Deluge of Atlantis

Deluge of Atlantis
Deluge of Atlantis

Thursday, April 7, 2011

More on Coneheads

This is a map showing geographic distribution of the Artificial deformation of the skulls of babies (and the habit of wrapping them in swaddling clothes). The map comes from a very interesting article which shall be posted next after this one.

Museum display case with Artificially deformed skulls, from Wikipedia.

Ignatius Donnelly had this diagram from his book Atlantis: the Antediluvian World in 1881. The upper dotted line curve presumes to show the profile of the undeformed cranium, the lower ones are different crania from around the world. The uppermost curve is not directly aligned with the others because it was intended to be shown clearer. Donnelly was seeking to demonstrate that the idea of cranial deformation originated in a set of peoples whose heads already tended to be shaped that way, and the deformation was then done to accentuate the natural trait. The photo is an undeformed skull from early Crete: skulls from North Africa and the Canary Islands, as well as from Pyramid-builder's cemeteries in Egypt and also in the Near East, all tended to this pattern.

Neolithic deformed skull from Palestine, prepottery period, probably about 8000 BC. The trait is earliest in the preceeding Naftufian period, just about at the end of the last Ice Age. Contrary to some reports, Neanderthal skulls were not artificially deformed (they grew that way naturally) but some of the CroMagnon skulls were, including one of the skulls found in the original excavations at the Cro-Magnon cave itself (Cro-Magnon means "Great-Big" in France; it originally meant the cave was big itself but since CroMagnon people were also tall, the name was appropriate)

Early-Neolithic deformed skull from Iran, Wikipedia image: these skulls are common from about 5000 to 7000 BC in the areas that would later become Iran and then diffusing out into the surrounding territories. Many skulls in the same time period from Iraq, Southern Turkey and Syria are also deformed but not usually so severely. In later historical time many of the Iranian-speaking nomads of Central Asia continued the tradition and eventually the trait was introduced into Europe from the East by the invasions of the Huns.

Below are some Hun skulls. Huns were not originally Mongolians, they were Iranians and they regularly recruited conquered Native peoples into their ranks. the conquered peoples began deforming heads of their infants in the same way. In Europe, the Huns settled as far as Germany and Switzerland, and their graves in that period show that the Germans were also deforming the skulls the same way. The period of conquest is thought to have been the reason why Germans were called "Huns" during WWI.

These are some more Hun skulls, recently several such skulls were discovered in Siberia

Artificially Deformed skulls in the Hunnic tradition from around Omsk, Western Siberia.
Woman with artificial cranial deformation from Africa South of the Sahara. In Africa the trait does seem to have radiated outwards from the region of the Sahara

Types of artificially deformed craina found in the Eastern United States from a recent article by Neumann. Many of the same styles of deforming the skulls of the infants also occur in South America. The skull illustrated at center-top is undeformed and normal, shown for comparison.
Infant showing the effects of cradleboarding in a modern medical context, and below, the cradleboard in use, with the babby wrapped in swaddling clothes. Which can probably be compared to mummy wrappings and probably came from the same parent culture that invented mummification. The Cradleboard in this case is Navajo and one of the local lambs has gone to inspect the baby.


  1. BTW, the dotted-line chart is reversed front to back in comparison to the photograph of the skull. The dotted lines are all profiles of the top of the cranium in the heads as facing to the left. I had not thought that it might cause confusion that the dotted lines on the chart faced the one way and the photo faced the other when I originally posted this blog.

  2. Not all coneheads were the result of cranial deformation(cradleboarding). Some coneheads naturally grew into that elongated shape.

    Why was cranial deformation practiced?

    And for the coneheads that grew naturally, where do they fit in the theory of evolution?

  3. There are actually two schools of thought about that. One is "Some human skulls just grow that way for unknown reasons" and the other one is "Skulls just don't grow that way naturally, ALL of them MUST be deformed, even if they are in cultures that ordinarily do not practice head-binding. And the latter group produced statistics showing that in immigrant families in the USA, skulls that tended to be flattened front-to-back in ethnic groups in Europe tend to lose the trait when the ethnic groups become immigrants in the USA. And it seems to be due to the way babies are strapped down to their cradles-in some countries this produces csomething of the effect without deliberately setting out to do so. So I am of the opinion that it does not happen naturally because I havve seen those studies and those statuistics.

    And as to why, there are a couple of older blog postings on this blog for that. I started the string here because it is a trait thought to have derived from Atlantis (since 1881) And from what I have seen here subsequently, it was practiced in Atlantis among the Aristocracy, but it derived from the Saharan area when the climate went bad. And my guess is that it mostly just made the tall-coneheads look taller.

    Best Wishes, Dale D.

    1. That is interesting the cranial difference in Europe and Europe-American immigrants.

      From what I have read, this practice, or natural growth, has found presence in various parts of the world where civilizations(or non-civilized) peoples had no contact with each other, wonder why?

      It may have an original source.

      If most are deformed, it would be hard to find a cause for natural growth.
      To prove natural gowth of elongated skulls possibly two approaches to verify:
      1. Forensics to determine if the skull was deformed during growth.
      2. If DNA could be extracted, sampled, and mapped. From here a comparison of genetic information with elongated and non-elongated skulls.

      Fossil evidence shows a steady growth in brain size in the course of human evolution. But these elongated skulls are up to twice the size.
      Anyhow, IF these skulls were found to be natural in growth, where do you see these skulls would fit in the evolutionary timeline?
      Do you know of any expert opinion for natural growth and their place in evolution?

  4. This is so weird. I wonder if there are any differences in cognitive functioning (haven't even read the post, which may have dealt with that).

  5. With all due respect, why would anyone describe skulls as being "deformed" when evidence proves clearly they are not. These skulls have larger eye-sockets and a larger mandible, which could not be a product of head biding, one would say. These skulls are also larger in size, as in more than double (2,200 to 2,500 ccm) the normal skull size (1100 ccm). That obviously suggests a larger brain and larger eyes. Evolutionary theory does not come even close to explaining these skulls, or anything else for that matter. Let's face it, the history of our planet is anything but what religious texts and traditional historians are telling us it is. Time for major changes, one would think.

  6. The skulls are known to have been deformed by a process that has been documented historically. The enlargement of the cranial capacity has been suggested to be due to the accumulation of fluid and not as increased brain growth, and I mentioned that part earlier. With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about if you are not familiar with the academic literature on the topic and in the discipline which you are attenpting to replace with such unfounded and unsubstantiated opinions. Certainly there are any number of experts on natural growth and the development through evolution, I have a pretty good background in that area myself. And my specialization as an Anthropologist is in the analysis and comparison of human skulls, in case you had not heard. You are attempting to bluff me when it is obvious that you do not have any especial academic background in the topic yourself. And I can't say as I appreciate your tone.


This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.