web site IN PREPARATION -- i.e., NOT DONE!!  - Latest tweaking  1, October, 2017                        

!! Good Copy !!STONES-- Posers to Ponder
                                                                                  IncompletedS of a Has-been/Never-was
                                                                                                                                                 R.V. ("Dick") Dietrich
        Thefollowing IncompletedS, which are brain-teasers(at least for me), relate to specialstones and stone structures within Mackinac County, Michigan and near Hammond, Saint Lawrence County, New York.  The functions, histories, origins and/or implications of these stones and structures are considered.  One or more illustrations and information relating to each are included.   
           It seems unlikely that any of these observations, some of which are strictly preliminary, or opinions (etc.) will become a completed report.  This is so for several reasons, examples of which follow:  #1B. Glyph-bearing stones from Gros Cap, Michigan  -- requests for information and possible help sent to two well-known authorities in the field have not been acknowledged.  #2. Stone Circle near Gamble Lake, Mackinac Co., Michigan -- Information related to me as the conclusion  by  an  expert  (albeit unnamed!)  included a conclusion that does not fit the facts -- a real downer#3. What? near St. Ignace, Mackinac Co., Michigan -- Additiosnal information needs to be sought but future, access to the site seems likely to be denied.  #4. Two Pop-ups in Hammond Twp., St. Lawrence Co., New York -- my physical limitations preclude activities required to complete the required field work. 
           The preceding etc. aside, each of these IncompletedS continues to be considered, and revisions will be continuously made to these reports, and dates when any noteworthy changes are made will be posted at the beginning of each report that undergoes such modification.  
= && +++ && =

  BELOW  1A, B. & C:  Chk with short paper.       D:  After this one is edited and the short one prepared, go through and see what is here and not therein and visa-versa !!!! ---.

#1A. An Ancient Trading Post ?      IN PREPRATION **/ Latest tweaking 26 Sept. 2017
   **  A paper based on Reports 1A, B, & C, that does not include certain data and photographs that are included in these web site versions, is in prepartion.  The things that are here but not in that paper include such things as comparisons and contrasts of the patterns on the Boat Harbor glyph-bearing stones with, for example, hieroglphics and  considerations of previously recorded origins of the holes of holey stones.  When and where the shorter report becomes available will be noted here.   

D: Note, at least as a footnote, perhaps in the introduction(!!?!!) that the main reason that this report is presented as three separate reports is the FACT that the presence of the glyph-bearing stones and the presence of the holey stones may or may not have had any direct relation to each other -- i.e., they may (probably) have arrived at Boat Harbor at different, perhaps widely separated (e.g., separated by thousands of years) AS WELL AS have had completely unrelated roles (or represent completely different activities).  As a matter of fact, the only relationship that even is construed possibly to indicate otherwise is the statement  re the possible contemporaneous existence of a nearby marketing and a gaming parlor -- which seems to be a real "reach."   To put it elsewise, the presence of the two different kinds of "featured" stones at Boat Harbor may have no direct relationship to each other -- i.e., other than being at the site because it was a place in this area where water craft with relatively deep drafts could get close to shore.

Preface (Narrative)

          Since coming to Gros Cap in October 2009, a number of residents of Mackinac and Chippewa counties,
which constitute the eastern part of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, have had me identify rocks that they have collected.  Most of those rocks have been stones picked up from glacial, glacio-fluvial, or beach deposits within these counties.  One of those specimens, a glyph-bearing loose rock -- i.e., a stone --  led to research and a tentatively suggested hypothesis that a trading post existed one or more times during the pre(local)historical past in a small, near-shore area, locally called Boat Harbor, which is in Moran Township of Mackinac County (see Fig. #1A-1).       
Activities that led to the just mentioned suggestion can be chronicled as follows:  Photography and study of the  glyph-bearing stone (see Fig. #1B-1a, Report #1B), which was found atop rubble on the shore of Boat Harbor;  several additional visits to the site -- most accompanied by others who also searched for additional specimens;  investigation of the literature, including maps and aerial photographs of the area;  contacting people familiar with the history of area to see if they, or anyone they knew, had possibly pertinent oral historical information about the site;  examining nearby areas with similar rubble ground-covers or possibly related bedrock;  and discussing, for the most part via email, facts and fancies about my preliminary conclusions and speculations with several people.
          Readers should keep in mind, especially while reviewing this Report (#1A), the fact that
neither my education nor my  professional activities have been in the fields of glyphology or archaeology -- professional in those fields will, of course, readily recognize the need for this disclaimer.

The site (Location and Description)

        Location Boat Harbor is in the southeastern part of Poupard Bay, in the NW¼ of sec. 5, T.40N.- R.4W., Moran Township, Mackinac County, Michigan.   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.   Per Google Earth, the central part of this rubble-blanketed area has the following coordinates:  45o53'42.89"N. Latitude  84o50'25.68"W. Longitude;  and, an elevation of 579 feet above MSL.  See Figure #1A-1.

           Figure #1A-1. Location of Boat Harbor.  The left, regional map shows the shoreline from west of Epoufette (upper left) southeastward to the Straits of Mackinac (see northern end of the Big Mac bridge, lower right of center).   These maps depict only the general shape of the current coastline, a shape that has changed and continues to be modified, sometimes rather markedly, with only small changes of the water level of Lake Michigan.  

     Description.  In July, 2016, more than 90 percent of the Boat Harbor rubble blanket was above lake level.  Breaking storm waves, however, now and then reduced that percentage, though seldom by any noteworthy amount.  A typical part of the rubble is shown as Fig.#1A-2a.  Currently, in 2017, much of the area is below the water level of Lake Michigan.

                                                          Figure #1A-2a. Typical on-shore rubble beside Boat Harbor (Cf. #1A-2b)..  [Shovel is 25 inches long.]    

                                                    Figure #1A-2b.  Selected atypical fragments from the rubble.   Note especially:  The diverse shapes of the dolomite*A1*/ fragments;   the fact that the edges and larger surfaces of these fragments are less abraded than most of the fragments of the typical rubble  (Fig. #1A-2a);  the two well rounded fragments --  a granite and a basalt, which were probably glacially transported into this area during the Pleistocene;   and the well-rounded  an unusual holey stone, which is dolomite. [The Brunton Compass at approximately one 'oclock in this roughly semicircular group provides a scale to indicate the sizes of these fragements.]

            The overall rubble-blanket at the site consists largely of fragments of Lower Paleozoic calcareous sedimentary rocks, nearly all of which are dolomite*A1*/ ;  a few pebbles and cobbles of igneous and metamorphic rocks, probably naturally transported into the region during Pleistocene glaciation, are also present (see Fig. #1A-2b). 
Footnote   A1. This designation (i.e., dolomite), actually a mineral name, is used throughout this report rather than dolostone, a more appropriate rock name, because the mineral name has been, and continues to be, widely applied to sedimentary rocks that consist wholly or largely of the mineral dolomite.  Although some of the dolomite loose rocks (i.e., stones)  that constitute a large percentage of the fragments of the rubble blankets at Boat Harbor and nearby areas contain noteworthy calcite, all are referred to only as dolomite in this and the other two reports of this tripartite group.

            Although the dolomite fragments have diverse sizes, ranging from granules to large cobbles, most of them are of pebble and small cobble size.  In terms of roundness, these stones range from angular to well-rounded, with a large percentage of them angular to subangular with all or most of their edges slightly rounded and their other surfaces abraded.  Diverse sphericities -- i.e., shapes -- occur:   Many of these stones are discoidal or subprismatic;  others are so irregular that their shapes can hardly be described.  Most of the fragments are light tan (i.e., ~beige)  or light gray (i.e., off-white);  surfaces of some of them, however, include dark brown unidentified spots and/or a partial to complete, enveloping scum also, parts of the fragments beneath several of  bordering, overhanging trees and bushes are stained, apparently as the result of changes imposed by solutions that dripped from the overgrowth. 
            The shapes and/or sizes of the larger glyph-bearing stone (see Figs. #1A-3 & #1B-1a & b) and the holes, shapes, and sizes of the holey stones (see Figs. #1A-4 & #1C-1), which were found atop or within the rubble-blanket at the site, differ markedly from the nearby typical rubble fragmentsConsequently, both the larger glyph-bearing stone and these holey stones were conspicuous -- i.e., they appeared to be out-of-place.  Unfortunately, none of these specimens was photographed in place;  consequently, as noted in the caption for Figure #1A-3, the photographs shown as Figures #1A-3 & 4 were so-to-speak staged.

