The Dolichocephaloids
Missing Race Of Our Human Family

by Randy Koppang

Evidence outlined below indicates a distinct "race" of people becoming extinct during our Christian era. The "link" this race may represent is not to a pre-human evolutionary lineage, but rather an antediluvian cycle of civilization. The genetic trait distinguishing them was their anomalously-dolichocephalic heads; i.e., remarkably elongated. A full understanding of who they were is not clear. Yet, in recent years a few researchers have re-discovered the wealth of facts known about their existence. More definitive information and correlations about these people are offered here.

From Museo De National. Lima, Peru

In academic terms, the logical context for these facts is the dogmatic quest for our evolutionary "missing link" with biological origins. However, the word academic, in one sense, is defined as "theoretical rather than practical." Thus, the premise here is that academic authorizations re. Homo sapiens skeletons are still entirely theoretical. Whereas, it is just as valid, and more practical, to evaluate origins via anomalous physical evidence of a people who may not fit into evolutionary preconceptions. The quantity of this evidence is substantial, not dubiously rare.

Doubting "evolution" is heretical, of course. Moods of consternation are provoked among elite academicians when amateurs revise history. All the more reason for culture jammers everywhere to reconnect histories we thought we knew with forbidden facts censored by omission. There are plenty of facts "disappeared" from public knowledge in this way. And if histories were retrofitted with such omissions - transcendent, alternative perceptions of humanity may accrue ...

The Facts
My introduction to this issue was due to research by David Hatcher Childress,¹ Adriano Forgione² and Andrew Collins.³ Taking their publication references to a major research university, I found much more can now be said about the people in question, a "people" distributed around the archaic world.

D.H. Childress humorously calls them "coneheads." This accurately depicts the cranial trait so distinctly differentiating these people. And although conehead is an endearing sobriquet from Saturday Night Live - this mystery group is in no way fictional! Meaning, in the skeptical sense, perhaps the elongated heads were misshapen due to "deformity." In fact, the recurring explanation for the oddly shaped heads, by archeologists, is attributed to deformity. Such an explanation is presumed due to cultural clues. E.G., there are numerous New and Old World tribes with traditions of self-inflicted head molding. Skull elongation can be done by infant head-binding, pressuring skull bones to grow into shape. But revised evidence indicates cosmetic deformity is an artifact of a more complex set of influences.

Another skeptical explanation for distended heads is possibly disease. The osteopathic term dolichocephaly (long cranium), is used to describe symptoms. A disorder called Marfan's Syndrome is one in which resulting symptoms include elongated, deformed body parts. This is caused by congenital traits, and possibly cystathionine synthase protein deficiency.

Clearly, the contribution here is: to affirm the reality of genetically natural, but unusual dolichocephaly, now extinct. Yet, as stated, there are native cultural traditions of head-binding for elongation. We will return to this and other cultural questions later ...

The Best Evidence
Evidence validating the existence of a natural but pronounced dolichocephalic race is a book titled Peruvian Antiquities. First published in 1851, this comprehensive study was co-authored by Mariano E. Rivero and John James Von Tschudi, M.D.

Dr. Von Tschudi was a "doctor in philosophy, medicine and surgery, etc., etc., and a member of various societies of medicine" - credentials being crucial to what Dr. Tschudi reports: "The singular conformation of the Peruvian crania" found in what appeared to be two of the "three distinct races (who) dwelt there before the foundation of the kingdom of the Incas."

Anticipating comparable discoveries in Iraq 100 years later, Dr. Tschudi's book is a revelation. And at the beginning of his chapter two, a disclaimer re. biases is made: "...an historian ... is under a strict obligation not to permit himself to be carried away by any prejudice, to make a wise and impartial use of his materials, to seek sincerely for the truth, and when found, to admit it without hesitation, even though it may tend to dissipate opinions entertained from infancy and sanctioned by universal reception." Dr. Tschudi, indeed, met his obligation as a scientist, here!

The paradox in Tschudi's anthropology was that he thought he contradicted the first chapters of Genesis. Today, correlations of his work to later discoveries actually contradict "evolution." What the dolichocephalic-racial evidence suggests is an antediluvian source for this variety of racial diversity. Indicating this origin is their general scarcity in numbers, plus their consistent priestly station, associated with both New and Old World settings for their disinterment. And, more importantly, the association or access this race had with pre-existent knowledge for many forms of high-Peruvian civilization. On purely biological terms - the cranial details, as Tschudi recognized them, feature "an anomalous characteristic of ruminant and carnivorous animals," not pre-human primates!

The three pre-Incan "nations or races" Tschudi names are the Chinchas, Aymaraes, and Huancas. With osteopathic precision, Dr. Tschudi illustrated clear structural differences between these three "nations"; each one was comprised of sub-tribes. Obvious differences were based on "numerous and scrupulously careful observations of Dr. J.J. Von Tschudi, who from his long residence in Peru, had it in his power to examine hundreds of crania of the ancient inhabitants of that country."

