!!!    web site IN PREPARATION -- i.e., now being reviewed by critical readers.   If any reader, who happens on this site, has suggestions relating to any of the sections, please contact me!!!  Your suggestions will also be greatly appreciated!!!
   Stones -- PoserS . . .
                                                                                                                                       R.V. ("Dick") Dietrich                             
Introduction.
        The following Incomplete Reports, which are "posers" (i.e., "brain teasers" -- at least for me), relate to certain stones and stone structures near St. Ignace, Mackinac County, Michigan and to two rock structures (i.e., pop-ups) in Hammond Township, Saint Lawrence County, New York.  Preliminary ideas as well as possible functions, histories, origins, . . . s are included.

        The overall coverage of these reports follows: 
                #1A. An Ancient Port? -- this, the first of a tripartite group of reports, includes a speculative suggestion that a currently often less than readily accessible, small area on the northern shore of Lake Michigan, may once have served as a "port." -- That suggestion is based largely on the presence of the stones described and considered in reports #1B and #1C.  #1B.
?glyph?-bearing Stones from Boat Harbor, Gros Cap, Michigan  and  #1C. Holey stones from Boat Harbor,  . . . -- photographs and descriptions of these stones are given;  the ?glyph?-bearing stones, which have not been found to be of interest to trained professionals, from whom definitive information has been requested, are described;  previously suggested origins of similar holey stones are summarized and evaluated, and how these particular stones may fit into the geological history of the area is considered.
               
#2. Stone "Circle" near Gamble Lake, Mackinac Co., Michigan  and  #3. What? near St. Ignace, Mackinac Co.,  . . . -- additional information needs to be found and evaluated.
                #4. Two Pop-ups in Hammond Twp., St. Lawrence Co., New York -- see the Notice
a jeremiad, that precedes this entry.  

        It seems unlikely that any of the research, tentative conclusions, speculations, . . . that are included in these preliminary reports will result in completed reports.  In any case, the following Incomplete Reports will be updated continuously as additional noteworthy information (etc.) becomes available.  The hope is that some of the material recorded in one or more of these preliminary reports will be of value to someone involved in pertinent research.  


Home |


#1A. An Ancient Port?

IN PREPRATION !  -- Last "touch-up"  8 March 2017

Preface  
    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 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 historical role for a small, near-shore area along the southeastern side of Poupard Bay, which is in Moran Township of Mackinac County (see Fig. #1A-1).

<>    My activities can be chronicled as follows:  Photography and study of the larger ?glyph?-bearing loose rock (see Fig. #1B-1a, Report #1B), which was found atop rubble on the shore of "Boat Harbor";  several visits [most of which were accompanied by others who also, for example, searched for additional specimens] to the site where the specimen was found;  investigation of the literature, including maps and aerial photographs, of the area;  contacting people familiar with the history of area to obtain oral historical information about the site;  visiting additional nearby areas with similar rubble ground-covers;  discussing facts and fancies about preliminary conclusions and speculations with several people, a few of whom are noted in the Acknowledgments.           
    Readers should keep in mind, especially while reviewing Report #1A, the fact that
neither my education nor my professional activities have been in the fields of glyphology or archaeology -- professional archaeologists will, of course, readily recognize this disclaimer.

The Site (Location and Description)
        Location Boat Harbor is in the southeastern side of Poupard Bay, in the NW¼ of sec.5, T.40N.-R.4W., Moran Township, Mackinac County, Michigan.   Athough it is often not readily accessible by road, the near-shore area is only ~0.25 mile southwest of the northern junction of Gros Cap Road and Michigan Route 2 – i.e., approximately six miles(atcf) west-northwest of Saint Ignace;   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;  its elevation is 579 feet above MSL.  See Figure #1A-1.

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

     Description.  Currently (July, 2016), it seems that more than 90 percent of the Boat Harbor rubble deposit is above lake level.  Breaking storm waves intermittently reduce this percentage, but seldom by any noteworthy amount.  A typical part of the rubble is shown in Figure #1A-2a  (Cf. #1A-2b).


Figure #1A-2a. Typical rubble exposure (shovel is 25 inches long).     
  



Figure #1A-2b.  Selected fragments, most of which are larger than typical
            fragments, from the rubble:  The three rounded fragments are

                                                                                granite and basalt, probably of a northern (Canadian shield?)
                                                                                provenance, and an
uncommon well-rounded holey stone.  Note
                                                                                especially the diverse shapes of the predominant calcareous rock
                                                                                fragments.
 
                                                                    

          The overall rubble deposit at Boat Harbor consists largely of fragments of Lower Paleozoic calcareous sedimentary rocks;  a few pebbles, cobbles, and small boulders of igneous and metamorphic rocks, probably brought into the area during Pleistocene glaciation, are also present (see Fig. #1A-2b).  Although the calcareous sedimentary rocks have diverse sizes, ranging from granules to boulders, most of the rubble within the area of study 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 with some or all of their edges slightly rounded.  Diverse sphericities -- i.e., shapes -- occur:   Many of the stones are discoidal or prismatic;  several are so irregular that their shapes can hardly be described.  Most of the calcareous fragments are gray or tan, but the surfaces of some of them include dark brown unidentified spots or a partial to complete, enveloping scum;  fragments beneath several of the bordering overhanging trees and bushes are stained, apparently by solutions that "dripped" from the overgrowth. 

<>        The shape and size of the larger ?glyph?-bearing stone (see Figs. #1A-3 & #1B-1a & b) and the shapes and sizes of the holey stones (see Figs. #1A-4 & #1C-2) differ markedly from the sizes and shapes of most of the so-to-speak typical fragments of the rubbleConsequently, both the ?glyph?-bearing  and holey stones were conspicuous -- i.e., they appeared to be out-of-place in this rubble deposit.  Unfortunately, none of these specimens were photographed in place;  the photographs shown as Figures #1A-3 & 4 were so-to-speak staged -- i.e., the ?glyph?-bearing stone in Figure #1A-3 and the holey stone(s) shown in Figure #1A-4 were taken back to the locality, placed atop the rubble near where they were found, and photographed in 2017.

 

PHOTOGRAPH TO COME.


Figure #1A-3.  Larger ?glyph?-bearing specimen atop rubble at Boat Harbor.  [ As noted in text, the relationship is staged:   The position of the ?glyph?-bearing specimen is, however, as Lina Cheeseman, who collected it, recalls;  she noted, for example, that it is unlikely that she would have collected the stone if the "?glyph?-bearing" surface had not been obvious -- i.e., exposed. ]


PHOTOGRAPH TO COME.

Figure #1A-4.  Two holey stones atop rubble at Boat Harbor.  [ As noted in the text, the relationship is staged:   That is, the holey stones were taken back and placed atop "typical" Boat Harbor rubble to take this photograph.  Also, the surfaces of these holey stones were cleaned with a bristle brush before they were studied and these photographs were taken. ]

        It might be argued that the differences that led to the
out-of-place appearance of these stones were largely dependent upon lithological differences between the ?glyph?-bearing  and holey stones and the more numerous, "typical" fragments of the rubble.  Additional facts and considerations seem more likely to indicate that these stones were not part of the natural environment -- i.e., the likelyhood that the ?glyph?-bearing and the holey stones were brought to Boat Harbor.  These considerations, especially as relates to the holey stones, follow: 
 
                        A. Nearby, otherwise similar rubble deposits lack holey stones like those at Boat Harbor.
                         B. The distribution of the holey stones in the Boat Harbor rubble deposit is neither regular nor random;  they occur(red) sporadically in 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 based measurements on the Google Earth composite).
                        C. The  number of these holey stones (~ a score)  and their sizes (greatest dimension ~4 - ~ 9 inches with most of them > 6 inches) indicate that they unlikely constitute a so-to-speak collection made by, for example, a hobbyist.  [ This aspect is noted because a critical reader of an earlier version of this report noted, "They could have just as well be 'deposited' there ... by a youngster disposing of their (sic) rock collection." ]
         AND,     D. The just quoted comment leads to two additional facts, which relate to  (1) the accessibility of the area  and  (2) its possible role as a dump.     
                                    1. For at least the last century, the Boat Harbor site, though only about 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/falls(of trees and limbs) as well as during most winters (today's 4-wheel vehicles, snow-mobiles not withstanding).  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 it is accessible, an almost overpowering, sometimes nauseating, stench, emanating from the adjoining swamp lands has very likely kept at least some people from even thinking about going, at least by land, to the area where the stones were found. 
                                          2. Use of the area as a dump, at least for the last several decades, would have been highly unlikely.  This is so because easily accessible, open dumps have been and/or are nearby -- one is less than a mile from the site.  This aspect is also supported by the fact that no other obviously dumped things are part of or atop this rubble. In addition, the sporadic  distribution of these stones within the given, albeit small, area would seem virtually to preclude the previously mentioned possibility, suggested by one reader of an earlier version of this report, that some collector of such stones may have just dumped them here.

Tentative Explanation
        Suggestion of the following Possibility is strictly tentative:
                       
The presence of the "glyph"-bearing stones and the number of the holey stones within a relatively small part of the rubble at Boat Harbor may indicate that this area has served, during the pre-(local)historical past, as a commercial center*1*/ -- i.e., as a port*1*/.                


Footnote:     1. Commercial center,  port,  ancient and a few other terms, as used in this report, are defined in the Glossary, which is near the end of this #1A report.
________________________________ 

It seems that this suggested possibility may warrant the same fate that a number of less than well-founded previously proposed ideas -- e.g., those that involve visits to the area by "ancients" from Eurasia -- seem to have had.  Consequently, my hope is only that, it -- along with the other two parts of this tripartite report -- may lead to further investigation and well-based, acceptable interpretations. 

Supporting Data
        The above possibility is based on empirical evidence:
                           1. The presence of the two ?glyph?-bearing stones in the rubble deposit beside this harbor, and the fact that similar stones were not found in any nearby similar rubble deposits*2*/.  <-- [It appears that at least the larger  ?glyph?-bearing stone was probably brought into the area;  its lithology, size and shape, as well as the presence of the ?glyph?-bearing surface, differ from other fragments in the rubble.]
                           2. The presence of several holey stones in this rubble deposit, whereas none, or only a few, were found in any nearby rubble deposits*2*/. <-- [It seems likely that their presence at Boat Harbor and their near absence in nearby, near-shore, rubble deposits indicates that they were brought into the Harbor area, probably for some particular reason and/or use.]

Footnote:     2.   Similar nearby rubble deposits were examined in July and August of 2016:  Five of them were either awash Lake Michigan or only 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.   In addition, a "high-level" former lake-side rubble deposit that is one (1) mile east of, and approximately 155 feet higher, than the Boat Harbor rubble was examined.   These rubbles were examined to see if any ?glyph?-bearing rocks could be found in any of them, and to see if their populations of holey stones is, or is not, similar to that found in the Boat Harbor deposit.
                              To summarize our observations:  The overall contents of all the lakeside rubbles were generally similar
.   NO ?glyph?-bearing fragments were found in any of these rubbles    FEW, if any, holey stones like those collected from the Boat Harbor rubble were found in any of these rubbles.    --    Three "asides," however, seem noteworthy:    a. The high-level rubble deposit contains a larger percentage of well rounded stones.  b. So far as ?glyph?-bearing fragments, see, Fig. #1B-ADa.   [AND]  c. A few rather large boulders at a couple of these rubble deposits have holes that are roughly similarly shaped to those of the holey stones on their exposed surfaces.
____________________________________________________
                           3. The general consensus that the patterns on the ?glyp?-bearing stones were incised by humans (see Rpt.#1B). 
                           4. The conjecture that the holey stones may have been used as anvils (see Fig. #1C-1).  For early literature relating to this use see Ritchie (1929); 
so far as the Boat Harbor holey stones, see also Gray & Pape (2016)*3*/;   [ and ] consider this use so far as removing the shells of acorns etc. to free their "meat" for eating and/or for the production of their oil (see Kuhnlein and Turner, 1991).   <--  [ It seems, however, that several alternative, rather diverse, uses may have obtained -- e.g., associations of holey stones with healing, superstitions, and legends and also their possible roles as charms. etc.  These alternative examples are mentioned because, among other things, no obviously hammerstones were found along with the holey stones at Bar Harbor.  <<-D:  in the future:        Search again for hammerstones!! -- and, perhaps it is worth noting --Whether any are found or not, some of the smaller glacio-fluvial stones in the rubble could have been so-used in lieu of shaped hammerstones.  In any case, if any of these stones were as anvils and the main purpose was to crack nuts and/or acorns, it seems unlikely that percussion marks would be common on either the stone hammerstones or anvils.  ==  To date, no such marks have been recognized on any of the Bar Harbor holey stones that could have functioned as anvils.  Another aspect seems noteworthy:  All of these stones have undergone corrasion, which would have likely eliminated percussion marks said to be typical of stones so used. ]

Footnote:     3.    Gray & Pape (ibid.) so record holey stones found in Adams County, Ohio, which closely resemble the Bar Harbor holey stones, and note those stones as "Dating to the Late Archaic period (ca. 8000-1000 B.C.)."
____________________________________________________
              +            5. A fact that seems worth at least passing consideration is:   Boat Harbor was, until fairly recently (i.e., since dredging and/or large docks were built), one of the few -- perhaps the only -- near-shore area between the Straits of Mackinac and Epoufette (See Fig. #1A-1) where the water depths could serve watercrafts other than, for example, canoes. . <--  [This is true despite the fact that only a cursory examination of charts of today's near shore line of this area, topographic maps, and Google Earth aerial photographic views of the area and adjoining region indicate the existence of several rather diverse former shorelines.  The point is, if the suggested possibilty has any applicability, it follows that the suggested port very likely existed when the shoreline was not greatly different from the current shoreline. ¶ Whatever, the topography of both the nearby land and offshore area require more detailed analyses!  Such analyses might, among other things, set time limits so far as when the port, if such existed, could have been active.  In addition, such analyses might lead to additional information about such things as what is known and could be deduced logically about routes likely to have been followed and former means of transportation – especially of  water craft probably used, in the Great Lakes region during cetain periods of the Lake Michigan Episode -- i.e., ~2200 years B.P. to the present. (see, e.g., Hough (1958) & Dietrich (1988).]

Alternatives
            Although one of the critical readers of an earlier version of the MS for this Report indicated that he thought the tentatively suggested possible existence of the "port" at Boat Harbor to be "farfetched," no alternative suggestion has been forwarded or suggested to me.  And, to date, I have thought of no alternative that does not require what I consider even "more ad hoc" whateverS!  I only hope that the future will lead to a real resolution!!

Acknowledgments
            Caroline B. Cheeseman found the larger ?glyph?-bearing stone.  Krista D. Brown found the smaller
 ?glyph?-bearing stone when she and her husband, Robert B. Brown, took me to Boat Harbor;  Krista also helped me collect holey stones while there.  Kurt R. Dietrich, Professor of Music and Barbara Baldwin De Frees Chair in the Performing Arts, Ripon College, Wisconsin, spent several days helping me navigate and searching for additional ?glyph?-bearing stones and holey stones in the Boat Harbor and  nearby rubble deposits.  Reed Wicander, Adjunct Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia and Professor ermeritus, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Central Michigan University, identified the fossil shown in the 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. Krista D. Brown, Robert B. Brown, T. Butka, Kurt R. and Richard S. Dietrich, Craig A. Gibson, David D. Ginsburg, Daniel R. McGuire, and Reed Wicander critically read and/or discussed the content of one or more of the preliminary versions of each of the three parts of this tripartite report.  I gratefully acknowledge all of their contributions. 

 && +++ && =

References cited

Dietrich, R.V. 1988.  The Geological History of Beaver Island (Michigan).  The Journal of Beaver Island History, Volume three, pp.59-77. 

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.

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

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

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). 

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

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)

Glossary of terms as used in this document:

             Ancient,  most widely used definitions pertain -- i.e.,  those relating to times, typically pre-historic records, long past ...  In this report, however, the term refers only to "post-Pleistocene" time (people, events, . . .) that is not, so far as I have been able to determine, yet so-restricted in such definitions.   [The "post-Pleistocene" aspect is based on the presence of stones within the Boat Harbor rubble;  their compositions (etc.) indicate that they have been glacially transported into the area from the north -- e.g., from the Canadian shield.  The alternative that the igneous and metamorphic stones at Boat Harbor represent dumped ballast seems highly unlikely because of their sizes and the fact that their relative population (i.e., sparsity) is virtually the same that in non-harbor, shoreline rubble deposits within the area.]

             Commercial center,  gathering place for the persons who utilized, distributed, ... the ?glyph?-bearing and/or holey stones, that are described in Reports #1B and #1C.

            Dolomite,  a sedimentary and/or diagenic rock that consists largely of the mineral dolomite.  [These rocks are, according to some petrographers, more correctly called dolostone.]   D:   ReCHECK all the Holey stones and representative rocks of the rubble to be sure they are dolomite rather than limestone;  AND, if so -- Search calcareous in MS and change to correct term(s). 

           Port,  a locus of activities -- e.g., commercial -- along, or near, the shore of a harbor. 

           Rubble,  an unconsolidated detrital sediment that consists largely of angular fragments, typically of pebble and/or cobble and/or small boulder size. 


           Stone,  a loose entity (larger than a sand grain) that consists of one or more minerals and/or rock materials and is loose as a consequence of natural processes (e.g., weathering and erosion);  loose rock is a rather widely used synonym.  

 && +++ && =


Addenda
          A few fragments with cavities, like those shown in Figure #1A-ADa-left, and a single recognizable fossil (see Fig. #1A-ADa-right) were found when Kurt and I examined the Boat Harbor rubble.  So far as the general lack of fossils (see caption), a few holes in some of the fragments have shapes that may have once been occupied by, for example, fossil brachiopods;  those shapes have been modified by corrasion.  See also Figures #1C-4a & b. 



Figure #1A-ADa.  Left,  Late Silurian-age Saint Ignace Dolomite (Bass Islands Group).  The surface features, later rounded by weathering and/or erosion, are thought to represent spaces once occupied by gypsum crystals.   Right, the only identied fossil found, to the present, in a rubble fragment at Boat Harbor;  it is tentatively identified as a fenestrate (fan) bryozoan, which is a relatively common fossil in the Silurian-Devonian rocks of the Michigan Basin.      [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 found in the same part of the Boat Harbor rubble as the ?glyph?-bearing and holey stone specimens.  Left,  bottom, as found;  Center, top, as found; . Right, sawn and polished surface. --  According to X-ray analysis the stone consists largely of  white to off-white  quartz and plagioclase feldspar, plus some illite, and a dark green-black amphibole      (( possibly of actinolite composition -- to be determined subsequently ))     George Robinson, p.c. 27 February 2917).  The origin of the external coating, which is apparently amorphous so best termed "limonite." is problematic;   and, some of that "limonite" so-to-speak occurs within the stone proper and may account for the fact that the stone has an atypically higher than usual specific gravity.  [As the Lincoln pennies indicate, the polished surface is shown at a scale that differs from that of the two originally exposed surfaces of  this specimen.]   
To include?!: from George Robinson <robinson@mtu.edu>  Mon 3/6, 9:32 PM      One thought on the external limonite coating:  When sampling the outer darker portion rich in the amphibole I noticed there were a lot more micro needles of the amphibole phase than there appeared to be internally, where the crystals were larger and fresher. I wonder if the smaller crystal size on the outside was preferentially chemically weathered to limonite due to the increased surface area provided by the smaller xls?   George
To include?!:  : Try to get Bob or someone who is familiar with what, for example, the  droppings from a melting operation might look like as a coating on a stone . . .  -- if this is a POSSIbility, it should be mentioned here +/- eslewhere???!. 

              Two relatively large stratified nearby masses of calcareous rock at Boat Harbor also warrant recording (See Fisome  two relatively large blocks of the Mackinac Breccia that may, or may not, have subsequently become freed from that formation proper. 


Figure #1A-ADc. Outcrop-sized masses thought to be the exposed tops of one or two rather large masses within the Mackinac Breccia.  
  To consider:  
  Compare the ?glyph?-bearing stone with these layers!!   ----  IF, they do seem possibly to be same rock, mention it in text and caption ;  if not, is Is this photo superfluous? 




| Home |

#1B ?glyph?-bearing Stones from Boat Harbor, Gros Cap, Michigan   

IN PREPRATION !  -- Last "touch-up"  1 July 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 any nearby location. 



