Red = Passive Voice/Transitive Verbs
Yellow= Abstract Subjects
Teal = Linking Verbs in S-LV-SC sentence pattern
Why did people
so readily accept the giant? What
was their basis of belief? This can be answered by a number of reasons. The first and most
basic is the bible. During the mid 19th century the bible was the prevailing
educational force in America. Most people went to church and they believed in
the bible because it was their source of an explanation for why things were in
the world. It explained the origins of man, beast and nature. Within the bible it states that before
the flood, giants had existed as a race. Goliath from the story of David and
Goliath was among these who, after a series of mathematical conversions, would
be estimated at nine and a half feet tall. People believed and accepted this and
the Giant was merely physical proof of it. For those who were a little more
scientific and somewhat well read, there was another explanation. In Arizona
there are petrified trees, from what we now understand as fossilization, many
of which are so well preserved they still show the rings of the trees. The
argument went that if this could happen to the trees then it could also happen
to a person. Lastly and the most basic, people simply wanted to believe.
People, who would normally be called logical, sane or balanced, wanted to
believe in the mysterious, the unknown and the exciting.
There were of course skeptics,
but the question is who and what
is the basis of their skepticism? These skeptics were scientists, specifically
chemists, geologists, paleontologists and naturalists. Most notably were J. F
Boynton, a geologist from the University of Pennsylvania, and Othniel C. Marsh,
a Yale professor and an acclaimed paleontologist. They were immediately critical of such dramatic
claims, and as men of science set out to evaluate the Giant. Boynton, and later
Marsh who supported him, claimed the Giant to be a fraud for a number of
reasons. First the Giant,
which was made of stone, appeared to be made of gypsum, a soft rock that
would not survive long (geologically speaking) in the New England soil.
Secondly upon evaluation of the excavation site he noted that there was fresh
plant material in the soil from which the Giant was removed, indicating a recent burial, as
opposed to the compaction and stratification of soil that had been unmoved for
thousands of years. Boynton hypothesized that the Giant had not been in the
ground for longer than three years, then went further and calculated that the
giant had been in the ground no longer than a year, 370 days to be exact. A well-known
sculptor, Eratus Dow Palmer, also evaluated the Giant and determined it had
been man made, noting identifying marks of sculptor’s tools on the face.
Boynton was indeed correct in his evaluation, Newell and his cousin (one of his
associates) having placed the Giant in the ground approximately one year
before.
good job with your identifications in first paragraph, although second paragraph IDs are off...
ReplyDeleteBut no revision? that was the other half of the blog assignment this week.