Minnesota Stone Holes and 19th Century Technologies for Breaking Rocks

9/27/2016

The purpose of my initial post on the "Boulder Field Quarry" model for the stone holes of Minnesota was to provoke some thought and discussion on how we might generate plausible, well-warranted explanations for the holes. It has succeeded so far, I think, in at least clarifying some of the questions we might ask. I didn't propose the model as some kind of final statement, but rather as a hypothesis that could be used to generate falsifiable predictions. As the discussion on the post clearly shows, the Boulder Field Quarry model as I initially phrased it is too narrow, not including non-blasting historic-period behaviors associated with creating holes in rocks.

I'll eventually formulate an expanded version of the hypothesis, trying to take into account what's being discussed. In the meantime, I thought I'd share some of what I've come across as I've been exploring the world of 19th century technologies for breaking rocks. I've been particularly interested in collecting historic information about the use of gunpowder and dynamite for blasting boulders. Rather than wait until some mythological day when I'll be able to synthesize everything, I'm going to employ the "thinking out loud" method and present the stuff as I find it. I hope to eventually create a summary of general changes in behaviors and technologies for breaking rocks that will provide some context for the Minnesota stone holes. But for now here are a few pieces of raw information.

Philosophical Magazine (1808:99-100)

"About ten years ago an experiment was made in Cornwall upon a loose rock on the surface, and sand was blown out without any effect having been produced: an equal quantity of gunpowder, confined by a small quantity of tamping, broke the rock; which proved that the resistance was far inferior to that of the common mode."
. . .
"M. Pietet, it is said in the same article of the Philosophical Journal for July, has conceived that a more effective explosion for the purposes of mining might be obtained by leaving a partial vacuity, or by the chamber not being completely filled by gunpowder."

The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia (1832:553):

"The process of blasting rocks, or stones, consists in boring a cylindrical hole, about 10 or 12 inches deep, in the rock by means of a chisel for that purpose. The lower part of this hole is filled with gunpowder. The upper part of the hole is then filled up with fragments of stone, firmly rammed together; a hole being left through these materials, by the insertion of an iron rod, which is turned round during the operation of ramming. This hole is next filled with powder, and a match is applied to it in such a manner, that the operator has time to run out of the reach of the fragments of the rock."

Farm Echoes (1883:45-46):

""Has any one present had any experience with Dynamite, or Giant Powder, in clearing rocks from land? If so, will he give us the result"
"Mr. Starr, of Litchfield, can give us some information on that point."
Mr. Starr-- "I will say that I know but very little about this matter, except from results as shown on my fields. A Mr. Parmalee, who makes it his business to blow up rocks with dynamite, passed my place, and I asked him to experiment in one of my fields, which I expect to clear next summer. There were a large number of rocks in the field, such as could not very well be blasted with powder, and I asked him what he could do. . . . I pointed out a rock ten and one-half feet long, five and one-half feet wide, and nine or ten inches in depth--such a rock, as any one will see, would be difficult to blast with powder, because there is not depth enough to drill into it. I took out my watch, and in precisely seven and one-half minutes from the time he began to work the rock was in atoms. . . . I have used many kegs of gunpowder, during my six years' experience, in blasting rocks, and am free to say, that the same amount of work could not have been accomplished with ordinary blasting powder, and the same number, in less than a month."

Gunn

9/27/2016 08:01:57 am

Hi Andy. I'm trying to figure out why you're concentrating on breaking rocks instead focusing-in on the holes being made in rocks.

For instance, the two groups of stoneholes I described and showed photos of on the ridgeline near Appleton show no propensity for being blasted at all. The large, modern, machine-made stoneholes were quite obviously not made for blasting, or for general quarrying work. They can and should be eliminated as targets of blasting, or breaking up in any fashion whatsoever.

This also applies to the several SMALL, portable stonehole rocks at the site...they could not have been targets for blasting, not with two very small-diameter holes in each.

So, the history of "breaking of rocks" may not really matter much in the discussion. We should be looking closer at the technologies for making the various stoneholes, not concentrating on how rocks are broken apart...just my opinion. A red herring may have accidentally floated into the picture.

I was "thinking out loud," too, when I had hoped you might post a zero'ed-in closeup of that tent post in the rock overlooking Glenwood in 1869. See, that rock was never intended for blasting, or breaking up, either, like those thirty or more I found on the same kind of ridge near Appleton.

I'm glad you're still focusing on stoneholes, but I think we're now going in the wrong direction by looking at breaking up rocks, historically. I don't see how this will get us any closer to the real questions we want answered. Would you mind trying another angle? Thanks for the consideration.

Gunn

9/27/2016 08:22:30 am

Andy: "I hope to eventually create a summary of general changes in behaviors and technologies for breaking rocks that will provide some context for the Minnesota stone holes."

But, well, see, there is no context at all associated with blasting or breaking rocks apart for many, if not most, of the stoneholes being proposed as medieval and Norse in this area.

For the most part, the only context for stoneholes associated with blasting you will discover will be those you are looking for, in the wrong context. The stoneholes we need to be studying have nothing to do with historical blasting. The hounds were released on the wrong side of the river....

Andy White

9/27/2016 08:56:41 am

Gunn,

It's simple: I think we can agree that at least some of the stone holes WERE associated with attempts to blast rocks (the purpose of which was to clear fields and/or produce rock for building). Several times now I've heard "these holes obviously weren't made for blasting," but I've seen precious little evidence to back up that assertion. How do you know?

It may be that you've already gone through all the steps required to fully understand (1) under what circumstances we can expect rocks to have been the target of blasting; (2) how that blasting might have been attempted; and (3) how technologies for blasting rocks (both tools for creating holes and the explosives placed in them) changed through time. Maybe you've done all that, but I doubt it. I know that I haven't, so that's the approach I'm going to take. It's not enough for me to simply say "blasting doesn't make any sense" when it so clearly was such a common practice (in 1800's Minnesota and in other times and place). If looking at actual historical records related to the hows, whens, and whys of rock blasting isn't as much fun as talking about Norse codes . . . feel free to press "pause" why I do something that I think will actually add quite a bit to the discussion.

Andy White

9/27/2016 08:59:30 am

*while

Gunn

9/27/2016 11:51:18 am

Hi Andy, sometimes I come across as a bit too frank. Yes, of course we both agree that some holes were chiseled by hand for the purpose of blasting. But from here, we almost seem to be playing games involving evasion.

You just said that there is precious little evidence to back up my assertion that stoneholes were not intended for blasting. First, we must recognize that I was not talking about all stoneholes. I have always been talking about specific examples of stoneholes that weren't intended for blasting, those being the ones suspected of being authentic medieval Norse stoneholes.

I took the time to show you and others the history of the Sauk Lake Altar Rock in extreme detail, from an entire chapter in a book by Holand. Andy, I can't do much else for you if you chose to ignore credible local histories. Please look again at the evidence I provided you with already. The history of the Altar Rock clearly shows that it has never had anything to do with intentions of blasting. Professionals like to accuse "fringe" types of ignoring evidence, but sometimes this can be reversed, too.

I was thinking of setting up a new, better null hypothesis, if you don't mind, one that might eliminate the stupidity of applying blasting to all these stoneholes up here; something that would also eliminate fairly obvious surveying stoneholes, since they obviously weren't intended for blasting, either.

We could be even more upfront and only include those that do not seem to fit in with modern purposes, because of location and other factors. I think our null hypothesis can focus away from massive blasting (and forgetfulness) as being a factor when considering what many think are actual Norse stoneholes.

If you don't mind me being frank again, I think any discussion of stoneholes having to do with all manner of blasting is a distraction, and the conversation and enquiry might be more productive by steering away from a contentious subject that has already been condemned, at least by me, and often...that being the wrongful assertion by "representatives" of the academic world that practically all the stoneholes in the area were made by pioneering farmers who forgot to blast. Why can't we stop trying to cover up others' mistakes? Ask Colavito about this when you see him, please.

Studying dynamite and blasting sounds fun enough, but it doesn't really relate accurately to the majority of the stoneholes we "fringe" people are talking about. I guess something can be both fun and evasive at the same time though, right?

As you've noticed by now, I'm never evasive when discussing stoneholes. I'd just like the conversation to be a bit more productive, and less evasive-seeming, if you don't mind.

Gunn

9/27/2016 01:13:37 pm

Here is a quote from H. Holand on the matter, from page 169 of his book, "America: 1355-1364," from his chapter about the Sauk lake Altar Rock:

"Inasmuch as the holes were seen about ten years before anyone made any clearing on the land, the theory that the holes were drilled for the purpose of making the land fit for cultivation is pretty well excluded. Another conceivable purpose is that the holes were drilled for the purpose of obtaining building stone. But this theory seems to be equally untenable. All the surrounding area abounds in surface boulders."

The lesson learned here is that we absolutely need to consider context when considering the mysteries surrounding some of these stoneholes. I posted the whole chapter from Holand on my website, but folks need to remember while reading it that Holand was caught in a double-bind of thinking the stoneholes were mooring stones, and that all the weapons and stoneholes he knew about were associated with his imaginary King Magus/Sir Paul Knutsen search party.

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id49.html

That last photo is of the "Chokio Stone," which was found in a field in MN, just west of Morris. It is now at the Runestone Museum in Alex. I personally think this is the kind of stone that a Catholic priest may have used on an altar shelf built into the Altar Rock by means of two rare horizontal stoneholes...the proposed purpose described by Holand in detail, as you can squint and read about.

Tom Rent

9/27/2016 09:19:05 am

Gunn, I have seen many groupings of stonehole boulders in Minnesota and Iowa. In most cases these large glacial erratic granite boulders were first moved to a property line, fence-line, or ridge-line, where they were then "processed," Priority one was to get them out of the way so the field could be farmed. Once in a group or pile, the farmers would use them as needed for a variety of purposes around the farm, such as for shoring-up drainage channels, making retaining walls, and blasting for use in foundations. It is very likely the line of stoneholes on the ridge-line you're researching fits the behavior seen many other places in the area. The stoneholes in these groups are simply ones that never got blasted for whatever reason. I'm sure you are aware of such a pile just down the east side of the Ohman Farm that is still there today. One stonehole boulder from that pile was moved back up to the top of Runestone Hill and put on display by the Park leveraging Holand's rediculous mooringstone idea. Here is Judi and I near that pile. Photo by Robin M. http://tinypic.com/r/5ajloi/9

http://tinypic.com/r/5ajloi/9

Tom Rent

9/27/2016 11:33:04 am

We found a number of stoneholes in the boulders along this Ohman farm property line when the lake was dry. These are usually underwater. When the park was created, they made an artificial lake to play into the KRS's fake "Island" storyline.

Tom Rent

9/27/2016 11:37:00 am

Pic : http://tinypic.com/r/maij51/9

Gunn

9/27/2016 12:14:23 pm

Hi Tom, great photo...the first thing I wanted to do is start crawling around that pile, looking for triangular-shaped stoneholes--or maybe a rare Norse carving.

No, it's actually not likely at all that the groupings of stoneholes on the ridgeline fits the behavior seen in "many other places in the area." (?) These stoneholes I'm talking about probably shouldn't be compared to those on rocks which have mostly all been moved...according to you. All these rocks I'm talking about on the ridgeline are scattered about, unmoved by mankind, still well-embedded into the ground.

I've been trying to convince Andy that practically none of the stoneholes I've been trying to concentrate on as being medieval has anything to do with intentions of blasting. The stoneholes on the ridge I've been talking about were clearly not made for blasting, Tom, neither the late 1800's stoneholes, or the much earlier ones.

Remember the important lesson from Andy...small stones would not have needed blasting. Great point!

Tom Rent

9/27/2016 12:27:44 pm

Gunn, you said "The stoneholes on the ridge I've been talking about were clearly not made for blasting."

That's where you will need highly convincing evidence. Looks alone wont do it. I have dozens of pics of highly weathered stoneholes along property lines. Are yours larger, smaller, not triangular, not 4 - 12 inches deep, and not centered? What makes them so unique that they would not fit a blasting scenarios, and only fit a Medieval Norse scenario? Conjecture is not evidence.

Gunn

9/27/2016 12:34:55 pm

Tom, this will be the last time I try to convince you, since you seem to be quite closed-minded over my offerings of evidence. I'll try this more clearly with you: late 1800's railroad surveying crew stoneholes were made for securing tents against the wind, as I discovered through personal research. There would be no desire to blast them after using them for this singular purpose.

I've already been triply-clear about small rocks not needing blasting, as Andy got. Why can't you be more savvy, like Andy?

Jim

9/27/2016 12:38:29 pm

Tom, With what you say here and what Judi mentions in a prev blog post, of the tonnage of rock needed for emerging towns etc., these already collected and piled amounts of stones would make a great collection point for these towns would it not? They could blast on site to break up stone for transport and might be lucky enough to find previously blasted angular stones for construction. "Mini quarries" if you will.

Tom Rent

9/27/2016 04:50:36 pm

Gunn, do you really think a railroad survey crew is going to spend many hours chiseling holes in a group of granite stones to hold tent poles on a windy ridge rather than just move to where there is shelter from the wind in a valley and they can just drive their stakes deeper into the ground? They likely camped there 1 night and then moved on. You are reading way to much into one old photo. Didn't you say these ridge stoneholes were medieval? If not, where are the medieval ones and why are they unique?

Gunn

9/27/2016 05:16:47 pm

Tom, you're not keeping up very well. Dig back through all my comments and links and you'll find your answers. I'm not going to keep repeating myself with information I already covered. Don't you realize by now that I'm talking about two different groups of stoneholes from two different time periods on the same spot?

Mark L

9/28/2016 06:20:55 am

"Andy, please stop doing your research because it makes me look even less credible than I already am."

"Let's move the goalposts and ignore everything that disagrees with me".

"Despite having months to do so, I'm yet to provide you with the article for your site which lays out my findings in a decent scientific way".

"I'm going to refuse to provide any evidence for anyone, instead telling them to check my old comments".

There's no sense directing this at Gunn, because he's wrong and knows it - Andy, this is what giving fringe liars the oxygen of publicity does. He's not budged a millimetre from his initial stance, despite you and people like you wasting who knows how much time organising evidence and presenting it in a reasonable way. He'll walk away from this convinced you're trying to discredit him for nefarious "mainstream" purposes, and will continue to espouse an obvious and easily disproved lie for the rest of his days. All you've done is given him an inflated sense of self-importance and wasted peoples' time.

Andy White

9/28/2016 06:25:34 am

I disagree that that's "all I've done." My original impetus was the "mystery" of the stone holes, but now I'm sincerely interested in understanding the changing behaviors and technologies associated with breaking rocks. That may sound silly, but it's actually a fascinating and important component of 19th century American history that I knew little about before. So I'll keep writing about what I'm interested in. That's what I do!

Gunn

9/28/2016 10:38:14 am

Jackie Gleason: "Hi-ya Joe!"

Crabs, Joe?

Gunn

9/28/2016 10:48:07 am

Andy, it's easy to see the sourness in Jo...whoops, I mean In Mark L's comments. I think everyone reading your blog day-by-day can see what Mark L's intentions are, and I'm glad to see he wasn't successful in trying to buzz you up.

And, he's again questioning your own behavior in wanting to study stoneholes, though from a different angle. Bottom line: Mark L is a blog troll, an alias manufactured to cause purposeful mischief, like a bully looking around the playground for some innocent kid to pester....

Mark L, I've got the Lord on my side. What do you have going for you? Bad spirits making you crabby and wanting to lash out?

Andy White

9/28/2016 10:51:13 am

ENOUGH!! I'm losing my patience with all the nonsense. I'm going to write about what I want, when I want. If you don't want to read it, fine. If it makes you mad, fine. That's not my problem. I feel like anything having to do with stone holes turns into a preschool playground, and it's really annoying. If we're not going to stick to productive discussion, I'll just close the comments.

Jim

9/27/2016 12:56:59 pm

Gunn, Have you ever considered that smaller stones may have holes in them for blasting or other methods of splitting simply to make angular construction material ? You cannot build a wall with bowling balls.

Gunn

9/27/2016 01:33:34 pm

No, Jim, I honestly haven't ever considered what you suggest, especially at the site on the ridge near Appleton. There is no evidence of splitting stone in the area, and there are no stone constructions or piles of stone indicated such in the past. The field is as God's evolutionary process made it, apparently without the touch of mankind, except for the dual sets of obviously different stonehole groups...from two different times. I know this is probable quite confusing for you to follow.

Anyway, no, there would be no need to make angular construction material where no stone building has taken place. Jim, the ridgeline is pristine, untouched by anything modern since the late 1800's, when the tent post stoneholes were made.

Try believing in what I'm saying, instead of disbelieving...something might go off like a sparkler in your head. Maybe you'll begin to be unwaveringly curious about what of a medieval and Norse beginning could be buried there, where I'm vaguely pointing to. No...over there!

Andy White

9/27/2016 01:42:39 pm

I'm not sure how we're defining small, but I can't see why you wouldn't just use a sledgehammer to break rocks that are the size of basketballs or bushel baskets. Is that what you mean by "small"?

Jim

9/27/2016 03:31:44 pm

Yes small needs to be defined, I would say small enough for 1 man clearing land to move it. Anything easily moved would not be used as as a boundary marker or part of a precise map or code for obvious reasons.

Gunn

9/27/2016 05:30:27 pm

Andy, here is precisely what you want to see. Look at the alternating small-diameter stonehole rocks (five), looking particularly at my jackknife. You can readily see that each of these stones are of comparative size, that being...small.

Actually, a fairly strong person could lift up any of these proposed medieval Norse rocks, as opposed to not being able to budge most of those embedded and having been used as tent post supports.

I think I need to go back and present an enlargement of the rock and tent pole in that 1869 picture since several blog readers are hung up over this. For some reason, folks are hung up over this. I don't think they can understand yet that many stoneholes in this region can't be explained away by forgetting to blast. (This is almost as difficult to dislodge from peoples' minds as is the mooring stone theory.)

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id44.html

Gunn

9/27/2016 05:37:19 pm

Jim, I don't think these medieval visitors thought that anyone would start moving heavy rocks around out in the middle of nowhere. As a matter of fact, none of the small rocks appear to have ever been moved, but maybe they were in setting up the code.

This region had few people traversing the landscape back then...maybe as few now. This is out in the middle of nowhere, where the encoders likely didn't think anyone would mess with their fun. So far as I know, no one has yet. Their intended fun is still ongoing, I think, although their actions in burying something might be considered more serious....

Jim

9/27/2016 05:19:07 pm

Meanwhile, back on the topic of 19th-century-technologies-for-breaking-rocks.
Here is more of that pesky speculation :
Say a farmer breaking land drills holes in rocks when he has time through the summer and fall. Winter comes and the farmer goes out and fills the holes with water, hoping the hydraulic force of ice forming will split the rocks. This may work in some instances and not in others. the rocks that split are removed in the spring and the others are just left. There you go left over stone holes !
This could be dependent upon many factors, amount of snow, depth of the frost line etc. Judi has shown some holes will hold water and some will not, this too would effect success rate.
Also this would not explain all situations, obviously a large boulder mostly under ground would make it rather pointless. It may however explain some.

Gunn

9/27/2016 05:53:45 pm

That's all great, Jim. These stoneholes made by pioneers for breaking up stones in clearing land should one day be compared in aging characteristics to the late 1800's stoneholes of a comparable timeframe.

So far as I know of, there have been no legitimate explanations for many of the stoneholes in this region, especially those that were far removed from pioneer farming, in areas heavy in rocks. Excuses are being made for overlooking these viable medieval Norse stoneholes, always, always, as though they represent something else. So far, no one seems to want to get real yet about this ongoing mystery of all the many unexplained stoneholes.

But, actually, you see they aren't unexplained at all...they're just being purposely overlooked by academia, for the most part. In this vein, I'm surprised how far Andy has been willing to go into this abstract subject, since stoneholes are what is holding the medieval Norse history together up here, like ever-hardening glue.

Jim

9/27/2016 06:30:44 pm

Gunn, this is just going off topic again. Last post for me tonight.

".they're just being purposely overlooked by academia"

What are they overlooking ? Wild speculation and hoaxes. There is no plot. Did they try to hide L'Anse aux Meadows ? Has it been accepted ? Where is one shred of provable evidence that what you say is fact.

Gunn

9/27/2016 06:49:28 pm

Good night, Jim. Suddenly your tone has become intolerable. Sleep usually helps with crabbiness. At least you learned a few things today, though most was against your will, obviously, which might account for your sudden orneriness here.

Gunn

9/27/2016 08:17:23 pm

Andy, out of a goodwill gesture for being willing to focus more on the subject of stoneholes in the upper Midwest, I would like to propose a new null hypothesis about stoneholes that might be agreeable to you, and could possibly help us narrow the gateways of a new null hypothesis.

I realize that I'm placing an extra burden on myself by submitting this (in the name of science):

New, Improved, Narrowed Stonehole Null Hypothesis:

"There is no evidence to show that stoneholes which may be considered as not associated with "modern drilling" or "modern blasting," can be thought of as being medieval, and Norse."

It could be understood that many stoneholes in this region are not represented by intentions to blast or otherwise break apart rocks. We can responsibly discard obviously made modern quarrying stoneholes (because of location as a factor) and also the large, sometimes fancy, star-shaped stoneholes that were quite obviously never intended for blasting.

Has anyone ever heard of blasting from a very large star-shaped stonehole? Has anyone ever heard of a huge group of these types of stoneholes (over thirty) in one spot, blasted...or even unblasted? I feel that I've given a very good reason for the unusually large grouping of stoneholes on the ridge, with period photo evidence, no less. The same might be said for the small, portable stonehole rocks on location, showing these proposed Norse stonehole rocks were too small to ever consider for blasting or breaking apart. In essence, we can separate out many modern stoneholes for then approaching this newly proposed paradigm.

We can focus on any stoneholes thought for good enough reason to not be caught in the net of supposing them to be from forgetting to blast. This is a fair but still difficult null hypothesis to work with, but which could narrow things down and help with focusing more on unexplained stoneholes not likely associated with blasting or breaking rocks apart.

Andy White

9/28/2016 09:51:19 am

I just spent a couple of hours on a new blog post just to watch it vanish into thin air when I hit "publish." That sucks. I quit for the day.

Only Me

9/28/2016 10:07:31 am

Man, that's harsh! Was it something new or another edition of your research into stone breaking/removal?

Andy White

9/28/2016 10:09:20 am

It was further info on stone-breaking -- there's a lot of great information out there. I'll be able to re-create it, but I'm not sure when I'll have the time. It's a real bummer to watch a couple hours of work go down the toilet.

Only Me

9/28/2016 10:33:29 am

I know what you mean. I guess that's why I hate to point out grammatical or spelling errors on Jason's posts. Both you guys are busy and it takes time to produce new posts. Keep your chin up, Andy.

Andy White

9/28/2016 10:44:59 am

Whoops -for some reason it got published under an earlier date. I've re-done it now so it's under today's date. That's a relief.

Gunn

9/28/2016 11:07:48 am

Another poster: "If we can account for those stone holes that are most likely the result of blasting or other mundane purposes, then we can narrow our focus on the remainder."

I was just getting ready to offer you a lightening substitute. Too late, but good for you!

Someone just said this to me, Andy, must be out of goodwill.

"You keep saying certain holes are medieval and Scandinavian, but that hasn't been conclusively determined. That's the purpose of Andy's hypothesis: remove those that can be explained from the equation so more analysis can be given to the ones you want studied. I think this is a great idea...."

We can thank confused minds for direction clarity, at times, I think, can't we?

Jim

9/28/2016 05:50:20 pm

Gunn, My only problem with that statement is calling blowin stuff up mundane. It's not mundane, it's great fun !

Comments are closed.

Minnesota Stone Holes and 19th Century Technologies for Breaking Rocks

Archives

Categories