Before Their Beginning: New Unknown Hominids Found in Australia

Before Their Beginning: New Unknown Hominids Found in Australia

By Steven & Evan Strong

20/11/17

Two years ago two extremely unusual skulls along with their complete skeletons were unearthed when leveling land on a farm. The exact location will remain a secret, all that needs to be known is that it is located in South East Australia in the wheat/sheep belt and was originally buried in dry sandy soil. There is no need to be an expert in archaeology or any science, both skulls looked so beyond the embrace of any ‘normal’ skull and once exposed the farmer did the right thing in reporting this to the relevant authorities.

Two government appointed ‘anthropologists’ came, excavated and literally threw them back into the ground without a skerrick of care or respect. Originally both bodies were seated upright, with two arms and knees pressed against their chests facing the east. What we witnessed was totally absent in care and respect with no intention shown to meticulously return as interred, which really is the very least that could be done. Sadly the collateral damage was huge with bones out of order, place and sequence. Knowing both skulls and their associated bones are without parallel, precedent or comparison, that may explain why the official anthropologists behaved so poorly on site and never got back to the farmer. Well nearly no-one made further contact, two representatives of a different government department did pop in for a quick visit soon after and threatened the farmer with talk of a hefty fine if news of this discovery did spread.

Most would do as threatened and say no more, but not this farmer. He kept looking for the truth. And that desire for an answer finally led to our expedition onto his country plunging ‘heads deep’ into a past of which even I was unprepared.

Digging up the Past and Future

Proving once again how deceptive two-dimensional photographs can be, the first photograph we have presented was taken before the damage two years ago from a position and perspective that reveals so much, yet is equally misleading. As it is from above looking down this skull has the ‘look’ of an Original robust skull which always have large sloping foreheads and brains, a thick ridge above the eyes and large eyes, never as big as this, but the robust skulls do have larger eye sockets than the gracile thinner-boned Original strand. One of our anonymous academics, Professor X, called the skull “massive,”(1) with one equivocation, he had no scale or comparison.

But it isn’t! In fact in many respects this skeleton is incredibly fine boned and more gracile than robust. What no longer exists when on site is any trace of a sloping forehead seen in that photo, the volume is correct but the angle is way off. When face to face it becomes immediately apparent that barely a centimetre above the skull reaches its maximum width of 10 centimetres as it does so it also drops back steeply to nearly a flat plain of bone for 12.5 cms. The bone in the skull varies somewhat between six to eight millimetres in width. If not aware of the size of the cranium receding into the background when engaged at the same level, it looks like an ancient smaller-faced Australopithecus reminiscent of ‘Lucy’ found in Ethiopia (Africa) dated at 3.4 million years.

As unexpected as this was, it made the actual size of the eyes seem much larger than the 4.4 cms on show in the photograph, simply because with so much of what lays above the eyes merely a backdrop unseen supplemented by narrow cheeks and chin, what remains is a small mouth, small chin, small cheeks, small forehead and absolutely massive eyes. These orbital sockets occupy close to 50% of the face when viewing from eyeball to eyeball. If trying to create a face from the facial bone structure it would look somewhat like the eyes’ of an owl wrapped around a narrow face. What only adds to the intrigue, is a quite severe indentation just above the right eyebrow. There is no sign of a cut or percussion bulb through heavy impact and since there is nothing like this above the other eye it is not natural, but nonetheless very pronounced.

Between these two massive eyes, but slightly above and higher is the remains of where the nose began to rise out of the skull, but its positioning is far too high by today’s standards. Noses of recent times begin to rise at an alignment that is close to the centre of our eyes. This being ignores that setting and its nose basically begins where the thick ridge above runs and is about one centimetre higher than all hominid nasal models past or present.

The mandible had its teeth in position with the exception of the two front teeth. There were no jagged remains inside, both cavities were clean and empty. Knowing that tooth avulsion was used as form of initiation in the general area it seems safe to assume this individual was given ceremony.

