Fossil Human Bone Guadaloupe by Edmund Wheeler (1808 – 1883)
The microscope slide holds a section of bone most likely from the controversial Guadeloupe Woman. The skeleton was displayed at the British Museum in London from 1813 to 1965, after which it was moved into storage where it currently resides. Biblical literalists claimed Guadeloupe Woman’s remains proved Noah’s Flood happened. The reason being her bones are embedded in solid marble – a formation that occurred a millennia before the time geologists determined humans to have existed. It is documented that microscope slides were made of the skeletal remains in 1813 and that slides from the bones were reexamined by Charles Stringer and David Tyler in 1984. The paper wrapping and labels adorning the slide suggest Wheeler sold it between 1870 and 1880. (Stevenson 2023)
Christopher Columbus discovered a group of Caribbean islands 1493 while sailing under the Spanish flag. He named them after the Spanish sanctuary of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Extremadura, Spain. Later, when France took control of the islands, they changed the spelling to Guadeloupe, which is the currently accepted spelling. However, in 19th-century England, a Spanish/French hybrid spelling arose. It is used on the slide and in the publications of the time. There is another shrine, Our Lady of Guadalupe, in Mexico City.
In 1802, a significant discovery was made on the Caribbean Islands of Guadeloupe. An individual walking the beach near the town of Moule, on the island of Grand Terre, came across the skeletal remains of a human arm protruding from rocks at the base of a crumbling cliff. Suspecting foul play, the person promptly reported the finding to the island’s authorities. Upon further examination, it was revealed that additional skeletal fragments were embedded within the rock. The island’s French administrator, General Jean Augustin Ernouf, hypothesized that the bones were of ancient origin due to their location in the lowest layer of the cliff. Concerned that the remains might be lost to the sea if left in situ, Ernouf ordered their excavation and shipment to Paris for further analysis. The bones were to be examined by the esteemed natural history expert Georges Cuvier.
General Jean Augustin Ernouf assigned the Dutch naturalist Dr. Gerard Troost (1776 – 1850), who was already on the island studying its natural history, to oversee the extraction of the beachrock section containing the skeleton. Troost responsibility was to ensure the process was carried out without damaging or dislocating the bones. The skeleton is missing its head and feet, but not because of the carelessness. They were separated from the body during decay before becoming encased by sediments. Ernouf had to leave the island before the excavation’s completion due to France’s loss of territorial rights following a significant naval defeat against the British in the Caribbean. The French naturalist Félix Louis L’Herminier (1779–1833) also worked on the natural history of Guadeloupe. He did not directly work on extracting GW but did parallel work in the same geological stratum, collecting other bones and human-made artifacts. As with Ernouf, L’Hermineir was forced by the British administration to leave the island, along with his recently born son Ferdinand (1802-1866). The family moved to North Carolina in 1816. (Charleston 2016)
The new administration, under Admiral Sir Alexander Forrester Inglis Cochrane (1758-1832), allowed the Dutch naturalist Dr. Gerard Troost (1776 – 1850) to continue his work. After safely extracting and shipping GW to England, Troost relocated to Philadelphia to become an American citizen and professor at the University of Tennessee.
In 1813, a two-ton block of beachrock containing the skeleton arrived in England to become the property of the Crown. The story garnered media attention, and as the skeleton was female, the newspapers dubbed the limestone-encased remains ‘Guadalupe Woman’ (GW). She was on exhibition in the world-famous British Museum until 1965, then curators moved the display to the museum’s storage facility, where it remains to this day.
Guadaloupe Woman Ignites a Controversy
In the 19th century, a heated debate arose between those who supported scientific discovery and those who followed religious scripture. The argument began when geologist James Hutton (1726-1788) published his book “Theory of the Earth,” which documented geological formations and explained the Earth’s formation and geological time. By the time Guadaloupe Woman (GW) arrived in England in 1814, the debate was in full swing.
Defenders of biblical scripture claimed that the discovery of the GW was evidence of Noah’s Flood. They used GW as proof of the biblical deluge’s magnitude and supported a geological theory called catastrophism, which stated that the flood had mixed bones, rocks, and continents into a turbulent mixture that later separated to form modern geological formations. They argued that GW was an out-of-place fossil according to Hutton’s theories. Their argument predated J. B. Haldane’s classic quip about when he would abandon Darwin’s theory of evolution by more than a century: “When they find fossil rabbits in the Permian.”