                                                   Figure #1A-3.  The larger glyph-bearing specimen atop rubble similar to that at Boat Harbor.  [ As noted in the text, the relationships shown in this and the following photograph were staged.  This was necessary because the featured stones were not photographed in place when they were found.   In addition, the rubble shown in these two photographs is NOT part of the Boat Harbor blanket;  instead, it is part of a nearby, higher level (by less than a foot) rubble deposit of similar origin and history as the rubble at Boat Harbor;   this setup was so-to-speak dictated because, as mentioned in the text, most of the part of the Boat Harbor rubble where the featured stones were found is now (2017) under water.   In any case, the position of the glyph-bearing specimen is just as Lina Cheeseman, who collected the specimen, recalls -- she noted, for example, that it is unlikely that she would even have noticed the glyph-bearing stone had its size and patterned surface not been obvious.

                                                   Figure #1A-4.  Two holey stones atop the same rubble as that shown in Figure #1A-3.  [This relationship was staged as noted for the glyph-bearing stone in Fig.#1A-3.  Note also that the surfaces of these holey stones were "cleaned" with a bristle brush before this photograph was taken.]

            It might be argued that the differences that led to the out-of-place appearance of the larger glyph-bearing stone and these holey stones depended largely upon lithological differences between them and the more numerous, typical fragments of the rubble.  Additional facts and considerations seem, however, more likely to indicate that the larger glyph-bearing stone (and probably also the later found smaller one) and these holey stones were not part of the natural environment -- i.e., they were likely brought to Boat Harbor by one or more human beings.  These considerations, especially as they relate to the holey stones, follow: 
                        A. Nearby, otherwise similar rubble deposits include none or very few holey stones like the Boat Harbor ones that are described in report #1C.
                         B. The distribution of these holey stones was neither regular nor random;  they occurred sporadically within only a relatively small 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 is based on measurements on the Google Earth composite).
                         C. It seems unlikely
, considering the number of these holey stones (more than a score), their sizes (greatest dimension ~4 - ~ 9 inches) and their distribution, that they constituted a so-to-speak collection made by a hobbyist).  <--[ This aspect is noted because a critical reader of an earlier version of this report noted, They could have just as well been 'deposited' there ... by a youngster disposing of their(sic) rock collection.*A2*/ ]
  Footnote   A2Although this possibility per ce is considered unlikely, (see D, below), the possibility that these holey stones were brought to Boat Harbor for marketing -- see especially Report #1C, the last paragraph under the subheading Why were these holey stones brought to Boat Harbor?);  the favored conclusion given there, if correct, could be construed to vitiate the unlikely conclusion” given here.

                         D. The just quoted comment leads to additional facts that relate to both the accessibility of the area (1) and its possible role as a dump (2).
                                    1. For at least the last half century, the Boat Harbor site, though less than a half-mile from Gros Cap Rd., has not been easily 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 as well as during most winters (today's 4-wheel drive vehicles, snow-mobiles excepted).  Along this line, attention is directed to the soil map of the area (Whitney, 1997)
and to features that are evident on the Google Earth composite.  In addition, much of the time even when the area is fairly accessible by land, an almost overpowering, sometimes nauseating, stench that emanates from the adjoining swamp lands has very likely kept at least some people from even thinking about going by land to Boat Harbor.                                  
                                    2. Use of the area as a dump, at least during the last few decades, would have been highly unlikely.  This is so because such stones could have been disposed of along with weekly picked up "junk" or dispossed of at nearby, easily accessible, open dumps.  <-- This aspect is at least permissively supported by two additional observations:  A.The sporadic distribution of these stones within the given area seems essentially to preclude the possibility that some collector of such stones may have just dumped her/his collection here.   [and]    B.Other than a discarded soda or beer can etc., no obviously dumped things are part of or atop the Boat Harbor rubble.   Nonetheless, this possibility cannot be absolutely dismissed!

Explanation (Tentative hypothesis)
            Suggestion of the following possibility is strictly tentative:
The presence of two glyph-bearing stones and more than a score of holey stones that seem not
                        to have been naturally transported into a rubble-blanketed area beside Boat Harbor may indicate

that this site served as a "trading post" one or more times during the pre-(local)historical past.

 Although it seems that this suggested possibility may warrant the same fate that a number of less than well-founded previously proposed ideas -- e.g., those that involve prehistorical visits to this region by extra-terrestrial beings -- seem to have had, it is my hope that, this tripartite report may lead to further investigation and result in well-based, acceptable interpretations relating to the presence of both the glyph-bearing and holey stones at Boat Harbor. 

Supporting Data
            The above possibility, which has both the glyph-bearing and holey stones brought into the BoatHarbor area by human beings, is based on the following empirical evidence and considerations:
                           1. The presence of the two glyph-bearing stones -- one atop, the other within -- the rubble blanket beside Boat Harbor, coupled with the fact that similar stones were not found in any nearby similar rubble deposits*A3*/.
                           2. The presence of several holey stones -- i.e., like the ones described in Report #1C -- atop or within this rubble deposit, whereas no, or only one or two even roughly similar holey stones were found to occur within any nearby rubble deposit

Footnote  A3. Similar nearby rubble deposits were examined in July and August of 2016:  Each of the accumulations was either awash Lake Michigan or only a few feet from, and above, the 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 with Pte. LaBarbe Road. 
                           3. The general consensus that the patterns on the glyp-bearing stones were incised by humans (see Rpt.#1B). 
                           4. Conjectures that the holey stones must have had some use (e.g., to produce something) or characteristics (i.e., those that made the intrinsic qualities of these stones something to be possessed).  
<--   [Either of these roles would provide at least permissive support for the possibility that these stones were brought to this harbor by human beings.  This aspect is treated further in Report #1C  -- see subsection Why were these holey stones brought to Boat Harbor?.]
                           5. An additional fact, to which my attention was directed by a critical reader, seems worth at least passing consideration:  Boat Harbor was, until fairly recently (i.e., before the dredging and/or building of relatively large docks here and there within the area), one of a few -- perhaps the only  -- near-shore area between the Straits of Mackinac and Epoufette (See Fig. #1A-1) where near-shore water depths could serve watercrafts other than, for example, canoes.   <--  [Although this is true, only a cursory examination of charts of today's near shore line of this area and topographic maps and Google Earth aerial photographic views of the area and adjoining region indicate the existence of several rather diverse former shorelines.  In any case, if the tentatively suggested hypothesis has any applicability, it would follow that the suggested trading post must have existed only at times when the shoreline was not greatly different from that of the current shoreline. ¶ In any case,  the topography of both the nearby land and offshore area require additional, more detailed analyses.  This is so because such analyses might, among other things, set time limits so far as when, for example, a trading post could have been active at the site.  In addition, such analyses might lead to additional information about such things as possible routes likely to have been followed and former means of transportation by water craft possibly used within the Great Lakes region during certain periods of the Lake Michigan Episode -- i.e., ~2200 years B.P. to the present. (see, e.g., Hough (1958) & Dietrich (1988).]


            One critical reader of an earlier version of the manuscript for this Report maintained that he thought the tentatively suggested possible existence of a trading post at Boat Harbor  is farfetched.   That thought granted, no alternative suggestion has been forwarded or suggested, nor have I thought of one that is not what I consider to be even  more ad hoc

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


References cited

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

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

Whitney, G.D.  1997. Soil survey of Mackinac County, Michigan. Part 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Resources Conservation Service
 < https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/michigan/mackinacMI1997/mackinac MI1997-II.pdf >  (accessed 22 January 2017)

Following no longer needed
        NO NOT NEEDED HERE ??? Dutro, J.T., Jr.,  R.V. Dietrich, and R.M. Foose (compilers). 1989.  AGI Data Sheets for geology in the field, laboratory, and office (third edition).  Alexandria,VA:American Geological Institute.

        NO NOT NEEDED HERE ??? Gray & Pape. 2016.  How Do You Crack a Nut?. < http://graypape.com/how-do-you-crack-a-nut/ >  (accessed 31 January 2015).

        NO NOT NEEDED HERE ??? Kuhnlein, H.V. and N.J.Turner. 1991.  Oaks. Traditional plant foods of Canadian indigenous peoples: Nutrition, botany and use. Food and nutrition in History and Anthropology. Amsterdam:Gordon and Breach  (Volume 8, pp. 199-201).   < https://books.google.com/books?id=fPDErXqH8YYC&printsec=frontcover#v =onepage&q&f=false >  (accessed 1 January 2016). 
        NO NOT NEEDED HERE ??? Ritchie, W.A.  1929.  Hammerstones, anvils and certain bitted stones.  Researches and transactions of the New York State Archeological Association. VII(No.2):29p.