After the skull was cleaned and removed the sequence below was more teeth, remaining small fragments of the face then a leg and arm bone. The femur is 43 cms in length, has a maximum thickness of 25 mms, with a femur epicondylar breadth 6.5 cms and maximum head diameter of 4 cms, which all seems quite normal, but the other bone examined, the humerus, was way out of proportion and far too long. It is 41 centimetres in length at present but that was not as far as it ran, the section that made up half the elbow joint is missing in action, most probably through some earlier havoc created in passing some two years ago. What really hammered home the disparity was when I held the femur against my hip and knee the length was almost identical, but when I did the same with the humerus resting on my shoulder then placed it against my arm, it extended past the elbow and continued on to half-way towards the wrist, with more to come. If I add the same extension to the next half, the combined length with a hand attached has to be extremely close to the ankle bone. What only added to the questions yet to be asked, was a width of arm that has to be at least half that of humans of today. So thin is the bone (maximum width of one centimetre) it is hard to imagine how this individual coped if falling, being pushed, in contact with any moving object heavier than a feather or even the recipient of a solid hug. The bone would literally snap!

Outside Breathing There is Little in Common

Barely a metre apart, the second skeleton and skull is as different in every respect as could possibly be imagined, and then some. That they were buried in such close proximity is yet another unusual feature in this evolving mystery. Obviously not of the same genes and physiology, the idea that two such divergent people were buried beside each other is another rare to unknown aspect of this whole arrangement that transcends so many boundaries. Equally that two beings so diverse in so many ways were given identical funerary ceremonies and methods of interment only adds to the unique nature of what has been unearthed.

It may be that this is the skull the blade hit when first clearing the land, or another example of poor field work and a disregard for culture, we have no information as yet to add clarity to the cause, but either way the effect was that the skull and face are shattered and the largest piece left to examine is what amounts to be about two-thirds of the skull cap. Virtually following the same sequence to the burial close by, the order of removal was skull cap, mandible and dozens of facial bones, a leg bone then arm.

The skull cap has a thicker ridge above the eyes and is 12.5 cms wide, 17.5 cms long and has a maximum cranial length of 19 cms with a much thicker bone in the casing of up to 1.3 cms. It also slopes back at a considerable angle, but not as severely as the other skull. At the back of the skull is yet another irregularity, in the form of what looks like a one centimetre square knob of bone. At first glance, if reliant upon timing that has to be short before an extremely obvious omission overwhelms the scenery, it seems to have the classic appearance of a robust skull.

Above and beyond the apparent similarities there is one unprecedented leave of absence, the crucial central sagittal suture that invariably runs across the skull is not there, and nor are the other two sutures accounted for. This skull has no sutures whatsoever, and that is unheard of and runs counter to a central tenet of human development. One of the fundamental separations in the supposed road between apes and hominids relates to the fact that hominids have a skull consisting of three separate plates that slowly fuse together after birth, this supplies an elasticity and capacity for the cranium to expand. The gradual merging of three plates explains why the general species of hominids can encompass brain sizes of 400 to 1400 ccs over the last five million years, so say the experts. The same academics point to the fact that all great apes and possibly one primitive cross-over species have a sagittal keel which runs like a solid crest along the same alignment as the sagittal suture. The suture allows expansion while the keel denies any movement upwards or any other direction, the skull size is permanently fused.

That is the rule, well it was but this skull runs in the opposite direction and is certainly not related to the apes as there is no keel, yet nor is there any sutures so the question still remains, what species is this that logically can be neither of the supposed only two earthly options? That inference may seem a touch radical, but this lack of suturing is an elemental omission and should not be thrown back into the dirt, that is appalling science and grossly disrespectful.

The size of the eyes can be determined, but only after all the shattered remains are collected and assembled by experts in such matters. The same can be said for the rest of the face, the many small components that have been disassembled can be reconnected.

A Tooth in Time Through Three Tangents

My apologies for weakening through pandering to my addiction for tacky alliteration, but the tooth given to me by Michael after receiving the Elders permission and is too important to be passed over as another minor appendage to the skull and needed a banner.

This tooth and many others on site have three roots and after some extensive research by the ladies in our group the closest equivalent in measurement and presentation is to a tooth recently found in China. Despite a serious shortage of accompanying facial bones the researchers are confident that date of between 100,000 to 120,000 years is applicable. Where it does become controversial is their claim that this individual had a massive brain size, far bigger than any Homo sapiens sapien, of 1,800 ccs.

The tooth measures from corner to tip 2.45 cms with a width of 1.55 cms, every tooth still attached to this mandible is evenly worn with no sign of dental decay. Of course even today there are isolated incidences of back teeth with three roots, but not in this configuration with the single root curving quite dramatically to the right. In providing the extra room for each tooth with such a wide base for the roots to attach, necessitates a much thicker and wider mandible (jaw).

