Geological Survey, Publication 44: Geological Series 37.  <http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/GIMDL-PU44A_302655_7.pdf >   and  <http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/GIMDL- PU44B_302676_7.pdf>    (both accessed 7 February 2016).      

Moore, R.C., Lalicker, C.G. and A.G. Fischer.  1952.  Invertebrate Fossils.  McGraw-Hill:New York.

Rosenau, J.C. 1956.  Mackinac Bridge: Final Geologic Report.  < http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/Final_Geological_Report_306059_7.pdf >  (accessed 4 January 2015

Seilacher, Adolf.  2007.  Trace fossil analysis. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.  226p.

Weaver, Trish. 2015 (July 9).  The hole truth about animals that bore.  N[orth]C[arolina] Museum of Natural Sciences Research Blog. 
     < https://naturalsciencesresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/the-hole-truth-about-animals-that-bore/ >  (accessed 17 August 2016).

 

#2. Stone "Circle" near Gamble Lake, Mackinac Co., Michigan.

DRAFT last updated November 2016

\

                

        WHAT??. 

             This "structure" is an example of accumulations of stones with similar upland locations within the area.  Each of these stone piles is considered to be an ancient artifact by the local people who know them well.  Some of these people have indicated their beliefs that the piles were likely made by, for example, neolithic "stone-age" aborigines, Celtic Druids, Vikings or pre-Columbian Native American Indians.  Whomever, it seems safe only to say that these "structures," at least this one (the only one I have examined at all closely) were made after the last removal of glacial ice from the area -- i.e., ~ 11,000 years ago. 

          The shapes and topographic locations of these accumulations of stones are frequently cited to support the hypothesis that they are meaningful artifacts -- i.e., they are not just stones that were put where they are in order to clear the nearby fields. In support of this aspect of that hypothesis, it is quite evident that the land surrounding this accumulation of stones would have never been cleared for, for example, any at all extensive farming (see the map);  also, had that been the purpose, several stones that I believe would have been removed and become part of this group would no longer remain the surrounding area -- but they do!.  In addition, it seems noteworthy that this structure is on what would have an island in during the so-called Algonquin and  Nipissing stages of the Great Lakes.  And, if only a few or no trees etc. were then present, nearby areas of the lower-level Lakes Chippewa and Stanley as well as of the more recent, and current, Lake Huron and the Straits of Mackinac could have been seen from this location. 
          One professional archaeologist is said to have looked at this group of stones and suggested that this structure represents a "post-American Civil War lime kiln."  Nothing that I have seen or been able find nearby seems to support that suggestion, and the presence and lack of certain characteristics seem possibly even to preclude this origin.  The only other suggestion that I have heard is that it may have been a place where fires were built to heat maple sap to make syrup.  Consequently, the given heading seems appropriate until the origin(s) and use(s) of this and possibly other accumulations of stones in similar settings are proved.

         For the record: The outside "circumferance" of this roughly circular structure is approximately 55 feet; the "diameters" range from about 16 to 20 feet;  the inside diameter ranges from approximately 6 to 8 feet;  the height of the wall, the top of which is roughly horizontal, ranges from about 3½ to 4½ feet above the surrounding uneven ground-level;  the "floor" of the central part is about 1½ feet above the "average" surrounding ground-level.  The constituent stones are largely "limestone" rubble but "hard-rock" boulders are also included -- see close-ups.  That is to say, both stones from the rubble of fairly nearby formations and stones transported from Ontario by glacial ice during the last "Ice Age" are included.  This makeup, of course, is one of the criteria that establishes the date of creation of the structure as post-"Ice Age" glaciation.
          The topography of the nearby area led to my thinking of this structure as roughly resembling a multi-jeweled pendant on a dowager's breast --see the section of the included (above) topographic map of the area.  As might be expected, other people who are familiar with these relationships have alternative interpretations. 

---

                      “Though they [i.e., pop-ups] form only a minor structural and topographic feature, they are rather unusual 
                         and the interest attaching to them is out of all proportions to their size and frequency.”             (H.P. Cushing , 1910)

            A pop-up, previously mentioned in an obscure publication (Dietrich, 2008, p.61) and apparent modifications of a nearby pop-up, first recorded more than a century ago (Cushing et al, 1910, p.115) are described in detail.  Questions and comments, which arose as these descriptions were recorded, are also included.
             Diverse names have been given these and similar features.  Examples, not necessarily the first uses, are:  A-tent (.....), blister (Kielosto & Aimo Kejonen, 2011), expansion dome (Lowry, 1959),geological wrinkle (Gilbert, 1887), popup (Jacobi, 2007),     ...     None of these is included in the AGI Glossary (Bates & Jackson, 1987).  Pop-up, as used herein has no genetic implication.  It's choice dates back to what I heard the Cushing structure called before I read the first report about any of these structures.  

