A Skull That had no Name

A Skull That had no Name

By Steven & Evan Strong

20/05/19

Well, the no-forehead skull was still unnamed until a little over a four weeks ago. Until then all we were prepared to do was categorise the skull through what was absent and in recession, but after meeting both the academic and lady who rescued these skulls and bones, it now has a title and form of address: “little charmer (*).” I did not ask why when they approached us and gave it a title, after all, they have been its guardians for sixty-five years and certainly have the right to name this being as they see appropriate. Our input should be merely to act in according to their wishes, so from this point on this is no longer a skull with no name, as it now has one.

With formal introductions dispensed with, it is time to return to the reconstructed skull and a mother lode of reasons why it cannot be classified as being part of any hominin family. In doing so, we first need to establish an empirical base as to what has previously been ‘ticked off’ in relation to the no-forehead skull.* The list of certainties is as impressive as it is sensational in its global implications and includes the facts that the face, neck, hair-line, forehead, suture tally, arms, eyes, jaw, nose and eyebrow ridge of the no-forehead being* are in stark contrast to any Homo sapiens, and may we add, any other hominin.

With the benefit of more time and further inspections, it has become apparent there is more to add. But in doing so any commentary is hedged around one equivocation, undeniably we know more about this branch of archaeology than when this journey began, but we are still novices. The only comfort we can take in our inexperience is that in dealing with this unique species of being, irrespective of degrees or papers, everyone is in the same boat.

It is because of ours apprentice stage in this investigation we have to plead guilty to an error when relying on earlier models in declaring that this being had a ‘narrow chin.’ It turns out to be the complete opposite in having the widest face and jaw we have measured. All we can offer in our defense in conceding defeat is that the two eye sockets are so large (22 sq. cms whereas sapiens measure 12 sq. cms) and dominate the face so much, as there is no vertical hold above only behind, we lost perspective and forgot to look carefully below. With this mistake righted, and a face width of 14 cms, which is 3 cms (22%) wider than the 1904 sapien model, we can now return to the main agenda: new comparisons and measurements.

Flaring at the Sides

For us, when looking at the skull as one entity rather than focus on a specific feature, the most obvious deviation from the ‘sapien norm’ is not the eye sockets, but the overall shape of the no-forehead* skull. The way it expands and flares out so dramatically, and so far back, has no hominid sequel.

The 1904 replica Origin sapien skull measures 9 cms at the narrowest part of the skull just behind the eye brow ridge, then it gradually expands to maximum width of 11 cms with the widest point being close to middle and then tapers back to 9 cms. When examining the no-forehead* skull, outside beginning at 9 cms at the same position as the other skull, it all runs off to a different track and genetic directives. The skull widens out to 16 cms, and that takes place more than three quarters of the way back.

When viewed from the back, the sapien skull resembles a rugby football positioned horizontally on the ground readied for a conversion kick, while with the no-forehead* skull resembles a bloated ball is laying on the ground, much bigger and decidedly over-inflated.

Two Eyes, Two Noses and one Nay

Returning to the cause of our concession in miscalculating the width of the jaw, those two huge eyes, it is not just the size of these eyes that is so ‘unhominid,’ all around, above and below, it is all so different from anyone else’s viewpoint.

Yes, they are 46% larger than ours, which almost demands the compulsory acceptance that this being is nocturnal or had sunglasses permanently attached during daylight hours, but it is not just the magnitude, but positioning. That runs counter to the hominid pattern. When the two casts are placed beside each other it is easy to see that the eye socket of the skull is not only much larger, but begins at a higher position by one centimetre. Also noticeable is that across the eye socket of the no-forehead* being it remains on a flat 180 degree plane, while the eye socket of the sapien slopes back 1.5 cms from the nose to cheek. And in rounding off this almost circular genetic shape (as opposed to the sapien rectangle) the lower bone of the socket is much thicker (possibly double) that of the same part of the sapien socket.

In total, a fair summation of the optics in comparison is that these two eye sockets share nothing beyond housing an eye, and because of this alone, they cannot be from the same species.

