Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

Drilling, Blasting, and Explaining the "Surviving" Stone Holes of Minnesota (Lightning Post)

9/29/2016

 
I'm going to make this a quick one because I've got a block of (potentially) uninterrupted time this morning and I'm not to going to use a lot of it to discuss stone holes. I wanted to pull a few ideas out of the weeds of the discussion on previous blog posts (here and here) about 19th and early 20th century technologies for blasting rocks. I think an understanding of those technologies will be helpful in understanding how rock-blasting behaviors might be connected to the sizes and placements of the "mystery" stone holes of Minnesota. As I've tried to explain, I'm not asserting that blasting explains all the holes. I'm constructing and fleshing out a hypothesis, rather, that allows us to reasonably ask which holes we might confidently attribute to blasting associated with attempts to clear land and generate angular stone for building.

One of the arguments that I've heard against the "blasting" explanation asks "why would they laboriously drill all those holes and then not blast them?"  There are two key assumptions buried in this question that are worth unpacking and discussing.

How Long Does it Take to Drill a Hole in Stone?

First, the issue of effort: was it really that "laborious" to drill stone holes? It is hard physical labor, for sure, but the data we have suggest that creating a hole in a piece of granite is not an all day endeavor.  The experimental results shown in the photograph provided by Judi Rudebusch (here, sixth photo) describe eight hours of labor to create two holes together totaling less than an eight inches deep (i.e., less than one inch per hour of work). That's way out of line with other sources of information.
  • The experiment conducted by Frederick Pohl (reported by Mary Gage and James Gage, The Art of Splitting Stone, 2005:48) resulted in a hole 1 1/4" deep in five minutes with one person drilling;
  • The Handbook of Rock Excavation (1916:640) reports that a three-man crew can produce a 12" deep hole in 15 minutes;
  • The world record for single-person stone drilling in competition (3/4" bit, 4 lb. hammer) is 16.34" in 10 minutes;
I know the early farmers of Minnesota would not match the speed and efficiency of professional stone drillers, but the idea that it took hours and hours to produce a hole suitable for inserting an explosive is just wrong. Again, the first-hand account of early 1900's stone drilling in Minnesota from this 1998 article by Tom Trow is useful: 

"Gee, whiz, I had to crank the grindstone for ’em to sharpen them chisels. You know, you had a chisel this long [showing about a foot and a half]. And then it was about as big as your finger. And then it was sharp, you know, sharpened, and then you took it like this and then you held it on the stone and then you gave it a crack and, you know, they were experts at turning it, see? And then they turn it, and then they gave it another crack, and that’s the way, after a while, the chisel went down in the stone. And then they dug the scrap out and they kept on drilling until it was about this deep [showing about eight inches]. Then they put powder. . . . in there, black powder, and then if it was a big stone you’d have to make another hole over here and another hole over there. And then they set fire to it and blasted it. And it cracks nice."

The account doesn't say how long it took to drill each hole, but it does tell us that they were using hand drills (apparently with a straight "chisel" bit edge), to produce holes about eight inches deep to accept a charge of black power (gun powder). Those holes would have been triangular, as the triangular shape is produced naturally by the "wandering" of a straight-edged bit. The informant tells us that the chisel was "about as big as your finger," which suggests to me it was less than 1" wide.

Were the Holes Really Left Unblasted?

The second assumption embedded in the question is that the holes were left unblasted. In some cases, that's almost certainly true. Here is an account from a newspaper story I found posted on the website of the Pelican Rapids (Minnesota) Chamber of Commerce: 

"Dr. Paul S. Hanna, an Oxford educated historian and native of Fargo, spent boyhood summers on Pelican Lake. As a child he heard the Viking legends and puzzled over holes he found drilled in rocks along the shore of Cormorant Lake. After World War II, he set out by canoe to explore logical Viking river routes north of Winnipeg. He found no mooring stones, no artifacts. But he did find the most awe–inspiring rapids. After nearly being drowned on several occasions, he became convinced no Vikings sailed upriver from Hudson Bay. "The idea," he says, "that Vikings sailed long ships into Minnesota lakes is utterly preposterous. If Vikings came to Minnesota, they most certainly walked."

If Vikings did not drill those holes, who did? Lillian Kratzke of Pelican Rapids says the Cormorant boulders were drilled by her father, Willie Anderson. During the winter of 1908, Mrs. Kratzke says, her father was looking for building stone. The snow was deep and rocks hard to find—except along the lakeshore where the wind had blown away the snow. Willie struggled through three holes, intending to pack them with explosives. Daylight and determination failed him before too long. By the time he got back to the project, spring had come and he found more convenient rocks."

There's one example of stone holes drilled but never blasted.

