Deluge of Atlantis

Deluge of Atlantis
Deluge of Atlantis

Friday, March 16, 2012

Coneheads again, And more on Adena Giant Warriors in Peru

Continuing on Coneheads

Reprint of a December 2011 Bones Don't Lie Blog:
Not Aliens, Just Humans with Modified Crania

Cranial deformation has been the cause of much debate and fascination. The unique shape of the skulls from the Nasca even inspired the most recent Indiana Jones adventure. The elongated skulls and flattened foreheads have created speculation of evidence of aliens or satanic practices. Even this past year, the Daily Mail claimed that skulls found in Peru were potentially those of extraterrestrials. According to the article there are three anthropologists that all agree that these are not human. However, we know that this practice is not only easy to accomplish in humans, but also continues in cultures today (even our own). Moving beyond psuedoarchaeology claims, scholars have still been debating the reasons and methods behind the deformation for hundreds of years. The December 2010 publication from the Journal of Neurosurgery discusses cranial modification from a number of perspectives.

The basic architecture of the human skull is made up of six bones, the occipital, the frontal, two parietal and two temporal bones. While the skull itself is solid in adulthood, the cranial bones of children are malleable. The reason for this is to allow for growth of the brain and head throughout childhood. However, if pressure is applied in certain areas for a long duration during childhood, the shape of the skull can be changed. The bone will slowly ossify into the shape that it is pressed into, making it a permanent feature. Enchev et al. (2010) even note that there likely wasn’t any major neurological damage. Most modified skulls are from adults and old adults, suggesting that it doesn’t create permanent damage.
Cranial vault modification can be achieved through a number of means. Enchev et al. (2010) discuss two types of modification: tabular or annular. Tabular, or “flat-head” modification involves compressing the fontal and occipital with fixed, erect boards or pads. This creates a lateral bulging of the head. A variation on this is when vertical boards are placed higher up on the back of the head to produce more upright modification. Annular modification is produced when bands are wrapped around the forehead and the back of the skull to force the bone to grow upright. Examination of modified crania show that they often vary by individual, attributed to the nature of bone growth and idiosyncratic variation in the application of bands and boards.
Another common term applied to these skulls is cranial deformity, however this term implies that the shape was unwanted or a malformation. Cranial deformities more accurately reflect the change in shape due to the birthing procedure or accidental distortion. One example of this is when infants are strapped to cradle boards, a practice often found in indigenous American populations as a way to protect the neck of the infant during travel.
However, it is unlikely that the changes found in the skulls of Peruvian and Egyptian populations are due to accident. This leads to the question of intent and purpose. In order to understand the reasons for the change, it is important to look at the social and political context of the practice, as well as the identity of the individual and their place within society. Ayer et al. (2010) argue that deformation was a sign of political and socioeconomic status. In support of their hypothesis, they examine a selection of modified crania in Peru and Egypt.
The earliest modified skulls in Peru date between 6000 and 7500 BCE, with the majority of remains from this period showing signs of deformation. There is potential evidence between 1350 to 1200 BCE in Egypt. It has only been found there in elite individuals, and doesn’t appear to be a widespread practice. Ayer et al. (2010) argue that the modification was a literal symbol of being the head of the state. Romero-Vargas et al. (2010) discussed the role of modification in the Maya. In the classic Mayan period, 250 to 900 CE, cranial modification consisted of creating a more erect frontal bone using compression pads. A 16th century Spanish chronicler, Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, asked the Mayan why their heads were a different shape, and the reasons behind the modification. They responded: “This is done because our ancestors were told by the gods that if our heads were thus formed we should appear noble and handsome and better able to bear burdens”. Romero-Vargas et al. (2010) argue that the practice has religious and sociocultural meaning, and it is an integral part of someone’s identity.
While the cranial modification issue from the Journal of Neurosurgery does discuss a number of really interesting topics, they do not explore the issue in any depth. Modifying the cranium is a major undertaking and occurred in a variety of cultures through different forms and methods. However, it continues today in order to create the perfect shapes. See Kristina Killgrove’s post on cranial modification and its modern occurrence. It is important to look at the cultural background and compare it against other occurrences. Currently there is only speculation as to the reasons and purposes of the modification.
Works Cited
Ayer A, Campbell A, Appelboom G, Hwang BY, McDowell M, Piazza M, Feldstein NA, & Anderson RC (2010). The sociopolitical history and physiological underpinnings of skull deformation. Neurosurgical focus, 29 (6) PMID: 21121715
Romero-Vargas, S., Ruiz-Sandoval, J., Sotomayor-González, A., Revuelta-Gutiérrez, R., Celis-López, M., Gómez-Amador, J., García-González, U., López-Serna, R., García-Navarro, V., Mendez-Rosito, D., Correa-Correa, V., & Gómez-Llata, S. (2010). A look at Mayan artificial cranial deformation practices: morphological and cultural aspects Neurosurgical FOCUS, 29 (6) DOI: 10.3171/2010.9.FOCUS10200
Enchev Y, Nedelkov G, Atanassova-Timeva N, & Jordanov J (2010). Paleoneurosurgical aspects of Proto-Bulgarian artificial skull deformations. Neurosurgical focus, 29 (6) PMID: 21121717
Against this we have the statements of the Alien Origin enmthusiasts. It is to be admitted that some of the reconstructions shown on this video look reasonable enough. This Pracas necropolis has ben the center of interest for the Defdormed crania seekers. Although Paracas culture runs back to 700 BC or before, the most of the mummies dig up in the Paracas tombs date from 200 BC to 200 AD approximately. These people are thought to have come down from the north and have some relationship to the Olmecs as their predecessoirs of the Cavin culture are suspected to have been. But from the shape of the skulls of some of the mummies, their people came from further North still: some of them are of the same physical type as the Adena Mound Builders of the Ohio Valley.