          Several fragments with cavities, like those shown in Figure #1A-ADa-left, and the fossil (Fig. 1A-ADa-right) were found when Kurt and I examined the Boat Harbor rubble. 

      Figure #1A-ADa.  Left,  Late Silurian-age Saint Ignace Dolomite (Bass Islands Group).  It is widely accepted that these surface features were formed as the result of dissolution of  crystals of, for example, gypsum that were included within the original sediment;  this specimen, like other rubble fragments, has also undergone weathering and abrasion.                                  Right,   This fossil, tentatively identified as a fenestrate (fan) bryozoan, which is a relatively common fossil within the Silurian-Devonian rocks of the Michigan Basin, was exposed on the surface of this rubble fragment from Harbor rubble.      [As the Lincoln pennies indicate, these two specimens are shown at different scales.] 

          An apparently one-of-a kind, stone found in the rubble at Boat Harbor is shown in Figure #1A-ADb.  No specimen with this appearance was found in any of the other rubbles examined within this area. 

         Figure #1A-ADb.  A rust(limonite)-coated  stone that was found in the same part of the Boat Harbor rubble as the glyph-bearing and holey stone specimens.  Left,  the bottom, as found;  Center, the top, as found; . Right, a sawn and polished surface. --  According to X-ray analysis, the stone consists largely of white to off-white quartz and plagioclase feldspar plus some illite, and a dark green-black amphibole (George Robinson, p.c., 27 February 2017).  The origins of this rock and its external coating are unproved.  [As the Lincoln pennies indicate, the polished surface is shown at a scale that differs from that of the two originally exposed surfaces of  this specimen.] 

| Home |

#1B Glyph-bearing stones from Boat Harbor, Gros Cap, Michigan 
IN PREPRATION! Latest tweaking 26 Sept. 2017 

Identity of these stones

           Both 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 a nearby location.  

                   Figure #1B-1a.  Two glyph-bearing stones  that were found in the rubble-blanketed area at Boat Harbor.  The larger one was found by Caroline B. Cheeseman;  the smaller one by Krista D. Brown.  [The background is 7-wale corduroy.  For additional information about their sizes, see Fig. #1B-1b.]

                             Figure #1B-1b. Sizes of the two specimens.  (Left photo by Caroline Cheeseman)

Patterns on these stones
        Photographs of these two specimens were sent to five professional geologists known to be especially good observers and to have had several diverse experiences involving sedimentary features and/or diverse fossils, including ichnofossils.  In addition, considering the expertise of each of them, I am confident that they considered both specimens that they had seen and specimens that are described or illustrated in geological or paleontological publications.  Each of these geologists, independently, indicated that he thinks the surficial markings on both specimens are very likely man-made;  I agree.   I suspect that their opinions, as well as mine, were based on the fact that several features on the illustrated surfaces of these stones do not even roughly resemble, any geologically formed feature or any group of, for example, animal or plant forms, results of their activities, and/or parts thereof.  

                                         Figure #1B-2a. Features within the circles and ovals appear NOT to resemble forms known to be natural. 
(photo by Caroline Cheeseman)

                                                      Figure #1B-2b.  Close-ups of three examples of features circled in Fig. #1-2a.

                                                     Figure #1B-2c. Close-ups that feature a few of the diverse, albeit eroded, edges of the "incised" lines on these stones.

                             Figure #1B-2d.   A roughly similar pattern that is on both specimens:  Left, part of the larger specimen;   center, part of the smaller specimen.  [These features are shown at the same scale in these two photographs.]         Right, enlargement of the center photo and its surrounding area. [This enlargement is included to facilitate comparison of, for example, the lower ends of the "characters" and the surrounding rectilinear "frames" of the smaller specimen with those of the larger glyph-bearing specimen, as shown on the left.]

Who incised the patterns?
              The fact that the “incised”*B1*/ surfaces of these specimens have undergone weathering and erosion makes definitive statements about their original characteristics speculative.   In addition, no fragments of tools -- e.g., flint/chert or iron  -- that may have been used
Footnote    B1 "incised" is used in this report to indicate mode of 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., the use of tools versus etching. 

to score these rocks were found during microscopic examination of the surfaces or when strong magnets were moved close to and slowly both across and along the grooves of these specimens. The serrate edges of several of the linear incisions (see Fig. #1B-2c, especially the left section), seem especially difficult to correlate with any tool.  In addition, even though differential weathering, either chemical or physical or both, appears possibly to have been responsible for at least some of the characteristics of at least some of the edges of many of the grooves, those processes seem unlikely, if not impossible, causes of several -- indeed, most -- of those features. 

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

            Internet searches were made (in 2016) using images and keywords, both individually and in combination, to see if any similarly appearing surfaces were recorded on-line.  The following are the main things that found as a result of those searches:   No ancient patterns, or parts thereof, were found that appear to be more than roughly similar to those on the Boat Harbor specimens.  The following were among the hits made during the searches, followed by a clause that relates to overall differences or similarities between their patterns and those on the Boat Harbor glyph-bearing stones Early Sumerian Cuneiform(dated 8,000-3,000 BCE) -- some of these patterns (including both those etched or engraved into rock and those pressed into clay) include features parts of which roughly resemble parts of the patterned surfaces on the Boat Harbor specimens  (see, for example, Miragaya, 2015).   Nicaraguan petroglyphs(dated as 300 BCE) -- a few of the glyph(s) that adorn some of the loose volcanic stones that are on the grounds of, and within the El Ceibo Museum, Ometpep (an island in Lake Nicaragua), have characters the shapes of which roughly resemble a few of those on the larger Boat Harbor specimen.   Rosetta stone(dated 196 BCE) -- its characters, each quite unique, are rather well defined and well aligned but quite unlike any features on the Boat Harbor glyph-bearing stones.   Runestones (dated 1st to 12th centuries CE.) -- none of their patterns, or even relatively small parts of those patterns, closely resemble patterns on the Boat Harbor stones._*B2*/.    Newberry(Michigan) Tablet(undated) -- no forms on this tablet, whatever its authenticity and origin, resemble patterns on the Boat Harbor glyph-bearing specimens.   


Footnote    B2 a.  Images of the preceding "glyphs" are available on-line.  No particular reference for most of them seems to warrant citation here.
                     b. The preceding paragraphs do not refer to the two specimens shown in Figure #1B-ADa.of the Addenda.

What was the function of the glyph-bearing stones found at Boat Harbor?
         To date, no function that seems noteworthy has come to mind or been suggested by anyone who has seen these specimens or photographs of them.  See, however, the "tongue-in-cheek" suggestion given under the following subheading.  
                 [More than a year after the preceding paragraph was written, David Ginsburg (p.c., email - dated 28 August 2017), a critical reader of an earlier manuscript of this report, directed my attention to an article by Albaz et al.(2017) and suggested that the Bar Harbor glyph-bearing stones might have been part of a board game.  This led to reminisces of my small home town which included not only a general store but also a pool hall+, which were action parts of that town, and led me to the following question:   If the holey stones described in Report #1C were marketed, could these glyph-bearing stones have been used as game boards or for keeping scores in a neighboring “game parlor” at the hypothesized trading post?  (Certainly both such enterprises might well be located at such a place!).  Further considerations, however, have led me to think that the original patterns
on these glyph-bearing stones seem likely to have been too intricate for such use.  Consequently, although it seems prudent to mention this possibility, it also is something that I have neither the knowledge or background to pursue further.

An "off the wall" interpretation of the pattern on the larger specimen   
            Two, so-to-speak, interrelated, questions pertain:   Does each line, 'character' or section of the pattern on the larger glyph-bearing stone have a meaning?   OR   Does the whole surface of the specimen constitute an image that depicts some entity?

           The immediate answer to the each line or ‘character’ ... possibility seems to be NO!  at least not one that can be trasnlated.  <-- This opinion is based largely on characteristics of the lines (See Figs. #1B-2b & 2c) and the presence of so much apparent repetition.  [Granted, the original, incised surface may have exhibited characteristics, now weathered and eroded away, that would have indicated otherwise.  Also, one must admit that even using only the currently available surface, any imaginative story teller (I think of my Grandfather Vincent and his reputation along this line) might very well come up with one or more interesting "translation."]   