Logically, however, I think that many of the holes in fact were blasted, but unsuccessfully. The literature from the late 19th and early 20th centuries makes it clear that dynamite (invented in 1867) was a far more effective explosive for breaking boulders than gunpowder. Prior to the use of dynamite, it would have been prohibitively difficult/expensive to use "block-holing" methods to break up very large boulders. Boulders that were mostly buried (so-called "hard heads") would have been very tough cases.  I think holes drilled in the tops of these stones were attempts to break them so they could be removed. The mass of the stones would have made the use of gunpowder charges ineffective in many cases, leaving unbroken rocks that have been perforated by seemingly "forgotten" stone holes.  In some cases, we have examples where such stones appear to be cracked but were never removed.
I propose that the "unsuccessful blast attempt" idea is a perfectly good explanation for the paired holes in the so-called "Viking Altar Rock" near Sauk Centre, Minnesota. The holes appear to me to be consistent in size, shape, and placement with an attempt to remove a piece of the rock using explosives. I have yet to look at the relevant references for myself, but this is the description of the holes apparently provided by Holand (1946), reproduced in the comments on my last post:

"Four holes have been drilled into the stone in different directions.... The depth and diameters of these holes are not the same. The two horizontal holes are six and nine inches deep, and their diameter is about one and three-eighths inches. The third hole is sixteen inches deep and one inch in diameter. The fourth hole is five inches deep and also one inch in diameter."
I see nothing in that description that is inconsistent with holes drilled for a blasting attempt.
Further Comments

I have a couple of other observations that are relevant to the "stone hole" question. Feel free to comment on these if I'm missing something.

The dimensions of sticks of dynamite are apparently somewhat standardized, with a diameter of about 1.25 inches. The minimum diameter of a stone hole drilled to accept a stick of dynamite, therefore, would have to be 1.25 inches. Round holes of this size can be produced with a "star drill," the bit of which has multiple edges. Star drills produce round holes rather than triangular holes (required to slide the dynamite into the hole), but require more effort than a straight-edged drill to produce the same depth of hole.

In the days before dynamite (i.e., pre-1867), a straight-edged drill would have been preferred because it produces a hole faster. The tendency toward triangular shaped holes would have been inconsequential, as the hole only needed to accept a charge of powder rather than a cylindrical object (a stick of dynamite). The holes could also be smaller than 1.25 inches in diameter.
I propose the following as testable expectations:

1. The triangular holes were intended for gunpowder blasting. These holes may pre-date 1867, but they don't have to. As shown in the Trow article, farmers in Minnesota were still using gunpowder to blast rocks well into the late 1800's and probably beyond. The holes were created using a straight-bit chisel. This tool is more efficient for drilling into stone than a star drill. The propensity to produce triangular holes is inconsequential when the material to be inserted is a powder and a not a solid, cylindrical object. Smaller mean size is likely as there is a positive relationship between bit diameter and drilling effort (larger diameters require more effort) and there is no minimum size constraint imposed by the size of the object to be inserted. The mean diameter of triangular holes is therefore likely to be less than 1.25 inches.

2. Round holes and "star" holes were intended for dynamite blasting. These holes post-date 1867. Because the holes were intended to accept sticks of dynamite, they should be larger than 1.25 inches in diameter.
Picture
Incidentally, the "straight bit produces a triangular hole" issue is still with us today. Harold Edwards showed me a pamphlet for the Deltagon Bit SDS-plus that claims that their bit designs produce truly round holes rather than triangular holes. This is important for holes drilled to accept a solid cylindrical object, whether it be a metal anchor or a stick of dynamite. The designers of this drill bit came up with the same solution as stone masons to combat the triangular hole problem: multiple, star-like edges rather than a single chisel-like edge.

Judi
9/29/2016 07:51:49 am

1- this stone *in photo* is at Frerich's site-east. This hole is round. yes round. In the old buildings at the farmsite, there are stone there with round bevels- thus they were used for splitting the stone for foundation work- no powder necessary. There are 10 some stone holes with in a mile of their home, most are tri shaped.

Andy White
9/29/2016 08:05:18 am

Thanks Judi.

Are you sure the hole is circular? It looks triangular to me, but maybe it's the angle.

Do you have the data to test the prediction that round holes should be greater than 1.25 inches in diameter and triangular holes should have a mean of less than 1.25 inches? I'm not taking into account there that some of the triangular holes may have been drilled for splitting the rock using plug-and-feather methods -- I'm not sure how big those holes would have to have been to accommodate the plug-and-feathers.

Gunn
9/29/2016 09:10:23 am

At this site where the pictured split rock is found, there are stoneholes on both sides of a gravel road. It may sound odd, but there seems to me to be difference between some of the rocks on each respective side of the road. Where this split rock is, there's another larger one that looks like the top of the rock was removed from a stonehole. The hole in the cracked rock pictured above actually doesn't show much aging around the rim as many others, such as those on the other side of the road, by a pond.

So, we may be seeing a slight problem where some of these modern and medieval stoneholes are coexisting at the same site. In all honesty, I believe this is what has happened at the Appleton ridge site. I do not think this has happened with the Sauk Lake Altar Rock.

Andy, I'm thinking that something like "age-frames" might be applied to stoneholes in the future, using reasoned data that might not point to a specific date, but rather to an age-frame that might successfully capture an approximate time-frame which would be deemed scientifically correct.

