web site IN
PREPARATION -- i.e., now being reviewed by
any reader, who happens on this site, has suggestions relating
to any of the sections, please contact me!!! Your suggestions
will also be greatly appreciated!!!
following Incomplete Reports,
which are "posers" (i.e., "brain teasers" -- at least for me), relate
stones and stone structures near St. Ignace, Mackinac County, Michigan
to two rock structures (i.e., pop-ups) in Hammond Township, Saint
Lawrence County, New
York. Preliminary ideas as well as possible functions,
origins, . . . s are included.
overall coverage of these reports follows:
Port? -- this, the first of a tripartite group of
reports, includes a speculative suggestion that a currently often
less than readily accessible, small area on the northern shore of Lake
Michigan, may once have served as a "port." -- That suggestion is
based largely on the presence of the stones described and considered in
reports #1B and #1C.
Boat Harbor, Gros Cap, Michigan and #1C.
from Boat Harbor, . . . --
photographs and descriptions
of these stones are given; the ?glyph?-bearing stones, which have
been found to be of interest to trained
professionals, from whom definitive
information has been requested, are described; previously
suggested origins of
similar holey stones are summarized and evaluated, and how these
stones may fit into the geological history of the area is
"Circle" near Gamble Lake, Mackinac Co., Michigan
and #3. What?
near St. Ignace, Mackinac Co.,
. . .
needs to be found and evaluated.
Pop-ups in Hammond Twp.,
New York -- see the Notice,
a jeremiad, that
seems unlikely that any of the
research, tentative conclusions, speculations, . . .
that are included in these preliminary reports
will result in completed reports.
In any case, the following Incomplete Reports will
as additional noteworthy information (etc.) becomes
available. The hope is that some of the material recorded
in one or more of these
preliminary reports will be of value
to someone involved in pertinent research.
| Home |
PREPRATION ! -- Last
<> My activities can be
chronicled as follows: Photography and study of the larger
rock (see Fig. #1B-1a, Report
#1B), which was
atop rubble on the shore of "Boat Harbor"; several
visits [most of which were accompanied by others who also, for example,
searched for additional specimens] to the site where
specimen was found;
investigation of the literature, including maps and aerial photographs,
of the area; contacting people familiar with the history of
area to obtain
oral historical information about the site; visiting additional
nearby areas with similar rubble ground-covers; discussing facts
and fancies about preliminary conclusions and speculations with
several people, a few
of whom are noted in the Acknowledgments.
coming to Gros Cap in October 2009, a number of residents of Mackinac
which constitute the eastern part of
Upper Peninsula, have
had me identify rocks they have collected. Most of
those rocks have been stones picked up from glacial, glacio-fluvial, or
deposits within these counties. One of those specimens, a
i.e., a stone -- led to research and a tentatively suggested
historical role for
a small, near-shore area
southeastern side of Poupard Bay, which is in Moran Township of
Mackinac County (see Fig. #1A-1).
Readers should keep in mind, especially while reviewing Report #1A, the
fact that neither
education nor my
professional activities have been in the fields of glyphology or
archaeology -- professional
archaeologists will, of course, readily recognize this disclaimer.
Harbor is in the southeastern side of Poupard Bay, in the NW¼ of
sec.5, T.40N.-R.4W., Moran Township, Mackinac County,
Michigan. Athough 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(atcf) west-northwest of Saint Ignace;
Earth, the central part of this rubble blanketed
has the following coordinates: 45o53'42.89"N. Latitude & 84o50'25.68"W. Longitude; its
elevation is 579 feet above MSL.
Figure #1A-1. Location of Boat Harbor. The
left, regional map shows the general shape of the
from the Straits (see northern end of the "Big Mac" bridge, lower
center-right) to west of Epoufette
left). This is, of
only the general shape of the current coastline, a shape that has
changed and continues to be modified, sometimes rather
markedly, with only only minor changes of the water level of Lake
Currently (July, 2016), it seems that more than 90 percent of the Boat
Harbor rubble deposit is above lake level. Breaking
waves intermittently reduce this percentage, but seldom by any
noteworthy amount. A
typical part of the rubble is shown in Figure #1A-2a (Cf. #1A-2b).
#1A-2a. Typical rubble
exposure (shovel is 25 inches long).
fragments, most of which are larger than typical
granite and basalt, probably
of a northern (Canadian
the rubble: The three rounded fragments are
provenance, and an uncommon well-rounded holey
of the predominant calcareous rock
overall rubble deposit at Boat Harbor consists largely of fragments of
Lower Paleozoic calcareous
sedimentary rocks; a few pebbles, cobbles, and small boulders of
and metamorphic rocks, probably brought into the area during
also present (see Fig. #1A-2b). Although the calcareous sedimentary rocks have
ranging from granules to boulders, most of the rubble within the area
of study are of pebble and small cobble size. In terms of
these stones range from angular to well-rounded, with a large
them angular with some or all of their edges slightly
sphericities -- i.e., shapes -- occur: Many of the
prismatic; several are so irregular that their shapes can hardly
described. Most of the calcareous fragments are gray or
surfaces of some of them include dark brown unidentified spots or a
partial to complete,
scum; fragments beneath several of the bordering overhanging
trees and bushes are stained, apparently by solutions that "dripped"
shape and size of the larger
?glyph?-bearing stone (see Figs. #1A-3 & #1B-1a & b) and
the shapes and sizes of
stones (see Figs. #1A-4 & #1C-2)
from the sizes and
shapes of most of the so-to-speak typical fragments of the rubble.
both the ?glyph?-bearing and
holey stones were conspicuous -- i.e., they appeared to be out-of-place in
this rubble deposit. Unfortunately, none of
these specimens were photographed in place; the photographs shown
as Figures #1A-3 & 4 were so-to-speak staged -- i.e., the ?glyph?-bearing
stone in Figure #1A-3 and the holey stone(s) shown in Figure #1A-4 were
taken back to the locality, placed atop the rubble near where they were
found, and photographed in 2017.
specimen atop rubble at Boat Harbor. [ As noted in text, the
relationship is staged:
The position of the ?glyph?-bearing specimen is, however,
Cheeseman, who collected it, recalls; she noted, for example,
that it is unlikely that she would have collected the stone if the
"?glyph?-bearing" surface had not been obvious -- i.e., exposed. ]
#1A-4. Two holey stones atop rubble at Boat Harbor. [ As
noted in the text, the relationship is staged:
That is, the holey
stones were taken back and placed
atop "typical" Boat Harbor rubble to take this
photograph. Also, the
surfaces of these holey stones were cleaned with a bristle brush before
they were studied and these photographs
were taken. ]
might be argued that the differences that led to the
appearance of these stones were largely dependent upon
lithological differences between the ?glyph?-bearing and holey
stones and the more numerous,
"typical" fragments of the rubble. Additional facts and
considerations seem more likely to indicate
these stones were not part of the natural environment -- i.e.,
the likelyhood that the ?glyph?-bearing
and the holey
were brought to Boat Harbor. These considerations, especially as relates to the holey stones,
similar rubble deposits lack holey stones like those at Boat Harbor.
distribution of the holey stones in the Boat Harbor rubble
deposit is neither regular nor random; they occur(red)
sporadically in only a
part of the rubble-covered area -- i.e., in an area, approximately 40 x
50 feet, that constitutes
only 10-15 per cent of the total rubble-covered area (percentage
based measurements on the
Google Earth composite).
The number of these holey stones (~
a score) and their
dimension ~4 -
~ 9 inches with most of them > 6 inches) indicate that they
unlikely constitute a so-to-speak collection made by, for example, a
hobbyist. [ This aspect is noted because a critical
earlier version of this report noted, "They could have just as well be
'deposited' there ... by a youngster disposing of their (sic) rock
The just quoted comment leads to two additional facts, which relate
accessibility of the area and (2) its possible role as
1. For at
least the last century, the Boat Harbor site, though only about a
half-mile from Gros Cap Rd., has not been
accessible much of the time; currently it is inaccessible, or
nearly so, by land
after the rather frequent near-lake rain
falls and wind storms/falls(of trees and limbs) as well as during most
vehicles, snow-mobiles not withstanding). Along this line,
attention is directed to the soil map of the area (Whitney,
1997) and to features that
evident on the Google
addition, much of the time even when it is accessible, an
almost overpowering, sometimes nauseating, stench, emanating from the
adjoining swamp lands has
very likely kept
at least some people from even thinking about going, at least by land,
to the area where
the stones were found.
2. Use of the area as a dump, at least for the last several
have been highly unlikely. This is so
because easily accessible, open
dumps have been and/or are
nearby -- one is less than a mile from the site. This aspect is
also supported by the fact that no other obviously dumped things are
or atop this
rubble. In addition, the sporadic distribution of these stones
within the given, albeit small, area would seem virtually to
preclude the previously mentioned possibility,
suggested by one reader of an earlier version of this report, that some
collector of such stones may have just dumped them here.
Suggestion of the
is strictly tentative:
The presence of the
"glyph"-bearing stones and
the number of the holey stones within a relatively small part of the
rubble at Boat Harbor may
indicate that this area has served, during
as a commercial center*1*/ -- i.e., as a port*1*/.
port, ancient and a few other terms, as used
in this report,
the Glossary, which is near the end of this #1A report.