Skulls of the Chinchas were what we would call normally human. The other two "races" were remarkably unlike the Chinchas. The Huancas had the most pronounced dolichocephalic traits. And it was this people about which Tschudi had the least amount of historical data. The Aymaraes "commenced the dynasty of the Incas." Of the Aymaraes, Tschudi said, "The crania of these people present differences equally remarkable ... and particularly the contour of the cranium." Keeping in mind that Inca is a term venerating the emperors of Peru, not a tribe/nation per sé - the Aymaraes conquered the other two peoples and marshaled the unity of Inca civilization, not unlike requisite unification of early Upper/Lower Egypt. Similarly, this unity ultimately led to racial mixing. However, similar skull formations does suggest the Aymaraes and Huancas were genetically linked already, perhaps.

In any case, Dr. Tschudi condensed these discoveries into two questions, as crucial to human origins today as they were in 1851:
1. "What was the cranial configuration of the ... real Indians?
2. Can there be found anywhere, now existing, the races above named, pure and without any mixture?"

In reverse order Tschudi answers these questions, after "the most scrupulous investigations on these points": (1) Yes. A few pure Indians did then exist. But, largely, the Peruvian natives "proceed from the union of the three races already described." (2) The crania shape of the earliest "real Indians" is the most important question. Why? Because there was a controversy over the cause of the cranial peculiarities among physiologists in the 1840s! Peruvian "coneheads" were deemed "anomalous," but due to "exclusively artificial" head-binding: "It (was) notorious enough that such a practice did obtain among various ... New World peoples; and that it existed among the (Peruvian) Chinchas for the sake of producing distinctive marks in families; an abuse which was forbidden by an apostolic bull in the 16th century." Interesting!

So - of the three "races" discussed, the non-dolicho-headed group, the Chinchas, artificially mimed the actual "conehead" peoples. But why? And inductive reasoning would suggest: additional New World tribes practicing head-binding were miming the true longheads as well?

The Aymaraes had what may be classified as intermediate dolichocephaly. The Huancas possessed the more distinct crania. To be sure, Dr. Tschudi offers, "... physiologists are undoubtedly in error, who suppose (dolichocephaly in) the Peruvian race (is) exclusively artificial. This hypothesis rests on insufficient grounds; its authors could have made their observations solely on the crania of adult(s) ... (however) two mummies of children (analyzed in England) ... belonged to the tribe Aymaraes. The two crania (both of children scarce a year old), had in all respects, the same form as those of adults. We ourselves have observed the same fact in many mummies of children of tender age ..."

"More still: the same formation of the head presents itself in children yet unborn; and of this truth we have had convincing proof in sight of a foetus enclosed in the womb of a mummy of a pregnant woman, ... which is, at this moment, in our collection." The foetus was aged 7 months!

It is significant to note - Dr. Von Tschudi was very "scrupulous" both in his own study, and his peer reviewing others when determining that no confirmed skulls of the famed emperors themselves - the Incas - had ever been unearthed. Tschudi said, "the general opinion is that the Incas descended directly from Manco-capac. All traditions relate this person (being) distinguished from the natives by his physiogamy, and clear color of his complexion ... Our minute and recent investigations go to prove that the Incas do not derive their origin from (Manco-capac), but from a native family established in the royal dignity by the stranger reformer," Manco-capac. Thus, if nothing else, the dolichocephalic skulls, and various traditions representing the Incas contradict anthropological theories that the Americas were originally settled by only Asians. But Asians don't have anomalous dolichocephaly!? (E.g., the Clovis Point Theory.)

Peruvian Mummified Fetus, c. 1851

As an aside - the L.A. Times of 25 July 2003 validates the Gestalt of revisionism here: "New Archeological Dating Shakes Early American Migration Theory."

The article reports five most-ancient habitation sites of earliest Americans are up to "4,000 years" older than a likely Siberian site from which they may have migrated. Uski, Siberia, radiocarbon dated at 13,000 B.P., is where the first Americans theoretically originated. The journal Science featured this research, in which co-author Michael Waters says, "We have to think bigger now and start thinking outside the box."

Likewise, mentioning the Inca Dynasty here emphasizes racial anomalies, distinguishing between Manco-capac's race and dolicho-headed descendent Incas. Native traditions describing Manco-capac and his relatives say this first Inca was non-Indian. Consistent with Dr. Tschudi's data is a more recently revisionist account of "thinking outside the box."

