MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS RELATING TO ANTHROPOLOGY. 667 



and was examined by a number of persons possessing respectable scien- 

 titic attainments. As far as I am aware, however, neither its visible 

 characteristics, nor its history, or its historical associations have ever 

 been carefully studied by any conversant with American archa'ology. 

 This carved stone was found at the point marked a in the accompanying 

 map. For myself, while undertaking- to comment upon this interesting 

 memento of a past age, T must at the outset acknowledge my want of 

 qualifications for the purpose, and explain that my object is rather to 

 suggest than to dogmatize, and to give such small assistance to the 

 learned as is comprised in scraps of information which T have been able 

 to obtain from various sources. 



A tolerable knowledge of the history of Charlotte County and of 

 the province, and an imperfect memory and record of the contents of 

 several letters received from various persons upon thei)rincipal subject, 

 are all of some service in furthering my purjiose. The letters whicli 

 weri' written to assist me in preparing a jiaper upon the stone, subse- 

 quently read before the Natural I^istory Society of New Brunswick, 

 an association not now in existence, were unfortunately destroyed in 

 the great fire of St. John. The paper itself was preserved, and em- 

 bodies at least a portion of the contents of the letter. Opinion, at the 

 time of discovery, was somewhat divided, both in regard to the nation- 

 ality of the workman ^^.^■^^s.^^^^'v^ 

 by wiioin the stone was 

 carved and also in re- 

 spect to the object of Mf^^-Mj ." ■ \ ^\ 

 the work. Three sug- 

 gestions, one of which .... >>;,., . - . ', ^ V 

 is probably correct. -, \ ■ \ 

 were oifered by dilfer- 

 ent parties with refer- 

 ence to the workmen : 



First, that he was a^^H^^^^H|i V 



British colonist; ^^^^-^^IF^^^^^H^ H' 



oudly, that he was a 

 Frenchman, and, third- 

 ly, that he was an In- 

 dian. The discussion 

 of these several ]>ropo- 

 sitions naturally sug- 

 gests, if it does not nec- 



essaril V involve, in each 



case a consideration of 

 the motives of the work- 

 man. I have little hesitation in dismissing, as m-injv improbable, the 

 hypothesis that the artist was a British colonist. The ai)i)earance 

 and position of the stone when discovered, to Avhich I shall presently 



