Conehead Skulls

Comment: After looking at some of these skull images, think of the Egyptian headresses the Pharoahs wore.

Here's an image from Africa, Egypt I believe or Nubia.




Skulls from Ica, Peru and Merida, Mexico

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 "The Search For Ancient Wisdom", Cambrix, 1-800-992-8781, in 1995.





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.


More info and images below...

www.enigmas.org...

This site also has some good images.

www.world-mysteries.com...

[Edited on 26-12-2003 by PuPP]

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by John bull 1]

Good controversial stuff. These skulls came up during the discussion of the star child skull here a while back. I love reading about these skulls, but have no opinion on them yet. I would love to have seen the people these skulls belonged to. Thanks for posting this.

Check into skull-binding. A technique in which sacrifice victims (often children) had their skulls wrapped tight with binding, resulting in this shape after death.

buy one for yourself

Originally posted by Gazrok
Check into skull-binding. A technique in which sacrifice victims (often children) had their skulls wrapped tight with binding, resulting in this shape after death.

Was just about to say that same thing, you beat me to it, lol.

Gazrok is right as the people were babies the parents would bind there babies skull in a tight wrapped piece of clothing and leave it untill the baby was about a year older, By now the soft skull will of molded into a different form and will grow disfuctionally

^_^ Well.... I like what people have said, and I actually am going to go with the "Skull binding" theory, but funny enough, I'll play the devils advocate.

What if, as according to some Raelians (A cult that believe that aliens cloned human being into existance) we were indeed cloned by aliens? What if those skulls were faulty or had mistakes, or were the result of some alien human clone hybrid?




I go with the Skull Binding Theory.... But think about that...


...pI
3.141592654....

Many people think that these various cutures practiced head-binding in an attempt to imatate their gods (aka aliens).

Flinx:
"Many people think that these various cutures practiced head-binding in an attempt to imatate their gods (aka aliens). "

YES, you are correct. The natives tried to emulate the skulls of their ruler/gods.

Head binding was practiced by Piute Indians in N America as well.

Head binding WILL NOT add cranium size, it can only alter the shape of the skull.

If you check the links in my original post you'll see more images of the skulls.

It amazes me that so many claim head binding caused the immense size of the skulls. You are free to believe what you choose, but think with your own mind and use common sense and realize that what you learn on TV is not always the truth.

skull binding is a theory, never proven & probably incorporated by those suppressing the truth.
Here is a site among many that have in fact some movies of museums etc, that display such things without using the "binding" as a reason for the formation, in fact, they act like it is the norm for royalty back then.
216.10.26.55...

www.austmus.gov.au...
living people with the skull binding. Very elegant and beautiful pictures.

I dont think so... Some parts of the skull has expanded in a way head binding couldnt achieve... (At least in the one in top of this thread)

I'd say a genetic mutation....

I've always found archeological abnormalities incredibly interesting, strange human remains especially. Whikst my knee jerk reaction is one of head binding, a very good point is raised in regards to the increased size of the skulls. Try comparing the pictures of people with their heads bound to the skulls, a different shape altogether. I'm not making any conclusions, just observations, as it could simply be achieved through some other method of self modification.

very interesting nonetheless.

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
I dont think so... Some parts of the skull has expanded in a way head binding couldnt achieve... (At least in the one in top of this thread)

I'd say a genetic mutation....

Genetic mutation or possibly a different species.

Always more pieces of the puzzle to contemplate.

Skull binding is a pretty easy explanation....perhaps too easy. I still believe some of these are unbound, natural skulls.

I've heard about alien women, who were adult size, but had tiny, tiny feet! How about those long necked or big-lipped aliens? That's what people will be saying a thousand years from now,

Just because someone wrote something in a book, or just because someone says something, and it is accepted by the masses, doesn' t make it right either.Anybody question why someone would participate in skull binding?NO one just wakes up thinking"I'm going to put a towel around my head to swell the back of my skull" for no reason.They were trying to imitate the look of the gods (originally) and I bet the ancient stories of skull binding say the samething.

Originally posted by jhova
Just because someone wrote something in a book, or just because someone says something, and it is accepted by the masses, doesn' t make it right either.Anybody question why someone would participate in skull binding?NO one just wakes up thinking"I'm going to put a towel around my head to swell the back of my skull" for no reason.They were trying to imitate the look of the gods (originally) and I bet the ancient stories of skull binding say the samething.

I belive thats the strongest possibility that these people were trying to copy their Gods in the head binding situations. Althought the skulls in PuPP's post are certainly(by sight) differently shaped. They are more of an Elephantitis situation. Their skull are certainly larger growing upwards.

Originally posted by PuPP

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
I dont think so... Some parts of the skull has expanded in a way head binding couldnt achieve... (At least in the one in top of this thread)

I'd say a genetic mutation....

Genetic mutation or possibly a different species.

Always more pieces of the puzzle to contemplate.

Well.. They are clearly humanoid, so the chance of them being part alien, or 100% alien, is the only other theory. And thats a bit far fetched if you ask me...

Originally posted by Amarillo_Brice
I've always found archeological abnormalities incredibly interesting, strange human remains especially. Whikst my knee jerk reaction is one of head binding, a very good point is raised in regards to the increased size of the skulls. Try comparing the pictures of people with their heads bound to the skulls, a different shape altogether. I'm not making any conclusions, just observations, as it could simply be achieved through some other method of self modification.

very interesting nonetheless.

I remember reading of a people on a small island somewhere, which had three legs, all due to the fact that they were breeding with each other, and had done it for centuries... But im not sure if this was in a real book, or in a "Out of this world"-magazine..
Edit: There was a picture though, and it did look pretty real. (Im good at fakes/photoshop)

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Thain Esh Kelch]

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
I'd say a genetic mutation.... Genetic mutation or possibly a different species.

The genetic material is the same. There's no unusual DNA differences. It's bone deformation due to binding techniques.

I remember reading of a people on a small island somewhere, which had three legs, all due to the fact that they were breeding with each other, and had done it for centuries... But im not sure if this was in a real book, or in a "Out of this world"-magazine..

Edit: There was a picture though, and it did look pretty real. (Im good at fakes/photoshop)

Fake. It was from something like The National Enquirer. The only time you get something like a third leg is in the case of twinning, where one fetus merges with the other and is partly absorbed. And that's not something genetic thatis passed along.