97 
WEAVING 
The piece of textile seen in Plate XVIII, figure 6, is the only specimen 
of weaving found here {See description on page 90). It is possible that 
the perforated netting needles, especially those with the eyes large enough 
to admit the smaller weft strands, were used in the weaving of this and 
other textiles and of the mesh of snow-shoes. 
TANNING 
That hides were tanned may be inferred, but we can learn very little 
respecting the methods employed. Scraper blades chipped from stone were 
probably used to remove flesh from hides. The small stone tools considered 
as adze blades and stone tools like the one seen in Plate XIV, figure 19, 
may also have been used for the purpose. Several radial bones of the 
deer with the external surface worn glossy from use may have been used 
in combination with the ulna to remove the hair from hides, as among the 
Micmac (Speck, 1, Plate XXV, figure b) and Navaho (Mason, 2, page 575 
and illustration (inset) in upper right hand corner of his Plate LXII). 
COMMERCE 
Very few evidences of trade and commerce with people of other stocks, 
occupying regions remote from the site, were discovered; Dawson also com- 
ments on the scarcity of such evidences at the site of Hochelaga (3:165). 
The few specimens discovered may have been obtained through the channels 
of trade, or war, or on expeditions to the seaboard. 
The rocks and minerals found at the site occur either locally or within 
a journey of a day or a few days from the site. None was introduced by 
trade. 
As among the prehistoric Iroquois generally, the trade in shells seems 
never to have been very extensive, only a few beads, two worked pieces, 
and an unworked fragment of a shell of Venus mercenaria being found; 
the last-mentioned lay on the surface of the ground, and so may have been 
left by white people, although a shell of Mytilus edulis, abundant on the 
Atlantic coast, was discovered at a site on lot 12, con. VIII, Fenelon tp., 
Victoria co., Ontario, about 75 miles west of Roebuck. 
Guest (page 273) briefly described a perforated object from the site, 
which he thought was part of a walrus tooth, but it probably was not a 
tooth of this animal, although, as mentioned under “ Materials/’ an 
unworked specimen was found on a site in Victoria county, which is much 
farther from the sea. 
It has been mentioned (page 20) that one of the bone harpoon points 
looks as if it were derived from the bone of a sea mammal, possibly a 
cetacean from the gulf of St. Lawrence or the Atlantic coast. Another 
specimen is shaped like some harpoon heads from Micmac sites in Nova 
Scotia and may have been obtained from those Indians in trade. 
