ENORMOUS CONE HEADS OF PARACAS PERU

Follow @THEMADHATTERXXX

Enormous ConeHeads Paracas Peru

The Paracas skulls are unique. They have specific features, such as two small holes in the back of the skulls that are not present on normal human skulls. These physical features indicate that these skulls were elongated at birth. The question remains then, where did the genetic code for these skulls originate, or, are they really human skulls at all?

The eye sockets are larger than the average human

Worldwide Phenomena

Today about one dozen skulls can be viewed at the Paracas History Museum, which features artifacts from Inca and pre-Inca cultures. Until the elongated skulls of Paracas are more intensely researched, their origin and development will remain unexplained. Brien Foerster has taken samples from some of the skulls to try to gain more insight into their origin.

Were people really born with these massive heads?

The elongated skulls of Paracas were not the only strange skulls that have been discovered. Elongated heads were part of ancient Egyptian culture. The Olmecs of Mexico and ancient peoples of the Mediterranean and Melanesia were also thought to have these larger skulls, although they were not necessarily as large as the Paracas samples. It appears that theses other skulls were elongated artificially.

Amaru Muru: Door Of The Snakes: Beyond The Doorway

Alien Skulls From The Coast Of Peru

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.

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.

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.

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, "conehead", "jack-o-lantern" or "J" and "M" based on the shape of the skull, except the first and possibly earliest type of skull, called "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 "premodern" skull and the following three specimens were found in the Paracas region of Perú. It does not necessarily mean that they are related. There is some possibility that the "premodern" is in fact a precursor of the "conehead" type, but since we do not have any dating analysis at hand, we may only speculate in this regard.

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.

Figure C2

Figure C3

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.

Any conjectures that what these specimens represent are simply deformations or pathological cases can be hardly substantiated. Anomalous types of growth or shapes appear from time to time in the modern human population, however, these occurrences are still within the range of the given species. The largest skull documented in the medical literature had the cranial capacity of 1980 ccm, however, the shape of the skull was normal. 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.

ELONGATED SKULLS FOUND IN THE WOMB

These skulls, with their robust, larger than modern man, skeletons, have been found in almost every early culture that reached an advanced stage. in mexico, peru, egypt, iraq, china, malta, etc. almost always, the few individuals were either members of the ruling class or the priesthood. they were transplants, migrants that could well have brought civilization to the nations, from a dying former mother culture. very often their skulls had been trepanated, an early example of successful brain surgery. mostly, there was no sign of injury or trama, that was the cause for the operations. this surgery was adopted by the cultures affected in peru, and became associated with their religious rituals. 

as far as i know, im the only one who has ventured to say that these were atlanteans, and were the final product of andediluvian evolution. in other words their anatomy was common before the poleshift circa 10,000 bce. besides the extremely elongated skulls, with a much larger brain pan, they differed in the suture where the skull joins at the rear, being more like ruminant animals in that respect, than modern man. their teeth were also different from ours, i think the 3rd molar was different. the best study ive found was done by dr tschudi in peru about 1850. he found a mummy with fetus, that had the elongated skull while in the womb. 

most experts ignore dr tschudi's excellent work, where he proved beyond any doubt that these characteristics were natural and normal for that early race. many tribes later adopted skull binding to mimic their ancient rulers and priests. 

as usual, our lads were reluctant to date these skulls very early. those found on malta were directly associated with a megalithic temple, as if they were priests or priestesses. they dated these 4400-4100 bce. those found in iraq were associated with neolithic cultures, and were given dates almost as old. it appears these individuals tried to hide their long skulls with hats. this is seen in early egypt, and also by the tall pointed hats adopted by the scythian clergy. 

cayce told us that the sages of atlantis were forewarned of the earth changes, and had sent teachers and priests to every nation that had evolved to cities and law. this would seem to have that group arriving with the arts and sciences circa 10,000 bce. so this appears to be a time when a highly advanced nation came into contact with emerging stone age cultures. so there may need much revision in dating to account for the error of 6,000 years difference between mainstream dating, and the mystical, and in my opinion, the mystical info is more credible.
the disparity is most pronounced in egypt, where akhenaton is assigned a date of about 1378 bce. its very difficult to fathom how there could be representatives of this andediluvian race in egypt so late, that maintained racial purity. unless their ancestors had carefully hidden and preserved their racial purity for over 8,000 years. its possible, and akhenaton did claim he was first to adopt realism in revealing their true anatomy. more likely, our dating for his dynasty is in error by thousands of years. our lads rely upon the amarna letters for their dating, but i believe there were several warrior nations arise in anatolia, and they confuse them. 

the association of this race with megalithic and neolithic cultures points to an earlier date for their first appearance among emerging cultures. i seem to recall that one of their skulls found in peru had been carbon dated to about 10,000 bce. im not sure where i read that. 

its a fact that most scholars fear to tread on assigning dates much before 3,000 bce, for fear of attacks from their peers. no doubt some evidence that suggested earlier dates was ignored and suppressed. so we are left with about 6-7,000 years of blank pages in the history of man.