Beside these dissimilar eyes reside noses that once again share nothing, except facilitating breathing. We have already made note of the fact that because the eye brow ridge of the no-forehead skull* peaks at the centre of the face, the nose is drawn upwards and begins at a level much higher than ours. What has now become immediately obvious with this more advanced replica in hand, is that the nasal space left behind in each skull is not the same. The sapien oval is nothing like the no-forehead* triangle, and what is equally unique, is that the height of the oval is 3 cms, while that of the triangle is 5 cms.

Not only does the no-forehead* nose occupy 40% more facial space than the sapien, it is sloping at a far more severe angle. It sticks out further and spreads across more than our sapien model and more than likely is the biggest nose on any face, past or present. Just as it is with the eyes, a comparison of noses reinforces the same recurring truth, they are not the same.

In concluding this second analysis of two ancient faces is an observation we made when lining up the casts of the no-forehead skull*, Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis, archaic Homo sapiens and Lucy (Australopithecus-3.4 million years). Once placed on a wooden table along the join of two slabs, with that line as a guide, it was easy to see which face sloped the most. Lucy has the most sloped and archaic face, as expected, but from front on what is enigmatic as it is ironic, is that not far behind Lucy sits the no-forehead skull*. But from every other angle the same skull is the flattest, most advanced and intelligent.

Moving on up

Past the eyes, upwards or behind depending upon which skull is examined, is the skull case for the brain, and in this location there is one pivotal feature that stands out: the suturing, or perhaps, lack of it. What is clearly apparent is that in this respect the no-forehead skull* breaks a cardinal rule of hominid admission.

There is no top suture beginning on the crest running down to the back of the skull. That is definitely absent and due to genetic design, but as to whether the two side sutures are actually part of the entire package is still unclear. Using the eight pieces of the second no-forehead skull* as the initial base, it could be assumed where the largest top-plate of the skull finished was the original vertical suture line and point of natural separation. That is what the two experts reconstructing this ancient lineage understandably put into the model, and they may well be right.

Either way a ‘line in the skull’ has been breached. Our 1904 sapien model’s two vertical sutures join the top suture on the rise one centimetre before the highest point, while the possible suture lines of the no-forehead skull intersect on the descent 1.5 cms past the crest. That is a 2.5 cms shift in positioning, and once again is at odds with another common sapien trait. Whatever the cause or absence, there is no sapien or hominin counterpart.

The Next Cab off the Rank

We can now rule out any connection between the no-forehead skull* and sapiens, whether modern or archaic. With that species dispatched, it is time to look elsewhere for inspiration or genetic similarities. Knowing that there are angles where this enigmatic receding skull looks a touch ‘Lucy-like,’ it seems appropriate our next comparison address the possibility this is a more ancient and archaic linage, which was incredibly intelligent, well ahead of its time and the intellect of its hominid neighbours.

As it was with the last table, the number of comparisons number seventeen, but due to the variations present in a different model, Homo Heidelbergensis, a few additions and deletions were made. We chose this subject as it is archaic, from a period between 700,000 to 200,000 years, and also has no agreed ancestry. Some experts see a genetic relationship with the archaic Homo sapiens from which modern humans evolved, while others insist this species is more closely related to Neanderthals. That uncertainty of classification and antiquity makes it an ideal candidate to compare and contrast, even more so when the forehead slopes backward, nowhere near as extremely as the no-forehead skull,*but the forehead is definitely less vertical than any sapien. In combination, at first glance, there could be a genetic link.

Portion of Skull compared	No-forehead* Skull	Homo heidelbergensis skull	Deviation/Increase %
Maximum width across the face (1)	14 cms	13.5 cms	+3% nf
Maximum length of skull (2)	19 cms	17.5 cms	+8% nf
Mid-point width of skull (3)	15 cms	13 cms	+14% nf
Maximum width of skull (4)	16 cms	13.5 cms	+16% nf
Maximum height of the skull (5)	12.5 cms	14 cms	+10% hh
Combination (1)x(2)x(3)x(4)x(5)	797,900	583,467	+27% nf
Angle of Face	5 degrees	30 degrees	+300% nf
Height of crest of skull above eye brow ridge	1.5 cms	3 cms	+100% hh
Eye brow ridge maximum thickness	0.5 cms	2 cms	+400% hh
Slope of eye socket-depth	0 degrees, 0 cms	15 degrees, 2.7 cms	+270% hh
Bottom eye socket-thickness	2 cms	3 cms	+33% hh
Height of eye from bottom of upper jaw	4 cms	6 cms	+33%  hh
Height of nasal gap	5 cms	3.4 cms	+32% nf
Nasal shape	Triangular	Egg shaped	+200% nf
Eye brow ridge shape	Delicate, gradual V-shape	Thick, bulky, more sloped	+300% hh
Shape of eyes	Rounded square	Rectangular oval	+200% nf
Shape of Skull	Upper 2/3 of a tear drop	oval	+100% nf