Find reference and add it, and try to fine additional terms listed in the references cited?!!

PETROGRAPHY.  The Potsdam Sandstone within the area is described by Buddington (1934, p.179) and Dietrich (1957, p.101). The strata involved are silica-cemented, medium- to coarse-grained, well-rounded quartz sand, a few lamellae of which consist largely of hematite-coated grains.  Depending upon what nomenclature scheme is used, these rocks can be called either sandstone or orthoquartzite. 

STRATIGRAPHIC POSITION.  General stratigraphic relations and information about the variable thicknesses of this Cambro-Ordovician formation within the area are described by Cushing (1916, p.32 et seq.).

DATE OF FORMATION.  The fact that the two pop-ups were formed since the last glaciation of the area is indicated by the presence of glacial striae and chatter marks on the upper surfaces and their absence on the other surfaces of the blocks of these structures.  None of the the "blanket" names, such as Wisconsinan, are used for the glaciation involved  in this note because the assumptions upon which they were based have subsequently been concluded to lack their originally assigned application.

    Hadlock pop-up.  This previously undescribed pop-up is designated the Hadlock pop-up in this note.  Edwin C. Hadlock (dec'd), then owner of the field in which the structure occurs, directed my attention to the structure in 2007, when he was taxiing me within the as I prepared a short report dealing with the geology of Hammond township (Dietrich, 2008) .

BETTER PHOTO(s) to come!!!! 

  This pop-up (see Fig. 5 #1) is located a few yards west of Route 37, ~1.8 miles north of Hammond village.  It consists of two, continuous sections, each of which has a virtually straight axis;  the strikes of these axes differ by ~!0 degrees.  Dimensions (with metric equvalents listed in Appendix) and descriptions follow:

 Location:  across Route 7 from the junction of Hadlock Road (i.e., at ~ 44°28'22"N; 75°40'58"W;     elevation ~341ft.MSL).

 Strike of axes:  Southern part – N35E; 

   Northern part – N25E

             Height of apex above level of surrounding surface: up to ~3 ft.

                                      Southern part –  ~X ft.  

  Northern part –  ~X ft.  

Width of structure:  ~15 ft.   [[ <chk are both parts of same width? AND  THIS needs more measurements and explanation.  ]]

            Sizes of blocks:

                                     Southern part –  ~  2½  x  5½   x  ¾  ft. =  ~ 10¼ feet³   weight?       

                                                                                      (delete this one? -- One of smaller ones: yy x yy x yy)  

                                     Northern part -- Largest:  ~  7½  x 14½  x  2/3   ft.  = ~ 72.5 feet³     weight?   .                   

                                                                                      (delete this one?? -- One of smaller ones: yy x yy x yy

                  1.   (if none, say so)>.   Glacial striae and chatter (i.e., percussion) marks are on the original, nearly horizontal tops of blocks but NOT on their other surfaces.

                  2.  The broken surfaces of the blocks that are at a high angle to the axis of each of the two segments of thIs pop-up are approximately vertical.  

                 3. The block on one side of the axis of each segment overlaps its  opposing block,  AND, with exceptions, each overlapping block is adjacent to a block that is overlapped by the block  on the opposite side of the axis (Cf. Cushing et al.,1910, p.116, Fig.10 -- given as Fig.5-#2 in this report ). << D:–  perhaps refer to it as a  Mortise and Tennon arrangement? 

                 4.  Record details re  junction of the two segments and describe here.   Get photos  IF POSSIBLE!

                 5.  ( IF exposed, MEASURE STRIKEs and DIPs OF NEARBY JOINTS!!;   IF not, perhaps(??) cite diagram in Brier Hill report. )

                 6.  This pop-up is ~ 5.4 miles, northeast the Cushing pop-up.

  This pop-up (see Fig. 5 #2) is about 3.9 miles south-southwest of Hammond village – i.e., about 1.8 miles south of Chippewa Bay.  