           So far as the second question -- i.e., were the configurations meant to depict some entity -- my admittedly tongue-in-cheek   response is POSSIBLY(?).  This possibility is based in part on my recollection of a photograph of part of a potsherd (dated as ~4,000 years old”), from the Cameron site in Vernon Township, Oneida County in central New York (see p.37, News and views for the Colgate [University] community,  Scene: Winter 2013),  [Readers also should know that I have a rather long history related to apophenia (see Dietrich, 2017).]  In any case, the larger Boat Harbor specimen, quite obviously only a portion of an originally larger slab(?), appears possibly to represent an Amerindian chief with a feather headdress (see Fig.#1B-3). 

                 Figure #1B-3. An Amerindian chief?

Questions, QuestionsQUESTIONS ! ! !
  && +++ && =

References Cited

Albz, Shira,   Shai, Itzhaq,  Haskel, J.G., and Maeir, A.M.   2017.  Board games in biblical Gath.  Biblical Archaeology Review 43(September-October):22-23.

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

"Copper".   n.d.   <http://crystal-information.com/encyclopedia/copper/> (accessed 17 February 2017). 

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

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

Following no longer needed
    NO NOT NEEDED HERE ??? Dietrich, R.V.  2017.  GemRocks. <http://stoneplus.cst.cmich.edu/Default.htm>.  sub-web sites on this site, see: 
                                Mimetoliths. <
                                Nature’s Wood Sculptures. <
                                Cloud Forms. <
http://stoneplus.cst.cmich.edu/AA.Clouds/Clouds.html>.  (accessed 30 June 2016).

   NO NOT NEEDED HERE ???   Jewell, R.L.  2004.  Ancient Mines of Kitchi-Gummi:  Cypriot/Minoan Traders in North America.  (2nd ed.)  Fairfield (PA): Jewell Histories (185p.)


The first of these addenda, though added after the three that follow it, is given first because it seems more directly pertinent to this report than the other addenda.

            Two additional apparently glyph-bearing stones (see Fig. #1B-AD/ext.) were found September 11, 2017, as fragments in the rubble, that is contiguous with, though somewhat higher than, the part of the Boat Harbor rubble-blanket where the two specimens treated in this #1B report and the holey stones of Report #1C were found.  Lake Michigan was calm and this part of the blanket is still above Lake Michigan water level.

                                  Figure #1B-AD/ext.  These two apparently glyph-bearing stones were found 11 September 2017 by Kirsta Brown(left) and rvd(right) in the exposed (i.e., top "layer" of the) part of the rubble-blanket at Boat Harbor that is still above the level of Lake Michigan water.  One feature, in particular, of the stone on the left differs from the features on other glyph-bearing specimens found at this site:  The incised line between the round-ended pair on the right, protruding side of this stone is at an angle, rather than parallel or perpendicular to the other "incised" lines.  Also, both of these features, in my view, have rather obvious possibilities in line with the "off the wall" possibility mentioned for the large glyph-bearing specimen (see Fig. #1B-3).


            1. In 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 from Boat Harbor.  Arrangements were made for me to see, photograph and get information about the occurrence of that stone. 

                       Actually, Frazer found two specimens (see Fig. #1A-ADa).  [In any case, the bearing that these two stones might have on the suggested possible existence of a trading post at Boat Harbor (Report #1A) seems moot.] 

          Figure #1B-ADa.    These two specimens are said to have been found in rubble that was atop the area, now a quarry, that is east of Cecil Road near its junction with Cheeseman Road, in Moran Township, Mackinac County, Michigan.  The patterns, which are on only on one surface of each of these specimens, led to their being noticed and collected.  Subsequently, diverse attributions (e.g., to certain ancient peoples who may have made them and brought them to this region [with possible dates!], . . .) have been suggested to account for their presence within this area.  [See following Addenda, 2.]         

            2. 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 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 possibly fitting, his even thinking about such a possibility -- if expanded to include diverse substrates -- seems to be one that the should at least be considered for some of the character-bearing stone and clay pieces found at archaeological sites.
            3. On May 4, 2017, a newspaper report dated May 7, 1892 was republished (Anon. 2017) that included statements about 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 been unable to find any additional information about this stone. This information is mentioned here only as an add-on, of possible import similar to that possibly related to the specimens shown on Figure #1B-ADa.

| Home |

#1C.  Holey stones from Boat Harbor, Gros Cap, Michigan   

                                                               IN PREPRATION ! Latest tweaking 27 Sept. 2017   

          The main part of this report is about the holey stones that were found atop or partly within the rubble-blanket at Boat Harbor and how their occurrence there is thought to relate to the tentatively suggested hypothesis given in report #1A -- i.e., that an onshore area south of Boat Harbor may once have been a trading post.

           While preparing this report, certain aspects of holey stones in general seemed to warrant consideration.  The Appendix to this report includes two of them:  1. A list of previously recorded synonyms of holey stone.   [and]   2. A brief review and evaluation of recorded suggestions for the formation of holey stones like those collected at Boat Harbor. 


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

Boat Harbor holey stones   
            Four of the more than a score of holey stones that were collected from the rubble blanket at Boat Habor are shown in Fig. #1C-1.  These four stones, indeed all of the holey stones that are the subject of this report, were found within the same rather small part of the rubble-blanket as the two glyph-bearing stones that are described in Report #1B.  Although these holey stones made up much less than one per cent of the total number of rubble fragments within the area, they, like the larger glyph-bearing stone, were conspicuous.  Indeed, they would have been conspicuous in this rubble-blanket even if they had had no holes. This was so because their sizes and shapes differ markedly from most of the fragments of the rubble-blanket.  [I early found that these holey stones were easy to spot even when oriented so their holes were not evident;  the specimen shown on the right side of Figure #1C-1a was spotted, picked up, and collected even though its other, non-hole-bearing side was exposed (see Fig. #1C-1b). 

             Each of these holey stones is dolomite, probably of late Silurian age (Dan McGuire, personal communication, 2017);  their longest dimension ranges from ~4 to ~9 inches (~10 to ~23 cm.);  although the overall shapes of most them appear to reflect the shapes they had when they were broken off their parent outcrops (see Fig. #1C-1), three of them were roughly ovoidal (see Fig. #1C-1c).

             The holes in the Boat Harbor specimens have at least roughly circular shapes perpendicular to their depths and maximum diameters of ~¾ inch (~2 cm).   The number, distribution, and relationship of the holes to the current shapes of the stones differ from specimen to specimen (see Fig. #1C-1). The only near-constant relationships are the fact that only the bottoms and near bottoms of these holes remain (apparently as the result of abrasion of the host fragments), and nearly all of the holes are on the two larger, relatively flat, nearly parallel surfaces of the sub-prismoidal and roughly discoidal stones -- i.e., the surfaces upon which these stones would have nearly always rested after transport or movement imposed by, for example, breaking waves.

           Figure #1C-1a.  Four differently shaped holey stone cobbles from Boat Harbor:  A. irregular shape, well-rounded edges;  B. sub-prismoidal, rounded edges;   C. ovoidal shape;   D. roughly discoidal shape, rounded edges;  [These stones have been washed and brushed (plastic bristles).]

           Figure #1C-1b.  The two sides of specimen D -- bottom (i.e., not exposed) and top (i.e., surface exposed) when spotted.

Geological history for the Boat Harbor holey stones
                   Readily available evidence, some of which is only permissive, appears to support the following geological history for the Boat Harbor holey stones  
                   Deposition of parent *C1*/ sediment in a northern part of the marine Michigan Basin  --  probably Late Silurian (~460-415 MYA *C2*/)
                   Lithification -- including dolomitization (diagenetic?) of those sediments   -- (pre ~390 MYA)
                   Collapse of these and associated rocks into subsurface “voids” to form the Mackinac Breccia   --   pre-Early Devonian (Dundee)  (~380 MYA)     [Dissolution of Silurian Salina salt appears to have created the voids.]
                   Exposure of the “parent rocks, including those in the Mackinac Breccia, to weathering and erosion, with separation of masses of the “parent rocks from outcrops and incorporation of the loosened fragments into moving water  -- (~300 MYA)
                   Boring of  holes in the loose rocks that are now holey stones   -- (~? ? ? MYA *C3*/ )      
                   Abrasion of the hole-bearing fragments   --   (~? ? ? MYA *C3*/  to present)


Footnotes    C1.  parent -- this term, used as an adjective, refers to the sediment and the resulting lithified rock that includes the holes that are the subject of this report;  its extended use -- i.e. parent rocks -- includes Lower Paleozoic associated formations.

                      C2.  MYA -- Million Years ago.