However, microscopic analysis proved their claims about GW’s bones to be wrong, settling the controversy until 1984 when some young-earth catastrophists reopened the debate. For a detailed discussion concerning creationist arguments about how GW is interpreted to cast doubt about contemporary geology and evolution, see: badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/the-lady-of-guadeloupe-a-miocene-homo-sapiens/
Fossil Human Bone Guadaloupe by Edmund Wheeler
Magnified 100x
A Microscope Solves the Controversy
Charles Konig, a curator at the British Museum, was the first specialist to study the bones of Guadaloupe Woman meticulously. Although scientific methodology was still developing, Konig adhered to the most disciplined practices of his time, which involved observing, testing, and publishing his findings for peer review. In 1814, he presented a scholarly report of his findings in the Philosophical Journal of the Royal Society. Konig also enlisted the help of artist William Alexander (1767 – 1816) to create a detailed drawing of GW as displayed by the museum. The illustration is a three-panel fold-out accompanying Konig’s findings in the journal’s publication. (An original issue of the report is part of this collection.)
In his report, Konig described his microscopic observations of sections of GW’s bones and the rock matrix encasing her remains. The slides revealed that GW’s bones still contained proteinaceous residues and were made exclusively of bone-building material (hydroxyapatite). Inorganic minerals had not infiltrated the bone, a requirement for classifying the bones as fossilized. To confirm his conclusions, Konig provided samples of GW’s bone to chemist Sir Humphrey Davy for analysis. Davy’s methods confirmed the presence of proteins in the bone sample. Additionally, Konig found that the matrix of the encapsulating stone was composed of calcareous shells from marine organisms. Some of the shells were sufficiently intact, allowing for their taxonomic identification.
Konig recognized several organisms making up GW’s enveloping matrix as species currently living in Guadeloupe’s local waters. Therefore, GW could not be an ancient fossil. Her skeleton was neither fossilized nor embedded in marble, a metamorphic rock, but in sedimentary limestone of relatively recent origin (compared to dinosaurs). Konig addressed the earlier confusion of the matrix with marble by testing the limestone’s hardness with a file and chisel. He reported the embedding matrix to be harder than statuary marble and much harder than the bones it held, adding credence to its misidentification as marble.
The state of archeology during Konig’s time would not allow him to estimate the age of GW’s skeleton accurately. However, one aspect of the stratum in which she was encased made it clear that she was not of great geological antiquity and did not challenge Hutton’s theories about the Earth’s geological age. That was the finding of existing species of marine organisms. (Konig 1814)
Guadaloupe Woman
11 x 18 three panel fold-out
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1814
Drawing by William Alexander
Engraving by James Basier
William Alexander was a renowned English painter and illustrator who gained fame for his early works that depicted the everyday life of Chinese people. Apart from China, he also traveled to the west coast of North America, where he captured the culture and lifestyle of the indigenous people of Vancouver. In the later years of his life, he worked as an assistant curator of antiquities at the British Museum, where he focused on illustrating the pottery collection.
James Basier III, (d. 1869) was a member of a well-known lineage of four English engravers and lithographers. His artistic work primarily focused on natural history subjects and contributed significantly to the Royal Society’s journal called Philosophical Transactions. The Basier lineage had the peculiar practice of signing their work identically as J. Basier sc, making it difficult to distinguish between the works of different family members. When the image of Guadaloupe Woman was published in Philosophical Transactions, three family members were still alive. James Basier II, father of Basier III, passed away in 1822 and was also known to engrave for the Philosophical Journal. James Basier IV, on the other hand, was eighteen years old at the time of the GW project, and, likely, he was still in his apprenticeship. (Ashworth 2017)
Guadaloupe’s Carbon 14 Age
In 1965, archaeologist Edgar Clerc employed carbon-14 dating to determine the age of the stratum in which the Guadeloupe Woman’s remains were found. The results indicated that the layer was deposited between 200 BC and 400 AD. Further excavations discovered pottery and animal figures of exceptional quality. The craftsmanship of these artifacts is considered better than those found in more recent strata in Guadeloupe and the surrounding islands. They are categorized as belonging to the Antilles Early Ceramic period.