            Location:  southwest of Webster Road, ca. 0.15 mi. from its junction with Callaboga Road  (i.e., at ~ 44°24'51"N; 75°45'25"W; elevation ~361ft.MSL).  

            Strike of apex: N.72E  [per Cushing: N.28W]  RECHECK!!!

Height of central part of apex above surrounding surface:  ~ 6 ft.       [per Cushing: about 12 ft.]

Length of structure:   ~ 45 yds.

Width of structure (i.e., between edges of blocks on opposing sides):  ~ 14 yds (i.e., ~ 42 ft.)          THIS needs more measurements and geometric explanation.

DELETE FOLLOWING?? One of smaller ones.  ~3.5ft. x 3.5ft. x 0.5ft.

     1.   Glacial striae and sporadic chatter marks are on the original tops of blocks but NOT on their other surfaces.  

    2.   The broken surfaces of the blocks that are approximately 90º to the axis of this pop-up are nearly vertical but they range from relatively smooth to highly irregular -- see Fig. 5-#X.  (what about space between blocks on same side?? do they match -- i.e., except for post-fm erosion??  -- how much erosion??  OR were they separated in that direction when the structure was formed?? -- i.e., was there "stretching parallel to axis??)

    3.a.  The broken surfaces of the tops of the blocks that are approximately parallel to the axis are  ....describe completely/at least roughtly....  (can they be matched like jig-saw puzzles ????)

         b.   The broken surfaces of the bottoms of the blocks that also are approximately parallel to the axis of this structure are  .......(can they even be seen???  if so, can they be matched like jig-saw puzzles ????)

    4. Only a few of the broken surfaces that so-to-speak define the axis of the structure overlap as indicated by Cushing (Cushing et al.,.1910 - p.116, Fig.10) -- instead, nearly all of the blocks that are on the northwestern side of the apex overlap the blocks on the southeastern side -- (see Fig. 5-#X Calaboga 8&9).  However, considering the fact that Cushing's indicated height of the apex is significantly greater than it is now (2016), the following question and comments seem noteworthy, and possibly explain this discrepancy in Cushing’s recorded observations and those made during this study.  Have the blocks moved outward from the axis  -- i.e., undergone post-formation partial collapse? since Cushing mapped the structure in the early 1900s (See if their bottoms are atop the surrounding, nearly horizontal ss OR are they still so-to-speak "stuck in place" (i.e., have their ends adjaent to the top edge of the surface from which they broke off (<< --Wow -- what a description!!!)  -- Along this line, one or more of the following activities may have occurred and, if so, would support an affirmative response:  a. Trees have grown in the axial since Cushing's observations -- (see Fig. 5-#XCalboga 9). (Tree wedging – e.g., see Dietrich (1957, p.21, Plate 6) -- provides permissive support so far as their having a causative role for such movements of the blocks.)   b. The surrounding, nearly flat bedrock is exposed on the southeastern side of the structure whereas the other side is covered by soil;  and slipping atop the exposed rock, possibly enhanced by seasonal ice build up on the surface of the flat-lying, surrounding sandstone would likely be away from the apex, mainly to the southeast.  AND, such movements would result in the apparent change in height and possibly also account for the apparent differences in the character of the overlapping relationships along the crest of the structure.

    5.  (Measure/record Strikes & Dips of  nearby Joints! ) 

ORIGINS

The two pop-ups may have similar or different origins;  this may be true so far as both the pre-formation controlling conditions of the rocks and/or the causative triggers (see COMMENTS …).  No origin has been or is herein suggested for the Hadlock pop-up.  Several comments about the possible origin of the Cushing pop-up are in the literature (e.g., Cushing in Cushing et al, 1910;  Twidale and Bourne, 2005; and  Jacobi et al., 2007).

Two considerations indicate that only a comment about the an origin should be given in this note.  This is so because:   1. No data (i.e., values) relating directly to the stress -- internal/residual/compressive -- of the sandstone of either of these structures or the surrounding rocks are available.   2. Two seemingly significant references-- i.e. Dames and Moore, 1974 and Smith, 1977 -- that pertain directly to the Cushing and other nearby pop-ups have been unavailable, even via ILL.  3. The required considerations for making such conclusions should not be made by one with my background. --  The comment is:  I think that changes of conditions -- e.g., those that accompanied deglaciation and/or post-last glaciation isostatic rebound -- had major roles in both the build up of internal stresses and their release, which led to the formation of at least some pop-ups;  and, the release of the stresses seems likely to have been abetted by “triggers.”