Unmodified Andean skull, similar type to the usual inhabitants of the Eastern USA since Archaic times, derived Paleoindiann like and rather long-headed.
Adena Type from Ohio Valley, with the usual severe front-to-back cranial compression

More elongated Peruvian Paracas skull showing the more elongated type more popular there, but once again the strong s and heavy jaw typical of the Adena.

Two skulls from mummies with some preserved flesh still adhering, more typical Adena cranial flattening with once again the same kind of heavy facial features and heavy jaw. Some have seen a resemblance to the giant states of Easter Island in the conformation of the facial features.

 Diagrams Illustrating how the skulls of infants were deformed

Museum of the necropolis at Paracas, Peru. The cemetery is noted for the fine quality of the textiles that the mummies were wrapped in. The Verills thought that some of the textiles incorportated messages written in old-world scripts such as the Hittite script from what is now Turkey. (America's Ancient Civilizations)

On pages 308-323 of his 1808 book, Travels in America, Thomas Ashe describes his inspection of one of several different ancient Indian mounds he visited in the then thinly settled Ohio valley. He gives an especially detailed account of how he and his helper visited a mound near the banks of the Muskingum river, climbed to its summit, lifted flagstones at the top, and descended into an artificial vault where Ashe reportedly discovered ancient relics and ancient writing. What is particularly interesting about Ashe's account is that he also speaks of "Mound-Builder" giants in his story of opening that particular mound. On pages 321-323 of his book, Thomas Ashe speculates that the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North America were inclined to select for their top leaders men of gigantic stature. Although Ashe's notion may not represent a universal truth, there are occasional documented instances of the leaders or "upper classes" in certain socially stratified Indian groups possessing an extraordinary stature. See, for example, "Tomb of Giants" on pp. 64-65 of the March 2001 issue of National Geographic for a depiction of "giants" in a Moche burial in Peru.

Moche Elite Compared to Average Indian
© 2001, National Geographic Society
Extravagant grave goods add to the mystery of this ancient people of Peru.

Get a taste of what awaits you in print from this compelling excerpt.

