Mark L. wrote:

But I would guess (I'm not a stone mason, not related to one, never been
stoned, etc....) that stone is a lot more solid than sand, portland
cement and gravel that haven't been mixed correctly or cured properly.
But without more details or seeing it, who can say?

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Mark L." wrote in message

But what if the concrete was indeed mixed incorrectly? IMO, it will be
crumbly

for the entire 4' length through the ground. It won't be a solid
supporting mass at all.


You mean like the stone foundations supporting 250 year old houses here
in
New England? Not a drop of cement, just packed stone.

Most of the stone used in construction in New England 250 years ago was
basically disposing of the rocks that they dug out of the farm fields. If
you go walking in the woods with any regularity you'll come across stone
walls and the occasional hole in the ground that used to be a cellar,
obviously long abandoned. The rocks are usually fairly sizeable--they only
moved the ones big enough to present an obstacle to planting. If one wants
to pile up a bunch of rocks to use as footings it should work fine if it's
done right but that's not the same as bad concrete.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)