((That comment is based largely on impressions gained from:  a. data recorded in this note;  b. a review of the available literature relating to pop-ups and the pertinent tectonic domain of the region;  [and]  c. considerations relating to Lowry’s (1959) and my (1961) investigations of the Mt. Airy “granite” and the subsequently determined residual tress information, which was obtained by U.S. Bureau personnel who utilized sed overcoring procedures of in situ rock at the North Carolina quarry.  Their results were concluded to indicate that the conditions were “ripe” for the continual formation of additional buckles at the quarry.

          ((To elaborate further, the following thoughts have arisen in my mind several times since I again saw the Cushing pop-up and had my attention directed to the Hadlock pop-up: 

          ((The axes of these pop-ups have different strikes;  in fact, the Hadlock structure has a bifurcated, albeit continuous, axis -- i.e., the strike of axis of one of its sections, differs from the strike of the axis of the other section.   In addition, none of these strikes appears to fit any obvious pattern or to correlate with the current, granted, less than well-established, regional tectonic/stress pattern. 

          ((The structures appear to have been formed after the last glaciation -- i.e., after the load of glacial ice, plus its debris, was removed -- and during the subsequent, still on-going, isostatic rebound.

          ((The so-called “trigger” could have been instantaneous or a slow (i.e., a gradual change in the position and condition of the rock until a critical condition was exceeded).  Two  examples of the latter might be the removal of the glacial ice and its load (and/)or the subsequent isostatic rebound – i.e., when a release of the compressive stresses within the rock exceeded a value whereby formation of one or more pop-ups was inevitable. 

       [[  ((---No stress measurements for rocks of either pop-up or nearby equivalent strata are known, and cannot, in any case, be determined exactly for the time the Hammond area pop-ups were formed.  It can, at best, be hypothesized that the horizontal stress(es) exceeded the vertical -- i.e., upward -- stress.  If, however, current measurements of the internal stresses of the rocks of these structures and of similar near-surface Potsdam sandstone in the area were made, possibly those data could be programmed to create a model that might indicate  -- i.e., so-to-speak replicate -- the approximate previous conditions, and perhaps even how these pop-ups may have been formed be it initiated  by a "slow trigger" or by a trigger per se.  -- See paragraph XX in the following Comments and Questions section.))   ]]

DElete the following??!!    As I typed the above comment plus, two old “saws” came to mind:  “Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.”  and “There’s no fool like an old fool” (I am 92 years old).

It seems prudent to preface the paragraphs of this section with a disclaimer:  Because of my lack of access to some of the publications I believe I should review,  readers are urged to insert So far as I know before each of the following paragraphs.

   The first five of the following  paragraphs relate to the possibility that burial beneath thick glacial ice had a role in the formation of these pop-ups.

          No pop-up in this region has been recorded as having been formed before the last glacial epoch.  Does this mean none was formed?   OR  Were such pop-ups, if formed, disrupted, their parts moved and thus not recognized as having been parts of a pre-existing pop-up?  --  So far as the first question, three things may have precluded their earlier formation:  1. Strata susceptible to disruption and formation of pop-ups may not have been at or near enough to the surface where they could form -- i.e., pop up.  2. During earlier glacial and interglacial epochs the strata were not buried deep enough to gain the internal stress conditions required for release and formation of pop-ups.  3. Whatever the depth of burial by the glacial ice (etc.) and the resulting condition of the the strata, earlier rebounds were insufficient to change the environment of the rocks to the point that formation of pop-ups resulted.  And, of course, some combination of these possibilities plus other things might have been effective controls.  In any case, IF either the second or third possibilities prevailed, they would have implications so far as reconstructing the Pleistocene history of the region.