The large copper bowl lay within my grasp, undisturbed for 1,500 years since it had been placed upside down over the dead man’s face. Our team had worked more than a month to reach this point in the excavation of one of the richest and most intriguing tombs ever found in Peru—the tomb of a Moche elite.

The Moche inhabited a series of river valleys along the arid coastal plain of northern Peru from about A.D. 100 to 800. Through farming and fishing, they supported a dense population and highly stratified society that constructed irrigation canals, pyramids, palaces, and temples. Although they had no writing system, the Moche left a vivid artistic record of their activities in beautiful ceramic vessels, elaborately woven textiles, colorful murals, and wondrous objects of gold, silver, and copper.

Finding undisturbed Moche tombs is rare in an area that has been looted for more than four centuries, yet from 1997 to 1999 our team of U.S. and Peruvian researchers discovered three extraordinary tombs at Dos Cabezas, an ancient settlement in the lower Jequetepeque Valley. Outside each burial chamber was a miniature tomb containing a small copper statue meant to represent the tomb’s principal occupant. Each tomb also contained a remarkably tall adult male who would have been a giant among his peers. [Emphasis added-DD]

Gently lifting the copper bowl, I expected to see a skeletonized face. But
instead, looking up at me with inlaid eyes, was an exquisite gold-and-copper
funerary mask. We were all astonished and knew then how important these
tombs could be to unraveling the mystery of the Moche.

Get the whole story in the pages of National Geographic magazine

--This article once again emphasizes that the Warrior elite in the Americas was carefully selected from the larger individuals and bred into a special class, training for combat throug gladiatorial excercises and not actually employed locally for warfare.  Iton that they were shipped off to fight wars elsewhere, particularly in the Mid East,. And if you do not believe that Peru was diectly connected to Mesopotamia in tye early days (The Verrills have a LOT of evidence on this point), themn have a look at a piece of pottery found at Tiahuanaco which has an inscription on the inside in the cuneiform script common in Babylonia and associated nations:


  1. Artificial binding of the head does not increase the cranial capacity, and some of these "coneheads" have a cranial capacity twice that of the average human being of the same age. Furthermore, head binding does not explain the elongated skulls of young children whose mummified remains have been found in the same area, and whose heads could not have been so deformed at such a young age. Conclusion? These particular humans are not of this Earth.

  2. Well guess what? There have been some clinical findings which indicate that binding the heads of infants DOES increase the actual cranial capacity-but not the brain size. Due to the pressure on the bones, the brain compensates by ordering a fluid buildup for cushioning. And the anatomy of such skulls is entirely human, save only for the altered shape. The human skull is made up of a certain set of standard bones and all of these skulls have the SAME standard bones. Conclusion: they are human and they are of this Earth, no reason to say otherwise. And next time you put in such a claim, please specify what formal training you have had in medicine or formal human anatomy for your credentials. And we are talking about a process which is begun on very young infants indeed, pretty much since birth.

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. You think me rude for so replying to an ignorant and presumptive comment with the truth? From someone who obviously did not read the material and is not paying any attention? I do NOT take your point.

    3. Please cite the clinical findings that indicate the binding the heads of infants DOES increase the head size. The normal human skull has four plates, one frontal, two parietal, and one occipital plate. The two parietal plates are separated by the sagittal suture. Yet, in the majority of the elongated skulls, there are only three plates, one frontal, one parietal, and one occipital. Individuals who underwent head binding have 4 bones in their skull. No amount of head binding can reduce the number of bones in a normal human skull. In addition, some of the skeletons were enormous, robust, had elongated skulls, six fingers and toes, and double rows of teeth. Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, the daughter of Paiute Chief Winnemucca, wrote about the warfare their tribe had with the red haired giants Si-Te-Cah (translated as “tule-eaters”), who were cannibels as well. The Bible teaches that the Nephilim, Anakim, Emim, Zamzummim, were Giants from the Ancient World, who would once again inhabit the earth and have human angel hybrid offspring shortly before Christs second coming.

