PAGE 19
The American Goliah: A Wonderful Geological Discovery
by
PROBABILITIES THAT IT WAS TRANSPORTED ON THE WATER-COURSES FROM THE SEA-BOARD.
Although there are still intelligent advocates of the petrifaction theory, the preponderating weight of opinion supports the view that the giant wonder is a work of art. We understand all the scientific gentlemen, who have been permitted to make thorough examination, to be agreed in this decision.
The next question is, How did it come to be where it was discovered? There is very little probability that it was carved on the spot where it was recently exhumed; the stone for that purpose was not likely to have been found there or to have been taken there; and the situation where it was discovered, a morass or water-bed, favors the theory that it was deposited there. Setting aside the belief, honestly entertained by many people in the immediate vicinity, that the statue was surreptitiously placed in the slough where it was dug up a few days since, there is tenable ground for the theory that it was taken there by some of the early white visitors to this section of country. This might have been done by transportation over the water-courses communicating with the locality, either through the River St. Lawrence, Lake Ontario, the Oswego River, Onondaga Lake and Onondaga Creek, or through the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers, Oneida Lake and River, Onondaga Lake and Onondaga Creek. These waters were early navigated, and within the memory of persons still living the principal means of transportation was by batteaux, which with considerable loads were propelled along these water-courses. The Onondaga Creek was in those days navigable for light-draft craft capable of conveying a much greater weight than this statue, at least as far up its waters as the place of this discovery.
The place of the discovery is not in the original channel of the creek, but in a detour from that channel. It is not unreasonable to suppose that for some reason–from alarm, or from a desire to secret the object,–the craft was run out of the main channel into this then open water-way, where the statue was deposited.
The early Jesuit visitors to this vicinity may have had this statue in their keeping. It may have been fashioned by some of their number. It is not impossible, that it may have been brought here, or even have been carved out at some place not far distant, by other of the early visitors to this region. We expect that light will be thrown upon these speculations, by the scientific investigations, which will determine the exact nature of the material of which the statue is composed, by which alone some hint of its place of origin may be derived. The intimations given us by Professor Hall, in our brief interview with him, impressed us that he looked upon the statue as of great antiquity, antedating the present geologic period, and equaling in interest and importance the discoveries made in Mexico of archaeological remains, indicating a high degree of civilization in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries.
WHEN WAS THE STATUE PUT WHERE IT WAS FOUND?
To the Editor of the Syracuse Journal:– If it would not be asking too much, I would beg leave to say a few words through the columns of your paper. In Saturday’s issue of the Standard I notice a letter written by “Skeptic,” which that paper calls “silly,” and charges the writer with being “lacking in the upper story.” This is a misfortune, truly; but I have taken some trouble to investigate these reports and find them vouched for by highly respectable parties. There are, to my mind, several reasons for the belief that this wonder has not occupied its present position longer than is intimated in the above mentioned letter.
The soil where it was found is soft, and an excavation large enough to admit the object could easily be made in an hour or two. The location is favorable for such purpose, being behind the buildings, and hidden by the abrupt bank; a little straw or other litter would cover all traces. Then, if the stone man be moulded from cement, it would not weigh near what it would if cut from stone, and could be handled with ease by three or four men. This idea that the curiosity was cast or moulded, is strengthened by the fact that it has no other support than the ground upon which it rests. Had it been the work of a sculptor it would have had a tablet for support. Now, you ask, perhaps, where was the pattern made, if moulded, and how could the parties making the cast escape detection? I would ask, who carved it, if a stone, and where did the sculptor bring out such a work without the knowledge of the fact being discovered?