                      C3.  On the basis of the widely accepted geological history of the region both the boring and abrasion seem to have occurred within non-marine environments;  this seems possibly to include just about any time from at least Late Paleozoic to the present, except for the times when the region was covered by Pleistocene glacial ice -- see, for example, Landes et al. (1945) and Rosenau (1956).   [In any case, how, when, and in what environment the holes originated has no bearing on the tentatively suggested hypothesis given in Part #1A of this tripartite report-- i.e., that a trading post was once on the shore at Boat Harbor.]  


             The above possible history notwithstanding, to date, the time(s) when the holes were bored into their host rocks, now loose stones, has not been established.  It is only known that during this study no fragments of these rocks that contain such holes were found within the Mackinac Breccia*C4*/ or in nearby exposures of the parent formations.  <-- These apparent absences, at least permissively, support the conclusion that the holes were bored after the fragments were freed from outcrops of their "parent" formation and/or from rubble fragments of those parent rocks that were within the the Mackinac Breccia. 

Footnote:   C4. Localities where constituents of the Mackinac Breccia were examined, as given on Google Earth, follow:  St. Anthony's Stack near downtown St. Ignace (45º 53' 04.59" N. -- 83º43'34.90" W.);   unnamed masses on the western side of North State Street (Rte. B75), St. Ignace (45º53'05.64" N.-- 84º43'33.12" W.);  and  Gros Cap Rock, two localities northwest of St. Ignace  -- Rest Stop on Rte. 2  (45º 53' 02.16" N. -- 84º50'08.69" W.) and along the eastern side of Gros Cap Road  (~ 45º 53' 01.65" N. -- 84º50'13.06" W.). 

How were the holes of these holey stones formed?

             No origin has been proved to have obtained so far as the origin of the holes of the holey stones found at Boat Harbor.   The possibility that they were formed by some boring creature -- e.g., a boring clam -- and subsequently modified by weathering and abrasion seems, however, to best fit the facts – See Appendix, How are the holes ... . 

             The general shapes and sizes of the holes in these holey stones, as well as the probable environment in which the stones appear likely to have been formed seems to favor some non-marine*C5*/ boring clam(s).  This is so even though very few of the shapes of the holes in the Boat Harbor holey stones exhibit the overall, roughly "de-tipped teardrop" shape that characterizes many borings known to have been excavated by such clams (see, however, Fig. #1C-2);  indeed, only the bottoms of all but a few of the "borings," if they are such, remain in the Boat Harbor specimens.  Also, the question as to why no remains of a boring animal (e.g., clam) have been found in any of the holes persists;  however, this question seems easily dismissed because it seems likely that they were dissolved and, in any case, it is quite obvious that large portions of the original holes have been removed by weathering and/or abrasion. 

Footnote    C5. One feature, in particular, of these holey stones appears not only to support this conclusion, but also to indicate that the parent fragments were then in moving water:  Nearly all of the holes in these stones are on both sides of the stone's two larger surfaces -- i.e., their probable tops or bottoms whenever they were at rest, during any transport or, for example, now and then moved by breaking waves.  This fact, if considered along with the widely accepted, above outlined geological history of the region, indicates that the holes were likely formed when the fragments were in a nonmarine environment.  In addition, it seems to follow, that at least some of the abrasion of these stones also occurred during the same general period although it seems quite likely that at least some of the abrasion has taken place more recently;  indeed, it is occurring at least intermittently even now!

                                                             Figure #1C-2. A possible example of an abraded, “de-tipped teardrop” shaped hole  -- i.e., abraded 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 the holey stones of Boat Harbor -- i.e., only the lower parts and bottoms of  holes have been found in nearly all of the Boat Harbor holey stones.  

             It seems only prudent to direct attention to the fact that the above tentative conclusion about the origin of the holes of the holey stones found Boat Harbor leads to an apparently troubling "anomaly":  According to malacologists and paleontologists whom I have contacted, boring clams are not known in freshwater environments or as fossils within sedimentary rocks that are known to have a freshwater precursor sediment.     <-- This, despite the fact that the caption for a sketch in Moore, Lalicker & Fischer (1952,  Fig.10-2) includes the following: “Burrowing types of pelecypods. A majority of this group of clams burrows in the soft mud, silt, or sand beneath shallow seas or on the floor of fresh-water bodies.”  and,  the sketch includes a burrowing clam, “Pholas,” in rock. (RVD's italics and underline) *C6*/. 

Footnote   C6. The following facts and comments pertain:  
                                Boring clams have been recorded as existing in rocks from marine environments since Ordovician time (Miller, 2007, p.363). 
                              “Interesting that no references I'm aware of since 1952 mention freshwater boring clams.  I would think someone would have.  Perhaps Moore et al. was just making a general statement?  [and] I don't think you can  use the sketch as evidence of a freshwater environment.  I think it was just a general sketch.   (Wicander, p.c., 23 January 2017) 
                             The fact that a very large percentage of the literature about, for example, Paleozoic strata, is based on marine environments, might account for the  lack of information about non-marine hole boring invertebrates if such ever did exist. 

    ---->>  [As a “hard rock petrologist, I leave the above, apparent lack of agreementS etc. to professional malacologists, paleontologists and stratigraphers to resolve.]

                ** Also, it seems only prudent to note again:  The origin of the holes in these holey stones has no bearing on the tentatively suggested hypothesis given in Part #1A of this tripartite report-- i.e., that a trading post was once on the shore at Boat Harbor.    

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

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

This question, stated elsewise is:  What activity or activities may account for the presence of the more than a score of atypical*C7*/, relatively large holey stones at Boat Harbor?  <-- Two possible answers seem obvious:  These stones were dumped here.  OR  These stones were brought there for some particular use at the site and/or because they had some intrinsic value, so they were brought there to market to visitors to the site.   As noted in Report #1A (See item D. 2) the possibility that the holey stones were dumped at the site seems highly unlikely.   Therefore, the just alluded alternative – i.e., they were brought there to use and/or to market seems to warrant special consideration.
----------------------------------------Footnote:   C7. atypical as used here relates not only to the relatively large sizes of these holey stones but also to their occurrences (i.e., most of them were atop rather than within the rubble blanket) and to their general appearances (i.e., they just do not look like the holey stones, of which there are a few, that occur as constituents of the main rubble).

                For untold ages, human beings and other primates as well as several other animals including birds have used stones – e.g., as anvils upon which nuts (etc.) were placed to facilitate their cracking -- for early literature relating to this use see Ritchie (1929), and, so far as the Boat Harbor holey stones, see also Gray & Pape (2016).   Indeed, holey stones similar to those found at Boat Harbor are said to have been used widely by Amerindians – e.g., the Ojibways and Hurons of this general region -- to remove the shells of acorns, which they harvested and used as a staple of their diets (see Fig. #1C-3);  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)].   Despite these facts, I believe that a number of considerations make this possibility a less likely explanation than, for example, the alternative whereby the stones were brought to this harbor area for marketing (trading).  In particular, it seems more likely that these stones would have been abandoned by only one or so marketers for whatever reason than by a couple dozen or so workers, who would have apparently had to have abandoned their tools (i.e., their anvils, which would have been part of their very livelihood) virtually simultaneously -- Granted, they could have been raided, ... or perhaps even shanghaied, ...

                         Figure #1C-3.  The relations shown in the above photographs were setup to show how holey stones could have been used as anvils to crack and otherwise harvest acorns for eating and/or prepared so their oil could be easily obtained.   [Although the stones included in these photographs as examples of hammerstones used are NOT from the Boat Harbor location, similar stones are, and very likely have been there since at least the last retreat of Pleistocene glacial ice.]

                So far as the marketing of stones because of their intrinsic qualities:  For untold ages, human beings have sought all sorts of things, very possibly including  holey stones, for all sorts of diverse uses.  Today, holey stones are used as integral pieces or parts of productions of Arts & Crafts;  examples are Scholar’s stones [See Appendix, last section, ALSO NOTEWORTHY, item #3)], decorative stones for aquariums and terrariums, as parts of jewelry such as pendants, and even as the clappers of wind chimes;  and that holey stones have also gained a place in the marketplace that promulgates the idea that minerals and rocks have special attributes that are associated with the healing of physical and mental conditions, enhancement of meditation, superstitions, and legends;  ETC.,  ETC. 

     How?  If either or both of the just mentioned possibilities obtained, the answer to this question is:  Human beings brought these holey stones to Boat Harbor.  <-- Indeed, this conclusion, which I think best explains the presence of at least the holey stones at Boat Harbor, led to introduction of the tentative hypothesis (Report #1A) whereby the  Boat Harbor site would have been a trading post one or more times during the pre(local)historical past.