    4. Unfortunately both your information and your conclusions are wrong. As far as the binding of infant's heads causing conditions similar to hydrocephaly, that part is basic and is taught in the textbooks or it was in my day anyway. As far as reducing the number of bones in the skull-that is a normal part of growth and all human babies start out with many smaller plates which fuse together and form the standard bones of the braincase. And sealing up more of the symphases is not an unusual occurrance, it happens all of te time: furthermore you are dead wrong with the often-repeated allegation that there is inly one parietal bone. Another recent blog published a phototo of a recently discovered elongated skull found in Mexico and ithe photo clearly showed the normal two PAIRED Parietal bones, all the joints around the bone which showed being visible and well-defined. Now as to the existance of giants, I do not dispute: I have supporting evidence published on this blog. That some of the giants also practiced cranial deformartion of a distinctive type is clearly stated in this very same blog posting. All of the rest of what you mention is also covered in entries at this blog. You are neither reading very carefully nor are you understanding what has been stated here very well.

    5. Dale are you aware of the fact that many of the larger skulls have no cranial plates at all? and some have two strange ports entering into the back of the skull near the top as if to allow for extra blood vessels for the increased brain size. I have seen an entire mummy with needle like teeth 8 front teeth where you and I would only have two, and protruding claws coming out from beneath normal human finger nails and scaly skin with red hair. Whats your take on this? I think it would be wiser not to presume to know all the answers in this world today. There are many new thing being explored in recent times witch have been dismissed in the past for various reasons. But it pays to pay attention today. Its a brave new world in archaeology.

    6. I can only assume that so many people are actually unfamiliar with human skulls. OK: the cracks between the individual bones are called "sutures" and when they grow over and fuse it is called "Obliteration of sutures" some degree of obliteration of the sutures happens automatically when we grow up: that one bone that backs up the forehead was originally two bones which grow together. Before they grow together there is a crack down the center of the forehead. In most adults it is not normal to have the crack (it sometimes persists), the normal state is for that suture to be obliterated. Now in some people these joints continue fusing throughout life. There are some skulls that are fused overall and show none of the sutures at all. This is a normal ocurrance and cause no alarm or attention to people that regularly deal with human skulls.That mummies can have filed teeth or an unusual appearance of skin and fingers not commonly seen in life is nothing unusual and we are only talking about appearances as observed by a layman and not as clinically examined by a professional familiar with human anatomy and forensic proceedures. And all of these statements merely go to show to me that the observations are being made by laymen with no extensive familiarity with human anatomy. Your remarks about the fusion of the sutures alone shows that much.

  3. I find this subject and conclusion from anonymous(2/7/13)to be incorrect and misleading. I am a Choctaw Healer who had my head bound as an infant until age 3 yrs. I now have compensated hydrocephalus (unshunted due to the massive fluid build up, my brain would collapse in on itself). My IQ is 185 and I have certain visionary gifts that my people believe are due to the binding process. I am from earth, I am human and I am perfectly normal(human looking). Just because "mainstream, non indigenous experts" do not totally understand the reasoning behind head binding or the effects it achieves does not mean that we are from another planet or that we are less civilized. We just have a different belief system and religious practices. Just call me earthbound and intelligent.

  4. I thank you for that last comment, khathansen. I am both gratified and honoured that you have replied.

  5. It would seem logical to attempt extraction and examination of DNA samples from surviving dentition of all these deformed and oversized skull specimens that have such a global distribution. Genetic comparison to each other and to regional populations where these specimens were found ought to yield valuable information and put to rest or prove the more speculative ideas about their origins. Instead of arguing willy-nilly over these anthropological oddities, why not organize the interested people and fund such a study, either through donations or via grants?

    1. That would be a good idea. Unfortunately disassociated individuals such as myself are seldom granted good backing on such projects, the operations such as you are suggesting are ordinarily undertaken by large institutions. But you seem to think no genetic analyses of such remains have not been done. In fact there has been some work done on the mummies and they show generally some Western European affinities.


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.