Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ST Vincent Skeletons A Case For Probable Old World New World Contact??

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
This is a spin-off thread from a good scholar Kantzveldt who have a great eye for art and artifacts along with some very interesting POV In her thread, the quest was to find the origins of the Symbolism of the Fuente Magna Bowl. www.abovetopsecret.com...

A side issue arise when I tried to place a connection between Phoenicians and their descendant medieval Libyans , Saharans and bones of a non native American type of probable African origins along with what I originally thought was a water side Petrogalyph of a Saharan script called Tifinag.But alot of questions arose about the bones themselves ,this thread is dedicated to find out who were they and when did they came to the New world,I invite the participants who have question,suggestions and answers to pick-up where they left off on the other thread.
edit on 24-6-2014 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Hi Spider, I'll copy my reply to that other thread over here, as it is a scholarly rebuttal to the claim the skeletal remains found at Hull Bay in the Virgin Islands came from pre-Columbian contact:


originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Spider879
a reply to: Hanslune

The article begins on page 3 and continues on page 23 in spider's link.

It reports that 'prehistoric' remains were found dating to around 100 AD, and appear to be a 'hybrid' of races - Native Indian and African Negroid.

Here's a screen cap of Spider's find:





 


Spider, I found some counterpoints to the statements made in the article, that while the site contains many prehistoric indian remains, archeologists also determined that colonial burials had intruded upon the site.

Analysis of the Hull Bay Skeletons (PDF File)

Let's remember that the Atlantic slave trade was underway as early as the late 16th C. and touched the Caribbean Islands first.


One of the 'Negroid remains' that had been earlier suggested belonged to a pre-historic burial had been found buried with colonial-era nails. It was also suggested these 'intrusive burials' had been placed into or on top of much older indigenous people's remains.
edit on 24-6-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer


One of the 'Negroid remains' that had been earlier suggested belonged to a pre-historic burial had been found buried with colonial-era nails. It was also suggested these 'intrusive burials' had been placed into or on top of much older indigenous people's remains.

Yes we are looking at two separate burials the sites grave A is definitely shallower than grave B, but A is the one associated with the clay vessel while B had the nail suggestive of a coffin while laying peacefully at rest the other was deemed a hybrid with the dental mutilation characteristic of of some west African cultures,but not generally found in colonial era Africans of slave origins.
A is a possible sacrifice.???

This skeleton was buried in a non European fashion with a large pot fragment dating to the Elenoid period (950-1250 A.D).It's upper body was contorted while it's legs was rigidly aligned and aiming true east as if they had been tied together;three heavy rocks were placed above the feet.The skeleton was racially hybrid,part Indian part Negro.It also exhibits what Dr Stewart considers tooth mutilation characteristic of West African cultures.

news.google.com...
pg 12 of 12
edit on 24-6-2014 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The article does also suggest:


The possibility that: 1) either there was a migration of African people to St. Thomas before the discovery of the New World by Columbus or 2) African slaves form the early Spanish colonies escaped to St. Thomas and lived with the Indians, interbreeding and sharing cultural traits, during the 173 years these islands remained aboriginal after the European discovery.


From what I can tell, most of the info "out there" comes from the 1974 newspaper clipping, which seems very unreliable. The study (linked above) does attempt to determine a date for the "African" (or hybrid African/Indian) remains and concluded at least one of them must hale from the Colonial period (due to the Colonial-period artifacts it was buried with). The study did not use radiocarbon dating, but then this was back in the mid-70's.

One of the other skeletal remains was found with a pre-Columbian pottery shard, but this is too inconclusive - was the shard a simple relic buried with an escaped slave? Was the body a post-Colonial intrusive burial over earlier remains?

From what I've been able to find online the only book written on the topic was by a Mormon author;
No Bone Unturned: The Adventures of a Top Smithsonian Forensic Scientist and the Legal Battle for America's Oldest Skeletons, by Jeff Benedict, HarperCollins (2003). The author does not follow a very scientific methodology, in that he ignores evidence that would lead you to conclude this was a Colonial-era burial. Mormons have pushed pre-Columbian contact for their own religious agenda.

I'm more inclined to think this represents a small population of Africans that managed to escape the early (16th-17th C.) Spanish colonies and settled (as best they could) into the aboriginal population on one of the Caribbean islands not yet colonized by Europeans. They obviously would have no means of escaping back to Africa.
edit on 24-6-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

In my mind's eye I imagined some of them to be descendants of Abubakari's fleet although the best candidates for a lost fleet theory there would be dating problems with the pottery and the abdication of his throne in Mali, pottery's final date 1250 A.D vs 1310 the earliest possible date for such a voyage to occur,another is unplanned voyage washed out to sea with a crew of Sene- Gambians such accidental voyages are survivable and they had massive ocean going canoes,
but all this is speculation,In any case the theory that at-least some of these Africans simply struct out on their own to form useful alliances in their own interest although not as sexy as an imperial lost fleet does carry a personal appeal to me as it foreshadowed part of my own family's history centuries later the Jamaican Maroons. hopefully more is being done to settle this one way or the other..the ball is on the rim.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
What you need is the full site report with its diagrams, sketches of the strat and photographs, this might give a better idea of the relationship between the pottery fragment and the skeleton.

Until then we are speculating in the dark.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
This is a spin-off thread from a good scholar Kantzveldt who have a great eye for art and artifacts along with some very interesting POV In her thread, the quest was to find the origins of the Symbolism of the Fuente Magna Bowl. www.abovetopsecret.com...

A side issue arise when I tried to place a connection between Phoenicians and their descendant medieval Libyans , Saharans and bones of a non native American type of probable African origins along with what I originally thought was a water side Petrogalyph of a Saharan script called Tifinag.But alot of questions arose about the bones themselves ,this thread is dedicated to find out who were they and when did they came to the New world,I invite the participants who have question,suggestions and answers to pick-up where they left off on the other thread.


I researched the Hull Bay skeletons because they came up recently on Historum. One of them is definitely and has been declared to be modern. For some odd reason, they have not declared the second to be modern....if you find one African skeleton as a level and it is modern, then the second one is almost certainly from the same area. No mystery here.

They make a great deal out of the artifact with the Native symbols, but here is no evidence it is ancient, and again, was found at the same strata as a known modern skeleton. My guess is that these were slaves, one of whom re-produced some older symbols that he found.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: cachibatches

I researched the Hull Bay skeletons because they came up recently on Historum. One of them is definitely and has been declared to be modern. For some odd reason, they have not declared the second to be modern....if you find one African skeleton as a level and it is modern, then the second one is almost certainly from the same area. No mystery here.

They make a great deal out of the artifact with the Native symbols, but here is no evidence it is ancient, and again, was found at the same strata as a known modern skeleton. My guess is that these were slaves, one of whom re-produced some older symbols that he found.

Checked out the link scroll down to the very last page and view the burial
stcroixarchaeology.org...
You will notice that burial A is much more shallower than burial B which is more consistent with native American custom ,how they were buried also had differences in how the bodies were aligned,B is most likely to be post colonial,however A was the one with the vessel found in Situ with the body native American style dated pre-colonial,if you read the pdf,the only problem they have with the find is implication of what it would have meant,which is the why or the how the body of an African/native American mix ended up in that time frame.
My take is no real mystery here if the date is correct they simply sailed there either by accidental drift or intention, yes they had boats big enough to carry three men abreast and 100 men deep,they ferry horses and the like on those ocean going vessels.
I am trying to figure out the best way to get a response from one of the original person on the dig,with a very carefully worded letter or email about possible updates.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
deleted
edit on 5/7/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join