          To continue this line of questions/thought:  Was the glacial ice plus its load during the last glaciation of this region thicker, and thus heavier, than that of earlier glaciations?  If it was, the Potsdam Sandstone that constituted these pop-ups would have been buried deeper -- i.e., have undergone a greater downward depression -- than during preceding glaciations, and compressional stresses built up within those rocks would likely have been greater than during earlier glacial epochs.  Consequently, this latest post-glacial isostatic rebound, which is still occurring, would have caused these rocks to have undergone greater changes than those to which the rocks had been subjected in response to earlier glaciation and rebound.  In addition, the current bedrock surface may not have been at or even near the surface of  relief of stresses before the last deglaciation and rebound.   [Along this line, what is really known about the thicknesses of the last continental glacier within the region and of earlier Pleistocene ice sheets that covered the region?  Are dates indicating their longevities really indicative? Is there any known correlation between durations of continental glaciations and their thicknesses(?), of the amount of erosion they caused(?),  ...?    Is, for example,  the distance that the different glacial ice sheets extended southward related to their "up-stream" thicknesses?   Does the size and distance of travel of erratic boulders during any given glaciation have a relationship to the thickness of the glacial ice(?) to the speed of movement of the ice and its load(?), to the amount of erosion caused by any given glaciation(?) …]

       Could a so-to-speak "fatigue" have been involved? Is it possible that more than one depression (for this region, multiple periods of glaciation) and subsequent rebounds had a role(?), OR even were required, for the formation of the pop-ups in these rocks?   [This multiple question is prompted by changes and effects known to be involved in breaking, for example, metal sheets, rods, etc. – i.e., those that break only after having been bent and straightened several times.]

        Could the occurrence of these pop-ups indicate that the strata involved were only finally thinned enough by, for example, the last period of glacial abrasion, to the point that they could no longer retain their integrity – i.e., thinned to the point that they could be bent and broken to relieve the residual stresses within them.  [If this was a control, it seems likely that it must have been only a subsidiary control.  Among other things, the thicknesses of the strata involved in the Hadlock and the Cushing pop-ups differ markedly, AND, several extensive areas with thinner, apparently similar Potsdam Sandstone strata, now exposed bedrock, with no pop-ups occur within the region.]

????????You ask about reasoning in regard to thin sections. It was just that I thought a comparison of the thin sections might show a difference which in itself would give an indication of the process leading to the formation of the pop-up in that location � such as signs of localised  stress ffor instance. From your comments it appears that you have done quite adequate thin section work which shows no localised factors.??????

   The following comments include a maxim, two "wonders", and “triggers”.

      MAXIM:

           Pop-ups can only form where a sufficiently large "free space" exists in direct contact with or relatively close to their constituent rock formation -- i.e., a space into which the rock can "burst."   Therefore, a pop-up can serve the same role as an unconformity so far as interpreting geological history.    

      "WONDERS":  

          One wonders if the fact that the Hammond pop-ups are on so-to-speak high areas had any effect on their formation. – The Cushing pop-up is on a “high” between the St. Lawrence River and Chippewa Creek valleys; the Hadlock pop-up is on the "high" between the Chippewa Creek and Black Lake valleys.

                  Detonations – Nearby blasting could change conditions, perhaps by slightly jarring, a rock in its near-critical condition and thus trigger formation of a pop-up. Time of its formation appears to preclude this possibility for the Cushing pop-up, but perhaps not for the Hadlock structure.

           Earthquakes – Associated movements may cause, or I suspect even be the result of, the formation of pop-ups. A recent example is one that formed near Menominee, Michigan in 2010. It seems that either, neither, or both of the Hammond area pop-ups may have been so-related.

          Encircled plus – This, “far out” possibility came to mind during the 2014-15 winter when I saw an pop-up like structure that consisted of relatively thin (10-15 cm.) blocks of surficial ice in a bay near the northern shore of Lake Michigan.  That structure appeared to have been formed when the “buttressed” ice had expanded to the point that it became too large for the confined space that it occupied. Granted, that feature apparently formed as a consequence of the expansion that occurs when water is frozen to ice within a confined space, and rocks tend to have their volumes reduced when cooled, but ...;  and, what about the admittedly remote possibility that some rocks with high porosities (and permeabilities) might be so affected(?).  Also, along this line, might freezing of water in nearby joints or along certain strata have any role?

                    Meteorite impact – A true trigger, and possibly a cause, wherever a meteorite might impact rock, the condition of which was at or close to a critical state stress-wise so far as becoming an pop-up.  Along this line, it might be worthwhile to search for meteorites in the vicinity of pop-ups.  AND, If possible, one should search within the open-space beneath the blocks of an pop-up, to look for shear cones (see Lowry, 1959, p.1; and Dietrich, 2008, cover 3).  What about the guy who gave me the latter -- one shown on Mimetolith web site??  If possible, contact him through Donna/Nancy! – I need to know if it was made by man-imposed percussion or if perhaps there is a pop-up where he found it!

