STRANGE
ARTIFACTS - UNEXPLAINED SKULLS
Reprinted with permission.
Photographed in the National Museum of Archaeology,
Anthropology, and History of Peru
Deformed skulls photographed in the Museo Regional de Ica.
The data about the skulls is incomplete, and that makes the correct assessment of their age, context with other hominids, as well as placement of their origin extremely difficult. Some of the skulls are very distinct, as if they belong to entirely different species, remotely similar to genus Homo. The first thing that attracts attention is the size and shape of the cranium in all the specimens. There are 4 different groups represented in the pictures. As a matter of convenience, I labeled them "conehead", "jack-o-lantern" or "J" and "M" based on the shape of the skull, except the first and possibly earliest type of skull, which I call "premodern".
When some of these pictures (the first two) were posted on CompuServe more than year ago, the majority of people assumed that they represented an example of binding of the head, well known to be in fashion in ancient Nubia, Egypt and other cultures. The problem with this theory is that the inside of the cranium of the mentioned skulls, although elongated and with a back sloping, flattened forehead, have the same capacity as normal human skulls; the only difference is the shape achieved by frontal and side deformations. They are actually more similar to the first type of skull (premodern) with the rounded back, than the conehead type. The cone-shaped types of skull are not found amongst the usual skull-binding samples.
The first skull presents problems of its own. The frontal part of the skull seems to belong to an individual of the pre-Neanderthal family, but the lower jaw, though more robust than modern human type, has a modern shape and characteristics. The shape of the cranium does not have any comparison with the Erectus, Neanderthal types, nor the modern human type. Some minor Neanderthal characteristics are present, as is the occipital ridge on the bottom back of the skull and the flattened bottom of the cranium, other characteristics point more tovards Homo Erectus. The angle of the cranial bottom is, though, unusual. We cannot exclude the possibility of a deformed individual in this case, but it is highly unlikely that the angle of the frontal part would require a modification of the lower jaw in the process of growing to resemble modern human types with their projected chin rim. The answer seems to be that the skull belongs to a representantive of an unknown premodern human or humanoid type.
As is obvious from the comparison with a modern human skull, the cranial capacity lies within the modern human range. This is not surprising, since the late Neanderthals and early modern humans (Cro-Magnon) had larger cranial capacities (both roughly 1600 ccm to 1750 ccm) than modern humans (av. 1450 ccm). The decrease of the cranial capacity (sudden at that -- the specimens of modern humans after about 10500 BCE have smaller craniums) is a puzzling matter, but that's another story.
No less puzzling is what a representative of a premodern human type is doing on the South American continent. According to the orthodox anthropology, this skull simply does not exist, because it cannot be. Textbooks' oldest date of appearance of humans in North America is about 35000 BCE and much later for South America, based on the diffusion theory assumptions. The only accepted human types entering the continent are of the modern anatomy. There are some other sources that place all types of human genus in both Americas at much earlier dates based on numerous anomalous finds, but the academe sticks to its preconceived notions, no matter what. It's safer.
Premodern
The "conehead" type is very unusual because of the cranial shape. Here we have three specimens, which exclude the possibility of random or artificial deformation (the already mentioned Nubian deformations had quite a number of individual variations). They have individual characteristics within the range of overall morphology. There is no doubt that they are closely related and possibly represent quite a distinct branch of the genus Homo, if not an entirely different species.
The comparison of the C1 with a modern human skull has slight inaccuracies, caused by a degree of distortion when rotating the skull shape into position. As is obvious from C2 and C3, the angle of the bottom part of the cranium does not deviate from normal. However, the general proportions are correct.
Figure C1
The enormity of the cranial vault is obvious from all three pictures. By
interpolation, we can estimate the minimum cranial capacity at 2200 ccm, but
the value can be as high as 2500 ccm. The shape of the skull may be a
biological response--a survival of the species mechanism--to increase the
brain mass without the danger of relegating the species to extinction and
keeping a viable biological reproduction intact. However, since we do not see
the representatives of the "conehead" type in modern population,
something prevented the type becoming as widespread as it is in the case of
present-day moderns.
The "J" type of skull presents different sets of problems. It is
an equivalent of the modern type of skull in all respects, with only several
factors out of proportion. Less significant is the size of eye sockets which
are about 15% larger than in modern populations. More significant is the
enormity of the cranial vault. The estimated cranial capacity ranges between
minimum of 2600 ccm to 3200 ccm.