This could also entail putting stoneholes into categories, if possible, that could reveal their chiseling-out must have occurred beyond a specified date, such as has been done with the KRS. Like, if testing shows age beyond a certain agreed-upon timeframe, even if only about two hundred years, that would be long enough to put them outside the range of "modern" chiseling or drilling.

You seem to keep ignoring local history inputs in favor of Trow's dumb outcome. I don't think this is fair. You are supposedly very interested in ethnographic data, yet you so easily overlook the local histories as told in personal letters. I think you are tarnishing the culture of these descendants of Scandinavians.

To be frank again, your ideas or attempts for computational modeling of stoneholes seems purposely warped from the beginning, as obvious bias seems to have crept in. Fair and balanced archaeological methods and theory attempts are worthless when so obviously slanted in favor of...blasting. You're purposely trying to see if something might be found instead of not found. You're zeroing-in on past nonsensical academic notions that are foul. Basically, you're trying to show that Trow was right, when he was abjectly wrong, casting negativity onto a whole culture of people. I would like to say shame on Trow, on Calavito, and on you, too, now, for seeking to perpetuate this myth of massive forgetfulness within Scandinavian-American communities. I think you would do better to read their intimate pioneering histories, with a degree of belief in what they say...and not choose out one lame explanation for the many "unblasted" stoneholes in this region. Why parrott a stupid idea?

I don't like the way you've attempted to trash the known local history of the Altar Rock, especially. You basically ignored the histories I provided you about the true nature of the rock's story there on location. Also, the two holes are on a straight-down face, not on a sloping face, as you misidentified. Also, I had clarified that Holand's description of one of the holes was wrong, yet you quoted his error anyway. Only one of the holes is small-diameter, the 16" hole.

Sorry Andy, I no longer trust you or your methodology. Go ahead and keep trying to find what you won't find.

Andy White
9/29/2016 09:25:49 am

Okay, then please stop commenting. It's that simple. For whatever reason you're misrepresenting what I'm trying to do. If you don't like it then just move on!

Gunn
9/29/2016 09:45:07 am

That's what I'm going to do. You've proven to me that you already have an agenda against the notion of medieval Norse stoneholes, and there are few defenders of the KRS, so I am better off to move on. I tried my best here for quite awhile, but apparently in vain. Well, I hope a least a few readers will see what can happen when a "fringe" person on the cusp of history truth ends up accidentally coming up against an academic brick wall.

Anyway, this has left me feeling spent and tired. I'm going to start focusing on another trip to possibly view that submerged rock in the MO River near Bismarck. A Mr. Longarms and powerful submersible light should help. A large anomaly rock has already been located, right across from the ridgeline of old Deapolis and a former Mandan village. I'll be looking for a possible carved rune message, as seen in two past severe drought episodes, once in 1894 and again in 1934. (Love those local histories!)

For me, the history glass remains half full. Good luck to you, Andy, during the remainder of your Forbidden Archaeology class. Sorry about the abrupt ending here, from me. I don't feel like butting heads with you any longer over stoneholes, but thanks a lot for partially opening up the discussion, anyway, even though I think it went in the wrong direction.

Peace, then.

Andy White
9/29/2016 09:51:57 am

Gunn,

I'm not a brick wall. I'm a scientifically-minded person trying to understand a set of material remains in a logical way. I'm not prepared to jump right into interpreted an ill-defined assemblage of stone holes as "Norse" without doing my own due diligence to understand the holes. That's what I'm doing and that's what I'll continue to do until it's not interesting to me any more.

Good luck.

Judi
9/29/2016 06:13:18 pm

Andy, just a thought and you might have already considered this- you bring up two ways of blasting rock.. so in other words, land clearing--but what of breaking the rock with chisels for foundation stone? I don't think state archie, Mike Fosha's remark was 'off the mark' too far, that a blasted rock is a compromised rock- a crumbly rock due to the concussion and expansion of the minerals from the blast where moisture would come in- freeze thaw- and deteriorate the rock pieces in the foundation.

Jim
9/29/2016 06:50:41 pm

Judy, I think that might be the case in some types of rocks, however explosives are used extensively in quarries and I think again the expertise of the blaster may come in to play.

Jim
9/29/2016 09:45:38 pm

Here is an interesting blog which seems to indicate that even now black powder is being used and may be better for breaking rock, due to it's being less powerful than dynamite.

http://bittooth.blogspot.ca/2009/08/other-methods-of-breaking-rock.htm

"An alternate approach that is used in surface granite quarrying is to drill a series of long vertical holes parallel to one another and perhaps 3 ft back from the face of the quarry wall. These are perhaps 4.5 ft apart, and might be drilled down some 30 ft. The holes are then filled with black powder (less powerful than conventional blasting dynamite) and simultaneously fired. The blast runs a crack along the back of the slab outlined by the drill holes, and then the powder has enough power to tilt that slab over so that it falls into the open quarry. There are two thoughts on what if falls on. Some quarries let it fall on the solid rock, on the idea that if there are weakness planes in the granite then it is good to know this early – others drop the slab onto a mound of dirt, in order not to break it into pieces, and thus get more useful rock out of the slab."

