Skulls are humanity’s foremost symbol of death, and a powerful icon in the visual vocabularies of cultures all over the globe.
Many strangely “deformed” hominoid skulls have been discovered in Mexico and Peru. One of them, the Starchild skull found in Mexico, is currently the subject of scientific scrutiny and DNA testing.
Thirteen crystal skulls of apparently ancient origin have been found in parts of Mexico, Central America and South America, comprising one of the most fascinating subjects of 20th Century archaeology.
The Starchild Project
The following text is © by Lloyd Pye.
Reprinted with permission.
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only time and testing will tell which possibility is correct.
For more information visit: A Detailed Analysis of Two Unusual Skulls of Uncertain Origin on the STARCHILD PROJECT Data Site.
NEW Starchild Funding – a plea for support.
The above content is © 1999-2002 by Lloyd Pye.
Reprinted with permission.
For more information about the project, Lloyd Pye and his book,
“Everything You Know Is Wrong – Book One: Human Origins”,
visit: www.lloydpye.com and http://www.starchildproject.com/
Deformed Ancient Skulls
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 growinghead 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 distortedEgyptian 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The capacity of the cranial vault (and thus the brain mass) and intelligence is not necessarily indicated by the other. The individual with the largest skull, already mentioned above, was a retarded man, while Anatole France with his 1100 ccm was quite a brilliant writer.
©1996 Lumir G. Janku.
Reprinted with permission.
Related Articles on this website:
Leave a Reply