Again, the age of the specimen is unknown and so far I am not aware of other specimens of this type. The variation on a theme may be the "M" type of skull which is even more bizarre than all the previous skulls.
Type "J"
The "M" type of skull is incomplete, as the lower part of the
facial area is concerned. What is apparent from the remnants of the facial
portion is that the characteristics are entirely within the range of a normal
human skull. The cranial vault, on the other hand, is the largest amongst the
displayed specimens. Also, the two protruding "lobes" are highly
anomalous. The cranial capacity can be estimated safely above 3000 ccm mark.
Type "M"
Both "J" and "M" types are bordering on biological
impossibility. The only explanation I can imagine for the specimens to be
naturally born is if the neoteny (the ability of the species to prolong the
growth period before maturing) of both groups had been expanded beyond the
range for a modern type of human, for the skull to grow to such a size. That
may also mean the average life span of these specimens may have been
substantially longer than the average for the modern human type
The Starchild Project
The following text is © by Lloyd Pye.Reprinted with permission.
Introduction
In the 1930's, in a small rural village 100 miles
southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico,
at the back of a mine tunnel, two mysterious remains were found: a complete human skeleton and a smaller, malformed skeleton.
at the back of a mine tunnel, two mysterious remains were found: a complete human skeleton and a smaller, malformed skeleton.
In late February of 1999, Lloyd Pye was first shown
the Starchild skull by its owners. Nameless then, it was a highly
anomalous skull. He initially felt it would prove to be a rare
genetic deformity of some kind. This skull’s symmetry was
astonishing, even more so than the average human. In fact, all of
its bones—most of which had human counterparts—were beautifully
shaped. But shaped like what? Solving many questions that this
unusual skull presented became his challenge.
Front view of the Starchild
skull (on the left) and the human skull (on the right).
Compare striking differences between depth of eye sockets and shape of temporal
area just behind outer edges of eyes.
Compare striking differences between depth of eye sockets and shape of temporal
area just behind outer edges of eyes.
Skull Discovery
Sixty to seventy years ago an American girl of
Mexican heritage in her late teens (15 to 18) was taken by her
parents to visit relatives living in a small rural village 100 miles
southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico. The girl was forbidden to enter any
of the area's numerous caves and mine tunnels, but like most
teenagers, she went exploring. At the back of a mine tunnel she
found a complete human skeleton lying on the ground's surface.
Beside it, sticking up out of the ground, was a malformed skeletal
hand entwined in one of the human skeleton's upper arms. The girl
proceeded to scrape the dirt off a shallow grave to reveal a buried
skeleton smaller than the human one and also malformed. She did not
specify the type or degree of any of the "malformations."
The girl recovered both skulls and kept them for the remainder of her life. Upon her death they were passed to an American man, who maintained possession for five years before passing them to the American couple who now control them.
The girl recovered both skulls and kept them for the remainder of her life. Upon her death they were passed to an American man, who maintained possession for five years before passing them to the American couple who now control them.
The Mystery Skull
Skull suturing and baby teeth in a detached piece of
maxilla (upper jaw and palate) indicate death around 5 years of age.
The face is missing from the upper bridge of the nose to the foramen
magnum (the hole where the spine enters the skull), but the cranium
and most of both eye orbits (the external parts of the sockets) are
intact.
This skull's degree of humanity is at issue because several aspects of its morphology defy categorizing as genetic defect (inherited), congenital deformation (birth defect), or inflicted deformity (cranial binding).
This skull's degree of humanity is at issue because several aspects of its morphology defy categorizing as genetic defect (inherited), congenital deformation (birth defect), or inflicted deformity (cranial binding).
The Human Skull
A human skull assumed to be Amerindian (an Indian
from North or South America) because the rear of its cranium
exhibits the flattening that results from being carried in infancy
on a cradle board. Tooth wear suggests age at death
was around 25 years, plus or minus five. Its smallish size and other reduced points of reference indicate it will likely prove to be female.
was around 25 years, plus or minus five. Its smallish size and other reduced points of reference indicate it will likely prove to be female.
Binding
Experts suggest the child's high degree of occipital
(rear-skull) deformity would most likely have resulted from the
cranial binding practiced by primitive cultures around the world.
However, such binding never extends below the inion (the bump at the
back of the head) because the human neck begins just below that
point. Furthermore, squeezing a skull's upper bones out of their
natural shape leaves them permanently separated, which results in a
life-long "soft spot" at the top of the head.
