Hello Listers, Over the course of a few days I had done some research on the Weston meteorite fall and read up on Silliman's role and it could be summed up to these few quotes.... "His scientific work, which was extensive, began with the examination in 1807 of the meteor that fell near Weston, Conn. He procured fragments, of which he made a chemical analysis, and he wrote the earliest and best authenticated account' of the fall of a meteor in America." Cited from: APPLETONS' CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY VOL V. PICKERING-SUMTER 1888 Source http://books.google.com/books?id=K6koAAAAYAAJ&dq=weston%20meteorite%201807%20woodhouse&pg=PA528#v=onepage&q&f=false "SILLIMAN, Benjamin, scientist, was born in North Stratford, Conn., Aug. 8, 1779 : son of Gold Selleck Silliman (q.v.) and Mary Fish (Noyes) Silliman. He was graduated at Yale, A.B., 1796, A.M., 1799.... In 1805, he went abroad to study a year at Edinburgh and to buy books and apparatus. On his return, he studied the geology of New Haven, and in 1807 he examined the meteor that fell near Weston, Conn., making a chemical analysis of fragments, this report being the first scientific account of any American meteor." Cited from: THE TWENTIETH CENTURY BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF NOTABLE AMERICANS I904 And lastly, a quote taken from James Woodhouse biography written by Edgar Fahs Smith stating Silliman's account of the Weston meteorite fall to be...... "An elaborate account of this meteor has been published by Messrs. Silliman and Kingsley, of Yale College, Connecticut." Source http://books.google.com/books?id=4JMEAAAAYAAJ&dq=weston%20meteorite%201807%20woodhouse&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=false But what caught my interest was the dynamic roles that played with Silliman and Woodhouse and that some believed Woodhouse role with the Weston meteorite fall to be "loose and not depended on". Take a look at the link below and start at the top of the page. From what I can gather, Silliman and Woodhouse seemed to have a rivalry and few scholars felt the same way about Woodhouse work with the Weston meteorite being bad science. Source http://books.google.com/books?id=BUsLAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA285&dq=Philadelphia%20Medical%20Museum%2C%205%2C%202%20(1808)%20woodhouse&pg=PA285#v=onepage&q=Philadelphia%20Medical%20Museum,%205,%202%20(1808)%20woodhouse&f=false Now from my understanding Silliman and Kingsley arrived in Weston December 21 1807, a week after the Weston meteorite fall. During those few days Silliman and Kingsley interviewed witnesses and acquired fragments from various sites in Weston. Here is an excerpt from a letter detailing their accounts in Weston.... "Yale College, December 26, 1807. Messrs. Steele, & Co., As imperfect and erroneous accounts of the late phenomenon at Weston are finding their way into the public prints, we take the 1U berty of enclosing for your paper the result of an investigation into the circumstances and evidence of the event referred to, which we have made on the ground where it happened. That we may not interrupt our narration by repeating the observation wherever it is applicable, we may remark, once for all, that we visited and carefully examined every spot where the stones had been ascertained to have fallen, and several places where they had beeu only suspected, without any discovery; that we obtained specimens of every stone; conversed with all the principal original witnesses ; spent several days in the investigation, and were, at the time, the only persons who had explored the whole ground. We are, gentlemen, your obedient servants, BENJAMIN SILLIMAN. JAMES L. KINGSLEY. Cited from: THE AMERICAN REGISTER OR GENERAL REPOSITORY OF HISTORY, POLITICS, AND SCIENCE. PART II FOR 1807. Source http://books.google.com/books?id=SlrQAAAAMAAJ&dq=weston%20meteorite%201807%20woodhouse&pg=PA267#v=onepage&q&f=false After Sillimans and Kingsley return from Weston, on December 29, 1807 Silliman and Kingsley sent a preliminary description of the fall phenomena and the stones to The Connecticut Herald, in New Haven, making the report one of the first published report on the Weston meteorite fall.( Marvin B47 2007, The origins of modern meteorite research) A day later, December 30, 1807 Dr Benjamin Rush handed over some specimens from the Weston meteorite to James Woodhouse for analysis. Cited from: http://books.google.com/books?id=SlrQAAAAMAAJ&dq=weston%20meteorite%201807%20woodhouse&pg=PA267#v=onepage&q&f=false And now this is where the dilemma lays with Silliman and Woodhouse and the rivalry between the two could have started. Stated earlier, in January 1808 Silliman's manuscript accounts the analysis of the Weston fall and at that time Woodhouse's analysis had been unpublished and to some felt his work to be unsound and loose.
"On 1808 March 4, the memoir by Silliman and Kingsley was read to the American Philosophical Society and assigned to referees Woodhouse, Hare, and Cloud, who were so favorably impressed that they recommended publication in the forthcoming volume of the society’s Transactions (Marvin 1979), which, however, would not appear until the following year. Meanwhile, their work became widely known in Europe when Silliman submitted their paper to various European editors with high hopes of reaching a readership knowledgeable about meteorites and their chemistry. His hopes were quickly fulfilled. During 1808, excerpts or abstracts appeared in several well-known European journals, including the Philosophical Magazine, Bibliothèque Britannique, Annalen der Physik, Journal de Physique, de Chemie, et d’Histoire Naturelle, and Journal des Mines. A copy was read to the Royal Society in London, and a newspaper article on it had been translated into French and read to the National Institute in Paris before a rapt audience including Fourcroy, Vauquelin, Berthollet, Laplace, Lagrange, and Biot (Brown 1989:236). All of this attention served not only to raise Silliman, who was at the very beginning of his career, into the ranks of internationally known scientists, but also to elevate the status of Yale University and, indeed, of American science, itself—even before the publication of the memoir in the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society in 1809." (Marvin B47 2007, The origins of modern meteorite research) Now is the rivalry between Silliman and Woodhouse on who published the analysis first or is it seeded deeper between the two individauls on the greatest meteorite fall in American HISTORY? One can concluded that Silliman and Kingsley went to Weston. Stilliman's preliminary description of the meteorite fall was published on December 29th 1807. In March 1808 Silliman and Kingsley read their memoir of the Weston meteorite fall and analysis in front of the American Philosophical Society and to further their analysis and research had numerous excerpts and abstractions published in Europe in 1808. In addition, many sources had concluded that "Silliman's scientific work, which was extensive, began with the examination in 1807 of the meteor that fell near Weston, Conn. He procured fragments, of which he made a chemical analysis, and he wrote the earliest and best authenticated account' of the fall of a meteor in America." As for Woodhouse is concerd, his reputation as a chemist and mineralogist was not high and to some, seen as being loose and not being dependable with analysis of stones. Now does the rivalry lay in the lack of evidence that one might present in an argument of why Woodhouse deserves accreditation or is the rivalry a mere conflict bewteen student/teacher, a delemma that presented its self at the time of meteoritic science was at the for front in America, the race for notoriety of the first American to have a well documented account with the first American meteorite fall, THE WESTON meteorite. Thank you Shawn Alan IMCA 1633 eBaystore http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