It seems that this suggested possibility
may warrant the same fate
that a number
well-founded previously proposed ideas -- e.g., those that involve
visits to the area
from Eurasia -- seem to have had. Consequently, my hope is only
that, it -- along with the other two parts of this
tripartite report -- may lead to
further investigation and well-based, acceptable
deposits were examined in July and August of 2016: Five of them
were either awash Lake Michigan or only few feet from, and above,
present-day shoreline. These 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
LaBarbe Road. In addition, a "high-level" former lake-side
rubble deposit that is one (1) mile east of, and approximately 155 feet
higher, than the Boat Harbor rubble was examined. These
rubbles were examined to see if any ?glyph?-bearing rocks could
be found in any of them, and to see if their populations of holey
stones is, or is not, similar to that found in the Boat Harbor
The above possibility
based on empirical
1. The presence
?glyph?-bearing stones in the rubble deposit beside this harbor, and
that similar stones were not found in any nearby similar rubble
<-- [It appears that at least the larger
?glyph?-bearing stone was
the area; its lithology, size and shape, as well as the presence
?glyph?-bearing surface, differ from other fragments in
The presence of several holey stones in this rubble deposit, whereas
only a few, were found in any nearby rubble deposits*2*/.
seems likely that their presence at Boat Harbor and their near
in nearby, near-shore, rubble deposits indicates
they were brought into the Harbor area, probably for some
reason and/or use.]
To summarize our observations:
contents of all the lakeside rubbles were generally
similar . NO ?glyph?-bearing
fragments were found in any of
these rubbles FEW, if any, holey stones
like those collected from the Boat
Harbor rubble were found in any of these rubbles.
-- Three "asides," however, seem noteworthy:
a. The high-level rubble
deposit contains a larger
percentage of well rounded stones. b. So far as
?glyph?-bearing fragments, see, Fig. #1B-ADa.
[AND] c. A few rather
large boulders at a couple of these rubble deposits have holes that are
similarly shaped to those of the holey stones on their exposed surfaces.
3. The general consensus that the patterns on the
stones were incised by humans (see Rpt.#1B).
4. The conjecture that the holey stones may have
used as anvils (see Fig. #1C-1). For early literature relating
use see Ritchie (1929); so
far as the Boat Harbor holey stones, see also Gray & Pape (2016)*3*/; [ and ] consider
use so far as removing the
shells of acorns etc. to free their "meat" for eating and/or for the
production of their oil (see Kuhnlein and Turner, 1991).
<-- [ It seems, however,
that several alternative, rather
diverse, uses may have
obtained -- e.g., associations of holey stones with healing,
legends and also their possible roles as
charms. etc. These
alternative examples are mentioned because, among other things, no
found along with the holey stones at Bar Harbor. <<-D: in the
for hammerstones!! -- and, perhaps it is worth noting --Whether
any are found or not, some
of the smaller glacio-fluvial stones in the rubble could
have been so-used in lieu of shaped hammerstones. In any case, if
any of these stones were as anvils and the main purpose was to crack
nuts and/or acorns, it seems unlikely that percussion marks would be
common on either the stone hammerstones or anvils. == To
date, no such
marks have been recognized on any of the Bar Harbor holey stones that
have functioned as anvils. Another aspect seems noteworthy:
All of these stones have undergone corrasion, which would have likely
eliminated percussion marks said to be typical of stones so used. ]
& Pape (ibid.) so record holey stones
found in Adams
County, Ohio, which closely resemble the Bar Harbor holey stones, and
note those stones as "Dating to the Late Archaic period
(ca. 8000-1000 B.C.)."
5. A fact that seems
worth at least passing consideration is: Boat Harbor was,
until fairly recently (i.e., since dredging and/or large docks were
built), one of the few -- perhaps the only -- near-shore area between the Straits of Mackinac and Epoufette (See Fig.
#1A-1) where the water
depths could serve watercrafts other than, for example, canoes. . <--
is true despite the fact
that only a cursory examination of charts of today's near shore
this area, topographic maps, and Google Earth aerial
views of the area and adjoining region indicate the existence of
several rather diverse
former shorelines. The point is, if the suggested possibilty has
it follows that the suggested port very likely existed when the
shoreline was not
greatly different from the current shoreline. ¶ Whatever, the
both the nearby land and offshore area require more detailed
analyses! Such analyses might, among other things, set
time limits so
far as when the port, if such
existed, could have been active. In addition, such analyses
might lead to additional information about such things as what is
be deduced logically about routes likely to have been followed and
means of transportation – especially of water craft probably
Great Lakes region during cetain periods of the Lake Michigan Episode
-- i.e., ~2200
years B.P. to the
present. (see, e.g., Hough
Although one of the critical readers of an earlier version of
for this Report indicated that he thought the tentatively
suggested possible existence of the "port" at Boat Harbor to be
"farfetched," no alternative suggestion has been forwarded or suggested
to me. And, to date, I have thought of no alternative that does
require what I consider even "more ad hoc" whateverS! I only hope
will lead to a real resolution!!
B. Cheeseman found the larger ?glyph?-bearing
stone. Krista D. Brown found the smaller ?glyph?-bearing
stone 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, Professor of
Music and Barbara Baldwin De Frees Chair in the Performing Arts, Ripon College, Wisconsin,
days helping me navigate and
searching for additional ?glyph?-bearing stones and holey stones
in the Boat Harbor and
nearby rubble deposits.
Adjunct Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia and Professor ermeritus,
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Central
Michigan University, identified the fossil shown in the
Research Librarian and Professor emeritus, Central
Michigan University, formatted
Reed and David also furnished literature not readily available to
me. Krista D. Brown, Robert B. Brown, T. Butka, Kurt R. and Richard S.
Craig A. Gibson, David D. Ginsburg,
Daniel R. McGuire,
and Reed Wicander
read and/or discussed the content of one or more of the preliminary
of each of the three parts of this tripartite report. I
gratefully acknowledge all of their contributions.
&& +++ && =
R.V. 1988. The
Geological History of
Island (Michigan). The Journal of Beaver
History, Volume three, pp.59-77.
R.V. Dietrich, and R.M. Foose (compilers).
for geology in the field, laboratory, and office (third
edition). Alexandria,VA:American Geological Institute.
Gray & Pape.
Do You Crack a
Nut?. < http://graypape.com/how-do-you-crack-a-nut/ >
(accessed 31 January 2015).
Geology of the Great Lakes.
University of Illinois Press. 313p.
plant foods of Canadian indigenous peoples: Nutrition, botany and use.
nutrition in History and Anthropology. Amsterdam:Gordon and
Breach (Volume 8, pp. 199-201). < https://books.google.com/books?id=fPDErXqH8YYC&printsec=frontcover#v
=onepage&q&f=false > (accessed
1 January 2016).
W.A. 1929. Hammerstones,
anvils and certain bitted stones. Researches and
transactions of the New York State Archeological Association.
1997. Soil survey of Mackinac County, Michigan. Part 2. U.S. Department
of Agriculture. National Resources Conservation Service
> (accessed 22 January 2017)
terms as used in this document:
most widely used definitions pertain -- i.e., those relating
times, typically pre-historic records,
long past ... In this report, however, the term refers
"post-Pleistocene" time (people, events,
. . .) that is not,
so far as I have been able to determine, yet so-restricted in such
"post-Pleistocene" aspect is based on the presence of stones
within the Boat Harbor rubble; their compositions (etc.) indicate
that they have
transported into the area from the north --
e.g., from the
Canadian shield. The alternative that the igneous and
stones at Boat Harbor represent dumped ballast seems highly unlikely
because of their
sizes and the fact that their relative population (i.e., sparsity) is
virtually the same that in non-harbor, shoreline
rubble deposits within the
gathering place for the persons who utilized,
distributed, ... the ?glyph?-bearing and/or holey stones, that are
described in Reports #1B and #1C.
and/or diagenic rock that consists largely of
the mineral dolomite. [These rocks are, according to some
petrographers, more correctly called
dolostone.] D: ReCHECK
all the Holey stones and representative rocks of the rubble to be sure
they are dolomite rather than limestone; AND, if so -- Search
calcareous in MS and change to correct term(s).
a locus of activities -- e.g.,
commercial -- along, or near, the shore of a harbor.
unconsolidated detrital sediment that consists largely of angular
fragments, typically of pebble and/or cobble and/or small boulder
entity (larger than a sand grain) that consists of one or more
rock materials and is loose as a consequence of natural processes
weathering and erosion); loose rock is a rather
&& +++ && =
cavities, like those shown in Figure
a single recognizable fossil (see Fig.
#1A-ADa-right) were found when Kurt and I examined the Boat
Harbor rubble. So far as the general lack of
fossils (see caption), a few holes in some of the fragments have
that may have once been occupied by, for example,
brachiopods; those shapes have been modified by corrasion.
See also Figures #1C-4a & b.
#1A-ADa. Left, Late Silurian-age Saint
Ignace Dolomite (Bass Islands
The surface features, later rounded by weathering and/or erosion, are
represent spaces once occupied by gypsum crystals. Right, the only identied fossil
found, to the present,
rubble fragment at Boat Harbor; it is tentatively identified as a
bryozoan, which is a relatively common fossil in the Silurian-Devonian
the Michigan Basin. [As the
Lincoln pennies indicate, these two specimens are shown at different
apparently one-of-a kind, stone found in the rubble at Boat
Harbor is shown in Figure #1A-ADb. No specimen with this
was found in any of the other rubbles examined within this
To include?!: : Try to get Bob or someone who is
familiar with what, for example, the droppings from a melting
might look like as a coating on a stone . . . -- if this is a
should be mentioned here +/- eslewhere???!.