Jim
9/29/2016 09:56:07 pm

Sorry that link doesn't quite work,

http://bittooth.blogspot.ca/2009/08/other-methods-of-breaking-rock.html

scott link
9/29/2016 08:24:52 am

Andy, you can also get a triangular seeming hole if you're "lazy" with the bit. In other words, if you do not keep the drill bit straight and allow it to go in at an angle during the actual drilling you'll get an oblong or triangular shape. I'm in construction and while installing gas fireplace inserts, you sometimes have to drill down through the brick or cement. When doing this you drill into the material, and then go move the drill at an angle so you drill through the face of the material underneath in the crawl space where you can run flex pipe up through the floor of the fireplace. When doing this you get that triangular shape also, it's not exact to the photos,but close.

If you have a power drill and masonary bit you might want to play around a little with it to experiment( I know, all that free time you've got lol) , unfortunately I've never had cause to photograph the holes and don't have any jobs lined up in the near future where I would be drilling in this manner.

Andy White
9/29/2016 03:01:26 pm

I've burned all my masonry bits! They're expensive and (at least the ones I've bought) don't hold up well. Maybe I should by a set of stone chisels for the next time I need to make a hole.

After watching the stone drilling competition videos, I do have a desire to try it out for myself. Those guys are swinging hammers for ten minutes at really high rates of speed. That's got to be some Zen there, both to keep going and to not break your hand.

Jim
9/29/2016 04:16:15 pm

Could make for some cool bases for Iron dinosaurs.

Only Me
9/29/2016 01:43:55 pm

Andy, just wanted to say I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I'd like to bring to the attention of my fellow readers what Tom Trow actually said:

"The mystery of the small holes in many large rocks left on the landscape can be easily explained: the ones we find today are simply those that were left unblasted, either forgotten or intentionally passed over."

Notice the second part, "intentionally passed over"? Lillian Kratzke's story supports that conclusion. I don't find it helpful when Trow is misrepresented as ONLY attributing "forgotten" as a reason for the existing holes that have been found. This applies to Jason Colavito, too, since he discussed Trow's article on his blog and found it reasonable.

I think you've opened the discussion in a way that not only explores a part of Minnesota history, but also offers a way to approach the subject with the intent to explain why these holes exist.

Andy White
9/29/2016 02:57:48 pm

Thanks. I'm not done with the topic yet-- there's still more to learn!

Jose S
10/5/2016 12:53:38 pm

I have a question, are there any of these or similar holes found in L'Anse aux Meadows, which is recognized as a Norse settlement.

Judi
9/29/2016 06:01:26 pm

whoa, wait a minute- Andy and all-- that reference to the story of Mrs. Kratzky...please go to the ibid number at that story- go to the back and read the old StarTribune article where the neighbors refuted this story of her father, Willie Anderson. Not many people go to the back and read this stuff, plus get the newspaper article, but I did. So in fairness, you guys should too. Willie was known as a blowjo type of guy according neighbors..he wanted 'in' on this story. What is the tip off? the date for one-- check out how old Willie was at this time...check out who owned the land- he did not. This is an example of something obviously being false in the other direction. Everything needs to be looked at.

Only Me
9/29/2016 06:23:30 pm

I don't know what you mean by ibid number. Tell me how to find that Star Tribune article, please.

Judi
9/29/2016 07:42:00 pm

go to this article about J A Holvik- a man rabidly against the runestone. Look for ibid number 22- then go to the ibid and see the Dec. 1948 article. I went the paper and they sent me that article. everyone has bias- it goes both ways. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/57/v57i03p140-154.pdf

Only Me
9/29/2016 08:44:50 pm

Good to know the story was fake. My original point still stands, though. Andy has shared articles that deal with the history of blasting, so if we can accept those, we should accept Trow's report, too.

Andy White
9/30/2016 06:05:48 am

Thanks for the information Judi. I'll go back to the originals when I have the time.

Mike Morgan
9/29/2016 02:25:59 pm

Andy, in your post yesterday, you mentioned modern hole drilling competitions using mid 1800's technology. We know pioneering settler families would gather together on special occasions. Perhaps as part of the entertainment, they may have included competitions for showing off their skills for various homesteading chores, one of which may have been hole drilling.

This could account for some of the holes, especially in the areas where some don't believe there was a need to blast rocks for construction, holes drilled in rocks in very close proximity to each other, or multiple holes in the same rock, large or small, being left unblasted.

Andy White
9/29/2016 03:03:33 pm

That's an interesting idea. If there were any competitions in Minnesota, they may have been mentioned in local newspapers.

Jim
9/29/2016 02:43:28 pm

Andy, I took the time to read Hollands chapter. I can assure you the entire altar scenario is complete speculation. The only research (maybe) I recall being shown are the dates of people having seen the holes prior to that area being settled, (?) and the statement that French exploration parties always had one or more priests with them.
He then supposes that a Norse party would have had a priest with them as well.
There is absolutely nothing there that you can hang your hat on !

Andy White
9/29/2016 02:56:21 pm

I still haven't read it. Do you have a link?

It sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me. I think it's more likely someone tried to blast a piece off the "Altar Rock" to use in a building.