           Sheeting  (i.e., "Off-loading joints" of my youth) of some, for example, underlying granite – Could sheeting of an underlying formation, whatever its cause, act as a direct "trigger"(?) or perhaps be indirectly involved as open places into which water could get and freeze and expand?     [So far as the two pop-ups described in this note, it seems likely that granite that exhibits sheeting is beneath the sandstone of the Cushing pop-up, and that the identity of the rock beneath the sandstone of the Hadlock pop-up may be the same, but is less comfortably so-predictable;  this is so because, to date, pertinent well driller's data have not been found.]

                  Thermal insolation, is of special interest for two reasons:  1. This possible "trigger" reminds me of one of my favorite phrases in geological “literature,” one I first found in the early 1950's – “horizontal expansion of superficial strata, consequent on postglacial amelioration of climate“ (Gilbert, 1887). [and] 2. It reminds me of the great experiences Wally Lowy, our students, and I  spent at the Mount Airy "granite" quarry where we were repeatedly reminded of  the seasonal -- i.e., warm weather -- times that were known as the times when most of the “expansion domes” were formed. 

                  Miscellaneous  1. Could the existence of post-glacial Lake Iroquois, which covered this area, have had any role in the formation of these structures?

                                         2. Could permafrost have had any role?   This question  relates to the appearances of pingos and hypotheses for their origin  -- e.g., those of Alaska (see Holmes, Hopkins & Foster, 1968). 

                                        3.  Earth tides   (more needed here re such!!!),

                       and,         4. What about the several additional triggers, including “slow triggers” – i.e., those processes thought possibly to have led to gradual changes of conditions -- that have are not included in the above list but have been suggested for other pop-ups and similar features? -- See, for example, those that are tabulated, along with references to papers about them, by Steck (1999, p.8, Tbl.1.2).
                                                      

 ??? Would the presence and removal of  approximately the same thicknesses/volumes of glacial deposits (e.g., till) versus glacial ice lead to same result so far as ... ???

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.  Several people have provided noteworthy contributions:  Donna K. Chase provided a home base during three visits to the area. Edwin C. Hadlock(dec'd) and     ( name of Amish owner and alphabetize with Hadlock )    gave access to their properties on which the pop-ups occur.  Mr. Hadlock and Kurt R. Dietrich acted as field assistants when diverse aspects of these pop-ups were measured and photographed.  David D. Ginsburg, Research Librarian and Professor emeritus, Central Michigan University, aided with literature searches and checked the format of the References Cited.  Martin L. Bregman, Certified Petroleum Geologist;  Craig A. Gibson, retired Executive Director, Rio Tinto;  Wallace D. Lowry(dec'd), Professor emeritus, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Daniel R. McGuire and Robert Butka, consulting geologists of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan; and Reed Wicander, Professor emeritus, Central Michigan University critically read one or more of the preliminary versions of this manuscript and made suggestions that improved this final note. Something needs to be added about Joe Wallach  even if he doesn't critically read the final draft.   I gratefully thank each of these people for their contributions.
  

REFERENCES CITED.

*Bates, R. L. and J.A. Jackson (editors).  1987.  Glossary of Geology (3rd eition). Alexandria (Virginia):American Geological Institute. 788p.

*Buddington, A.F.  1934.  Geology and mineral resources of the Hammond, Antwerp, and Lowville quadrangles.  New York State Museum Bulletin 296. 251p.

*Cushing, H.P..   1916.  Geology of the vicinity of Ogdensburg, New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 191, 64p.  

*. . . . . . . . . . , H.L. Fairchild, Rudolf  Ruedemann and C.H. Smyth, Jr. 1910.  Geology of  the Thousand Island region: Alexandria Bay, Cape Vincent, Clayton, Grindstone and Theresa quadrangles. New York State Museum Bulletin 145. 194p.

###*Dames and Moore.  1974.  Seismo-tectonic conditions in the St. Lawrence River Valley Region, Phase 1, 1973 geologic investigations.  Report to the New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority.  Cranford(New Jersey)  -- ( Attempts to get this report have been in vain.  This is so even though much more than usual work has been expended in attempts to obtain it -- e.g., by CMU Libraries Interlibrary Loan, Scans on Demand and MeLCat Services;  David Ginsburg, who made several contacts; the writer, who contacted New York agencies and a consultant who was involved in the work upon which the report is based. )

*Dietrich, R.V.  1957.  Precambrian geology and mineral resources of the Brier Hill quadrangle, New York.  New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 354. 121p.

