Page:Acadiensis Q2.djvu/340

of LaTete Passage. By no hypothesis, however, am I able to connect this curiosity with any European custom or idea, and consequently the remainder of my investigation will be devoted to the argument in favor of its Indian origin.

If it is possible to derive approximately accurate information as to the age of the stone from its situation and condition when found, it would of course assist materially in discovering the nationality of the workman. I believe that the finder who, as I have stated, was searching for stone for building purposes, was attracted by the shape of the stone in question; that it was lying on the surface and covered with moss, and that it was not until the removal of the moss that the true character of the object appeared. An examination of its surface, must I think, convince the observer that the stone has been subjected to the long continued action of water, and from its situation it seems fairly certain that the water which has produced the wasted appearance was rain, and rain only. An expert might perhaps form a tolerably accurate opinion as to the period which would be required for ordinary rainfalls to effect such results as are here plainly visible. For myself, I hesitate to speak of the precise period where the stone showed no marks of rain. I feel, however, that I am safe in expressing the belief that it would require a length of time commencing at a date before a French man is known to have set a foot in the country to produce from the action of rain so worn a surface as this stone exhibits. If this proposition is correct, there can be no reasonable ground to doubt that the carving is the work of an Indian. I may refer, but solely for the purpose of expressing my disbelief in any such hypothesis, to the suggestion that art, employed for the purpose of deceiving and not any force of nature, has produced the worn appearance to which reference has been made. The mossy deposit, and the unfrequented locality in which the curiosity was found,