Jim
9/29/2016 03:28:44 pm

Andy, I just used the the tools in my menu bar to enlarge Gunns copy, it's very clear and well defined.

Jim
9/29/2016 03:48:19 pm

Sorry Andy, I first right clicked on the image and hit View image.

Jim
9/29/2016 03:25:56 pm

Just for the humour value, one should read what iconic Canadian author Farley Mohat has to say on the Norse and BRS, that's right, the Beardmore Rune Stone, now mistakenly called the KRS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beardmore_Relics

"Mowat's proposed explanation
The location of Beardmore, and Kensington, in relation to Hudson Strait, Hudson Bay, James Bay, and Lake Nipigon.

The Canadian author Farley Mowat, in his Westviking (first published in 1965), speculated that the Beardmore relics, and the Kensington Runestone, were proof of Norse occupation in the region of Ontario and parts of Minnesota.[5] The Kensington Runestone is said to have been found near Kensington, Minnesota, United States by a Swedish American farmer in 1898. It consists of a slab of rock with alleged runes carved into it.[7] The runestone is considered by runologists and Scandinavian language scholars to be a hoax; yet its authenticity is believed by some amateur researchers and locals alike.[8]

"Mowat considered it likely that the Norse had established a base in the Hudson Strait and that from there could have sailed down into Hudson Bay, further south into James Bay and landed somewhere near the mouth of the Albany River. From this possible landfall, Mowat speculated that an expedition could have traveled by boat to a location near Lake Nipigon. Mowat proposed that such an expedition could have been led by Paul Knutson and that the runes upon the Kensington Runestone related to the death of ten of his followers. Mowat proposed that the Beardmore relics were the remains of a burial and that the Kensington Runestone was originally engraved and left somewhere near the area as the expedition made a hasty northeasterly retreat. He proposed that the runestone could have been found by Indians and later carried off to Minnesota."

As a Canadian I propose the BRS be repatriated to it's rightful place in Ontario Canada, its the only proper Christian thing to do involving this historic Canadian burial marker. :)

Tom Rent
9/29/2016 04:53:17 pm

When Judi R, Robin M, and I were out on our numerous Stonehole safari's, many thoughts were shared. One was of the idea that as the demand for more blasted stones increased to meet the needs of the rapid growth in homestead housing and cities, teams of drillers would head-out followed by teams of blasters, then followed by teams of "collectors" in wagons. We thought today's unblasted stonehole stones could be the result of the blasting crew deciding to skip certain recently drilled stoneholed boulders either because the stonehole was not drilled properly, not centered properly, or the stone was too big for a single hole/blast to achieve splitting. It is true, many of the unblasted stones today are monsters with just one hole. With experience, they may have learned the optimum size stone to target.

Jim
9/29/2016 05:06:06 pm

Logical, drillers could simply insert a stick with flagging tied to the top to mark them. A team of drillers could explain different methods, sizes and tools at the same site as well.

Andy White
9/30/2016 06:09:18 am

That seems like a reasonable idea worth pursing. I found some stuff about the economics of clearing rocky land for farming that might be relevant. The farmer was discussing the calculus of how much it would cost to clear a particular plot vs. how much he could sell the land for per acre vs. how much he could make by using the newly cleared land himself. He also discussed, I think, the idea of selling the blasted rock for building materials. I'll put that in a post sometime soon.

I deleted the blank comment from Judi which also deleted the comment that followed - sorry.

Seamus
9/29/2016 07:21:17 pm

I found Gunn's comment, " Why parrott(sic) a stupid idea?", very telling. I understand and appreciate your engaging fringe researchers, instead of mocking them, e.g. Craig Viera. However some people are so deeply invested in their beliefs and biases, that they can't, or just won't change. I recall an old saying, ' Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours.'.

Jim
9/30/2016 07:04:45 am

Since my dog woke me up early to go outside I thought I might add this:
With black powder I believe the the entire process can be accomplished with the powder being used for both fuse and explosive. With dynamite a spark will not initiate explosion, an initial concussion is needed. (Blasting cap)
With regards to multiple holes for splitting rock this would necessitate the use of electric blasting caps or det-cord and a blasting cap (electric or fuse type) to facilitate simultaneous explosions.
With no det-cord or electric caps, it would be pointless to load more than than one hole at a time with powder. How could you assure simultaneous explosions?
I think this speaks as to why there seems to be so few multi hole rocks and many singles.
I know in the Tom Trow article the fellow speaks of multiple holes in a rock, but it really makes no sense to me as all explosions would occur at different times.

a scott
9/30/2016 07:10:19 am

Is it just me, or are all the links to Bob Voyles' website in the Lightning post and those that Gunn posted in the comments now all dead?

I hope this isn't a case of someone throwing a tantrum, stamping their feet and taking their ball home.

I originally found my way to this site via the Swordgate saga, but I've found the ongoing dialogue about these stoneholes & KRS quite fascinating.

Also, as i'm not from a scientific background, I've also found it interesting seeing the process constructed of how you would try to attempt to prove/disprove a theory in a logical/scientific way.

