FullReads

The “Onondaga Giant” is the work of the sculptor, and out of a single large block of the gypseous limestone (an upper member of the “Onondaga Salt Group”) which forms large beds in the immediate vicinity. This stone is very strongly marked by lines of deposition, causing bands of different shades extending in horizontal layers, perfectly even and parallel through large quarry masses. In the present in stance these layers are so disposed–in the way the sculptor chose his block–as to cut lengthwise through the whole body, and to mark off different leads over the entire figure. Thus the left hip and left breast present (cameo-like) a layer different and higher than the one which forms the corresponding parts on the right side of the body. The head, too, with its different elevation of chin, nose and forehead, is very strongly marked in the same way. These linings are well-known peculiarities in the original deposition of a stratified rock, and are not features assumed in the petrifaction of any organic body. Further peculiarities of the Onondaga gypsum are very noticeable in the block, and among them is the peculiar style of decomposition by which the whole lower part of the figure is affected, as also one side of its head. Here the soluble earths, with any portions of carbonate of lime, have been dissolved away, and the pure granular sulphate (snowy gypsum) remains, standing up with ragged, uneven, cavernous surfaces, which is a feature very noticeable everywhere in weather-worn fragments of this rock. This decomposition or rotting of the lower side of the left leg gives a very vivid semblance to the corruption of actual flesh, and has doubtless had much to do with the ready reception which the “petrifaction” theory has found among the mass of visitors–even including many men of intelligence and general education. If such persons will refer to works which treat of petrifaction in all their various kinds of transformation and in all the thousand genera and species of fossil organisms, they will find that although bones, shells, and the hard parts of animals, changed to stone, yet preserving their original outlines, are of constant occurrence, yet there is not a single instance on record of fossil flesh; of the fat, muscle or sinew of man or beast changed into stone or into any substance resembling stone. To a person acquainted with the nature of petrifaction, the slow substitution of mineral for animal matter, particle by particle, the reason why humor of other flesh does not undergo the same change will be apparent. This is truly not entirely in accordance with popular belief, nor with the ever-recurring stories in our public journals. “A fish nearly a foot long, petrified to solid stone” has lately been cited in your columns as another instance of the petrifactions of the Onondaga Valley. I visited this yesterday at the Museum of the Onondaga Historical Society, at Syracuse, and found (what I had before surely surmised,) a simple, short, club-like fragment of limestone, worn by running water to a form like a little fish. “This it was and nothing more.”

It is proposed–and very properly–that this Onondaga relic should be submitted to the examination of Professor Hall, Agassiz, Leidz, or some other of our geologists known to fame and infallible experts in these matters. This were well. But there is another court which I think, would pass quite as prompt a decision. I believe that a sculptor, in examining this most singular specimen, would at once recognize its artificial character. The devices for saving time or for adding strength, partially cutting out the figure, are sufficiently apparent in the object before us. The legs–with their heavy thigh, the swollen knee portion, the swollen calf and slender ankle, all touch on the outline length as they lie over each other, with no open space between, or no point where one folds down upon the other with a sharp line of contact of the two surfaces. The same thing, too, is noticeable in the arms and in the fingers of the hand, where the flesh, instead of sloping away– one rounded surface finely leaving another–is cut down square, as if some unnatural out growth of flesh had formed a uniting portion beneath the member. This is a too common device in the coarser grades of sculpture to escape notice here. Our sculptor would certainly find fault with the very constrained position of the body, its feet awkwardly crossed and its left arm twisted rather than laid backward under its body, certainly this is not the attitude in which a sculptor–a man of taste–would place his handiwork. Still, may it not be an admissable theory, that the oldtime artist was constrained in the form which he should give his statue, by the form and dimensions of his gypsum block. If there was not material sufficient to carve out both arms lying across the breast, he might find enough to make one of the arms below. If the lower left hand corner of the block were broken off, he might still bring out both feet by lapping one over the other, and letting vertical space atone for lateral want of it. If our sculptor, finally, will look sharply upon the legs and body in such parts as have escaped the considerable water-wearing which has smoothed most of the figure, I think that he will see plainly the marks of the graving tool of his ancient colleague. But, as he now has the figure in charge–I positively rejecting it as being no fossil–I will leave to him and the Archeologist to study and puzzle upon it. Dr. J.F. Boynton, of Syracuse, (to whom, by the way, belongs the credit of having first discerned and recorded in print that this is a statue), says, “I think that this piece of reclining statuary is not 300 years old, but is the work of the early Jesuit Fathers in this country, who are known to have frequented the Onondaga valley from 220 to 250 years ago; that it would probably bear a date in history corresponding with the monumental stone which was found at Pompey Hill in this county, and now deposited in the Academy at Albany. All these are points which Archaeologists and Ethnologists may yet determine. Will not Hon. Lewis H. Morgan leave Rochester by an early Monday train and see this most wonderful statue while it is still undisturbed in its bed. H. A. WARD. ROCHESTER, October 23, 1869.