Figure #1A-ADb. A rust("limonite")-coated stone found in the same
part of the Boat Harbor rubble as the ?glyph?-bearing and holey stone specimens. Left, bottom, as found; Center, top, as
found; . Right, 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
possibly of actinolite composition -- to be determined subsequently ))
George Robinson, p.c. 27 February 2917). The origin of the
external coating, which is apparently amorphous so best termed
"limonite." is problematic; and, some of that
"limonite" so-to-speak occurs within the stone proper and may account
for the fact that the stone has an atypically higher than usual
specific gravity. [As
the Lincoln pennies indicate, the polished surface is shown at a scale
that differs from that of the two originally exposed surfaces of
Robinson <email@example.com> Mon 3/6, 9:32
One thought on the external limonite coating: When
sampling the outer darker portion rich in the amphibole I noticed there
were a lot more micro needles of the amphibole phase than there
appeared to be internally, where the crystals were larger and fresher.
I wonder if the smaller crystal size on the outside was preferentially
chemically weathered to limonite due to the increased surface area
provided by the smaller xls? George
Two relatively large stratified nearby
of calcareous rock at Boat Harbor also warrant recording
(See Fisome two
blocks of the Mackinac Breccia that may, or may not, have subsequently
freed from that formation proper.
#1A-ADc. Outcrop-sized masses thought to be the exposed tops of one or
large masses within the Mackinac Breccia.
?glyph?-bearing stone with these layers!! ----
do seem possibly to be same rock, mention it in text and caption ;
if not, is Is this photo superfluous?
updated November 2016
Stones from Boat Harbor, Gros Cap, Michigan
PREPRATION ! -- Last
of these stones
?glyph?-bearing stones are dolomite.
To date, the formations from which these two rocks came has not been
established; either or both may or may not be from any nearby
#1B-1a. These two loose
rocks (i.e., stones), which were found in the rubble-covered area at
Harbor, are referred to as ?glyph?-bearing in this report. The
larger one was found by Caroline B. Cheeseman; the smaller one by
Brown (I was with Krista when she found this specimen.). The
is 7-wale corduroy. For additional information about their sizes, see
#1B-1b. Sizes of the two specimens. (Left photo by Caroline Cheeseman.)
on these stones
(NOT including Figures
of these two specimens were sent to five professional geologists
known to be especially good observers and to have had several diverse
experiences, ... Each
of the five, independently,
indicated that he thinks the surficial markings on both specimens are
likely man-made; I agree. It seems that their
opinions (certainly mine) were based on the following:
Several features do not resemble, even roughly, any geologically formed
feature or any group of, for example, animal or plant forms or parts
thereof -- no matter how established. And, I feel sure that
both things they had seen directly and those described or illustrated
any geological or paleontological publication were considered. In
addition, one of
the critical readers of an earlier version of this report, who was NOT
one of the five original observers of the photographs, added that "features
of the glyphys that I find characteristic are: 1)The lines run
parallel or perpendicular to one another. 2)The perpendicular
not cross the lines they are perpendicular to; they stop.
a large number of small perpendicular lines in-between the parallel
lines." (Ginsburg, p.c., February, 2017)
#1B-2a. Features within each of the circles and ovals appear NOT to
forms known to be natural. (Photo by Caroline Cheeseman.)
#1B-2b. Close-ups of three examples of the features circled in Figure
#1B-2c. Close-ups to feature a few of the diverse, albeit eroded,
edges of the
#1B-2d. A roughly similar pattern that is on both
specimens: Left, part of
the larger specimen; center, part of the smaller specimen;
of the center photo and its surrounding area.
[Left and center photographs
are at the same scale; background
of right photo is 7-wale corduroy.]
The enlargement, on the right, is included to facilitate
comparison of, for examples, the lower roughly similarly "rounded"
ends of its "characters" and
their surrounding rectilinear
"frames" with those of the larger ?glyph?-bearing specimen that are
shown on the left.
The fact that
surfaces of these specimens have undergone weathering and
definitive statements about their original characteristics speculative
-- e.g., were they ever completed(?), and, if so, how
and when were they fashioned. In addition, no fragments of
"tools"(if used) -- e.g., flint/chert or iron --
may have been used to score these rocks were found during microscopic
examination of those surfaces or when strong magnets were slowly moved
close to and along the
"grooves" of either
specimen. In any case, the serrate edges of several of the
(see Fig. #1B-2c), seem especially difficult to correlate with any
And, despite the fact that differential weathering and erosion seems
quite likely to have been responsible for at least some of the the
characteristics of at least some of the edges of many of the grooves,
to be an impossible
cause of most of the
An expert glyphologist might very
well be able to say several definitive things
these two surfaces -- e.g., who made them, when
made, and their intent/function(s). <- [To date, no
glyphologist has looked at the specimens. I have received no
response from those contacted.]
searches were made using images and keywords, both individually and in
combination, to see if any similar surfaces are recorded on any web
sites. The following are the main
came up as
a result of those searches:
ancient patterns, or parts thereof, were found that appear to be more
roughly similar to those on the Boat Harbor specimens. The following
were among the "hits" made during
the searches, plus a clause relating to overall
differences between their patterns and those on the Boat Harbor
stone(dated 196 BCE) -- its characters are rather well defined
1st to 12th
A.D.) -- none of their
patterns, or even relatively small parts of those
closely resemble patterns on the Boat Harbor stones. Early
Cuneiform(dated 8,000-3,000 BC) -- some of these patterns
(including both those "etched" or "engraved" into rock and those
pressed into clay) include features (see, for example,
parts of which do roughly resemble the patterned surfaces on the Boat
"petroglyphs"(dated as 300 BCE) – a few of the "glyph(s)" that
adorn at least some of the loose
volcanic stones on the grounds of, and within the El Ceibo Museum,
island in Lake Nicaragua), have characters the shapes of which
roughly resemble a few of those on the
larger Boat Harbor specimen. *2*/.
-- no forms on this
"tablet," whatever its authenticity and origin, resemble patterns on the Boat Harbor
"incised" is used in this report to
indicate formation of the patterns that characterize the
"?glyph?-bearing" surfaces of these rocks. It should not be
considered to indicate any particular mode of formation -- e.g., use of
tools versus etching.
2. a. Images of each
preceding "glyphs" are available on the
internet; No particular reference for any of them seems to
warrant citation here.
b. The preceding
refer to the two specimens shown in the Addendum to this note that is
"off the wall" interpretation of the
pattern on the larger specimen
Two, so-to-speak, interrelated,
questions: Does each
line, 'character' or section of the pattern on the larger
?glyph?-bearing specimen have a
meaning? OR Is the whole surface an image that
certain entity or tell a story?
answer to the each line or
‘character’ ... possibility seems to be NO! <--
This opinion is based largely on characteristics of the
lines (See Figs. #1B-2b & 2c) and the
presence of so much repetition. [Granted,
the original, incised surface may have exhibited characteristics, now
and eroded away, that would have indicated otherwise. However, even
only the currently available surface, any imaginative story teller ( I
of my Grandfather Vincent and his reputation along this line) might
very well come up with one or more interesting "translations"!]
BUT, should one even consider either of these possibilities(?) -- i.e.,
incisions were meant to
certain entity or tell a story?. My admittedly "tongue-in-cheek" response re
this question is based in part
on recollection of a photograph of part of a potsherd, from the Cameron
site in Vernon Township, Oneida County in central New York; that
specimen has apparently been dated as ~"4,000 years old" (see p.37,
"News and views for the Colgate [University] community," Scene: Winter 2013).
The larger Boat Harbor
obviously only a portion of an originally larger "slab(?)," does appear
constitute an image. Consequently, for me, granted with a
rather long history
apophenia (see Dietrich ...), this alternative deserves at least a
suggested by Figure #1B-3, the
surface seems possibly
represent an Amerindian chief with a feather headdress.
#1B-3. An example
of my experiencing pareidoliatic apophenia. [An aside: I have
been asked if
this interpretation means that this specimen is a mimetolith. It
does NOT; it is an artifact!]
Questions, Questions, QUESTIONS
! ! !
One of the critical readers of a late version of this MS, noted that in
his searching for anything that looked like these ?glyph?-bearing
stones: "I never came across anything that looked like yours in the
slightest. And then I came across ... [A photo attached was
attached -- See "Copper" in References Cited, and he raised the
interesting question:] Could
your stones have formed on crystalline copper ... serving as a mold,
and after the copper [... was] removed, leaving (sic) your glyph
stone? Or is this just crazy?" (David Ginsburg, p.c., 17
February 2017). ¶ Although a positive response to
David's question seems a fitting, his even thinking about such a
possibility -- if expanded to include diverse substrates -- seems
one that the should at least be considered for some of
the character-bearing stone and clay pieces found at, for example,
On May 4, 2017, a newspaper report dated May 7,
1892 was republished (Anon. 2017) that reported the discovery, during
the digging of a ditch near the St. Ignace Court house, of a "flat and
diamond shaped [stone ...;] on one side are hieroglyphics, which
present the appearance of having been made by human hands."