If Bob/Gunn has decided to withdraw himself from the discussion due to some healthy skeptism then i feel it's a shame. He was given a good platform here to get his ideas & theory across.

Harold Edwards
9/30/2016 08:37:39 am

You can recover Mr. Voyles deleted website using the Waybackmachine:

http://archive.org/web/web.php

This is good for lots of other sites that are no longer active.

Uncle Ron
9/30/2016 11:28:49 am

As I follow this investigation a small bit of information keeps popping up in my mind and I want to share it in case someone out there wants to experiment with various rock-splitting technologies. You and others have used "black powder" and "gun powder" interchangeably, which is ok. However, there is a considerable difference in the action of true black powder, used in muzzle-loading weapons and firecrackers, and modern "smokeless" powder. Black powder explodes completely, almost instantaneously, when ignited. Modern powder actually burns progressively. You can do an experiment to demonstrate this by pouring a 1/4" line about 6" long of each powder <not at the same time :-) > and igniting it. The black powder goes Poof! in an instant. Modern smokeless powder burns much more slowly - still quickly, but you can you can see the progression of the flame along the line. Placing a rod in the hole, above the powder charge, when inserting the packing and then withdrawing it and filling the remaining hole with powder to act as a fuse (as was described somewhere around here recently) can be risky. I would light it well off to the side with a very long match (and wear ear protection).

Jim
9/30/2016 12:14:53 pm

Uncle Ron, Thanks. Right, I didn't realize you could get such a quick burn out of a black powder fuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuse_(explosives)

"A quick match or piped match is a type of black powder fuse that burns very quickly, some hundreds of feet per second. They consist of black match covered with a loose paper wrap (pipe). When lit, the flame propagates quickly down the paper pipe from the hot gases produced by the burning powder. Quick matches are used in professional fireworks displays to pass fire nearly instantly between devices that must be physically separated while firing simultaneously, such as a finale rack. Devices which should fire in sequence can be branched from a single master fuse, consisting of quick match spliced onto Visco fuses of various length for time delays."

So they could possibly have gotten close to simultaneous explosions with a quick match. Now we have to wonder what sort of fuses were available to them, the plot thickens.

Uncle Ron
9/30/2016 01:46:07 pm

I was Jr. Pyrotechnics Man when I was a kid. Lost the tip of one finger. It's a wonder I'm still alive.

Mythbusters TV show did an interesting exploration of the old Western movie trope of the guy running with a keg of black powder while leaking a trail of powder on the ground. Either he runs back after placing the keg in a desired position and lights the powder trail or someone lights it while he's escaping and blows him up. Neither way works if you are actually running because the trail of powder is too fragmented; but it does work spectacularly if you take the time to lay a solid trail of powder (and there's no wind).

Jim
9/30/2016 03:26:26 pm

I learned a lot of stuff from Wile E Coyote. ;)

Björn
9/30/2016 06:18:55 pm

Hickok45 on Youtube has great practical comparison of smokeless vs black powder.

Harold Edwards
10/1/2016 12:03:56 pm

The choice of explosives is a function of the rationale for breaking the rock. Black powder is a “slow” explosive with pushing power that leaves most of the rock surface intact. Dynamite is a “fast” explosive with shock power that shatters the rock. Is the rock going to be used as dimension stone? Then black powder or non-blasting techniques are preferred. Is it going to be used as aggregate? Then dynamite is preferred. If the farmer is just tying to clear his field, then he might prefer dynamite since it is going to give many small pieces and the larger ones are going to have cracked surfaces that make them easier to break up with a hammer. A brief quote illustrating late 19th Century--early 20th Century practice will suffice:

“The choice of explosives in sandstone quarries depends on the physical properties' of the stone, the quarry conditions, and the nature of the product desired. For building stone, grindstones, or other products for which large and sound masses of stone are desired, black blasting powder is used. The force of a dynamite explosion is too sudden and violent, and may cause much waste by fracturing. In some quarries, however, light dynamite shots are employed, though usually dynamite of as low a grade as 27 per cent is used.
However, where the quarried sandstone is to be used in crushed form, charges of a higher-grade dynamite are employed, as the quarryman then tries to break the stone as much as possible. In one quarry where the rock was to be used in crushed form, it was thrown down in large masses at the face, the dip of the quarry floor necessitating a forcing of the rock up hill, and it was found that a charge consisting of both blasting powder and dynamite gave the best results, as the slower explosion of the blasting powder tended to move the whole mass more effectively.” Pages 47-48. Oliver Bowles (1917), Sandstone Quarrying in the United States, U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 124, 143 pages. Mr. Bowles incidentally had work for the Minnesota Geological Survey at one time.

Most of the upper Midwest is covered by glacial deposits. This includes most of Minnesota. These are especially deep–200 feet or more--along the Minnesota/Dakotas border. Therefore there were no rock outcrops from which to obtain building stone. Most of the buildings were made of wood, but they still required stone or brick footings, hearths, and chimneys. Dynamite would not be used to break rock used for footings.