The child's skull is well-sutured (no soft spot),
with none of the distortions normally caused by binding.
Furthermore, the extent of rear flattening extends well past the
inion, which has become slightly concave. This indicates a strong
force other than binding (i.e. pathology or a natural design) must
have caused the occipital's extensive deformation.
Brain Volume
Though markedly different in shape, the skulls are
roughly the same size. However, they exhibit a stunning difference
in brain volume. The average volume for a human brain is 1400 cubic
centimeters (cc). The volume of the human skull is 1200 cc, typical
for a small human. In contrast, the volume of the child's skull is
1600 cc, which is 200 cc beyond the average for adult humans. And
had it lived to become an adult, its brain capacity would have grown
to 1800 cc or more, well beyond the human average.
The Starchild's brain volume,
contained inside a cranium the size of a smallish human's,
is 1600 cc. A normal human skull has a brain volume around 1400 cubic centimeters.
is 1600 cc. A normal human skull has a brain volume around 1400 cubic centimeters.
In paleoanthropology (the study of ancient animals)
a 200 cc increase in brain capacity of a human type creature
warrants the naming of an entirely new species. Homo Erectus
averages 200 cc more than Homo Habilis; Homo Archaic is 200 cc more
than Erectus; Neanderthal is 200 cc more than Archaic. Thus, this
child might well represent an unknown species of human-like beings.
Weight
An average human skull weighs 2.2 pounds (lbs.). The
adult's skull (which is missing its lower jawbone and teeth) weighs
1 lb., 13.4 ounces. Including the child skull's piece of detached
maxilla (upper jaw), it weighs only 13.5 ounces. Because it is
roughly the size of the adult skull, its bone has to be
significantly lighter than typical human
bone.
bone.
Symmetry
The child's skull has a high degree of symmetry
(similarity on both sides). Usually cranial pathologies will cause
differences in degree on either side of the head, along with other
distortions. Thus, it is highly unlikely a cranium so clearly
aberrant would exhibit such startling symmetry throughout
Sutures
A CAT scan has shown that none of the sutures
between the bones in the child's skull have sealed themselves off
from further growth. Nearly all examples of congenital deformity
exhibit some degree of premature sealing of cranial sutures. This
makes it highly unlikely, if not virtually impossible, for the
child's skull to be the result of deformity. It seems to have grown
naturally into the shape is had taken.
The Eyes
Normal human eye sockets have a recessed (5 cm)
conical shape with optic nerves and optic fissures at the inner rear
quadrant of the cone. The child's eye sockets have a shallow (3 cm)
scalloped shape with optic nerves and optic fissures moved down and
away to the inner bottom. Also, the inner surface of both sockets
have incredibly subtle terrain shifts that are impossible to explain
in any way other than genetic design.
The shape and width of the eye orbits (the outer edges of the sockets) are equally divergent. The adult's have the vaguely rectangular shape of normal humans, while the child's are shaped like a lopsided oval. The adult's are typically rounded along the top of the rectangle, while the upper part of the child's oval has a clearly definable edge.
The shape and width of the eye orbits (the outer edges of the sockets) are equally divergent. The adult's have the vaguely rectangular shape of normal humans, while the child's are shaped like a lopsided oval. The adult's are typically rounded along the top of the rectangle, while the upper part of the child's oval has a clearly definable edge.
The Ears
The child's ear canals are clearly visible on both
sides of its skull. They seem normal in shape and size and angle of
entry, but a recent CAT scan revealed that they are larger and have
more depth than normal human inner ears. There is no way to know if
an external ear was present or what it may have looked like.
The Sinuses
The child had small maxillary (cheek) sinuses but no
trace of frontal sinus cavities. While extremely rare, this
condition is supposedly known among both humans and primates.
The Foramen Magnum
The foramen magnum is the hole at the base of the
skull where the spinal column connects with the brain. In normal
humans the foramen is positioned slightly rear of center to balance
the hollow-filled front face against the brain-filled occipital
area. The extensive reconfiguration of the child's skull has somehow
caused its foramen magnum to be shifted to a central point that
provides much better balance between its rear brain area, and its
face and forebrain.
The Necks
Typical human neck attachments begin at the inion,
the bump in the middle of the occipital bone, and sweep out in a
semicircle that reaches to just behind the ears and converges at the
foramen magnum. The distance from any part of the semicircle to the
foramen opening averages 5 to 6 centimeters.