*. . . . . . . . . .    1961.  Petrology of the Mount Airy “granite.” Bulletin of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Engineering Experiment Station Series No. 144, 63p.

*. . . . . . . . . .    2008.  Geological history of Hammond Township (St.Lawrence County, New York).  Hammond (NY):R.T. Elethorp Historical Society. 61p.

*Gilbert, G.K.  1887. Some new geologic wrinkles (abstract). Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,35^th meeting.  p.227. 

*Holmes, G.W.,  D.M. Hopkins and H.L. Foster.  1968.  Pingos in Central Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin. 1241-H.  40p.  <http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1241h/report.pdf > Internet accessed 2 April  2016.

*Jacobi, R.D, C.F. Michael Lewis, D.K. Armstrong, and S.M. Blasco.   2007.  Popup field in Lake Ontario south of Toronto, Canada:  Indicators of late glacial and postglacial strain. In Stein, Seth & Stéphane Massotti (editors) Continental intraplate earthquakes: Science, hazard, and policy issues. The Geological Society of America Special Paper  425:129-147.

Kielosto, Sakari and Aimo Kejonen.  2011.  Siltakivi ja kumppanit -- ensimmäiset Suomessa tunnistetut A-taitokset (A-tent) ja niiden varhaismuodot blisterit (blister) -  (with English abstract). Geologi 63 (Nro 2):2-102. 

*Knight, Jasper and S.W. Grab.  2014.  Lightning as a geomorphic agent on mountain summits: Evidence from southern Africa. Geomorphology. 204:61-70. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X13003929 > Internet accessed 29 February 2016. 

*Lowry, W. D.  1959.  Expansion domes and shear cones in Mount Airy Granite  (North Carolina).  Mineral Industries Journal.  VI(#4):1-6.

###*Smith, A. C., Jr.  1977.  In-situ rock stresses and small anticlinal features in eastern North America.  M.Sc.thesis (unpublished), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 136p. (RVD has been unable to obtain this report.)

*Steck, C.D. 1999. Surficial neotectonic faults and folds in southwestern and central Ohio. Ohio State Master’s Thesis. Typescript.  Columbus (OH). 173p.

*Twidale, C.R. and J.A. Bourne.  2005.  On the origin of A-tents (pop-ups), sheet structures and associated forms.  Progress in physical geography.  33:147-162. (available on-line - < http://ppg.sagepub.com/content/33/2/147.abstract>.  Internet accessed 4 February 2016.

[[[Wallach, J.L. and J.-Y. Chagnon.  1990.  The occurrence of pop-ups in the Quebec City area.  Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences.  27:698-701.

  
Appendix:  Metric measurements for  pop-ups. 

HADLOCK POP-UP:

 Strike of axes:  Southern part –35º

   Northern part –25º

Height of apex above level of surrounding surface: up to ~1 meter.

            Length of structure:  Total of two segments -- 53 m.

                                      Southern part –     m.

  Northern part –     m.

Width of structure:  4.6 m .    [[ <chk are both parts of same width? AND  THIS needs more measurements and explanation.  ]]

             Sizes of blocks:

                                     Southern part – Largest: 0.75  x 1.65 x 0.23 m = ~ 0.28 meters³   weight?      

                                                                                      (delete this one? -- One of smaller ones: yy x yy x yy)  

                                     Northern part -- Largest: 2.3  x 4.4  x 0.2 m  ( ~  2  meters ³)  weight?       .                   

                                                                                      (delete this one?? -- One of smaller ones: yy x yy x yy

==========================================

CUSHING  POP-UP:

            Strike of apex:   152º        (72º  [per Cushing: N.28W])        RECHECK!!!!!

Height of central part of apex above surrounding surface:  ~ 1.8 m.  [per Cushing: about  ~3.7 m.]

Length of structure:   ~ 41 m.

Width of structure (i.e., between edges of blocks on opposing sides):  ~13m.   

           Size of blocks: One of larger ones: 7m. x  2.74m. x  0.61m. = 11.7 meters³  = . . . ~31 tonnes                                            

DELETE FOLLOWING?? One of smaller ones.  ~3.5’ x 3.5’ x 0.5’

                     (HAVE SOMEONE CHECK CALCULATIONS!)  