In America's Ancient Civilizations (1953), author A. Hyatt Verrill described the Incas as "fair skinned, tall ... and had red or brown hair." Verrill adds, "There is no question that they were of a different and in some ways more intelligent race." Whomever the first Inca was, he was not the first civilizer of Peru. Manco-capac was a reformer who rejuvenated a decadent civilization preceding his arrival. About the Peruvian region, Dr. Tschudi observed, "It is not to be questioned that there existed in Peru, previous to (Manco-capac), a certain degree of culture" ...

Forensic Mockups from Museo De National. Lima, Peru.

In America's Ancient Civilizations (1953), author A. Hyatt Verrill described the Incas as "fair skinned, tall ... and had red or brown hair." Verrill adds, "There is no question that they were of a different and in some ways more intelligent race." Whomever the first Inca was, he was not the first civilizer of Peru. Manco-capac was a reformer who rejuvenated a decadent civilization preceding his arrival. About the Peruvian region, Dr. Tschudi observed, "It is not to be questioned that there existed in Peru, previous to (Manco-capac), a certain degree of culture" ... A.H. Verrill reiterates, "Beyond any doubt this first Inca found Cuzco an inhabited city, for ... there is abundant and incontrovertible evidence to prove that for many centuries before ... Manko-kapak, the Andean region had been occupied by a highly civilized race." Yes, but which race preceded Manco-capac? And if his own non-native race was not the preceding race, nor the Aymaraes, who Manco-capac may have ordained as his royal surrogates - well, all this makes Dr. Tschudi's anomalous dolichohead-race a lot more mysterious.

The Plot Thickens
The oldest pre-Incan city of this region is Tiahuanco, just over the Peruvian border in Bolivia. Re. the age of Tiahuanco - A.H. Verrill quotes archeo-astronomical computations by Prof. Arthur Posnansky.⁴ Posnansky and others calculated Tiahuanaco was at least the age of pre-dynastic Egypt. Verill also notes, "The extremely great age of (Tiahuanaco) ruins is proved by the discovery of human skulls (there) that have been completely fossilized," now in the La Paz Museum.
A.H. Verrill does not acknowledge the shape of Tiahuanaco skulls. But, in D.H. Childress' article on this topic, he features two good photos of "conehead" skulls recovered at Tiahuanaco. They are displayed in the Tiahuanaco Museum.

Remarkably, the greatest resource for these odd skulls is the Peruvian region. In a chapter titled "Mining For Mummies," Verrill exclaims how resourceful this region is: In Peru, "... most parts of ... the country is one vast cemetery."

"From Ecuador to Chile ... there is scarcely a square mile (not) filled with dead ... so vast was the number of dead buried in Peru that despite all that have been disinterred practically no impression has been made, and what is more, scientists are constantly finding mummies and remains of hitherto unknown races and cultures." (!!) This genetic insight is internally consistent with Von Tschudi's anomalous dolicho-race conclusions. Verill independently confirms, 100 years later, Tschudi's possible claim of examining "hundreds" of ancient Peruvian crania.

Comprehensively, David H. Childress has presented numerous color photos of the many strangely dolichocephalic skulls⁵ exhibited in museums at Ica and Nazca, Peru; Tiahuanaco and La Paz, Bolivia; Mexico City.

Ironically, none of the skulls unearthed represent the royal Incas themselves. With "nearly six years" of on-site excavation experience, Verrill reported, "no one, as far as known, had ever found one of them ... Why no one had ever found a royal mummy was something of a mystery."

In A.H. Verrill's chapter on excavating Peru as one vast cemetery, not once did he allude to long-headed mummies specifically. His book was published in 1953. In 1954, however, a Peruvian book photographically illustrated just how common the longheads are in the region. This book is, "Las Trepanaciones Craneanas En El Perú En La Epoca pre-Hispanica." It was written, in Spanish, by two professors of medicine at the university in Lima, Peru.⁶ The subject of this treatise is the medical anthropology of ancient skull surgery: i.e., trepanning. By default, this book provides great affirmative insights into the populous commonality of pronounced dolichocephaly.

Using both photographs and x-ray imaging, Las Trepanaciones shows how routinely trepanning was performed on the Dolicho-races, and others. The chronological distribution of trepanning specimens discussed here spanned from about 1000 B.C. through 1532 AD. Quite an ancient epoch, for such a modern idea. Given postmodern preoccupations with the Human Genome Project - the above begs the question re. recessive dolichocephalic genes in Peruvians today. Genetic research in America shows humans have been there at least 20,000 years. But from where and how old are the dolicho-race?

Before pursuing Mesopotamian evidence, a few correlations about Mexican dolichocephaly. D.H. Childress extensively illustrates the invaluable media of Mesoamerican art forms for documenting the prominence of dolichoheaded peoples there. Frescoes, reliefs and finely carved sculptures call attention to the inter-cultural prominence of the phenomenon; notably in Mexico and Central America.