In the child's skull a shallow arc extends about 3
centimeters from the foramen hole, while the inion has somehow
become slightly concave. Such a drastic reduction in attachment area
means the neck supporting the child's head must have been from 1/2
to 1/3 that of a normal human. Such thin necks are consistently
described as hallmarks of certain alien types (Grays), and of
Gray-human hybrids.
Chewing Muscles
In the child, the area available for attaching
chewing muscles is every bit as reduced as the attachment area for
its neck muscles. And though they are called "chewing"
muscles, they are actually used for connecting and holding the lower
face to the skull. Based on such a reduced connection area, the
amount of mandible (jawbone) these muscles could have secured must
have been greatly reduced.
Human-Alien Hybrids
Many abductees and contactees allege that aliens
(most often "Grays") are conducting genetic experiments
that produce hybrids between themselves and humans. The results of
these unions are consistently described as looking far more human
than alien, but with stark bulges in the parietal bones; shallow eye
sockets; a greatly reduced lower face; a thin neck able to easily
support a well-balanced head; and ears seen as markedly lower and
smaller (or missing entirely) relative to human ears.
The eyes of Grays are consistently described and depicted as large black teardrop shapes that wrap horizontally across the middle of the face. If those large orbs are indeed their visual mechanisms, it would argue against the child's eyes being related to them. However, in the "Alien Autopsy" film the alien being dissected has the "standard" Gray eyes until the doctor performing the autopsy lifts them off and shows them to actually be dark, flexible coverings like large contact lenses or shades. Underneath those lenses were round, bulging eyes with plenty of white showing around dark irises. Those eyes would fit quite well in the reduced eye sockets of the child.
The eyes of Grays are consistently described and depicted as large black teardrop shapes that wrap horizontally across the middle of the face. If those large orbs are indeed their visual mechanisms, it would argue against the child's eyes being related to them. However, in the "Alien Autopsy" film the alien being dissected has the "standard" Gray eyes until the doctor performing the autopsy lifts them off and shows them to actually be dark, flexible coverings like large contact lenses or shades. Underneath those lenses were round, bulging eyes with plenty of white showing around dark irises. Those eyes would fit quite well in the reduced eye sockets of the child.
The Star Being Legends
These are well-known, well-regarded legends with
roots spreading throughout Central and South America. They are
pervasive and long-standing (two centuries or more), and in general
state that on a regular basis "Star Beings" come down from
the heavens and impregnate females in remote, isolated villages. The
women carry their "starchildren" to term, then raise them
to age six or so. At that point the Star Beings return to collect
their progeny and remove them to places, and for purposes, not
clearly outlined in the legends, though improving a stagnated gene
pool is often mentioned as a motivation.
The Non-Traditional Scenario
Many "intuitives" and "sensitives"
feel the adult skeleton was a female and the child was hers, a
human-alien hybrid created by a union between her and a Star Being.
Some feel the mother had learned the Star Beings were returning to
take her child from her, which she refused to contemplate.
Panic-stricken and filled with dread, she took her child and fled
her village, seeking refuge in the hidden mine tunnel. There she
killed it and buried it in a shallow grave, leaving one of its hands
out of the ground to hold onto. Then she took a fatal dose of poison
and lay down beside her child to die.
DNA Testing
Inside the nucleus of human cells is found nuclear
DNA, which is a combination of both parents. Floating outside the
nucleus in each of our cells are tiny bits of stray DNA called
"mitochondria." Because mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) passes
solely through females, the first test of the child's mtDNA will
provide a genetic snapshot of its mother. If she was human, that
snapshot will say "human." However, since the test says
nothing about the father, that does not preclude it being a
human-alien hybrid. Furthermore, testing might indicate an utterly
non-human origin, either by having entirely absent mtDNA or by
having a structure markedly different from human mtDNA.
Nothing is likely to be definitive about the origin
of the child's skull until its nuclear DNA can be tested. Because
the skull is considered technically "ancient" (over 50
years of age), recovering nuclear DNA will be difficult and costly.
Luckily, we have what is most required for such a test, which is
teeth. The pulp in teeth resists deterioration better than any other
part of the body, so that is where we must look for nuclear DNA.
Worldwide there are only a handful of laboratories
capable of sequencing ancient nuclear DNA, and all such processes
are time-consuming, highly technical, and very expensive. Thus, we
cannot contract to have this testing done until funding is available
to pay for it, but we will announce all such results as soon as they
are available.