     When?   No information has been found to indicate the time when the tentatively suggested trading post may have existed.   It seems only safe to say that it was post-Pleistocene glaciation and pre-recorded and currently stated oral local history.  The post-Pleistocene limit is based on the presence of glacially transported stones within the rubble;   [. . . *C8*/];  [. . . *C9*/];  the pre-recorded history limit speaks for itself.

   C8. Perhaps information about the holey stones found in Adams County, Ohio, which closely resemble those found at Bar Harbor, bears on this question!?  Those holey stones are recorded by Gray & Pape (2016)  as “Dating to the Late Archaic period (ca. 8000-1000 B.C.).”

C9.((  The remains of a crib, the top of which which is approximately feet below the present water level of Lake Michigan, is approximately          feet directly northwest of the area where the stones were found.  A sub-lake ledge is just shoreward from the remains of the crib.   Noone ((and I talked to one nonegenerian who frequently went swimming within the harbor area as as a youngster)) seems to recall even hearing about any use of the dock of which the crib remains appear to have been a part.  Indeed, it seems that the dock would have been well below lake level even during any low water periods (e.g., 1985) that are recalled by anyone now alive  -- i.e., its use seems to date to pre(local)historical times.     Check all this with Jimmy Brown!!!  who apparently once dove much within area.   see also charts to see if  rock ledge shows so it can be described as to its height and also give an idea as to size of deep water of "Harbor."   etc., etc. Note the possibility of determining  at least the date when the dock was put in place or last repaired -- by dendrochronolgy of the wooden logs that are part of it and/or perhaps on the basis of the identities of  possibly included hardware, if any,  that was used in its  construction or repair.   I no longer scuba dive!!    )) 


 && +++ &&

Appendix.   How are the holes of holey stones formed?

Definition and synonyms
         The designation holey stone, as used in this document, is strictly descriptive -- i.e., no origin of any of these stones (other than their being of natural occurrence) is included or implied.  These holey stones may be virtually any kind of rock;  the typical holes are at least roughly circular perpendicular to their axes and may extend only into or through the stones.  [This last aspect differs from some previous 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 the so-designated stones  (see, for example, Niagra, 2015).]

        Specimens, which are illustrated and/or described in the literature (including on-line 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 word stone or rock), may be tabulated as follows:
                  Shape important:  cupstone*§, holey stone, pitted cobble*§, pitted stone, poculolith*§;

                  Shape & use important:  anvil stone*§, nutting stone*§;

                 Shape & origin (+/- etc.) important:  anvil stone*,  cupstone*,  holed stone*,  nutting stone*,  omarolluk(= “omars), pitted cobble*, poculolith*§;

                Legend-related:  crick stone, faery(or fairy) stone, hag stone, hex stone, holy stone, mare stone, Odin(or Odin’s) stone, tafoni [tafone-singular], witches amulet, and witch stone.

Note:  The asterisks (*) indicate dual listings.  The §s indicate stones at least some of the holes of which have been shown, or are believed, to have been man-made (see, for example, Davis, 2002),  Some of the so-called man-made holes, however, seem likely to represent originally natural holes that were modified by man to make those holes better fulfill some desired function.]

How are the holes of holey stones formed?         
The following is a brief review of diverse origins that have been suggested, several by non-geologists, to account for the formation of holes in stones that at least roughly resemble the holey stones found at Boat Harbor.

1. Excavation by invertebrates –

          A. Rock-boring clams – The italicization of boring in this subheading is used to direct attention to boring, as being different from burrowing, clams (see Stanley, 1970, p.8).  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 there around the world, and many of them have been observed, or concluded, to have had their holes formed by rock-boring clams -- e.g., clams of the Pholadidae family [see, Frey(1975), Miller(2007), and Seilacher(2007)].    <-- Although this origin seems best to explain the features of the Boat Harbor holey stones, the widely held opinion is that all recorded rock-boring clams have lived in marine or brackish environments is problematic -- see, however, comments included under the subheading  How were the holes of holey stones found at Boat Harbor formedin the main report (#1C).
         B. Other invertebrates – Other Mollusca (e.g., moon snails) and some arthropods, sponges, sea urchins, and worms -- are known to have bored holes in sediments and/or rocks [see Frey(1975), Miller(2007), and Seilacher(2007)].  In addition, Weaver (2015), for example, notes that “Some snails -- particularly moon snails -- soften a clam's shell by using a boring organ that produces hydrochloric acid, enzymes and other substances.  Then the snail rasps the softened clam shell with a hard plate called a radula, resulting in a circular hole.   <--  Although, so far as I know, that mode of formation is not known to have been involed in the excavation of holes in rocks, it seems noteworthy in that it suggests that some combination of  physical and  and (bio)chemical  activities may have led to excavation of the holes in at least some holey stones.  (Cf. item 5.) 

2. Differential weathering and/or erosion – 

          A. Solution of mineral constituents and rounding of the so-produced cavities – This possible origin of the holes, though not described as such, is indicated to pertain by Ehlers and Kesling (1957, p.5-6):   “[hemi]spherical cavities that originally may have been occupied by halite,” which was subsequently dissolved to produce open spaces in the same way that the “slit-like gashes probably resulting from the solution of celestite” are formed  --  i.e., the “slit-like” voids characteristic of the Silurian St. Ignace formation (see Fig. #1A-ADa).  To restate this possibility:  This possible mode of  formation of the holes of  holey stones would involve the inclusion of crystals or composite masses of halite with the original calcareous sediment, subsequent dissolution of the halite to form "voids," and later erosion and/or abrasion of the remaining rock or stone thus giving them their current characteristics -- i.e., their identity as holey stones.  (By the by, similar roles of life that became incorporated andfossilized  within a sediment, ... might similarly result in the formation of the holes of  at least some holey stones.    <--  Although the shapes and distribution of holes thus formed seem not to explain well the shapes and distribution of the holes in the holey stones found at Boat harbor, these possible origins are not dismissed as inapplicable. 

            B.  Differential weathering of pebble-bearing conglomerates – This suggested origin, which seems more akin to some of the  #6. ETC. (“Wows, Hmmms, & Yikes”) group, requires a pebble-bearing conglomerate like none I have ever seen or seen described.  It has the “holes in some holey stones formed as the result of the “popping out of [the] pebbles” from such rocks/stones:  “Eons of rolling … a lot can happen when stones roll; … pebbles lodged in the stone ... popped out! … [from] softer areas within the stone which wore away quicker, leaving a hole” (Niagra, 2015).    <--  This suggestion, which is given in a narrative, seems to be a jumble and at least in part possibly given in jest(!?).  In any case, I would think that the suggested sequence would leave only the popped out pebbles, not the rock from which they were removed-- note the underlined (by me) part of the quotation.  In any case, the “popping out of pebbles, thus leaving the holes, seems to be a highly unlikely origin for holey stones.                

3. “Mini-pothole effect”  –  “These [holey stones] are created when the river current spins harder rocks that cut into softer rocks.  Over time, a long time we think, the harder rocks [may] 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 western Alaska (Deneki Outdoors, 2014).  The "Mini-" is added to emphasize the fact that although potholes are widely accepted as so-forming, the analogy, so far as the origin of the holes of holey stones, should be considered only if the size differences between even small potholes and the holes of holey stones are considered.]    <-- To form holes the size of those in the holey stones at Boat Harbor and of similar holey stones, it seems highly unlikely that either of the following requirements ever obtained, let alone the apparently impossibility that they ever exsited in combination:   a. the necessary movements of the water bearing abrasive(s) -- i.e., sand;  [and]  b.the extended period of time that those conditions would have to have persist within so small a locus -- i.e., an area less than the diameter of each hole.  In addition, the distribution of the holes and especially the diverse bearings of their axes in at least many holey stones seem also to preclude this possible mode of origin.   

4. Physical and/or chemical processes promoted by activities of humans or other creatures  –  This suggested origin has the holes formed as the result of countless impacts (e.g., those used to crack nuts) with the resulting holey stones functioning as the anvils. The physical and chemical processes indicated to have been involved are abrasion plus or minus reactions of solutions derived from the crushed acorns, cracked nuts, or whatever.   <-- This origin seems unlikely!  Granted, walnut shells, for example, are sometimes used as an abrasive, but only to polish such relatively soft things as mortar;  [and,] crushed acorns, for example, have been used as a source of tannin, which is acidic, but only an extremely weak one.  In addition, in order to form typical holey stones in accordance with this suggestion, each hole would have to have been a locus where an extremely large number of acorns/nuts were placed and cracked.  Those considerations accepted, it does seem at least possible that such use of certain holes of holey stones may have modified the shapes of those holes.  (Cf. item 1B.)

