On certain Rocks supposed to move. 35 



It may be deficient or inaccurate, yet as a whole it will 

 give you a tolerably correct idea of their relative posi- 

 tion. C, the road; F, canal uniting the ponds; B, a low 

 marshy swamp; D,an orchard on higher ground ; A, moving 

 rocks. From careful observation I am convinced that the 

 lakes were formerly one. The low ground marked B is 

 evidently alluvial. It lies almost on a level with the surface 

 of the water, and shells are invariably found in digging a 

 few inches. The soil is a black mould, covered with wil- 

 lows, and a growth of ash of forty years standing. Indeed, 

 the proof is so satisfactory, that this was once covered with 

 water, that any one, who visits the spot, cannot doubt for a 

 moment. The next thing which I would notice, is the nar- 

 row isthmus, through which the road passes, leading from 

 the east to the west part of the town. The road itself is a 

 natural elevation of some feet above the adjacent low ground, 

 of convenient width, and formed of hmestone rocks, evi- 

 dently not in place, and apparently thrown carelessly to- 

 gether. To the question, how this extensive elevation was 

 formed, I can give but one answer. From some cause un- 

 known, they have moved from the lake and taken this posi- 

 tion. My reasons for this conclusion are the following : — 

 First, all the stones in that part of the lake, adjacent, are 

 constantly moving in that direction. Second, no similar col- 

 lection of detached rocks can be found, except in the vicin- 

 ity of higher ledges, or such as are artificial. This is a highly 

 primitive country, and much abounding in carbonate of hme. 

 The strata of limestone, which extend from Vermont through 

 Berkshire,'^to Connecticut, and afford such excellent marble, 

 run through this town, and stretch towards the Atlantic. 

 This, it is well known, is always found in quarries of con- 

 siderable extent, and never scattered over the surface of 

 the earth, except in the cases above mentioned, or in the 

 vicinity of rivers. Where there are lofty ridges of it, expo- 

 sed to the action of the elements for a series of ages, we 

 naturally expect to find detached masses* scattered round. 

 But here the country adjacent is level, and, within the coni^ 



*I fear there are many facts which cannot be accounted for by any of the 

 existing theories. Of the two popular theories, how can the fact that some 

 of the densest and heaviest of the minerals lie near the surface, be made 

 consistent with the one, or the order observable in the position of the differ^ 

 eat strata with the other ? 