Check the most
recent results of DNA testing.
Conclusion
Mainstream Position:
-
Pathology--genetic (inherited) or congenital (birth defect)--is the standard explanation for any human-like skullb that does not fit the "normal" human mold.In the hands of scientists dedicated to pounding square pegs into the round hole of conventional thinking, pathologycan be made to cover virtually any deviation.
-
In truth, a unique combination of extraordinary pathological disorders is a possible explanation for the many aberrations evident in the child's skull. Absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary, mainstream science will insist the skull has resulted from nothing more than multiple pathological defects.
-
This opinion will always dominate any others because of the combined academic credentials of those who will profess it.
This is reality; we all know it.
Points Supporting Non-Earth Origin
The long-standing Star Being legends of Central and
South America provide a plausible mechanism for how a highly
abnormal skull (relative to humans) might have been biologically
created rather than genetically or congenitally malformed, or
physically manipulated by deliberate deformation (binding).
Such immense deformation across the entire occipital (rear) and parietal (upper side) areas of the skull could not result from binding without deformation being visible in the frontal area, which is not evident.
Birth defects across the entire occipital and parietal areas, while not impossible, seem highly unlikely because of the remarkable symmetry exhibited in all areas of the skull, including those effected by the deformations.
The terrain of the bone in the eye sockets contains incredibly subtle indentations and ridges that are perfectly symmetrical in both sockets, which simply have to have been formed by genetic directions rather than by deformations.
Such immense deformation across the entire occipital (rear) and parietal (upper side) areas of the skull could not result from binding without deformation being visible in the frontal area, which is not evident.
Birth defects across the entire occipital and parietal areas, while not impossible, seem highly unlikely because of the remarkable symmetry exhibited in all areas of the skull, including those effected by the deformations.
The terrain of the bone in the eye sockets contains incredibly subtle indentations and ridges that are perfectly symmetrical in both sockets, which simply have to have been formed by genetic directions rather than by deformations.
The rear deformation extends from the crown to very
near the foramen magnum, an area impossible to reach by any binding
device due to the thick neck muscles (even in a child) that surround
and support the skull-spine connection.
Head binding cannot extend below the inion (the bump at the back of the head).
Head binding leaves a gaping opening at the top where skull bones fail to fuse.
Head binding cannot extend below the inion (the bump at the back of the head).
Head binding leaves a gaping opening at the top where skull bones fail to fuse.
The bottom line is that even though the skull's
highly unusual characteristics demand an open-minded approach to it,
mainstream science will reject it outright until forced by DNA
evidence to do otherwise. Indeed, it could turn out to be nothing
more than a butt-ugly kid with an extraordinary combination of
cranial deformities never seen before. But it could also have been
the result of a human-alien union, or an outright alien with no
connection to humanity at all.
Deformed Ancient Skulls
Introduction
Many strangely "deformed" hominoid skulls have been discovered in Mexico and Peru.
Other such skulls have been found around the globe, but this is the first
time that the diversity of skulls within a small area (in this case the
Paracas region of Peru) has been examined. Some of the skulls are very
distinct, as if they belong to entirely different species, remotely
similar to genus Homo.
Unusual Paracas skull supposedly deformed by binding the growing
head of an infant. The resulting domed head was considered beautiful.
Photographed in the Museo Regional de Ica.
head of an infant. The resulting domed head was considered beautiful.
Photographed in the Museo Regional de Ica.
The majority of people
assumed that they represented an example of binding of the head,
well known to be in fashion in ancient Nubia, Egypt and other
cultures. But anthropologists have admitted that the shapes of the Peruvian skulls
is unlike the deformity caused by binding.
Any conjectures that what these specimens represent are simply deformations
or pathological cases can be hardly substantiated. Also, it is necessary to keep
in mind that any pathological growth of the cranium has dire consequences for
the afflicted individual at the early stage of the development, practically
without exception. Nature is very unforgiving in this respect. All the
specimens presented here were mature individuals.
Photographed in the National Museum of Archaeology,
Anthropology, and History of Peru
Deformed skulls photographed in the Museo Regional de Ica.
Is there any correlation between Peruvian and Mexican
skulls and similarly distorted Egyptian
heads?
Busts have been found of two of the six
female children to Nefertiti and Aken-aten.
One might be of Meritaten, the eldest.
The unusual family traits are obvious.
Photographed in the Cairo Museum.