5. ETC. (A few “Wows, Hmmms, & Yikes”) – Most of the following suggested origins have only been mentioned in narratives about holey stones the illustrations of which at least roughly resemble those of  Boat Harbor holey stones.  Some of these suggested modes of formation seem hardly to warrant being mentioned;  they are included only to provide a more nearly comprehensive coverage of the recorded, possible modes of formation for the holes of holey stones.:    
         A. “wolly(sic) mammoths were the key.  There(sic) diet was such and their primitive kidneys such that their urine was extremely acidic ...pH of 3.4 is the estimate. ...  a squirt here then there.  When the acid urin(sic) hit an alkeline(sic) rock it began do(sic) dissolve the rock.  It was a quicky[;] it made just a partial whole(sic) and you can figure the rest.”  (Deneki Outdoors, 2014 -- comment by “grampus“ dated 19 January 2015)         
         B. “created by predatory dinos:   ~"The holes in these rocks accommodate the claws cast from hollow rocks.  Boring clams didn't create the holes, but occupied them opportunistically....”(Culbreth, n.d.)  <-- [The idea is that “clawing” of the precursor sediment produced the holes in the resulting rock that became a holey stone -- i.e., the holes are ichnofossils.] 
         C“All … are . . . glacial erratics, or pebbles … [and] were made by a type of water erosion [not described], whether liquid or solid.” (ibid.)

         D. “These holes are usually formed by centuries of wave action [the associated spray?--RVD] and/or dripping water [acid rain?--RVD].” (Conjured Cardea. n.d.) 

         E. Erosion by “surging water”  –   “… the many deep pores and holes are a result of the repeated surging of water on limestone across a long period.” (Hauser, 2014).   <-- [No information is given, or seems likely to exist, that would seem likely to support this suggested mode of formation for the Boat Harbor or any similar holey stones.]

         F. “The holes are from ground water seeping into the aquifers.” (comment by J. Spencer) 

         G. “The holes are the result of the repeated freezing of water which makes tiny fragmentations and turns a small crack into a fissure and eventually into a hole.” (H.Pringle, p.c. 9August2014 in Winder, 2015).    <-- [The shapes, sizes, and distribution of most of the holes in holey stones seem to preclude this possible mode of formation.]
        H. The 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 -- Please excuse!!)   (Cf. 2A above)
        I. Holes are man-made mortars (Cf. 5, above).    <--  [Descriptions 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 also for at least several others described and/or illustrated in the literature.  Nonetheless, at least some of the holes of holey stones may have been used for, and even modified as the result of, the purposes attributed to such “man-made mortars.”]  


                 1. Roughly similar stones have been recorded from several sporadic regions the world over.  Numerous photos, locations where these stones have been found, etc. are available on-line.  To see these, search Google Images – using, for example, “holey stones.”
                 2. If formed/bored by any animal, these holes are ichnofossils (i.e., “trace fossils”), albeit some of them modified by natural and possibly also human activities.  In any case, the activities recorded by these ichnofossils, unlike more common ones, may date to  millions of years after the rocks in which they occur were formed.  That is to say, the parent sediments of the rocks may have been deposited several, and possibly as many millions of, years before, for example, the organisms that formed the ichnofossils even existed.  Therefore, ichnofossils such as these do not have the same value that more typical fossils have so far as dating (etc.) the rocks in which they occur.
                 3. Holey stones have long found roles in the Arts and Crafts. Perhaps the most widely known of these uses involves highly prized Scholar’s Stones.  An example is the following: 
                       Taihu rock,” a particularly interesting “Scholar Stone,” which is referred to as a natural sculpture, is now in the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.  Hauser (2014) notes in her remarks about that stone: “Chinese developed a complex connoisseurship of such phenomena … [This rock is a] fine example of the sort of aesthetically pleasing stone that came to feature in gardens (and paintings of gardens) during the Tang Dynasty [628-907]. … Large stones … were meant for gardens;  smaller ones, [also] known as ‘scholar’s stones’, . . . sit on desks as an aid to contemplation.”
                 4. Some so-called holey stones that are in the marketplace have been manufactured.  Examples are those replicated by a silicone, some of which have had their surfaces plastered by a mixture consisting largely of crushed rock (Holey..., 2016).  Most of these so-called holey stones are apparently sold for use in aquariums and terrariums.  

&& +++ &&


Conjured Cardea. n.d.  Hag Stone-Holy Stone-Fairy Stone-Witch Stone-Protection from the Evil Eye, Nightmares, Spirits, Misfortune-Key to the Faerie Realm.
 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 of 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, MOMissouri 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).

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

Eitam, David. 2009.  Late Epipalaeolithic rock-cut installations and groundstone tools in the Southern Levant. Methodology and Classification system.
éorient.  35(no.1):     77-104.    < http://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2009_num_35_1_5279 >  (accessed 10 January 2016).

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

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

<>Hauser, Kitty. 2014, December 20.  Nature is the artist with Chinese scholar's stones at Art Gallery of NSW.  The  Australian
     <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/nature-is-the-artist-with-chinese-scholars-stones-at-art-gallery-of-nsw/news-story/c8e43fa8a4c3a8663d8db6371248cc75 >
      (accessed 14 November 2015).

“Holey Rock Background”. 2016.  Your Fish Stuff. < http://www.yourfishstuff.com/holey-rock-background > (accessed 14 January 2016).

Kuhnlein, H.V. and N.J. Turner. 1991.  Oaks. Traditional plant foods of Canadian indigenous peoples: Nutrition, botany and use. Food and nutrition in History and           Anthropology.  Amsterdam:Gordon and Breach  (Volume 8, pp. 199-201).        
<https://books.google.com/books?id=fPDErXqH8YYC&pg=PA199>   (accessed 1 January 2016).
##Landes, K. K., G.M. Ehlers, and G.M. Stanley. 1945.  Geology of the Mackinac Straits Region and Sub Surface Geology of the Northern Southern Peninsula.  Michigan Geological Survey, Publication 44: Geological Series 37.  <http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/GIMDL-PU44A_302655_7.pdf > (accessed 7 February 20116),  and    <http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/GIMDL-PU44B_302676_7.pdf >  (accessed 7 February 2016),
         and   < http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/GIMDL-PU44C_302679_7.pdf >   (accessed 7 February 2016).

[[[Or -- on above --you can just cite the part that you used.  The parts are pages 1-41, pages 42-62, pages 63-82.]]]

##Miller, William, III (editor). 2007.  Trace fossils: Concepts, problems, prospects. Amsterdam:Elsevier.  

##Moore, R.C. 1969.  Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N:Volume 2, Mollusca 6, Bivalvia,  Boulder:Geological Society of America.  (used only as general reference).

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

Niagra, Kandra. 2015.  "Holey Stones". Wee Peeple Doll Construction. < http://www.weepeeple.com/drawer/holeystonespage.htm >   (accessed 1 January 2016).

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

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

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

##Stanley, S. M. 1970.  Relation of shell form to life habits of the Bivalvia (Mollusca). Geological Society of America, Memoir 125. Boulder:Geological Society of  America 

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

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

Winder, J.M. 2013.  Jessica's Nature Blog.  https://natureinfocus.wordpress.com/ >  (accessed 7 January 2016).

Following no longer needed:
         NO NOT NEEDED HERE ??? NO  Boardman, R.S., A.H. Cheetham and A.J. Rowell (editors). 1987.  Fossil Invertebrates. Palo Alto: Blackwell Scientific Publications

         NO NOT NEEDED HERE ??? NO  Towrie, Sigurd.  n.d.  The Odin Stone. Orkneyjar. http;//www.orkneyjar.com/history/odinstone/  (accessed 31 December 2015).

          More than 500 holes in holey stones from Boat Harbor were examined under magnification.  It was thought that something(s) might be found that would relate to the time and possibly even the mode of origin of these holes and/or the environments that existed when or after they were formed.   The only things so far found within the holes are shown in Figures #1C-ADa  & ADb;  these materials, appear to have been chemically or biochemically deposited after the holes were formed.