The next most important use of stone was as crushed stone for roadways–the Macadam paving of gravel that is still used today on rural roads. This was the common mode of paving of most non-urban roads. See: Cooley, George W. (1911), The Road Material Resources of Minnesota, U.S.D.A. Office of Public Roads, Bulletin 40., 24 pages.

Also railroad beds were lined with ballast of crushed stone. Rounded river or glacial pebbles were not preferred for this. Crushed rock was preferred since the angular particles “lock” together to make a cohesive pavement. Railroads progressed from using no ballast early on to using crushed granite in the early 20th Century. The custom was for them to upgrade the quality of the roadbed over time.

In the 19th Century stone slabs were also used for paving of sidewalks in urban areas. Stone blocks were used for curbing. By WWI this use had been replaced by concrete. This is the current practice today. Concrete however uses vast amounts of gravel or crushed rock. A common mixing ratio is 1 part Portland cement, 3 parts sand, and 3 parts aggregate.

Glacial boulders could have supplied some of these needs but as the upper Midwest became more settled rock imported from quarries elsewhere would have had to be used. Imported rocks were used in some of the buildings in the area and most importantly as tombstones starting from the 1870's on. There was a vibrant stone trade in the U.S. and in Minnesota in the 19th Century. I believe it was a custom in New England for farmers to supplement their income by selling rock from the glacial boulders on their farms. I do not know if that was true in Minnesota or nearby.

flip
10/1/2016 03:45:22 pm

Don't know if this has been mentioned or suggested previously, only had time to read a handful of the past posts and comments on the stone holes... is it possible some of the holes, particularly the ones in the 'small portable stones', are practice attempts at drilling? Never done drilling myself but I would imagine that apprentices or children of farmers would be shown the technique and it would make sense to practice on something nearby and not on the stone itself (in case of making the stone harder to move/crack/blow up or just making the job more dangerous).

This would add another element to the mix of drilled holes being plausibly abandoned/unused.

Jim
10/1/2016 04:12:51 pm

Great post Harold. I for one will, and I hope some others will take a lesson on how to compile and present evidence.

C. Howard
10/2/2016 06:02:07 pm

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id50.html

Jim
10/4/2016 01:48:41 pm

A couple more points to ponder;

Could temperature come into play and account for some left over stone holes ? Could it have been practice for settlers to have drilled holes in warmer temperatures and waited for the coldest of days in the winter to "pop" them ? How much more brittle and prone to fracturing would rocks be in temps. of -20 ?, -40 ? I couldn't find any information specific to this, however steel is much more brittle and prone to breaking at colder temperatures. If this were the case there are any number of reasons to have holes left over, snow cover, couldn't afford the powder, the bottom fell out of the market etc. etc.

Also, I would say If there was money to be made by selling rock than the settlers would certainly have embraced it. The settlers often had many mouths to feed, families were much larger back then. Cash money was hard to come by especially until the land was actually broken and producing a saleable crop.
These people needed cash and often augmented their income by any means possible. From winter work in logging camps to fur trapping and the selling of cord-wood (firewood), hunting of game to sell meat and animal bounties all accounted to help out the household. The elder children also helped out in these endeavors, even animal bounties were sought, the bounty on gopher tails and in some instances feet brought in much relief for cash strapped settlers.
So why not rocks ? If there was a dollar to be made it would have been done. And if at one point the bottom fell out of the market, would there have been holes left unused ? Most likely.

Judi
10/5/2016 06:43:18 am

OK- Jim, just one example: we took a free standing boulder by our place that had a natural bowl shape on the topside. We took a portable generator out there and a hammer drill. We had to literally lay on the drill so it did not spin- the bit got hot, expansion, and we went to the nearby creek to get water to cool it *a possible reason so many are found near water?* We went down about 4 inches. The natural bowl shape collected water and I carried water to that stone all that winter..and we did have -20 degree weather. First: even though the weather was cold, it seemed to evaporate into the air or rock, as the water was usually gone. 2- rock, like saunas, keep their heat a long time, so it doesn't just freeze right away. 3- from all winter of taking water out to that stone hole, it never cracked, broke or anything else. One other thing to think about= that water if it did freeze would come up and out the top , unless it was plugged... but think here- how much water is left in a 4 inch hole with a plug on top? not much, so not much expansion power, right?

Judi
10/5/2016 12:14:55 pm

When I said "pop" I was referring to the use of explosives and how a "frozen" rock might crack easier than a warmer one.
Certainly rock is very dense and will hold heat for a time, however it's density also makes it the poorest of of insulators, meaning that it can be heated up relatively quickly and also cooled down quickly. The time being dependent on the size of the mass. Also one must take into account the amount of sunshine heating the said rock, as well as the colour of it. (darker rocks will absorb more solar heat than lighter colored ones) Was the frostline deep or shallow ? Was there snow insulating the ground keeping it from freezing and thereby heating the rock from below ?

Jim
10/5/2016 12:18:41 pm

My apologies, The above post is mine ! Judi, that last post I accidentally misused your name,sorry about that !

Gunn
10/27/2016 08:42:39 am

Andy, about the Sauk Lake Altar Rock: "I see nothing in that description that is inconsistent with holes drilled for a blasting attempt."