Textbooks' oldest date of appearance of humans in North America is
about 35,000 BC and much later for South America, based on the diffusion
theory assumptions. Only humans with modern types of anatomy can
comfortably be placed Peru. These types of skulls simply should not exist.
female children to Nefertiti and Aken-aten.
One might be of Meritaten, the eldest.
The unusual family traits are obvious.
Photographed in the Cairo Museum.
Skulls from Ica, Peru and Merida, Mexico
The following segment is ©1996 by Lumir G. Janku.
Reprinted with permission.
These skulls were photographed by Robert Connolly on his trip around the
world during which he was collecting materials about ancient civilizations.
The discovery of unusual skulls was thus an unintended "spinoff" of
his efforts. Robert Connolly published his photographs on a CD-ROM, titled Search
for Ancient Wisdom in 1995.Reprinted with permission.
The data about the skulls is incomplete, and that makes the correct assessment of their age, context with other hominids, as well as placement of their origin extremely difficult. Some of the skulls are very distinct, as if they belong to entirely different species, remotely similar to genus Homo. The first thing that attracts attention is the size and shape of the cranium in all the specimens. There are 4 different groups represented in the pictures. As a matter of convenience, I labeled them "conehead", "jack-o-lantern" or "J" and "M" based on the shape of the skull, except the first and possibly earliest type of skull, which I call "premodern".
When some of these pictures (the first two) were posted on CompuServe more than year ago, the majority of people assumed that they represented an example of binding of the head, well known to be in fashion in ancient Nubia, Egypt and other cultures. The problem with this theory is that the inside of the cranium of the mentioned skulls, although elongated and with a back sloping, flattened forehead, have the same capacity as normal human skulls; the only difference is the shape achieved by frontal and side deformations. They are actually more similar to the first type of skull (premodern) with the rounded back, than the conehead type. The cone-shaped types of skull are not found amongst the usual skull-binding samples.
The first skull presents problems of its own. The frontal part of the skull seems to belong to an individual of the pre-Neanderthal family, but the lower jaw, though more robust than modern human type, has a modern shape and characteristics. The shape of the cranium does not have any comparison with the Erectus, Neanderthal types, nor the modern human type. Some minor Neanderthal characteristics are present, as is the occipital ridge on the bottom back of the skull and the flattened bottom of the cranium, other characteristics point more tovards Homo Erectus. The angle of the cranial bottom is, though, unusual. We cannot exclude the possibility of a deformed individual in this case, but it is highly unlikely that the angle of the frontal part would require a modification of the lower jaw in the process of growing to resemble modern human types with their projected chin rim. The answer seems to be that the skull belongs to a representantive of an unknown premodern human or humanoid type.
As is obvious from the comparison with a modern human skull, the cranial capacity lies within the modern human range. This is not surprising, since the late Neanderthals and early modern humans (Cro-Magnon) had larger cranial capacities (both roughly 1600 ccm to 1750 ccm) than modern humans (av. 1450 ccm). The decrease of the cranial capacity (sudden at that -- the specimens of modern humans after about 10500 BCE have smaller craniums) is a puzzling matter, but that's another story.
No less puzzling is what a representative of a premodern human type is doing on the South American continent. According to the orthodox anthropology, this skull simply does not exist, because it cannot be. Textbooks' oldest date of appearance of humans in North America is about 35000 BCE and much later for South America, based on the diffusion theory assumptions. The only accepted human types entering the continent are of the modern anatomy. There are some other sources that place all types of human genus in both Americas at much earlier dates based on numerous anomalous finds, but the academe sticks to its preconceived notions, no matter what. It's safer.
PremodernThe "conehead" type is very unusual because of the cranial shape. Here we have three specimens, which exclude the possibility of random or artificial deformation (the already mentioned Nubian deformations had quite a number of individual variations). They have individual characteristics within the range of overall morphology. There is no doubt that they are closely related and possibly represent quite a distinct branch of the genus Homo, if not an entirely different species.
The comparison of the C1 with a modern human skull has slight inaccuracies, caused by a degree of distortion when rotating the skull shape into position. As is obvious from C2 and C3, the angle of the bottom part of the cranium does not deviate from normal. However, the general proportions are correct.
Figure C1
Figure C2
|
Figure C3
|
Again, the age of the specimen is unknown and so far I am not aware of other specimens of this type. The variation on a theme may be the "M" type of skull which is even more bizarre than all the previous skulls.
Type "J"
Type "M"
1 comments:
its intresting
Post a Comment