Has Guadaloupe Woman’s Skull Been Found?
In 1835, Felix L’Herminier, a French naturalist, arrived in Charleston and promptly collaborated with local officials and business people to establish the Charleston Museum of Natural History. The museum’s opening display showcased L’Herminier’s personal collection, which included various plants, seeds, minerals, and skeletal remains from his time in Guadeloupe. Among the remains was a human skull, which L’Herminier claimed to have collected from the same beach and stratum where the Guadaloupe Woman’s remains were found. He believed the skull probably belonged to her if not a compatriot. (Charleston 2016)
In 1984, Kurt Wise, an anthropologist from Harvard University, conducted microscopic examinations of the beachrock-encrusted skull specimens. Wise confirmed that the stone encrusting the skull bones matches the one that encases the British Museum’s skeleton. Wise confirmed L’Herminier’s claim that the skull bones he brought from Guadeloupe came from the same geological stratum as the GW specimen in the British Museum. (Wise 1984)
After five years as director of the Charleston Museum, L’Herminier returned to Guadeloupe, where, working with his son, Ferdinand, he established another museum. However, in 1843, a devastating earthquake destroyed the new museum’s building and all its contents, including specimens and papers.
Fortunately, the skull of the Guadeloupe Woman or one of her compatriots remained in Charleston, where it is still safely stored. An exact-cast replica of the skull bones is currently on public display at the Charleston Museum, while the original bones remain safely in storage.
Recent Archeological Work in Guadeloupe
Because of sand mining along the beaches of Guadeloupe and rising sea levels, the archeological treasures of the island are in danger of being lost to wave erosion. A consortium of French archaeologists from the National Institute for Preventive Archaeology Research (INRAP) have been excavating test pits across the terrain to asses sites needing protection. An archeological park status now protects the site. The nearby Edgar Clerc Museum near Moule, Grand Terre, houses many of the finds and serves as an educational facility for the public welcoming tourism. (Hoffman 2016)
How to footnote this page
Reiser, Frank W. (2024, February) Guadaloupe Lady – A Victim of Noah’s Flood. Searching an Invisible World for Its Tiniest Things. https://wp.me/PaLJ0g-Wy
References
Ashworth, William B. (2017) Scientist of the Day: James Basier III, Lynda Hall Museum. Available https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/james-basire-iii/
Bowden, Malcom. (1984) The Guadeloupe Skeleton – Some Comments EN Tech. J., vol. 1, pp. 44–51
(British Museum 1922) A Guide to the Fossil Remains of Man in the Department of Geology and Paleontology in the British Museum (Natural History), Oxford University Press, p.30.
Charleston Museum (2016 ) Storeroom Stories: Dr. Felix L’Herminier and the Fossil of Guadelou, July Newsletter of The Charleston Museum
Cooper, Bill. (1984) The Guadeloupe Skeleton – A Reply EN Tech J. pp. 40-43. Available: https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p028/c02823/j01_1_40-43.pdf
Hofman, Corinne L.and Menno L. P. Hoogland (June 2016) Connecting Stakeholders: Collaborative Preventive Archaeology Projects at Sites Affected by Natural and/or Human Impacts Caribbean Vol V. No. https://fieldresearchcentre.weebly.com/
Konig, Charles, (1814) On a Fossil Human Skeleton From Guadaloupe. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Oxford University Pr. 104:107-120
Lavaysse, M. A (1891) Statistical, Commercial, and Political Description of Venezuela, Trinidad, Margarita and Tobago. The Monthly Magazine, London. P 596,
Stevenson, Brian (2023) For a complete history of Wheeler’s life and work Microscopists.net is the best source available.
Tyler, David J. (1984) The Guadeloupe skeletons: In the steps of Cuvier, Journal of Creation 1(1):30–32, April 1984pp. 43–52, 36,
Wise, Kurt. (1984 )EN Tech. J., vol. 1, pp. 33–39 available: https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p028/c02823/j01_1_33-39.pdf