This is blatantly false. There is nothing to indicate blasting attempts...while the published history of this enormous rock shows clearly that the stoneholes were seen and appreciated before clearing of land even took place. Andy, you purposely chose to ignore the local ethnographic data I supplied about this rock, instead choosing to associate the rock with blasting. In this regard, you have tarnished this probable medieval artifact with a theory of "forgetting to blast," which I have adequately exposed as foolishness.

I respectfully ask that you remove this image from this blog, as your comments were given in an inappropriate manner, suggesting the holes were made for blasting and then forgotten about. Also, I had corrected the information about the specific holes, only one being of small-diameter, and you left Holand's earlier erroneous quote that I had supplied you with.

I don't want to see my work and my beliefs misrepresented, but especially not the historical record of the Altar Rock itself. I didn't know you were going to try to improve Tom Trow's "academic" reputation when I got into this subject about stoneholes with you. Thank you.

Andy White
10/27/2016 05:17:03 pm

I changed the photo to the one (also taken by you) on Wikipedia, which I'm permitted to use as long as I attribute it (which I have).

Gunn
10/27/2016 08:28:24 pm

Andy, you have a repugnant attitude about this.

I can simply remove the photo from Wikipedia, since I supplied it. In the meantime, you have publicly said false things about this rock, which need to be corrected.

You put the two horizontally oriented stoneholes on a slope rather than a vertical face; you let stand on your blog Holand's misinformation (which I supplied but corrected) about the sizes of the stoneholes; you implied that the stoneholes were made for blasting, which they clearly were not.

You have been unwilling to look into the true details and background of this rock, instead presenting it as an example of "forgetting to blast." In summary, you deceived me and your blog readers as to your true intentions about your Forbidden Archaeology class.

Gunn
10/27/2016 09:51:14 pm

Okay, I took the image you are using down off Wikipedia, so you no longer have permission to use it...take the image off your site here at once. If you attempt to use the image I replaced it with, I will remove it, too. I will not allow this stonehole rock to be embellished and tarnished the way you are doing it, claiming it as an example of Scandinavian forgetfulness. Where is the shame? I trusted you, a supposed professional.

Andy, to me you represent the concept of forbidden archaeology, which is ironic.

Harold Edwards
10/28/2016 05:44:24 am

Gunn,

You are out of line here. Once you put an image on Wikipedia you grant others free license to use it. You cannot legally restrict any subsequent use. Go here for terms:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

"No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits."

If you cannot live with these requirements stop posting material on Wikipedia.

You need to contain your anger and disappointment. Move on.

Gunn
10/28/2016 08:24:11 am

Harold, you need to butt-out and mind your own business. If you check on Explorer, you will notice a different photo than the one I let Andy use here. I reverted it.

However, I am very goal-minded, and there are other recourses to stop an errant Professor from behaving shabbily. For instance, I can always write to the head of the University with an official complaint, showing in detail how someone supposedly intending to have a class on forbidden archaeology actually turned out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, becoming the very person who seems to be representing forbidden archaeology from a die-hard skeptic's point of view.

Harold, I am not out of line...you are, and Andy. Andy decided to join those other skeptics who still think forgetful Scandinavians left a bunch of unblasted stoneholes behind. This is a false notion. Andy tried to progress it forward, without success, which is why he has come across as someone who is not open to so-call "fringe" notions...even if they make good sense, as in the case of medieval Norse stoneholes.

Harold, you are the one who has proven himself to be a fool here, with your long-winded and skeptical nonsense. Also, try butting out when something isn't your business at hand.

Harold Edwards
10/29/2016 09:23:13 am

Sir, it is my business. It is everyone's business. You made it so by making a public post here. If you wanted to keep it between yourself and Professor White, you would have sent him a private email. You are a trouble maker. You continuously clog up this and other blogs with endless inanities on 19th Century stone holes. When asked to produce proof, you are unresponsive. When your inadequate evidence is rebutted you become abusive. My reason for calling you out is so that we who enjoy Dr. White's blog and efforts do not leave him "twisting in the wind" when he is attacked by the likes of you. When ignorant and rude individuals lie and obfuscate, it is evil. To quote Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I for one will not stand by and let you continue.

Andy White
10/29/2016 11:59:39 am

Gunn,

I have officially reached the end of my patience. Now that you've moved from insulting me to threatening me, it's time for you to stop commenting on my blog. Your comments are no longer welcome. I will delete all future comments from you.

I don't do this lightly: you're the first person I've banned from my blog.

Please move on.

Jim
10/30/2016 11:28:27 pm

Here is another theory explaining stone holes in New Hampshire, Rhode Island etc.

http://www.stonestructures.org/html/historic_links_to_stone_structures.html

Not sure if I buy into this, but it is interesting. Attributing them to native Americans. (including 19th century chisel drilled ones)
Those darn stone holes are everywhere.

Jim
10/30/2016 11:35:37 pm

Another interesting link for a different type of mooring stone hole:

http://blogs.mainemaritimemuseum.org/mainbrace/2011/11/mooring-stakes-an-old-technology/


Comments are closed.

    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly