But the third mound B E runs utterly at variance with Mr. Lewis’ figure. By him its direction was 59¼ E; its present direction is S 76 E. The question then arises; Is this mound the one that Mr. Lewis surveyed? Nothing could be better evidence that it is than the very egregious error Mr. Lewis made concerning the area contained within his triangular embankment. He affirms that the area of Fort Necessity was fifty square rods. Now take the line of B E for the hypothenuse of the triangle and extend it to F where it would meet the projection of side A C. _That triangle contains almost exactly 50 square rods or one-third of an acre!_ The natural supposition must be that some one had surveyed the triangle A F B and computed its area correctly as about fifty square rods. The mere recording of this area is sufficient evidence that the triangle A F B had been surveyed in 1816, and this is sufficient proof that mound B E stood just as it stands today and was considered in Mr. Lewis’ day as one of the embankments of Fort Necessity. [Illustration: MAP OF FORT NECESSITY IN “FRONTIER FORTS OF PENNSYLVANIA” FOLLOWING SURVEY OF FREEMAN LEWIS.] Now, why did Mr. Lewis ignore the embankment B E and the triangle A F B which contained these fifty square rods he gave as the area of Fort Necessity? For the very obvious reason that that triangle crossed the brook and ran far into the marsh beyond. By every account the palisades of Fort Necessity were made to extend on the north to touch the brook, therefore it would be quite ridiculous to suppose the palisades crossed the brook again on the east. Mr. Lewis, prepossessed with the idea that the embankments must have been triangular in shape, drew the line B C as the base of his triangle, bisecting it at M and N, and making the loop M S N touch the brook. This design (triangle A B C) of Fort Necessity is improbable for the following reasons: 1. It has not one half the area Mr. Lewis gives it. 2. It would not include much more than one-half of the high ground of the plateau, which was none too large for a fort. 3. There is no semblance of a mound B C nor any shred of testimony nor any legend of its existence. 4. The mound B E is entirely ignored though there is the best of evidence that it stood in Mr. Lewis’ day where it stands today and was considered an embankment of Fort Necessity. Mr. Lewis gives exactly the area of a triangle with it as a part of the base line. 5. Loop M S N would not come near the course of the brook without extending it far beyond Mr. Lewis’ estimate of the length of its sides. 6. Its area is only about 5200 square feet which would make Fort Necessity unconscionably small in face of the fact that more high ground was available.