Kathleen Schacht directed my attention to this entry; to date, I
have found nothing more about this stone. This information is mentioned
here only as an add-on, like the stones shown as Figure
#1B-ADa, of possible import to future studies.
B. Cheeseman found the larger ?glyph?-bearing
stone; Krista D. Brown found the smaller ?glyph?-bearing
stone. David Ginsburg formatted
references. Attention is also directed to the Acknowledgments
Report #1A. I gratefully acknowledge the aid provided by each of
&& +++ && =
2017. Looking Back [125
years ago, The St. Ignace News, Saturday, May 7, 1892] The
St. Ignace News, May 4, 2017., p.20.
(accessed 17 February 2017).
Dietrich, R.V. 2016. GemRocks.
[Of the sub-web sites on this site,
Nature’s Wood Sculptures. <http://stoneplus.cst.cmich.edu/Art-perhaps/WoodForms.html>;
(accessed 30 June 2016).
Jewell, R.L. 2004. Ancient
Mines of Kitchi-Gummi:
Cypriot/Minoan Traders in North America. (2nd ed.)
(PA): Jewell Histories (185p.)
Miragaya, Karel. 2015. Ancient
engraved in a stone. 123RF. <http://www.123rf.com/photo_3302013_stock-photo.html>.
(accessed 29 December
mid-August, 2016, when a "pre-Final Draft" had been
completed, I was told that a stone with "hieroglyphics" on it had
been found by Robert Frazer in rubble at a quarry that is about a mile
Boat Harbor. Arrangements were made for me to see,
photograph and get information about the occurrence of that
Actually, Frazer found two specimens (see
[Tthe bearing that these two
stones might have on the suggested possible existence of a port at Boat
Harbor (Report #1A) seems moot.
These two specimens are said to have found in rubble that was atop
the area, now a quarry, that is east
of Cecil Road near its junction with Cheeseman Road, Moran Township,
Mackinac County. The quarry, now abandoned, is across the road
previously mentioned high
level (pre-Lake Michigan phase of the Great Lakes?) beach. The
patterns, which are on only one surface of each
these specimens, led to their being noticed and collected.
attributions (e.g., to certain ancient peoples who may have made them
brought them to this region [with possible dates!], . . .) have been
to account for their presence within this area.
[See also Addenda, second paragraph.]
It seems prudent to repeat
(See Report #1A) that
these ?glyph?-bearing stones and the holey stones (See Report #1C)
the same rubble-covered area along the shore of Boat Harbor, Moran
Mackinac County, Michigan.
Dahl, fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford and director of the Ancient
Research Cluster & John
O'Shea at the University of Michigan were
contacted but neither has yet
stones" from Boat Harbor, Gros Cap,
PREPRATION ! -- Last
#1C-1. For untold ages, humans and other
primates as well as some other animals, including birds, have used
e.g., as anvils
nuts were placed
and/or as hammers used to strike, and thus
crack, nuts etc. Stones similar to those shown in the above
are said to have been used widely by Amerindians – e.g., the Ojibways
Hurons -- to remove the shells of acorns that they harvested and used
their diets; they ate the "meat" of the acorns and extracted
acorns' oils, which they used in, for example, cooking -- see,
for example, Kuhnlein
& Turner (1991), after Waug (1916, p.122-123).
views shown in the above photographs were setup in 2015. The
stones included as examples of hammerstones are NOT from the Boat
Harbor location. ]
are said to have been used as anvils to crack acorns and nuts (e.g.,
2016 & see Fig. #1C-1). This and other possible uses,
plus the fact
that several of these stones occur within a relatively small part of
the Boat Harbor rubble-covered area, led to
the research reorded in this report and the subsequently tentatively
of the area as a former port (See Report #1A). A review of
literature, a summary of data, and my conclusions that relate to the
of holes in these holey stones are included. The literature
review, especially that
to origins that have been suggested for the formation of holes in holey
those collected at Boat Harbor includes suggestions
recorded on web sites
by non-scientists as well as those treated in scientific jounals. .
stone, as used in this document,
is strictly descriptive --
i.e., no origin (other than
being of natural occurrence),
no use, etc. of these stones is included
implied. Such holey stones may be virtually any kind of
holes are at least roughly circular perpendicular to their axes and
may extend only
through these stones. [This last aspect differs from some
uses of the term -- i.e., from those that directly or by implication
require at least some of the
holes to extend
all the way through so-designated stones (e.g.,
Specimens, which are illustrated
and/or described in the
literature (including internet entries) with features (though not
necessarily compositions) that resemble the Boat Harbor
specimens, have been referred to by many terms. Some of the
designations, most of which are binomial (i.e., an adjective plus the
stone or rock), may be tabulated as
important: cupstone*§, holey stone, pitted
cobble*§, pitted stone, poculolith*§;
& use important: anvil stone*§, nutting
& origin (+/- etc.) important: anvil
stone*, cupstone*, holed stone*, nutting stone*, omarolluk(=
"omars"), pitted cobble*, poculolith*§;
stone, faery(or fairy) stone, hag stone, hex stone, holy stone, mare
stone, Odin(or Odin’s) stone, tafoni (tafone-singular), witches
The asterisks (*) indicate a dual listing.
The §s indicate stones
at least some of the holes of which have been shown, or are believed,
been man-made (e.g., Davis, 2002); some
of the so-called man-made holes, however, seem likely to represent
modification of originally natural holes to make the holes better fill
Boat Harbor Holey Stones
of the several holey stones that were collected from the rubble at
Habor are shown in Figure #1C-2. These, indeed virtually all of
stones of this area, were within the same small part of the
rubble deposit where the two
"glyph"-bearing stones were found (see Report #1A). Although
stones made up
much less than one per cent of the total rubble fragments within the
were quite conspicuous. This is so because their
sizes and shapes differ markely from other fragments in the
these stones would have been conspicuous even if they had no
Each of these stones is dolomite, probably of
Silurian age (Dan
communication, 2015); their longest dimension ranges from ~4
to ~9 inches (~10 to ~23 cm.); the overall shapes of most
these stones appear to reflect the shapes
they had when they were broken off their parent outcrops
(see Fig. #1C-2); three ovoidal holey stone cobbles are somewhat exceptional (see Fig. #1C-2c).
in the Boat Harbor specimens have roughly circular shapes perpendicular
their depths, maximum diameters of ~ ¾ inch (~ 2
cm), and a
number, distribution, and relationship of
the holes to the current shapes of the stones differ from specimen to
(see Fig. #1C-2). The only near-constant relationships are the fact
that, apparently because of corrasion, only the bottoms and near
of these holes are remain, AND
all of the holes are on only the two larger, relatively flat,
surfaces of the sub-prismoidal and roughly discoidal
stones -- i.e., the surfaces upon which these stones would have
always rested after transport or movement imposed by, for example,
#1C-2. Four differently shaped holey
stones from Boat
Harbor: A, an irregularly
shaped cobble with well-rounded edges; B & D,
sub-prismoidal and roughly discoidal
with rounded edges; C,
an ovoidal cobble. [These stones
have been washed and brushed
are the holes of holey stones formed ?
following is a brief review of diverse origins that have been
suggested, most by non-geologists, to account for the formation of
stones that resemble those of the holey stones of Boat
A. Rock-boring clams –
The italicization of boring in this subheading is used
to distinguish boring from burrowing clams (see Stanley, 1970,
Rocks and stones with remnant parts of holes of similar shape and size
as those found at Boat Harbor have been reported to occur at numerous
places here and
around the world, and many of them have been observed, or concluded, to
formed by rock-boring clams -- e.g., those of the family Pholadidae
Miller(2007), and Seilacher(2007)].
origin seems best to explain the features of the Boat Harbor holey
widely held opinion that all recorded rock-boring clams have lived in
marine or brackish
environments is problematic -- see, however, comments included
invertebrate animal" bored the holes?.
invertebrates – Other invertebrates -- e.g., other Mollusca
moon snails) and some arthropods, sponges, sea urchins, and worms
known to have bored holes in
sediments or rocks [see
Frey(1975), Miller(2007), and Seilacher(2007)].
Weaver (2015), among others, notes that
"Some snails -- particularly moon snails -- soften a clam's shell by
a boring organ that produces hydrochloric acid, enzymes and other
substances. Then the snail rasps the softened clam shell with a
plate called a radula, resulting in a circular hole."
<- Although this is not the excavation of holes in rocks,
seems noteworthy in that it at least suggests that some combination
physical and (bio)chemical
may have led to excavation of the holes in at least some holey
stones. (Cf. item 5.)
2. Weathering – This
suggested origin requires a
conglomerate, like none I have ever seen or seen described, as the
rock -- i.e., one consisting of subspherical ovate
within a calcareous (e.g., dolomitic) matrix. That fact not
withstanding, it has been suggested that the "holes" in some holey
stones have been formed as the result of the “popping out of
pebbles” from these stones: “Eons of rolling … a lot can
happen when stones
pebbles lodged in the stone ... popped out! … [from] softer
the stone which wore away quicker, leaving a hole” (Niagra,
<- This suggestion, given in a narrative, seems to be a
and at least in part possibly given in jest(!?). To add to that
would think that the suggested sequence [note underlined (by me) part
leave only the popped out pebbles, not the rock from which they were
removed. In any case,
“popping out of pebbles”, thus leaving the holes, seems to be a highly
origin for holey stones. On
the other hand, this suggestion, if revised to indicate the
originally enclosed fossils rather than pebbles, and if their removal
to have been a result of differential chemical and/or physical
weathering, such an
origin would seem at least to warrant consideration.
3. “Pothole effect”
– "These [holey
stones] are created when the river current spins harder rocks that cut
softer rocks. Over time, a long time we think, the harder rocks
drill [into or even] all the way through the softer rocks." [This origin, the subheading
designation of which is mine, has been
suggested for holey rocks/stones in river (estuary) bars in
(Deneki Outdoors, 2014).] <- The
size of the
grain(s) that would have been required for production of each hole by
such abrasion, the conditions
to cause the required movements of the water, and the length of time
conditions would have persisted within the limited locus of
each hole -- all requirements for this suggested genesis!!
-- seem unlikely ever to have obtained. In addition, the
distribution, and bearings of the axes of the holes in the specimens,
those from Boat Harbor and those shown of similar stones from other
seem to preclude this possible mode of origin.
– “… the many deep pores and holes
result of the repeated surging of water on limestone across a long
2014). <- No information is given, or seems likely to
to support this suggested mode of formation for the Boat
and similar holey stones.
chemical processes promoted by activities of humans or other creatures
This suggested origin has the holes formed as the result of
those used to crack nuts) with the resulting holey stones functioning
physical and chemical processes indicated to have been involved are
plus or minus reactions of solutions derived from the crushed acorns,
This origin seems unlikely! Granted, walnut shells, for
sometimes used as an abrasive, but only to polish such things as
[And,] crushed acorns have been used as a source of tannin, which
acidic, but only an extremely weak one. In any case, in order to
typical holey stones in this way, each
hole would have
been a locus where an extremely large number of acorns/nuts were placed
and cracked. It
seem that, at most, this process might have modified the shapes of some
holes of some holey stones. (Cf. item 1B.)
“Wows, Hmmms, & Yikes”) – Most of the
following suggested origins
mentioned in narratives about holey stones the
of which resemble those of the Boat Harbor holey
stones. Some of
suggested modes of formation seem hardly to warrant even the following
coverage; they are included merely to provide a more nearly
coverage of possible modes of formation that have been recorded for
were Boat Harbor holey stones formed?
by predatory dinos. The holes in these
rocks accommodate the claws cast from hollow rocks.
didn't create the holes, but occupied them opportunistically...."
(Culbreth, n.d.) [The idea is that such “clawing”
the holes. --RVD]
… are . . . glacial erratics, or pebbles … [and] were
made by a type of water erosion [not described], whether liquid
holes are from ground water seeping into the aquifers.”
(ibid., comment by J. Spencer)
mammoths were the key. There(sic) diet was
such and their primitive kidneys such that their urine was extremely
...pH of 3.4 is the estimate. ... a squirt here then there.
the acid urin(sic) hit an alkeline(sic) rock it began do(sic) dissolve
rock. It was a quicky[;] it made just a partial whole(sic)
can figure the rest." (Deneki Outdoors, 2014 -- comment by
"grampus" dated 19 January 2015)
holes are usually formed by centuries of wave action [associated
spray?--RVD] and/or dripping water [acid rain?--RVD].” (Conjured
holes are the result of the repeated freezing of water which makes tiny
fragmentations and turns a small crack into a fissure and eventually
hole.” (H.Pringle, p.c. 9August2014 in Winder, 2015).
shapes of most of the
holes in holey stones seem to preclude this possible mode of formation.
holes are the result of the dissolution of, for example, appropriately
shaped limestone concretions from a less easily dissolved rock
(Reference for this one not refound in my files -- Sorry!!)
are man-made mortars (Cf. 5, above).
and illustrations published by Eitam (2009),
to which my attention was directed as a possible origin, seem
actually to vitiate this possible origin for the Boat Harbor stones and
least several others described and/or illustrated in the
literature. However, at least some of the Boat Harbor and
similar holey stones
very well have been used for the purposes attributed to these “man-made
any more such suggested origins for
holey stones are discovered, they will be added.
Readily available evidence, some of which is only
appears to support the
following geological history for the Boat Harbor holey
Deposition of parent *1*/
in a northern part of the Michigan Basin (marine)
Late Silurian (~460-415
including dolomitization (diagenetic?) of those sediments
of these and
into "voids" to form the Mackinac Breccia --
Devonian (Dundee) (~380 MYa)
[Dissolution of Silurian Salina salt appears to have created
the "parent" rocks, including the Mackinac Breccia, to weathering and
erosion, with separation of
masses of these "parent" rocks from outcrops and
incorporation of the loose fragments into moving water --
of holes in the loose rocks that are now holey
? ? MYa *3*/ )
of the hole-bearing fragments -- (~?
? ? MYa *3*/
-- this term, used as an adjective,
refers to the sediment and the resulting lithified rock that includes
that are the subject of this report; its extended use --
parent rocks -- includes Lower Paleozoic associated formations.
3. On the basis of the
widely accepted geological history of the region both the boring and
seem to have occurred in non-marine environments;
possibly to include just
about any time, except
during which the region was covered by Pleistocene glacial ice,
from at least Late Paleozoic to the Present --
see, for example, Landes et al. (1945) and Rosenau
[In any case, how,
when, and in what environment the holes originated has no bearing on
the possibility, tentatively suggested in Part #1A of this
tripartite report-- i.e., that a Port was once on the shore at Boat
of now, the
time(s) when the holes were bored into these
"parent" rocks, now stones, has not been established. It is
only known that no fragments of these rocks that contain such holes
found within the Mackinac Breccia*4*/ or in nearby
exposures of the
parent formations during this study. This
apparent absence, at least permissively, supports the conclusion that
bored after the fragements were freed, probably as angular (commonly
pieces, from outcrops of their "parent" formation and/or from rubble
fragments of those rocks that were within the Mackinac
where constituents of the
Mackinac Breccia were examined, as given on Google
St. Anthony's Stack near downtown St. Ignace (45º 53' 04.59" N. --
83º43'34.90" W.); unnamed masses on the western side of
(Rte. B75), St. Ignace (45º53'05.64" N.-- 84º43'33.12"
and Gros Cap Rock, two localities northwest of St. Ignace
on Rte. 2 (45º 53' 02.16" N. -- 84º50'08.69" W.) and
eastern side of Gros Cap Road (~ 45º 53' 01.65" N. --
One feature of
these holey stones, in particular, appears not
only to support that conclusion, but also to indicate that the
fragments were then in moving water: Nearly
all of the holes in these stones are on one of each stone's
surfaces -- i.e., their probable tops or bottoms whenever they were at
transport or, for example, movement imposed by breaking waves.
This observation and contention, if
considered in line with the widely accepted geological history of
indicates that the holes were formed when the fragments were in a
addition, it would seem to follow, that at least some of
corrasion of these stones also occurred during the same general
period; however, it also seems likely that at least some
of that action has taken place more recently; indeed, it is
at least intermittently even now!
"probable invertebrate animal"
bored the holes?
is not proved that any animal bored these
holes. If one did, the general shapes and
the holes in the Boat Harbor specimens, as well as the probable
which they appear likely to have been formed, seems to favor some
clam(s). This is so even though very few of the shapes
holes in the Boat
stones exhibit the overall shape (roughly
that of a de-tipped
teardrop) of borings known to have been excavated by such clams (see,
Fig. #1C-3a); instead, only the bottoms of all but a few of
"borings," if they are such, remain. There also is the question
as to why no
remains of a boring animal (e.g., clam) have been found in any
holes. One possibility is that they were dissolved; in any
case, rather large portions of the Boat Harbor
holey stones have been removed, for the most part by corrasion, to
produce the current characteristics of these stones and their included
#1C-3. An example(?) of the
"de-tipped teardrop" shape described for the holes made by boring
clams. (Cf. Fig.
10-2 (#4), p.399 in Moore, Lalicker
& Fischer, 1952.) This
is one of only two that have been found in
holey stones of Boat Harbor; as
noted in the text, only
lower parts and bottoms of holes have been found in the Boat
additional question remains(+/-): According
to malacologists and paleontologists whom I have
contacted, boring clams are not known in freshwater environments or
from freshwater sedimentary rocks. <- This, despite the fact
that the caption for a sketch in Moore Lalicker & Fischer
"Burrowing types of
A majority of this group of
clams burrows in the soft mud, silt, or
sand beneath shallow seas or on the
of fresh-water bodies." and, the
includes a burrowing clam, "Pholas," in
and underline) *5*/.
following pertains: "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, p.c., 23 January 2017)
noteworthy: Boring clams
recorded as existing in rocks from marine environments since Ordovician
(Miller, 2007, p.363). AND, perhaps the fact that a large
about, for example, Paleozoic stratigraphy is based on marine
environments, accounts for these apparent differences of
----- As a
leave resolution of the above apparent lack of agreementS of
professional malacologists, paleontologists
and stratigraphers; and it seems only prudent to repeat the
statement noted in footnote
*3*/: Whether the
bored (etc.) in marine or non-marine environments has no bearing on the
possible existence of a port at Boat Harbor that is tentatively
suggested in part
#1A of this tripartite report.
how did these holey stones get to Boat Harbor?
to find possible answers to this question led to the
already noted examination of nearby, similar rubble deposits and the
tentative suggestion that a "port" was possibly beside Boat Harbor in
the past -- see Report #1A. [As noted there, it seems
quite possible, if
likely, that these stones, because of one or more of their possible
4), were brought
to Boat Harbor by humans, possibly in ancient times. Indeed,
possibilities seem to require what I consider even less
acceptable ad hoc
was the source of these holey stones?
seems worth consideration even though it may not bear directly on
either the tentative suggestion that is in Report #1A or to
this part (Rpt.#1C) of this tripartite report. Several
occurrences of loose stones, both natural and so-to-speak "collected"
to form such things as walls and landscape accents were examined to see
if they included any holey stones like those found at Boat
Harbor; shoreline and nearshore groups of stones from Epoufette
on Lake Michigan, through the Straits area, to the Les Cheneaux Islands
area of Lake Huron were checked; NO claim, however, is made that
all such occurrences within this area were checked.
??Following is possible way to report
IF found to be true.
Two localities were found:
Several stones with holes that roughly resemble those
found at Boat Harbor have been collected
and used in, for example, decorative walls; their source,
according to talk to, for example,
Johnny Hessel re source, and, if he knows, GO THERE, etc.,
[and] 2. Duck Bay, on Marquette Island of Les Cheneaux
group GO THERE next
spring, etc., etc. ---- CHECK
(PETROGRAPHY), SIZES, SHAPES, ETC. OF THESE STONES, and,
these stones seem to "match" the Boat Harbor stones DESCRIBE THEIR
This is NOT to say
Boat Harbor Stones did or did not come from ... ...
, etc., etc.
similar stones have been recorded from several sporadic regions the
Numerous photos, locations where these stones have been found,
available on-line; to see these, search Google Images – using,
2. If formed/bored by any animal, these holes
ichnofossils – i.e., “trace fossils.” However, these
more common ones, were apparently made millions of years after the
which they occur. That is to say, the parent sediments of the
deposited several, and possibly as many as 450 million, years before,
that formed the ichnofossils lived. Therefore, ichnofossils
these do not have the same value that more typical fossils have so
dating (etc.) the rocks in which they occur.
3. Holey stones have long found roles in the Arts and
Crafts. These uses include such diverse
highly prized Scholar’s Stones, decorative stones for aquariums and
worry and “good luck” stones, parts of jewelry (especially
also parts of wrist and ankle bracelets), and as wind chimes.
particularly interesting “Scholar Stone,” which is referred to as a
sculpture, is now in the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney,
Australia. Hauser (2014) notes in her remarks about that stone:
developed a complex connoisseurship of such phenomena … [This rock is
example of the sort of aesthetically pleasing stone that came to
gardens (and paintings of gardens) during the Tang Dynasty [628-907]. …
stones … were meant for gardens; smaller ones, [also] known as
stones’, . . . sit on desks as an aid to contemplation.” ]
Holey Stones have attracted a rather large following
among people who associate minerals and rocks with the healing of
mental conditions, enhancement of meditation, etc. Consequently,
advocates ascribe all sorts of attributes to these stones, and
extolled these claims and repeated diverse versions of "myths about
stones" in their brochures and advertisements.
Some so-called holey stones that are in the
marketplace have been manufactured. Examples are those replicated
silicone, and some of these have had their surfaces plastered by a
consisting largely of crushed rock (Holey..., 2016). Most of
so-called "holey stones" are apparently sold for use in aquariums and
Krista D. Brown and Kurt R. Dietrich
helped collect some of the described specimens. David Ginsburg
Wicander supplied literature
available to me; David Ginsburg formatted the cited
references. Attention is also directed to the Acknowledgments
given in Report #1A. I gratefully acknowledge the aid provided by
&& +++ && =
Boardman, R.S., A.H. Cheetham and A.J. Rowell (editors).
Invertebrates. Palo Alto: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
n.d. Hag Stone-Holy
the Evil Eye, Nightmares, Spirits, Misfortune-Key to the Faerie
< http://conjuredcardea.indiemade.com/product/hag-stone-holy-stone-fairy-stone-witch-stone-protection-evil-eye-nightmares-spirits-misfortu >
(accessed 2 January 2016).
Culbreth, Steve. n.d. Forensic
Paleo biology: Holey rock
Texas. Dinosaur Home.
< http://www.dinosaurhome.com/forensic-paleo-biology-holey-rock-of-texas-806.html > (accessed
14 November 2015).
Davis, A.B. 2002. Cupstones of
Adair County, MO. Missouri
Folklore Society. < http://missourifolkloresociety.truman.edu/cupstones.htm > (accessed
14 January 2016).
Deneki Outdoors. 2014. Holey
Rocks. < https://www.deneki.com/2014/12/holey-rocks/ >
(accessed 18 November 2015).
David. 2009. Late
Epipalaeolithic rock-cut installations and
groundstone tools in the Southern Levant. Methodology and
77-104. < http://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2009_num_35_1_5279 > (accessed
10 January 2016).
R.W.(editor). 1975. The study of trace fossils: A
principles, problems, and procedures in ichnology. New York:Springer-Verlag.
Kitty. 2014, December 20. Nature
with Chinese scholar's stones at Art Gallery of NSW. The
2016. How Do You Crack a Nut?.
< http://graypape.com/how-do-you-crack-a-nut/ >
(accessed 31 January 2015).
(accessed 14 November 2015).
Background”. 2016. Your Fish
Stuff. < http://www.yourfishstuff.com/holey-rock-background > (accessed
14 January 2016).
H.V. and N.J.
Turner. 1991. Oaks.
Traditional plant foods of Canadian
indigenous peoples: Nutrition, botany and use. Food and nutrition in
and Anthropology. Amsterdam:Gordon and Breach (Volume
8, pp. 199-201). <https://books.google.com/books?id=fPDErXqH8YYC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=Ojibways+use+of+acorns&source=bl&ots=wG1m1PB0Ki&sig=55FuaywNKYz_ZoGc3EZgnWNClkA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRqtCL_IjKAhXGYyYKHYiZCIAQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=Ojibways%20use%20of%20acorns&f=false>
K. K., G.M.
Ehlers, and G.M. Stanley. 1945. Geology of the Mackinac
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 > andhttp://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/GIMDL-PU44C_302679_7.pdf >
and < http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/GIMDL-PU44C_302679_7.pdf > ]. (accessed
7 February 2016).
(accessed 1 January 2016).
Miller, William, III (editor). 2007. Trace fossils: Concepts,
problems, prospects. Amsterdam:Elsevier.
R.C. 1969. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part
Mollusca 6, Bivalvia, Boulder:Geological Society of
only as general reference).
.................., C.G. Lalicker and A.G. Fischer.
Fossils. McGraw-Hill:New York.
2015. "Holey Stones". Wee Peeple Doll
Construction. < http://www.weepeeple.com/drawer/holeystonespage.htm > (accessed
1 January 2016).
W.A. 1929. Hammerstones,
anvils and certain bitted stones. Researches and
transactions of the New York State Archeological Association.
Rosenau, J.C. 1956. Mackinac Bridge: Final
Report. < http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/Final_Geological_Report_306059_7.pdf >
(accessed 4 January 2015)
Adolf. 2007. Trace fossil
analysis. Berlin:Springer-Verlag. 226p.
Stanley, S. M. 1970. Relation of shell form to life
the Bivalvia (Mollusca). Geological Society of America, Memoir
Boulder:Geological Society of America
n.d. The Odin Stone.
http;//www.orkneyjar.com/history/odinstone/ (accessed 31 December
Waugh, F. W.
1916. Iroquis [sic] foods and
food preparation. Canada
survey Memoir 86, Anthropological series no.12. Ottawa :
Printing Bureau. 266p. < http://www.archive.org/stream/
> (accessed 4 December 2016).
Trish. 2015 (July 9). The hole
truth about animals that
Museum of Natural Sciences Research Blog.
< https://naturalsciencesresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/the-hole-truth-about-animals-that-bore/ >
(accessed 17 August
J.M. 2013. Jessica's Nature Blog.
< https://natureinfocus.wordpress.com/ >
(accessed 7 January 2016).
than 500 holes in
holey stones from Boat Harbor were examined under
magnification. It was thought that something(s) might
that would relate to the time and possibly even the mode of origin of
holes and/or the environments that existed when they were
formed. The only things found to date are shown in Figures
#1C-ADa & ADb. These
materials, appear to have been deposited after the holes were formed
and seem likely
to represent either chemical or biochemical deposition.
[[See if George
R. or perhpas Steve C. c/would ID these
#1C-ADa. This cobble, one of the atypically shaped holey stones found
at Boat Harbor, has only eight holes in it; two of those holes
shown (Left). The holes on the reverse side
of this specimen have diverse shapes and their sizes range more than
those in most holey stones found at Boat Harbor. The feature(s)
shown in the right close-up, though possibly of organic
are judged to be "mineral and not a fossil" (Wicander, p.c., 4
November 2016). The identity of the small black spot at about 1
the right hole has not been determined. D: PERHAPS THE
OF APPROXIMATE SCALE AS THOSE ON RIGHT WOULD BE BETTER?!!