 

Let’s begin with the only point of convergence, both faces are very wide, almost, but not quite, identical in width. And that’s it! There is nothing else. The brain case of Homo Heidelbergensis is smaller than the no-forehead skull* (73%), but larger than the 1904 Original sapien model already examined. The reality is having a larger brain than the first candidate means little as both Neanderthals and Denisovans had larger brains than sapiens, so that is no great achievement.

The areas of greatest difference has to be the eye brow ridge, the no-forehead petite ridge is dwarfed by the width and sheer size of this ancient extinct hominid ridge. The presentation of the eyes and nose along with the difference in size, shape and positioning leads on to a completely different face and genetic base. That lack of any visible resemblance is reflected in a Deviation/Increase rate of over 120%, which is double that of the earlier comparison between the no-forehead* model and the 1904 Original sapien cast.

So, in two attempts to identify, we have struck out twice, nevertheless, we will keep looking and comparing until the reserve’s bench is empty.

In the Meantime

It would as judicious as it is sensible to wait on the science we are trying so hard to put together (a huge thanks to Michael Langley in that endeavour) before going any further. However, the door is ajar and our foot is in and we can already glimpse at what is inside. We sincerely doubt any earth-bound hominid will come close to matching the physique, face, skull, arms, intelligence or wisdom of these beings. That being the likely outcome of the science, where else can we look but up, and once again acknowledge an ancient Original truth, ‘as on top, so below.’

If trying to be more specific than a nebulous ‘on top,’ knowing that the Seven Sisters of the Pleiades is the only Dreaming Story that is shared with every Original tribe in pre-Cook times, this narrows down the constellations to one, and that is our first choice with two caveats to be discussed in the next report.

In the meantime, imagine this skull was alive with a skin-like covering and bones attached and walking down the street. If a poll was taken of each person who saw this being in transit, 99% would claim he/she was an Alien (we are assuming the other one percent were vision impaired).

*An Admission of Errors Made*

Over the last week it has become clear a few mistakes have been made in earlier reports and presentations relating to the skulls found at the burial site, along an understandable misunderstanding made when first meeting the academic who gave us the second set of bones. The errors were brought to our attention by an official from the Government and we thank him for rightly pointing some points of concern.

When dealing with the burial site, we always had an issue in relation to how it was arranged as we never had contact with anyone involved in or arranging this, it was always done through another party. Deliberately so, but being three degrees of separation from the site led to a few misunderstandings before we got there, and obviously after. In regards to what happened at the site when officially inspected, we were under the impression samples were taken away for testing. Considering the features of face and skull unearthed that seemed the obvious course of action. But that is not true, it was all done and dismissed on site. And equally, we were told that the officials involved were sacked, that is clearly not true as one of people is still there, but in a different department.

It was also made clear that the chaotic state we came upon, with bones strewn all over, was not caused by the visit. That it was already in that state. I accept that, but I was told while there that originally both bodies faced the east with arms and knees bound against the chest. So who created the disrespect is unknown and the choices are limited, as it wasn’t us.

The main error related to the first time I met the academic and the bones. The second Original set of bones we suspect to be an archaic sapien were never mentioned to us before arrival. He only gave a brief two sentence acknowledgement to them in stating that they came from “the same place.” I took that to mean same site, and that is my error, it actually turns out those bones were found at the same place, in general terms and nearby, never beside. So that one error is not because it was second-hand news, but my fault alone in assuming place means site, it didn’t.

Once again my thanks to the person who pointed out these mistakes, we never claim perfection and make it clear if in error, we will concede and rectify.