    

&&&&&&&&&    END of pre-revisit report    &&&&&&&&&

TO DO - future visit . . .  :

((Be sure to take the following:
______   BruntonS   Make sure Brunton is corrected to real North
______   Handlenses
______   Computer(s)
______    Iphone (Google earth, etc.)
______    metric to English conversion cards
______    100 ft AND shorter tapes
______    CameraS
______    attachment to put photos on computer
______    HammerS/Sledge
______                                                                                ))

ReMeasure all previously recorded aspects --  IF differences with previous measurements, appear,  REMEASURE again!!!
_______  strike(S) of trend of axis/axes
_______  dimenstions -- overall length and width
_______  character of overlap(s) atop structure
_______               direction(s), all the same vs. lack of such
______  are most blocks on one versus other side larger?


FIND in files field notes sent by Wallach and add anything there not already listed!!!

     Additional things to be sure to measure: 
_______  grain sizes of ss
______  is the rock an orthoquartzite??
______  are there any features in the rocks of the two areas that suggest they might be correlative?
______  joints --  see if those between blocks are virtually perpendicular to the trend of the axis of the structure
______               are they parallel or subparallel to joins in neary ~FLAT Potsdam ss
______               record dips as well as strikes
                  (Are any of the breaks -- esp. apparent surfaces in upper part of axis -- former joint surfaces?)
______  see if any particular glacial stria or group of stria are recognizable on blocks on opposite sides of axial area of pop-up
______  see if any particular strata    --- as above --- 
______  see below: Be sure to make the following measurements, if possible:

(Procedures to do this (and possible interpretations re) are outlined in 1A-CushingBulge/FieldWork file. )

Take photographS -- especially of the following:
______  One to contrast to Cushing's

 Overalls – and, if better, one of Hadlock structure from top of truck to  show  two  strike parts

                   Close-up top, glaciated surface of each (i.e., Cushing and 2 Hadlock)

                   Close-up, broken surface of each (as above)

                   Close-up of a nearby joint surface IF one can be found

                   Close-up of ss to show grain size +++ the conchoidal break IF present

                   OVERLAP relationships

Miscellany:
       ??:   check Stout pit?? etc.      If time, check  to see if there is any evidence that supports a post-depositional soft-sediment distortion
 that might related to the tectonic trends widely associated with the region.                                                                    
                                                                            [[   Along this line, so far as my observations and records in the literature, no pop-ups or evidence that have been recognized as possibly attributable to earlier glaciation and rebound.       THE above is based on some information/perceptions that certainly are subject to question(other possibilities):  The fact that these two pop-ups were post the last glacial retreat is indicated by the already mentioned fact that glacial striate/grooves are on only the originally nearly horizontal surfaces of the involved blocks.  But, the fact that there seems to be no indication of such “structures” related to other glaciations may only reflect the fact that any evidence of their existence was subsequently removed.  ?However, it may be that there less deep burial and rebound during the interglacial periods OR that the time was so short during those interglacial periods that rebound did not occur and/or not occur to the extent that it has since the last glaciation.  OR ?????  One needs to search the literature (and the fields!!) to see if there are any features that give any sorts of answers to these AND OTHER related questions! !   For examples:
                                                        Did the last glaciation involve a greater thickness of ice (greater weight) in this area than prior glaciations(?), etc., etc., etc
                                                        If the pushing of the blocks on the river side over those on the other side was by ice (especially late glacial advances) that changes the time of the formation of at least this pop-up to pre-some/most rebound!!!
                                                      And, there are additional questions/notes in the file.    ]]    

Time of formation:  The following relates to information given about one or more pop-ups that have occurred recently (e.g., one in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan):    So far as the two Hammond Township structures:  This does not relate to the Cushing structure;   although unlikely, it may relate to the Hadlock structure:  Are the bushes (and nearby trees?? --  I do not recall any) growing perpendicular to their bases or do they, for example, tip in a direction that suggest that the structure formed relatively recently.  Among other things, check "vertical +" positions of plants atop pop-up blocks versus those of nearby plants.  Also, in the case of the MI one, it seems worth checking the crack separated trees (& other plants?!) from their roots. if any.      And. the MI upheavel led to a deep booming sound,...shaking nearby homes... --  Are there any "oldsters" who live near the HADLOCK pop-up who recall such (or heard, for example, their parents talk about such)??? -- If so, see if any earthquake records support any such occurrence centered here or near here.

=====&&&=====

| Home |