Figure #1B-1a. These two loose rocks (i.e., stones), which were found in the rubble-covered area at Boat Harbor, are referred to as ?glyph?-bearing in this report. The larger one was found by Caroline B. Cheeseman; the smaller one by Krista D. Brown (I was with Krista when she found this specimen.).  The background is 7-wale corduroy. For additional information about their sizes, see Figure #1B-1b.


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

Patterns on these stones
        Photographs (NOT including Figures  #1B-2a - d) of these two specimens were sent to five professional geologists known to be especially good observers and to have had several diverse experiences, ...  Each of the five, independently, indicated that he thinks the surficial markings on both specimens are very likely man-made;  I agree.  It seems that their opinions (certainly mine) were based on the following:  Several features do not resemble, even roughly, any geologically formed feature or any group of, for example, animal or plant forms or parts thereof  -- no matter how established.  And, I feel sure that both things they had seen directly and those described or illustrated in any geological or paleontological publication were considered. In addition, one of the critical readers of an earlier version of this report, who was NOT one of the five original observers of the photographs, added that "features of the glyphys that I find characteristic are:  1)The lines run only parallel or perpendicular to one another. 2)The perpendicular lines do not cross the lines they are perpendicular to;  they stop. [&]  3)There are a large number of small perpendicular lines in-between the parallel lines."   (Ginsburg, p.c., February, 2017)  


Figure #1B-2a. Features within each of 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 the features circled in Figure #1-2a.


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

Figure #1B-2d.  A roughly similar pattern that is on both specimens:  Left, part of the larger specimen;  center, part of the smaller specimen;  right, enlargement of the center photo and its surrounding area.  [Left and center photographs are at the same scale; background of right photo is 7-wale corduroy.] The enlargement, on the right, is included to facilitate comparison of, for examples, the lower roughly similarly "rounded" ends of its "characters" and their surrounding rectilinear "frames" with those of the larger ?glyph?-bearing specimen that are shown  on the left.   

Who incised*1*/ the patterns?
              The fact that the “incised” surfaces of these specimens have undergone weathering and erosion makes definitive statements about their original characteristics speculative -- e.g., were they ever completed(?), and, if so, how and when were they fashioned.  In addition,  no fragments of "tools"(if used) -- e.g., flint/chert or iron -- that may have been used to score these rocks were found during microscopic examination of those surfaces or when strong magnets were slowly moved close to and along the "grooves" of either specimen.  In any case, the serrate edges of several of the linear incisions (see Fig. #1B-2c), seem especially difficult to correlate with any tool.  And, despite the fact that differential weathering and erosion seems quite likely to have been responsible for at least some of the the characteristics of at least some of the edges of many of the grooves, it seems to be an impossible cause of most of the features.
            An expert glyphologist might very well be able to say several definitive things about these two surfaces -- e.g., who made them, when they were made, and their intent/function(s).  <-  [To date, no glyphologist has looked at the specimens.  I have received no response from those contacted.]
             Internet searches were made using images and keywords, both individually and in combination, to see if any similar surfaces are recorded on any web sites.   The following are the main things that came up 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, plus a clause relating to overall differences between their patterns and those on the Boat Harbor ?glyph?-bearing stones  Rosetta stone(dated 196 BCE) -- its characters are rather well defined and well aligned.  Runestones(dated 1st to 12th centuries A.D.) -- none of their patterns, or even relatively small parts of those patterns, closely resemble patterns on the Boat Harbor stones.  Early Sumerian Cuneiform(dated 8,000-3,000 BC) -- some of these patterns (including both those "etched" or "engraved" into rock and those pressed into clay) include features (see, for example, Miragaya, 2015) parts of which do roughly resemble the patterned surfaces on the Boat Harbor specimens.   Nicaraguan "petroglyphs"(dated as 300 BCE) – a few of the "glyph(s)" that adorn at least some of the loose volcanic stones on the grounds of, and within the El Ceibo Museum, Ometpep (an island in Lake Nicaragua), have characters the shapes of which roughly resemble a few of those on the larger Boat Harbor specimen. *2*/.  "Newberry(Michigan) Tablet"(undated) -- no forms on this "tablet," whatever its authenticity and origin, resemble patterns on the Boat Harbor ?glyph?-bearing specimens. 



Footnotes:

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

                 2.  a. Images of each of the preceding "glyphs" are available on the internet;  No particular reference for any of them seems to warrant citation here. 
                         b.
The preceding paragraphs do not refer to the two specimens shown in the Addendum to this note that is dated 31 August 2016.
______________________________________________________


-An "off the wall" interpretation of the pattern on the larger specimen  
            Two, so-to-speak, interrelated, questions:   Does each line, 'character' or section of the pattern on the larger ?glyph?-bearing specimen have a meaning?   OR   Is the whole surface an image that depicts some certain entity or tell a story?
           The immediate answer to the each line or ‘character’ ... possibility seems to be NO! <-- This opinion is based largely on characteristics of the lines (See Figs. #1B-2b & 2c) and the presence of so much repetition.  [Granted, the original, incised surface may have exhibited characteristics, now weathered and eroded away, that would have indicated otherwise. However, even using only the currently available surface, any imaginative story teller ( I think of my Grandfather Vincent and his reputation along this line) might very well come up with one or more interesting "translations"!]   BUT, should one even consider either of these possibilities(?) -- i.e., that perhaps the incisions were meant to depict some certain entity or tell a story?.  My admittedly "tongue-in-cheek" response re this question is based in part on recollection of a photograph of part of a potsherd, from the Cameron site in Vernon Township, Oneida County in central New York;  that specimen has apparently been dated as ~"4,000 years old" (see p.37, "News and views for the Colgate [University] community,"  Scene: Winter 2013).
          The larger Boat Harbor specimen, quite obviously only a portion of an originally larger "slab(?)," does appear possibly to constitute an image.  Consequently, for me, granted with a rather long history related to apophenia (see Dietrich ...), this alternative deserves at least a “MAYBE?!?”  As suggested by Figure #1B-3, the surface seems possibly to represent an Amerindian chief with a feather headdress.


Figure #1B-3. An example of my experiencing pareidoliatic apophenia.  [An aside: I have been asked if this interpretation means that this specimen is a mimetolith.  It does NOT;  it is an artifact!]  

Questions, QuestionsQUESTIONS ! ! !

Addenda
[[[ One of the critical readers of a late version of this MS, noted that in his searching for anything that looked like these ?glyph?-bearing stones: "I never came across anything that looked like yours in the slightest.  And then I came across ... [A photo attached was attached -- See "Copper" in References Cited, and he raised the interesting question:]  Could your stones have formed on crystalline copper ... serving as a mold, and after the copper [... was] removed, leaving (sic) your glyph stone?  Or is this just crazy?"  (David Ginsburg, p.c., 17 February 2017).  ¶  Although a positive response to David's question seems a fitting, his even thinking about such a possibility -- if expanded to include diverse substrates -- seems to be one that the should at least be considered for some of the character-bearing stone and clay pieces found at, for example, archaeological sites.
     On May 4, 2017, a newspaper report dated May 7, 1892 was republished (Anon. 2017) that reported the discovery, during the digging of a ditch near the St. Ignace Court house, of a "flat and diamond shaped [stone ...;] on one side are hieroglyphics, which present the appearance of having been made by human hands."  Kathleen Schacht directed my attention to this entry;  to date, I have found nothing more about this stone. This information is mentioned here only as an add-on, like the stones shown as
Figure #1B-ADa, of possible import to future studies. ]]]

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Caroline B. Cheeseman found the larger ?glyph?-bearing stone;  Krista D. Brown found the smaller ?glyph?-bearing stone.  David Ginsburg formatted the cited references.  Attention is also directed to the Acknowledgments given in Report #1A.   I gratefully acknowledge the aid provided by each of these contributors.    

 && +++ && =


References Cited

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.  2016.  GemRocks. <http://stoneplus.cst.cmich.edu/Default.htm>.  [Of the sub-web sites on this site, see: 
                                Mimetoliths. <
http://stoneplus.cst.cmich.edu/mimetoliths/index.html>;    
                                Nature’s Wood Sculptures. <
http://stoneplus.cst.cmich.edu/Art-perhaps/WoodForms.html>; 
       &                      Cloud Forms. <
http://stoneplus.cst.cmich.edu/AA.Clouds/Clouds.html>.  (accessed 30 June 2016).

Jewell, R.L.  2004.  Ancient Mines of Kitchi-Gummi:  Cypriot/Minoan Traders in North America.  (2nd ed.)  Fairfield (PA): Jewell Histories (185p.)

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).     


Addendum 

        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).  [Tthe bearing that these two stones might have on the suggested possible existence of a port at Boat Harbor (Report #1A) seems moot.
              

Figure #1B-ADa.    These two specimens are said to have found in rubble that was atop the area, now a quarry, that is east of Cecil Road near its junction with Cheeseman Road, Moran Township, Mackinac County.  The quarry, now abandoned, is across the road from the previously mentioned high level (pre-Lake Michigan phase of the Great Lakes?) beach. The patterns, which are on only 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 also Addenda, second paragraph.]        

                   
Epilogue
          It seems prudent to repeat (See Report #1A) that these ?glyph?-bearing stones and the holey stones (See Report #1C) were found in the same rubble-covered area along the shore of Boat Harbor, Moran Township, Mackinac County, Michigan. 

?? Possible Help ??:

         Jacob Dahl, fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford and director of the Ancient World Research Cluster    &   John O'Shea at the University of Michigan were contacted but neither has yet responded.     
                       



| Home |

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

IN PREPRATION !  -- Last "touch-up"  24 February 2017

Introduction
        Holey stones are said to have been used as anvils to crack acorns and nuts (e.g., Gray & Pape, 2016  & see Fig. #1C-1).  This and other possible uses, plus the fact that several of these stones occur within a relatively small part of the Boat Harbor rubble-covered area, led to the research reorded in this report and the subsequently tentatively suggested role of the area as a former port (See Report #1A).  A review of pertinent literature, a summary of data, and my conclusions that relate to the origin of holes in these holey stones are included.  The literature review, especially that relating to origins that have been suggested for the formation of holes in holey stones like those collected at Boat Harbor includes suggestions recorded on web sites by non-scientists as well as those treated in scientific jounals. .


Figure #1C-1.  For untold ages, humans and other primates as well as some other animals, including birds, have used stones – e.g., as anvils upon which nuts were placed and/or as hammers used to strike, and thus crack, nuts etc.  Stones similar to those shown in the above photographs are said to have been used widely by Amerindians – e.g., the Ojibways and Hurons -- to remove the shells of acorns that they harvested and used as a staple of their diets;  they ate the "meat" of the acorns and extracted acorns' oils, which they used in, for example, cooking  -- see, for example, Kuhnlein & Turner (1991), after Waug (1916, p.122-123).      [ <- The views shown in the above photographs were setup in 2015.  The stones included as examples of hammerstones are NOT from the Boat Harbor location. ]

Definitions
         The designation holey stone, as used in this document, is strictly descriptive -- i.e., no origin (other than its being of natural occurrence), no use, etc. of these stones is included or implied.  Such 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 these 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 so-designated stones  (e.g., Niagra, 2015).]
        Specimens, which are illustrated and/or described in the literature (including internet entries) with features (though not necessarily compositions) that resemble the Boat Harbor specimens, have been referred to by many terms.  Some of the designations, most of which are binomial (i.e., an adjective plus the 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, witch stone.

[ Note: The asterisks (*) indicate a dual listing.  The §s indicate stones at least some of the holes of which have been shown, or are believed, to have been man-made (e.g., Davis, 2002);  some of the so-called man-made holes, however, seem likely to represent only modification of originally natural holes to make the holes better fill their desired function.]
 

Boat Harbor Holey Stones   
        Four of the several holey stones that were collected from the rubble at Boat Habor are shown in Figure #1C-2.  These, indeed virtually all of the holey stones of this area, were within the same small part of the rubble deposit where the two "glyph"-bearing stones were found (see Report #1A).  Although these holey stones made up much less than one per cent of the total rubble fragments within the area, they were quite conspicuous.  This is so because their sizes and shapes differ markely from other fragments in the rubble;  indeed, these stones would have been conspicuous even if they had no holes.   Each of these stones is dolomite, probably of Silurian age (Dan McGuire, personal communication, 2015);  their longest dimension ranges from ~4 to ~9 inches (~10 to ~23 cm.);  the overall shapes of most these stones appear to reflect the shapes they had when they were broken off their parent outcrops (see Fig. #1C-2);  three ovoidal holey stone cobbles are somewhat exceptional (see Fig. #1C-2c).

        The holes in the Boat Harbor specimens have roughly circular shapes perpendicular to their depths,   maximum diameters of ~ ¾ inch (~ 2 cm), and a "random" distribution. The number, distribution, and relationship of the holes to the current shapes of the stones differ from specimen to specimen (see Fig. #1C-2). The only near-constant relationships are the fact that, apparently because of corrasion, only the bottoms and near bottoms of these holes are remain, AND nearly all of the holes are on only 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-2.  Four differently shaped holey stones from Boat Harbor:  A, an irregularly shaped cobble with well-rounded edges;   B & D,  sub-prismoidal and roughly discoidal stones with rounded edges;   C,  an ovoidal cobble.  [These stones have been washed and brushed (plastic bristles).] 

Considerations 

    How are the holes of holey stones formed ?

          The following is a brief review of diverse origins that have been suggested, most by non-geologists, to account for the formation of holes in stones that resemble those of the holey stones of Boat Harbor.   

 1. Excavation by invertebrates –
          A. Rock-boring clams – The italicization of boring in this subheading is used to distinguish boring 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 been formed by rock-boring clams -- e.g., those of the family Pholadidae [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 that all recorded rock-boring clams have lived in marine or brackish environments is problematic -- see, however, comments included under the subheading What "probable invertebrate animal" bored the holes?.   
         B. Other invertebrates – Other invertebrates -- e.g., other Mollusca (e.g., moon snails) and some arthropods, sponges, sea urchins, and worms -- are known to have bored holes in sediments or rocks [see Frey(1975), Miller(2007), and Seilacher(2007)].
  Weaver (2015), among others, notes that "Some snails -- particularly moon snails -- soften a clam's shell by 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 this is not the excavation of holes in rocks, it seems noteworthy in that it at least suggests that some combination of  physical and (bio)chemical  activities may have led to excavation of the holes in at least some holey stones.  (Cf. item 5.) 

2. Weathering – This suggested origin requires a pebble-bearing conglomerate, like none I have ever seen or seen described, as the original rock -- i.e., one consisting of subspherical ovate pebbles within a calcareous (e.g., dolomitic) matrix.  That fact not withstanding, it has been suggested that the "holes" in some holey stones have been formed as the result of the “popping out of [the] pebbles” from these 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, given in a narrative, seems to be a jumble, and at least in part possibly given in jest(!?).  To add to that “jest,” I would think that the suggested sequence [note underlined (by me) part of the quotation] would leave only the popped out pebbles, not the rock from which they were removed.  In any case, the “popping out of pebbles”, thus leaving the holes, seems to be a highly unlikely origin for holey stones.  On the other hand, this suggestion, if revised to indicate the removal of originally enclosed fossils rather than pebbles, and if their removal was indicated to have been a result of differential chemical and/or physical weathering, such an origin would seem at least to warrant consideration.                                                    

3. “Pothole effect” 
–  "These [holey stones] are created when the river current spins harder rocks that cut 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 size of the grain(s) that would have been required for production of each hole by such abrasion, the conditions to cause the required movements of the water, and the length of time that those conditions would have persisted within the limited locus of each hole  -- all requirements for this suggested genesis!! --  seem unlikely ever to have obtained.  In addition, the sizes, distribution, and bearings of the axes of the holes in the specimens, both those from Boat Harbor and those shown of similar stones from other localities, seem to preclude this possible mode of origin.   

4.  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 seems to support this suggested mode of formation for the Boat Harbor and similar holey stones.   

5. 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, nuts, or whatever.  <-   This origin seems unlikely!  Granted, walnut shells, for example, are sometimes used as an abrasive, but only to polish such things as mortar;  [And,] crushed acorns have been used as a source of tannin, which is acidic, but only an extremely weak one.  In any case, in order to form typical holey stones in this way, each hole would have to have been a locus where an extremely large number of acorns/nuts were placed and cracked.  It would seem that, at most, this process might have modified the shapes of some of the holes of some holey stones.   (Cf. item 1B.)

6. 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 resemble those of the Boat Harbor holey stones.  Some of these suggested modes of formation seem hardly to warrant even the following coverage;  they are included merely to provide a more nearly comprehensive coverage of possible modes of formation that have been recorded for holey stones:    
        A. "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 such “clawing” produced the holes. --RVD]
       B. “All … are . . . glacial erratics, or pebbles … [and] were made by a type of water erosion [not described], whether liquid or solid.” (ibid.)
      
C. “The holes are from ground water seeping into the aquifers.” (ibid., comment by J. Spencer)
       D. "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)   
      
E.“These holes are usually formed by centuries of wave action [associated spray?--RVD] and/or dripping water [acid rain?--RVD].” (Conjured Cardea. n.d.)   
       F. “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 of most of the holes in holey stones seem to preclude this possible mode of formation.
      
G. 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 -- Sorry!!)
       H. 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.  However, at least some of the Boat Harbor and similar holey stones may very well have been used for the purposes attributed to these “man-made mortars.”  
      
I.  IF any more such suggested origins for holey stones are discovered, they will be added. 

    When were Boat Harbor holey stones formed?       
           
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
*1*/ sediment in a northern part of the Michigan Basin (marine)  --  probably Late Silurian (~460-415 MYa *2*/)
                   Lithification -- including dolomitization (diagenetic?) of those sediments   -- (pre ~390 MYa)
                   Collapse of these and associated rocks into "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 the Mackinac Breccia, to weathering and erosion, with separation of
masses of these "parent" rocks from outcrops and incorporation of the loose fragments into moving water  -- (~300 MYa)
                   Boring of  holes in the loose rocks that are now holey stones   -- (~? ? ? MYa *3*/ )     
                   Corrasion of the hole-bearing fragments   --   (~? ? ? MYa *3*/  to present)


Footnotes:    1.  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.
                       
2.  MYa -- Million Years ago.
                       
3.  On the basis of the widely accepted geological history of the region both the boring and corrasion seem to have occurred in non-marine environments;  this seems possibly to include just about any time, except for the times during which the region was covered by Pleistocene glacial ice, from at least Late Paleozoic to the Present -- see, for example, Landes et al. (1945) and Rosenau (1956).   [In any case, how, when, and in what environment the holes originated has no bearing on the possibility, tentatively suggested in Part #1A of this tripartite report-- i.e., that a Port was once on the shore at Boat Harbor.]  
______________________________________

<>         As of now, the time(s) when the holes were bored into these "parent" rocks, now stones, has not been established.  It is only known that no fragments of these rocks that contain such holes have been found within the Mackinac Breccia*4*/ or in nearby exposures of the parent formations during this study.  This apparent absence, at least permissively, supports the conclusion that the holes were bored after the fragements were freed, probably as angular (commonly subprismoidal!) pieces, from outcrops of their "parent" formation and/or from rubble fragments of those rocks that were within the Mackinac Breccia.
__________________
Footnote:   4. Localities where constituents of the Mackinac Breccia were examined, as given on Google Earth, follow:  St. Anthony's Stack near downtown St. Ignace (45º 53' 04.59" N. -- 83º43'34.90" W.);   unnamed masses on the western side of North State Street (Rte. B75), St. Ignace (45º53'05.64" N.-- 84º43'33.12" W.);  and  Gros Cap Rock, two localities northwest of St. Ignace  -- Rest Stop on Rte. 2  (45º 53' 02.16" N. -- 84º50'08.69" W.) and along the eastern side of Gros Cap Road  (~ 45º 53' 01.65" N. -- 84º50'13.06" W.).
_______________________

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

     What "probable invertebrate animal" bored the holes?   
          It is not proved that any animal bored these holes.  If one did, the general shapes and sizes of the holes in the Boat Harbor specimens, as well as the probable environment in which they appear likely to have been formed, seems to favor some non-marine 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 shape (roughly that of a de-tipped teardrop) of borings known to have been excavated by such clams (see, however, Fig. #1C-3a);  instead, only the bottoms of all but a few of the "borings," if they are such, remain.  There also is the question as to why no remains of a boring animal (e.g., clam) have been found in any of the holes.  One possibility is that they were dissolved;  in any case, rather large portions of the Boat Harbor holey stones have been removed, for the most part by corrasion, to produce the current characteristics of these stones and their included holes.


Figure #1C-3. An example(?) of the "de-tipped teardrop" shape described for the holes made by boring clams.  (Cf. Fig. 10-2 (#4), p.399 in Moore, Lalicker & Fischer, 1952.)  This is one of only two that have been found in the holey stones of  Boat Harbor;  as noted in the text, only the lower parts and bottoms of  holes have been found in the Boat Harbor holey stones.    

<>         An additional question remains(+/-):  According to malacologists and paleontologists whom I have contacted, boring clams are not known in freshwater environments or from freshwater sedimentary rocks.   <- This, despite the fact that the caption for a sketch in Moore Lalicker & Fischer (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) *5*/
 __________________
Footnote:   5.The following pertains:  "Interesting that no references I'm aware of since 1952 mention freshwater boring clams.  I would think someone would have.  Perhaps Moore et al. was just making a general statement?  [and] I don't think you can  use the sketch as evidence of a freshwater environment.  I think it was just a general sketch."  (Wicander, p.c., 23 January 2017)
_______________________

        Also noteworthy:  Boring clams have been recorded as existing in rocks from marine environments since Ordovician time (Miller, 2007, p.363).  AND, perhaps the fact that a large percentage of the literature about, for example, Paleozoic stratigraphy is based on marine environments, accounts for these apparent differences of opinions. 

        ----- As a "hard rock" petrologist, I leave resolution of the above apparent lack of agreementS of professional malacologists, paleontologists and stratigraphers;  and it seems only prudent to repeat the statement noted in footnote  *3*/:  Whether the holes were bored (etc.) in marine or non-marine environments has no bearing on the possible existence of a port at Boat Harbor that is tentatively suggested in part #1A of this tripartite report. 

    When and how did these holey stones get to Boat Harbor?
Attempts to find possible answers to this question led to the already noted examination of nearby, similar rubble deposits and the tentative suggestion that a "port" was possibly beside Boat Harbor in the past  --  see Report #1A.  [As noted there, it seems quite possible, if not likely, that these stones, because of one or more of their possible functions (See Report #1A, Supporting Data, item 4), were brought to Boat Harbor by humans, possibly in ancient times.  Indeed, alternative possibilities seem to require what I  consider even less acceptable ad hoc "hypotheses."]  
 
                    
    What was the source of these holey stones?
          This question seems worth consideration even though it may not bear directly on either the tentative suggestion that is in Report #1A or to this part (Rpt.#1C) of this tripartite report.  Several occurrences of loose stones, both natural and so-to-speak "collected" to form such things as walls and landscape accents were examined to see if they included any holey stones like those found at Boat Harbor;  shoreline and nearshore groups of stones from Epoufette on Lake Michigan, through the Straits area, to the Les Cheneaux Islands area of Lake Huron were checked;  NO claim, however, is made that all such occurrences within this area were checked.

             ??Following is possible way to report the above  IF found to be true.        Two localities were found:    1. Hessel.  Several stones with holes that roughly resemble those found at Boat Harbor have been collected and used in, for example, decorative walls;  their source, according to   talk to, for example, Johnny Hessel re source, and, if he knows, GO THERE, etc., etc.   [and]   2. Duck Bay, on Marquette Island of Les Cheneaux group  GO THERE next spring, etc., etc.      ----    CHECK THE COMPOSITION(s) (PETROGRAPHY), SIZES, SHAPES, ETC. OF THESE STONES, and, IF--   these stones seem to "match" the Boat Harbor stones   DESCRIBE THEIR OCCURRENCES here.
        This is NOT to say that the Boat Harbor Stones did or did not come from ...   ... 
, etc., etc.


ALSO NOTEWORTHY:             

                   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.”  However, these ichnofossils, unlike more common ones, were apparently made millions of years after the rocks in which they occur.  That is to say, the parent sediments of the rock were deposited several, and possibly as many as 450 million, years before, for example, the organisms that formed the ichnofossils lived.  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.  These uses include such diverse things as highly prized Scholar’s Stones, decorative stones for aquariums and terrariums, worry and “good luck” stones,  parts of jewelry (especially pendants, but also parts of wrist and ankle bracelets), and as wind chimes.
                       ["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. Holey Stones have attracted a rather large following among people who associate minerals and rocks with the healing of  physical and mental conditions, enhancement of meditation, etc.  Consequently, some advocates ascribe all sorts of attributes to these stones, and marketers have extolled these claims and repeated diverse versions of "myths about these stones" in their brochures and  advertisements.  
               5. Some so-called holey stones that are in the marketplace have been manufactured.  Examples are those replicated by a silicone, and some of these 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.   

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:  Krista D. Brown and Kurt R. Dietrich helped collect some of the described specimens.  David Ginsburg and Reed Wicander supplied literature not otherwise readily available to me;  David Ginsburg formatted the cited references.  Attention is also directed to the Acknowledgments given in Report #1A.  I gratefully acknowledge the aid provided by each of these contributors.    

 && +++ && =

REFERENCES CITED       
 

Boardman, R.S., A.H. Cheetham and A.J. Rowell (editors). 1987.  Fossil Invertebrates. Palo Alto: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

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). 

Eitam, David. 2009.  Late Epipalaeolithic rock-cut installations and groundstone tools in the Southern Levant. Methodology and Classification systemPaléorient.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=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=Ojibways+use+of+acorns&source=bl&ots=wG1m1PB0Ki&sig=55FuaywNKYz_ZoGc3EZgnWNClkA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRqtCL_IjKAhXGYyYKHYiZCIAQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=Ojibways%20use%20of%20acorns&f=false>
(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 > andhttp://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/GIMDL-PU44C_302679_7.pdf >  and < http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/GIMDL-PU44C_302679_7.pdf > ]. (accessed 7 February 2016). 

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 


Towrie, Sigurd.  n.d.  The Odin Stone. Orkneyjar. http;//www.orkneyjar.com/history/odinstone/  (accessed 31 December 2015).

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).


ADDENDUM

        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 they were formed.   The only things found to date are shown in Figures #1C-ADa  & ADb. These materials, appear to have been deposited after the holes were formed and seem likely to represent either chemical or biochemical deposition.  [[See if  George R. or perhpas Steve C. c/would ID these !]]



Figure #1C-ADa. This cobble, one of the atypically shaped holey stones found at Boat Harbor, has only eight holes in it;  two of those holes are shown (Left).  The holes on the reverse side of this specimen have diverse shapes and their sizes range more than those in most holey stones found at Boat Harbor.  The feature(s) shown in the right close-up, though possibly of organic origin, are judged to be "mineral and not a fossil" (Wicander, p.c., 4 November 2016).  The identity of the small black spot at about 1 o'clock above the right hole has not been determined.  D:  PERHAPS THE OTHER PHOTO  (2.HoleyEXTRAComp)  OF APPROXIMATE SCALE AS THOSE ON RIGHT WOULD BE BETTER?!!


Figure #1C-ADb.  The thickness of this specimen 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" is 45-50º counter-clockwise from that of "b";  the small, unlabeled photograph on the upper right was added for those who see "b" as a dome instead of a pit;  the patterned material shown on "c" occurs here and there on the main, virtually flat surface of the specimen.  On the basis of the presence of the "meshlike" deposits' coating of the hole, which is shown in "b", coating another nearby hole, and coating sporadic areas of the overall surface of this holey stone, "I'm leaning toward a mineral deposit of some sort. ... if [,however,]  it is a fossil, I would say a colonial coral like the 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).  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).
 


| Home |




STOP HERE     STOP  ! !!!!!!!!!    HERE      STOP HERE
----------
D: ReCHECK all the Holey stones and representative rocks of the rubble to be sure they are dolomite rather than limestone;  AND, if so -- Search calcareous in MS and change to correct term(s);             ALSO:          CHECK the lattice-work coat atop that holey rock!!! 

To do in spring:     1. Photos of ?glhyph?-.... and holey stones  WITH SCALE MARKER atop rubble at Boat Harbor.
                         2. Compare ?glyph?-.... with rock layers of the large Mac Breccia fragments.
                         3. Search for hammerstones at Boat Harbor.
                         4. Search for more holey stones -- look particularly for growths (like those shown on Fig. #1C-ADb) --the point is POSSIBLY I removed such from the other ones when I brush-cleaned them.
   THIS SEEMS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT SO FAR AS WHEN/WHERE(marine vs nonmarine)the growths occurred on the HOLES IN THEIR CURRENT CORRADED CONDITION.
                         4a. Examine holey rocks at Hessel (does Johnny Hessel know source??)
                           b. & in Duck Bay, Marquette Island. 
                               &&&&&&   look at outcrops/exposures that might have holey stone parent rock included
holes.

                         5. Seek IDs/ideas re the barnacle-like
Fig. #1C-ADa and mesh-like ?Fig. #1C-ADb?s inclusions in the holes.
                         6. What is the material of the black "spot" on specimen 
Fig.#1C-ADa  mentioned in #5?

                        
7. Get MORE info re possible origin of limonite-coated specimen Fig. #1A-ADb  sent to George.

                                           
D:  Go see John E with ms in hand and find out         is opinion re suggested former role of Bar Harbor given in Rpt. #1A; 
                                                       location of the bay where he said that holey stones occur;
                                                       what he indicated Mike had found re #2 (below) + add it there as an addendum??


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

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

       

          WHAT??.  This "structure" is an example of accumulations of stones with similar upland locations within the area.  Each of these stone piles is considered to be an ancient artifact by the local people who know them well.  Some of these people have indicated their beliefs that the piles were likely made by, for example, neolithic "stone-age" aborigines, Celtic Druids, Vikings or pre-Columbian Native American Indians.  Whomever, it seems safe only to say that these "structures," at least this one (the only one I have examined at all closely) were made after the last removal of glacial ice from the area -- i.e., ~ 11,000 years ago. 
               The shapes and topographic locations of these accumulations of stones are frequently cited to support the hypothesis that they are meaningful artifacts -- i.e., they are not just stones that were put where they are in order to clear the nearby fields. In support of this aspect of that hypothesis, it is quite evident that the land surrounding this accumulation of stones would have never been cleared for, for example, any at all extensive farming (see the map);  also, had that been the purpose, several stones that I believe would have been removed and become part of this group would no longer remain the surrounding area -- but they do!.  In addition, it seems noteworthy that this structure is on what would have an island in during the so-called Algonquin and  Nipissing stages of the Great Lakes.  And, if only a few or no trees etc. were then present, nearby areas of the lower-level Lakes Chippewa and Stanley as well as of the more recent, and current, Lake Huron and the Straits of Mackinac could have been seen from this location. 
                One professional archaeologist is said to have looked at this group of stones and suggested that this structure represents a "post-American Civil War lime kiln."  Nothing that I have seen or been able find nearby seems to support that suggestion, and the presence and lack of certain characteristics seem possibly even to preclude this origin.  The only other suggestion that I have heard is that it may have been a place where fires were built to heat maple sap to make syrup.  Consequently, the given heading seems appropriate until the origin(s) and use(s) of this and possibly other accumulations of stones in similar settings are proved.
               For the record: The outside "circumferance" of this roughly circular structure is approximately 55 feet; the "diameters" range from about 16 to 20 feet;  the inside diameter ranges from approximately 6 to 8 feet;  the height of the wall, the top of which is roughly horizontal, ranges from about 3½ to 4½ feet above the surrounding uneven ground-level;  the "floor" of the central part is about 1½ feet above the "average" surrounding ground-level.  The constituent stones are largely "limestone" rubble but "hard-rock" boulders are also included -- see close-ups.  That is to say, both stones from the rubble of fairly nearby formations and stones transported from Ontario by glacial ice during the last "Ice Age" are included.  This makeup, of course, is one of the criteria that establishes the date of creation of the structure as post-"Ice Age" glaciation.
               The topography of the nearby area led to my thinking of this structure as roughly resembling a multi-jeweled pendant on a dowager's breast --see the section of the included (above) topographic map of the area.  As might be expected, other people who are familiar with these relationships have alternative interpretations.  [[ It seems worthwhile to get Mike's thoughts and to give them here. ]]


| Home |



#3. What? near St. Ignace, Mackinac Co., Michigan
DRAFT 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.   Perhaps a 2017 visit will become possible;  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" 29November 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)

 INTRODUCTION

            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?!!

DESCRIPTIONS

   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

  
    NOTEWORTHY FEATURES: 

                  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!)  

    NOTEWORTHY FEATURES: 

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

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

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

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

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

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


ORIGINS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

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:  
                1.
  Mention Omar, Oak Point, Alex Bay ones Wallach mentioned.  
                2.
 "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”.

      MAXIM:

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

      "WONDERS":  

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

          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. 

      TRIGGERS
:  

                  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.
  

REFERENCES CITED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HADLOCK POP-UP:

 Strike of axes:  Southern part –35º

   Northern part –25º

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

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

                                      Southern part –     m.

  Northern part –     m.

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

             Sizes of blocks:

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

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

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

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

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

CUSHING  POP-UP:

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

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

Length of structure:   ~ 41 m.

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

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

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

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

TO DO - future visit . . .  :

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   OVERLAP relationships

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

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

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

| Home |


  "Updated" -- Early December 2016