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?
It is said by those who ought to know something about our gypsum quarries, that there are no such slabs of stone found there out of which this object could be carved. Further, it is allowed by all who have examined this wonder, that the head appears to have been hollow. Now, if the head is hollow, it is either a moulding or else it must be what those interested claim for it: a veritable petrifaction. No sculptor would carve the head in that condition.
But I have used too much of your valuable time, so I will close.
TULLY, Oct. 23d, 1869. CONE WILLIAMS
OF WHAT SCHOOL OF ART IS THIS STATUE?
To the Editor of the Syracuse Journal:— In the discussions relating to the "Giant," I find there are many who favor the Grecian and Roman school of sculpture. The Greeks and Romans excelled the early Egyptians in one thing only, that is representing the human hair. Their male statues have flowing and bushy locks and a beard. On the Egyptian statue, the hair looks more like a skull cap on the back of the head, than hair, with no indication of beard. They had been so afflicted with plagues through the Israelites, that they would have nothing that was like them, or that reminded them of them. The Cardiff giant has no beard and nothing on the forehead to indicate hair; behind the ears running up to the crown, there seems to be something, that when he is raised, may show the Egyptian school of sculpture. As art goes from one country to another, the style changes somewhat to suit the taste of the people. In America, at first, our sculptors and painters copied from the French and Italian schools, but put on a little more drapery, as our people were modest and would not bear a true copy. Time, the destroyer of all things, has turned the drapery into dust, and we now have the original in all its glory and shame. W.
P.S.—A hard-shell brother at my elbow says he will go his bottom dollar that the Cardiff chap is the original "Poor Uncle Ned, who had no hair on the top of his head;" he has lain down there and got Klu-Kluxed. (Klu-Kluxed is a Greek word, and means petrified or dried up.) The only objection to his theory is, Uncle Ned's shin bone curved backward, this man's curves forward.