               Figure #1C-ADa. This cobble, an atypically shaped holey stone found at Boat Harbor, has only eight holes in it:  Two of those holes are shown (Left);  the holes on the other 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 close-up, on the right, though possibly of organic origin (my guess was that they might be small barnacle-like shells), have been judged to be mineral and not a fossil (Wicander, p.c., 4 November 2016).  [The identity of the small black material/spot and its surrounding minerals, which are at about 1 o'clock above the right hole (left photograph) has not been determined;    this rock fragment," though its presence would seem unlikely to require revision of information given in this report, will, I hope, be identified in the future and subsequently added to this caption.

           Figure #1C-ADb.  The thickness of this specimen ("A") ranges up to 1 inch (i.e., 2.8 cm.);  the greatest depth of the hole shown in "b" is (<1/2 inch -- i.e., ~ 8 mm);  the orientation of "d" photograph is 45-50º counter-clockwise from that of "b";  the small, unlabeled photograph on the upper right is for those who see "b" as a dome instead of a hole;  the patterned material shown on "c", which appears to be the same as that within the hole, occurs here and there on the main, nearly flat surface of the specimen.  On the basis of the presence of the "meshlike" deposit coating of the hole, which is shown in "b", coating another nearby hole, as well as the coating on 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 chain-coral Halysites.  However, given its small size, it probably isn't a fossil but some type of mineral desposit/coating." (Wicander, p.c., 4 November 2016).  ¶  In any case, consideraing the delicacy of these "growths", it is difficult to think that they persisted during much, if any, movement, including collisions with other fragments of the Boat Harbor rubble, let alone being transported here by natural transport in moving water.  Considering the position that this specimen was found (i.e., the photographed surface up/exposed) and its location near the overhaning bushes, it seems possible that this growth, whatever it is, may represent some, as yet unidentified, chemically deposited substance.  Analyses of this material will be sought -- I do not have available facilities at my current location.  [The back side of this specimen has 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).]

                         The above three (3) reports (i.e., #1A, #1B, &  #1C),  especially the Appendix of #1C,  serve to support the old saw Curiosity killed the cat."   Perhaps I have, only too often during the last 75+ years, followed several observations (facts) that were probably not, or only remotely related, to the main "subject of main importance," as originally perceived,  .  .  .    So be it.

| Home {


#2. Stone "Circle" near Gamble Lake, Mackinac Co., Michigan.
DRAFT last updated November 2016


             This "structure" is an example of accumulations of stones with similar upland locations within the area.  Each of these stone piles is considered to be an ancient artifact by the local people who know them well.  Some of these people have indicated their beliefs that the piles were likely made by, for example, neolithic "stone-age" aborigines, Celtic Druids, Vikings or pre-Columbian Native American Indians.  Whomever, it seems safe only to say that these "structures," at least this one (the only one I have examined at all closely) were made after the last removal of glacial ice from the area -- i.e., ~ 11,000 years ago. 
          The shapes and topographic locations of these accumulations of stones are frequently cited to support the hypothesis that they are meaningful artifacts -- i.e., they are not just stones that were put where they are in order to clear the nearby fields. In support of this aspect of that hypothesis, it is quite evident that the land surrounding this accumulation of stones would have never been cleared for, for example, any at all extensive farming (see the map);  also, had that been the purpose, several stones that I believe would have been removed and become part of this group would no longer remain the surrounding area -- but they do!.  In addition, it seems noteworthy that this structure is on what would have an island in during the so-called Algonquin and  Nipissing stages of the Great Lakes.  And, if only a few or no trees etc. were then present, nearby areas of the lower-level Lakes Chippewa and Stanley as well as of the more recent, and current, Lake Huron and the Straits of Mackinac could have been seen from this location. 
          One professional archaeologist is said to have looked at this group of stones and suggested that this structure represents a "post-American Civil War lime kiln."  Nothing that I have seen or been able find nearby seems to support that suggestion, and the presence and lack of certain characteristics seem possibly even to preclude this origin.  The only other suggestion that I have heard is that it may have been a place where fires were built to heat maple sap to make syrup.  Consequently, the given heading seems appropriate until the origin(s) and use(s) of this and possibly other accumulations of stones in similar settings are proved.

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

| Home |

#3. What? near St. Ignace, Mackinac Co., Michigan
DRAFT last updated November 2016


           WHATThis remarkable dome-shaped fieldstone structure is in St. Ignace City.  Many questions have arisen and virtually no answers have been found support with regard to either its 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.
               The 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 been sent     
                   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 buried, 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 uses (i.e., #4, #5, and #6, except possibly #5).  In any case, 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 persons who 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 at the 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. )) . . .
                    Beneath 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. 
                            The 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 are 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 base.
                           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 degrees 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 photograph.      
                         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). 

| Home |

  Notice: The following is a preliminary ("working ...") manuscript and a "To do" list -- i.e., observations and measurements to be made and photographs to be 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 in that field during that period.   A 2017 visit was diverted;  perhaps, some nearby geologist or 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
IN PREPRATION !  -- Last "touch-up" 29 November 2016 –

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


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

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


   Information common to both Pop-ups.

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

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

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

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

                                                  Figure 5-#1. Hadlock pop-up – Two of  its "adjacent" blocks that overlap the locus of its axis in the opposite sense. 
(Cf. Cushing et al.,1910, Fig.10, p.116)

BETTER PHOTO(s) to come!!!! 

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

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

 Strike of axes:  Southern part – N35E; 

   Northern part – N25E

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

                                      Southern part –  ~X ft.  

  Northern part –  ~X ft.  

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

            Sizes of blocks:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

       Cushing pop-up.  This pop-up is so-named in this note for H.P. Cushing, who photographed and described it more than 100 years ago.

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.  

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

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

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

Length of structure:   ~ 45 yds.

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

           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 the sandstone.]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

         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 sure that "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:  
  Mention Omar, Oak Point, Alex Bay ones Wallach mentioned.  
 "Experiments" 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, unless ...   AND  that may lead to all sorts of additional thoughts/considerations.  
One particluar, 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 thin 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 underlying, not 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!).  
                                 A. Another thing for which I should search and measure/photograph:   Is there is 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 for such!!  
                                 B. Might 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 that 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 tectonic activity. 
                               ANOTHER aspect (alternate overlaps) may
relate directly 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 appropriate to include an analogy of pop-ups and pop-ups :::  [[  recall granites and granites ( mid-20th century ) ]].       Eclectic!! 

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

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


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


          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. 


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

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

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

                      Fires might heat a rock so that it expands beyond some critical state thus causing it to form an pop-up.  (Cf. Thermal insolation, below.)

                      Lightning strike
This possibility, long 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;  indeed,Knight 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 3).  What about the guy who gave me the latter -- one shown on Mimetolith web site??  If possible, contact him through Donna/Nancy! – I need to know if it was made by man-imposed percussion or if perhaps there is a pop-up where he found it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.  Several people have provided noteworthy contributions:  Donna K. Chase provided a home base during three visits to the area. Edwin C. Hadlock(dec'd) and     ( name of Amish owner and alphabetize with Hadlock )    gave access to their properties on which the pop-ups occur.  Mr. Hadlock and Kurt R. Dietrich acted as field assistants when diverse aspects of these pop-ups were measured and photographed.  David D. Ginsburg, Research Librarian and Professor emeritus, Central Michigan University, aided with literature searches and checked the format of the References Cited.  Martin L. Bregman, Certified Petroleum Geologist;  Craig A. Gibson, retired Executive Director, Rio Tinto;  Wallace D. Lowry(dec'd), Professor emeritus, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Daniel R. McGuire and Robert Butka, consulting geologists of Mt. Pleasant, Michiganand 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, 64p.  

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

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

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

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

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

*Gilbert, G.K.  1887. Some new geologic wrinkles (abstract). Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,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 April  2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix:  Metric measurements for  pop-ups. 


 Strike of axes:  Southern part –35º

   Northern part –25º

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

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

                                      Southern part –     m.

  Northern part –     m.

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

             Sizes of blocks:

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

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

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

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



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

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

Length of structure:   ~ 41 m.

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

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

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

                     (HAVE SOMEONE CHECK CALCULATIONS!)  
&&&&&&&&&    END of pre-revisit report    &&&&&&&&&

TO DO - future visit . . .  :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   OVERLAP relationships

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

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


| Home |

  "Updated" -- 15 September 2017


Above web site
IN PREPARATION -- i.e., NOT DONE!!  - Latest tweaking 15 Sept. 2017

                        If anyone, who happened on this site and scanned/reads any of it, has suggestions relating to the
 content of any of the sections, please contact me!!!  Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated!!!

                                             !! Good Copy !!STONES-- Posers to Ponder