Figure #1C-ADb. The
thickness of this specimen ranges up to 1 inch
cm.); the greatest depth of the hole shown in "b" is (<1/2
inch -- i.e., ~ 8 mm); the orientation of "d" is
45-50º counter-clockwise from that of "b"; the small, unlabeled
photograph on the upper right was added for those who see "b" as a dome
instead of a pit; the patterned material shown on "c" occurs here
the main, virtually flat surface of the specimen. On the basis of
presence of the "meshlike" deposits' coating of the hole, which is
shown in "b",
coating another nearby hole, and coating sporadic areas of the overall
surface of this
holey stone, "I'm leaning toward a mineral deposit of some sort. ... if
[,however,] it is a fossil, I would say a colonial coral like the
However, given its small size, it probably isn't a fossil but some type
of mineral desposit/coating." (Wicander, p.c., 4 November
2016). The back side of this
surface features, granted fewer per area, like those described as
"rounded by weathering and/or erosion . . . [and are] thought to
represent dissolved gypsum crystals -- see Figure #1A-Ada (left).
"Circle" near Gamble Lake, Mackinac Co., Michigan.
D: ReCHECK all the Holey
stones and representative rocks of the
rubble to be sure they are dolomite rather than limestone; AND,
-- Search calcareous in MS and change to correct
CHECK the lattice-work coat atop that holey
do in spring:
1. Photos of ?glhyph?-.... and
holey stones WITH SCALE
MARKER atop rubble at Boat Harbor.
2. Compare ?glyph?-.... with rock layers of the large
Mac Breccia fragments.
3. Search for hammerstones at Boat Harbor.
4. Search for more holey stones -- look particularly for growths (like
those shown on Fig. #1C-ADb) --the point is POSSIBLY I removed such
from the other ones when I brush-cleaned them. THIS SEEMS ESPECIALLY
IMPORTANT SO FAR AS WHEN/WHERE(marine vs nonmarine)the growths occurred
on the HOLES IN THEIR CURRENT
4a. Examine holey rocks at Hessel (does Johnny Hessel know
b. & in Duck Bay, Marquette Island.
look at outcrops/exposures that might have holey stone parent rock +
5. Seek IDs/ideas re the barnacle-like Fig.
#1C-ADa and mesh-like ?Fig. #1C-ADb?s inclusions in the holes.
6. What is the material of the black "spot" on specimen Fig.#1C-ADa mentioned in #5?
7. Get MORE info re possible origin of
limonite-coated specimen Fig.
#1A-ADb sent to George.
D: Go see John E with
ms in hand and find
out is opinion re suggested former
role of Bar Harbor given in
location of the bay where he said that holey stones occur;
indicated Mike had found re
#2 (below) + add it there as an
"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
beliefs that the piles were likely made by, for example, neolithic
"stone-age" aborigines, Celtic Druids, Vikings or pre-Columbian Native
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
shapes and topographic
locations of these
accumulations of stones are
frequently cited to
hypothesis that they are meaningful artifacts -- i.e., they are not
that were put where they are in order to clear the nearby fields. In
this aspect of that hypothesis, it is quite evident
the land surrounding this accumulation of stones would
have never been cleared for, for example, any at all extensive farming
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,
areas of the lower-level Lakes Chippewa and
Stanley as well as of the more recent, and
Lake Huron and the Straits of Mackinac could have been seen from this
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."
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
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
in similar settings are proved.
record: The outside "circumferance"
of this roughly
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
the "floor" of
the central part is about 1½ feet above the
constituent stones are
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.
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
these relationships have alternative interpretations. [[ It seems worthwhile to
get Mike's thoughts and to give them here. ]]
#3. What? near St. Ignace, Mackinac Co.,
remarkable dome-shaped fieldstone structure is in St. Ignace
have arisen and virtually no answers have been found support with
origin or its uses. Historical data are lacking, or at least not
yet discovered. I am neither an historian nor an archaeologist,
and to date my attempts to get any professional in either of these
fields interested in the structure have been in vain. Consequently,
questions -- such as Who Built it?; What was its function, either
real or projected?; and When was it built? -- remain unanswered.
following possible origins
and uses, which have come to mind or been suggested to me, are given
here with the hope that recording them may lead to an
appropriate investigation and understanding of the structure:
1. Kiln – for production of lime or charcoal
2. Sepulcher – for use as A.a Burial vault and/or B.a Receptacle
for sacred or otherwise valued whatevers
3. Signal mound – i.e., a site from where smoke signals (etc.) may have
4. Root cellar
5. Meat Preparation – e.g., to smoke and/or otherwise cure meat
6. Hunter’s blind
It is my belief that: The Kiln
possibility (#1) is precluded unless some substructure, now removed or
is found. The Sepulcher (#2) and Signal mound (#3) uses seem
unlikely because of the dates such structures were likely used in this
area; however, if it is shown that the iron “pipe” (see diagram)
was added well after
the structure was first made, one or the other of these functions may
have prevailed or at least been anticipated. [ and ] The overall
structure -- e.g., its shape, size (especially the height), masonry and
access -- seem not to correlate
with what one would expect for any of the the other listed possible
#4, #5, and #6,
except possibly #5). In
without checking to see if, for example, there is any substructure or
if any bones or relics are directly below the exposed floor, it seems
that the origin and use(s) will not likely become known for sure.
An aside: Other
origins, which seem not to warrant inclusion on this list have
been given, most of them in jest -- e.g., a place for one to send an
unwanted guest. However, this latter example has made me
wonder and even think that perhaps the structure was built for and
used as a place where
had broken some law, tradition or the like might have been
incarcerated -- i.e., a place
for "solitary confinement." Among other things,
the placing of a lid over or putting a so-to-speak stopper in the hole
top would have made it virtually escape-proof. (( No lid
or the like or an alternative, such as a "ball
and chain," has been found. )) .
the soil cover and
growth (upper photograph), this structure appears to be well
preserved -- note the general character of the constituent stones and
of the masonry that is indicated by the inside side of the structure
(lower photographs). The following summary is a of the things
that are currently known about the structure -- in reviewing them,
see also the diagram, which is based on measurements that Charlie Brown
and I made August 31, 2010:
The structure is dome-shaped with a hole at the apex of the dome. The
four lower photographs show the hole and the general character of the
constituent stones and masonry, albeit deteriorated, as it is exposed
on the inside wall.
higher side of the structure, on the left as shown, is near an outcrop
of the Mackinac Breccia similar to that of the so-called stacks that
common within this general area. The linear group of curved lines
on the inset of the plat map seem likely to represent this outcrop.
The only apparent access to
the interior of the structure is the hole near the
top (center, left photograph) – i.e., no other opening large enough for
access is apparent in the walls above the currently exposed interior
The roughly circular area
surrounded by spoke-like lines that are on
"Whicher's Plat of Scottville," which is dated March 15, 1851, may
represent this structure -- see inset (The red arrow on the inset,
which was not on the original plat, points at the just mentioned
symbol.). IF this symbol does represent the structure, it was
built before the mid-1800s. [[--By the way, the circle below
this symbol, which is around the letter "D," which is rotated ~90
clockwise from its normal position, has nothing to do with this
structure other than its location.--]]
The iron “pipe,” the position
of which is shown on the diagram, was
highly corroded, but still cylindrical (diameter ~3 ½
inches) and magnetic, when we found it. It was on the opposite
side of the structure that is shown in the top
The overall structure is now
covered with biological matter that
includes the major roots of the trees. The size of the larger
cedar trees that are growing on and near the structure have
circumferences of ~6 feet near their bases; they have been estimated to
be 90 + 30 years old
(Steve Sjogren, p.c., 2010).
Notice: The following is a preliminary ("working ...")
manuscript and a "To do"
list -- i.e., observations and measurements to be made and photographs
taken during a revisit, IF such occurs,
to the two pop-ups. A revisit,
which was scheduled for July, 2016, became untenable -- the owner of
the property where the Cushing pop-up is located indicated to my
Hammond correspondent that his bull
and cattle would be
that field during that period. Perhaps a
2017 visit will become possible; perhaps, some nearby geologist
geology student will pursue the study in the future and
find the following helpful.
#4. Two Pop-ups in Hammond Twp., St. Lawrence
Co., New York
"touch-up" 29November 2016 –
pop-ups] form only a minor structural and topographic feature, they are
and the interest
attaching to them is out of all proportions to their size and
Cushing , 1910)
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
recorded, are also included.
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),
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
Information common to both Pop-ups.
PETROGRAPHY. The Potsdam Sandstone within the area is described by
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
nomenclature scheme is used, these rocks can be called either sandstone
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
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.
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
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) .
Figure 5-#1. Hadlock pop-up – Two of its "adjacent"
blocks that overlap the locus of its axis in the opposite sense.
Cushing et al.,1910, Fig.10, p.116)
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.,
44°28'22"N; 75°40'58"W; elevation
of axes: Southern
part – N35E;
Northern part – N25E
of apex above level of surrounding surface: up to ~3 ft.
Southern part – ~X ft.
Northern part – ~X ft.
of structure: ~15
[[ <chk are
both parts of same width? AND THIS
needs more measurements and explanation. ]]
Sizes of blocks:
part – ~ 2½ x 5½ x ¾ ft. = ~ 10¼ feet3 weight?
this one? -- One of smaller ones: yy x yy x yy)
part -- Largest: ~ 7½ x 14½ x 2/3 ft. = ~
72.5 feet3 weight? .
this one?? -- One of smaller ones: yy x yy x yy
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.
The block on one side of the axis of each segment overlaps its opposing
block, AND, with exceptions, each overlapping block is adjacent
block that is overlapped by the block on the opposite side of the
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?