Cobbling Together a big Picture

What is not so much an afterthought, but the beginning of the search for deeper truths could be the appearance of a lot of grey fur in this grave. There is no pelt as such, but the fur looks a lot like those on the coat of a grey kangaroo. As to why it is there, it could be that because that coat is often worn by Law-men, and since the burial is obviously the result of much respect and planning, it is possible this person was also a Law-man. With another sacred ceremony involving tooth avulsion taking place a metre away, this is not a huge stretch in complementing a national reverence for all things mystical.

That this is a sacred site, is undeniable, and it is highly likely there are more bones and beings interred further along the same slope. What did originally not make a lot of sense was the positioning of this burial site, found in the middle of the paddock at least two hundred metres from the major river of the area didn’t resonate as an appropriate position for such an important person/being. An imposing tree, on top of a mountain or on the slope beside the riverbank overlooking permanent flowing water are all much better options than a slight rise on a featureless flat plain.

However, that is today’s thinking which rarely applies to ancient days. Particularly those of 30,000 years ago when a massive shift in the surrounding countryside was caused by the Caddell Fault, before that shift the river was actually just below where these graves are today. Under those ancient conditions any burial before 30,000 years makes sense, and supplies a fairly reliable minimum age for both skeletons and skulls along with those yet to be examined.

The Current State of Play

What has been seen, briefly investigated, photographed and filmed are two ancient Australian hominids/beings that are completely different, have never been seen before and were found buried alongside each other. They demand that a completely new version of humanity’s past be acknowledged with many new additions required that can be summarised in one rather lengthy, verging on awkward, sentence.

Found in South-East Australia is a very thick cranium that recedes backwards 18 cms but is lacking in any of the three sutures all hominins share, many teeth with three roots, two eye sockets that occupy close to 50% of a face that has a 1.5 centimetre forehead, arms so long and thin that the fingers almost touch the ground without bending down, a skull case that slopes back at nearly 180 degrees, a very intriguing large indentation just above an eye-brow ridge, and to top all of this off although completely different beings, they were buried next to each other over 30,000 years ago.

Past these facts and bone solid hard truths it becomes more pliable. One avenue we intend to pursue is the possibility that so extreme are the features of these two skulls and skeletons it is feasible that they are not only the ancestors of all Original people, but the ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ whose genetics lead to the emergence of a new hominin strand that spread throughout the planet: Homo sapiens sapien.

As radical as this may sound it actually isn’t our idea, but that of Professor Rebecca Cann. Cann, along with Professor Alan Wilson, presented a seminal paper validating the Out-of-Africa theory thirty-five years ago. Both realised they were wrong in geography and that Australia was the correct birthplace, but it was Cann who initiated this the reversal through further independent research comparing genetic samples “of 112 humans, including twelve Australian Aborigines.”(2) Her analysis put “the origin of Homo sapiens much further back and indicates that the Australian Aborigines arose 400,000 years ago from two from two distinct lineages, far earlier than any other racial type.”(3) In the model provided she highlighted “Gracile Australians”(4) and “Robust Australians”(5) as the two groups she felt spawned the entire human race.

What has been found in a sandy dry mound are two ancient Australians of “two distinct lineages.”(6) What if a small piece of bone had its mtDNA analysed and turned out to be what Cann suggested as one or both sets of Australian genes from which all races evolved? Surely that result, or any other, is pivotal in what follows next? Why not call on science to adjudicate, at present one group wants the skulls hidden and neglected, the other group insists that transparency and science is the right path to travel. At the moment the cone of silence reigns supreme, but that has to change and it has to happen now. Tomorrow is too late.

# The five minute film/trailer featuring these skulls and bones compiled by David Bradbury, will be premiered at a public protest meeting fighting for the Standing Stones Complex to be returned to Original control at the Mullumbimby Hall December 12th, 7-10:30 pm.

References:

Special Thanks to Rhian Taylor for some of the Photos

(1) Professor X, 2017, Personal Communication.

(2) Robert Lawlor, 1991, “Voices of the First Day”, (Inner Traditions International, Ltd: Rocherst, Vermont), 26.

(3)-(6) Ibid.