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. )
pop-up is so-named in this note for H.P. Cushing, who photographed and
described it more than 100 years ago.
pop-up is ~ 5.4 miles, northeast the Cushing pop-up.
Figure 5-#2. Cushing pop-up as photographed by H.P. Cushing
(from Cushing et al., 1910, plate 29)
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.
of Webster Road, ca. 0.15 mi. from its junction with Callaboga Road (i.e.,
44°24'51"N; 75°45'25"W; elevation
Strike of apex: N.72E [per Cushing: N.28W] RECHECK!!!
of central part of apex above surrounding surface: ~ 6 ft. [per Cushing: about
of structure: ~ 45 yds.
of structure (i.e., between edges of blocks on opposing sides): ~ 14 yds (i.e., ~ 42
THIS needs more
measurements and geometric explanation.
Size of blocks: One of larger ones: ~ 23ft. x 9ft. x
2ft. = 414 cubic feet3 = . . . ~ 68,500 lbs
= ~34 tons)
[CALCULATION bases: 62.43 pounds as
weight of a cubic foot of water; 2.65 as the Specific Gravity of
DELETE FOLLOWING?? One of smaller ones. ~3.5ft. x 3.5ft. x
SOMEONE CHECK CALCULATIONS!)
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
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?? --
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
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
they even be seen??? if so, can they be matched like jig-saw
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.
Strikes & Dips of nearby
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.”
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.
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:
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
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.
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
[[ ((---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
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.)) ]]
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Are more pop-ups
likely to be found with the area? This possibility
came to mind because of an inquiry by a geologist who read this
manuscript; he reminded me that both A.F. Buddington, who mapped
the area, and I, who lived in Hammond for many years and mapped an
adjacent quadrangle, were basically hard-rock petrologists, and
consequently may have had our minds on other things as we passed the
Hadlock pop-up. -- Along this line, I feel
"Budd" did not see it, or he would have told me; I know that I
did not see it even though I drove past it hundreds, if
not thousands, of times. I first saw it in
2007 when the landowner took me to see it -- more than 65 years after I
first drove past it IF it
was then there. [That
"IF ..." is based on the possibility that this pop-up was formed
sometime between about 1952 and 2006. In any case, I shall
continue to question people who might have information that would
preclude or support this possibility.] Here may be where I could/should?/ . .
. go into several things, for example:
Omar, Oak Point, Alex Bay ones Wallach mentioned.
indicating unlikelihood of any of these formations retaining an
integrity that would be called tent-like once fracturing to form such
occurred -- i.e., they would have collapsed and appeared more like (prepare a "step-wise"
series of diagrams --
along this line, Figure 5-#1 would seem to be a "middle of the road"
example??? ) and thus likely so-to-speak not be recognized,
that may lead to all sorts of additional thoughts/considerations.
seldom readily determined, aspect for
which very effort should be made to find and describe, especially if
the feature involves stratified rocks relates to the following question: Is only one relatively
group of strata (i.e., only the exposed (i.e., top) ones, with air
directly atop them) involved in one or the other or both of these two
pop-ups OR Are several
visible or even relatively easily found, strata also involved? This aspect became
recognized when my possibly wrong-headed thinking re the Cushing pop-up
became no longer the relatively simple structure that I had in mind
because I related it to what I had seen at Mt. Airy.
<<< needs more description,
some photos/other illustrations, etc. It also makes
idea of the collapse of such features become a structure by structure
consideration; that is to say, only those that involved one relatively
thin group of coherent strata exposed at the surface would likely
collapse, and consequently not be recognized. [[The alternative
seems to be exhibited by the photo of the Alex Bay one sent by
Wallach -- see!
]] << preceding can probably said
more succinctly by considering post-formation stability -- i.e., are pop-up
features that consist of only
a thing group of strata, with air below as well as above, more likely
to collapse than those held up by underlying also popped-up strat
(Wallach's Alex Bay photo -- see!).
thing for which I should search and measure/photograph: Is there
any remaining suggestion of a curvature (i.e., convex upward) of the
blocks on either
side -- i.e., one that might be seen as part of any pop-up formed
the general way that the Mt. Airy structures were -- i.e., with a
pre-fracture "bulge." -- look
microscopic study of thin sections of these and nearby rocks show
differences that might indicate the popup rocks were once under
localized stress -- along this line, CHK!!
the characteristics of the Broken surfaces to see if they, for example,
exhibit the typical indiscriminate crosscutting of matrix and grains
that characterize orthoquartzites OR ???. ...
All such things might, along with other things, lead to information
would indicate whether any given structure was formed so-to-speak as a
consequence of a "slow trigger" or an all at once one-- i.e., perhaps
just uplift and final relief of compression versus some
ANOTHER aspect (alternate overlaps) may
to origin -- ?? e.g., Do alternate
overlaps indicate or at least serve as permissive evidence for slow
trigger (e.g., rebound) fm., whereas all overlaps from the same side
MIGHT indicate tectonic activity of some sort as causative. Here, it might(???) be
include an analogy of pop-ups and pop-ups ::: [[ recall
granites ( mid-20th century ) ]]. Eclectic!!
????????You ask about reasoning
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.??????
following comments include a maxim, two "wonders", and “triggers”.
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
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.
One also wonders if the presence of many pop-ups,
including those near Hammond, New York, within so-to-speak relatively
stable areas, the bedrocks of which have undergone continental
glaciation and rebound (i.e., development and release of high in situ
stresses), is more
significant than any tectonic event, and perhaps all that is needed, so
far as production of these pop-ups.
– 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
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
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
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?
might heat a rock so that it expands beyond some critical state thus
causing it to form an pop-up. (Cf. Thermal
Lightning strike – This
suggested by local inhabitants for all sorts of things, including
formation of the Cushing pop-up, appears consequently to warrant
mention. And, it is known that mechanical stresses are
associated with electrodynamic forces associated with lightning;
and Grab (2014) have recorded disruption of
rock that they attribute to lightning. In addition, lightning
is known to have set fires, and thereby have been an indirect cause IF
fire ever acted as trigger -- see preceding entry.
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
about the guy who gave me the latter -- one shown on Mimetolith web
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
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.]
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
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.,
Alaska (see Holmes, Hopkins & Foster, 1968).
3. Earth tides (more needed here re such!!!),
What about the several additional triggers, including “slow triggers” –
i.e., those processes thought possibly to have led to gradual changes
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 ... ???
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,
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.
*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,
*. . . . . . . . . . , H.L. Fairchild, Rudolf Ruedemann and C.H.
Smyth, Jr. 1910. Geology
Thousand Island region: Alexandria Bay, Cape Vincent, Clayton,
Grindstone and Theresa quadrangles. New York State Museum Bulletin 145.
###*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,35th 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
*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
*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
###*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.)
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
[[[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.
of axes: Southern
Northern part –25º
of apex above level of surrounding surface: up to ~1 meter.
of two segments -- 53 m.
Southern part – m.
Northern part – m.
of structure: 4.6
m . [[ <chk are
both parts of same width? AND THIS
needs more measurements and explanation. ]]
Sizes of blocks:
part – Largest: 0.75 x
1.65 x 0.23 m = ~ 0.28 meters3 weight?
this one? -- One of smaller ones: yy x yy x yy)
part -- Largest: 2.3 x
0.2 m (
~ 2 meters 3) weight? .
this one?? -- One of smaller ones: yy x yy x yy
Strike of apex: 152º (72º [per Cushing: N.28W])
of central part of apex above surrounding surface: ~ 1.8 m. [per Cushing:
about ~3.7 m.]
of structure: ~
of structure (i.e., between edges of blocks on opposing sides): ~13m.
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’
SOMEONE CHECK CALCULATIONS!)
END of pre-revisit report
DO - future visit . . . :
sure to take the following:
BruntonS Make sure Brunton is
corrected to real North
(Google earth, etc.)
to English conversion cards
______ 100 ft AND
attachment to put photos on computer
all previously recorded aspects -- IF
differences with previous measurements, appear, REMEASURE again!!!
strike(S) of trend of
_______ 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?
files field notes sent by Wallach and add anything there not already
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
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
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
recognizable on blocks on opposite sides of axial area of pop-up
______ see if any particular strata --- as
______ see below: Be sure to make the
following measurements, if
to do this (and
possible interpretations re) are outlined in 1A-CushingBulge/FieldWork
photographS -- especially of the following:
______ One to contrast to
– and, if better, one of
Hadlock structure from top of truck to show two
glaciated surface of each (i.e., Cushing and 2 Hadlock)
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
??: check Stout pit?? etc.
If time, check to see if there is
any evidence that supports
a post-depositional soft-sediment distortion
related to the tectonic trends widely
associated with the
this line, so
far as my observations and records in the literature,
no pop-ups or evidence that have been recognized as possibly
earlier glaciation and rebound.
above is based on some information/perceptions that certainly are
question(other possibilities): The fact
that these two pop-ups were post the last glacial retreat is indicated
already mentioned fact that glacial striate/grooves are on only the
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
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
short during those interglacial periods that rebound did not occur
occur to the extent that it has since the last glaciation.
One needs to search the literature (and the fields!!) to see if
are any features that give any sorts of answers to these AND OTHER
questions! ! For examples:
Did the last glaciation involve a greater thickness of ice
weight) in this area than prior glaciations(?), etc., etc., etc
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
of at least this pop-up to pre-some/most rebound!!!
And, there are
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
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
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 |
-- Early December 2016