Childress presents a wealth of dolichocephalic iconography. These multicultural artifacts, however, seem like simply stylistic novelties. They lack authoritative reality reference, affording their anatomical uniqueness. Anthropological writers minimize even head-binding as explaining such imagery.

The working hypothesis of Childress' overview is the same one prevailing in the 1840s: longheads are intentionally "deformed" via head-binding. And, yes, cross-cultural head-binding - like Chinese foot binding - was somewhat common. Thus, how was the transoceanic/transnational "diffusion" of the practice achieved?

A problem is presuming an ephemeral (mysterious) cosmetic value warrants wrenching an infant's head in a vice for many formative months. This explanation is a bit lacking for inspiring head-binding. Also, with hindsight, mere cosmetic head-binding doesn't seem to explain the apparent cross-cultural popularity the combined multi-cultural evidence will suggest.

Fortunately, we have the professional assurances of an actual racial model for the custom, by Dr. J.J. Von Tschudi, M.D. He authoritatively reported that not only did he possess a mummified 7-month-old dolichocephalic fetus - "enclosed in the womb" - he also declared: "The same proof is to be found in another mummy which exists in the museum of Lima, under the direction of Don M.E. Rivero," co-author of Tschudi's book! The question is - where are these fetal specimens today? Skeletal remains of an anomalous dolicho-race offer a real possibility that exalted racial personages inspired head-binding. This makes sense!

With Tschudi's facts, the iconographic essence of dolichohead art actually becomes genetically symbolic. Once your discernment acclimates to the cranial contours of the skull evidence, the Mayan canon of imagery enlivens with practicality and physiological authenticity; not to mention reverential symbolism, as opposed to cosmetic contrivance. Now, there is an explanatory option with greater common sense. If dolichocephalic races were in Peru long before the Maya, they could have influenced Mesoamerican territory. Instead of skin color being a determining factor in racial diversity, perhaps in ancient times the quality or class of dolichocephaly was a factor?

An enigma in this regard involves the Olmec peoples of Mexico. D.H. Childress' article features an impressive set of jade figurines, all with striking dolichocephaly. These were attributed to the Olmec, most being found in the Olmec center of La Venta. If the figurines represent the Olmec "perceptions of self," they are an enigma because current Afro-centric historians insist the Olmecs were Africoid. This is plausible. The most monolithic of Olmec anthropomorphic sculptures are their 20-50 ton stone heads. And these heads do look negroid - but they are also irreconcilably round; not dolichocephalic, but bracheocephalic! Renowned Maya scholar Michael D. Coe - who excavated Olmec ruins for three seasons - says, the mega-heads are "portraits of their rulers." This may be, but Olmec people were proto-Mayan, going back to 1200 B.C.. If Olmec jade figurines reflect their genetic or mimetic heritage - where else can we find the longheads inspiring Olmec artificial dolichocephaly; certainly not their rulers whose mega-head "portraits" contradict the numerous Olmec conehead figurines.

Old World Discoveries
Italian writer Adriano Forgione has provided a great service by investigating Mediterranean dolichocephaly.⁷ Evidence Forgione revived derives from archeology in Malta. Preliminary racial estimations, here secured by Forgione, are second only to the same observed in Peru, i.e., the conclusions of Peruvian/New World racial implications by Dr. Von Tschudi.

Discoveries in Maltese temple-tombs at Taxien, Ggantja and Hal Saflieni pose challenges to evolutionary reasoning of "racial" diffusion. The confutation is every bit as penetrating as those demanded by Peruvian data. The pattern of a global dolicho-race presence, itself, seems to be yet another dolichocephalous anomaly. And culturally, the "oldest city in the Americas," is "a massive 4,600-year-old urban center called Caral" in Peru (L.A. Times, 27 April 2001).

As in Peru, Maltese excavations have yielded three classes of skull anomalies:
1. The highly pronounced elongation; i.e., an "above all, strange, lengthened skull, bigger and more peculiar than the others, lacking of the median knitting,"⁸ or suture, linking bones in the roof of the skull.
2. Skulls which were more "natural" appearing, yet, "still presented pronounced, natural dolichocephalous" shapes "distinctive of an actual race."⁹ And

From Museo Regional De Ankash. Huaraz, Peru.

3. A significant proportion of "7,000 skeletons dug out of the Hal Saflieni Hypogeum" (subterranean tomb-cellar), exhibiting "artificially performed deformities."10 If "an actual race" can be established in Malta - what was the compelling incentive for non-longhead races to mimic true Maltese longheads? Are the role-models in Peru and Malta the same?

Maltese Dolichorace Possible
The reading of books about the Maltese discoveries inspired A. Forgione in his research. The authors are Maltese doctors named Dr. Anton Mifsud and Dr. Charles Savona Ventura. Forgione went to Malta, and these doctors helped him confirm details of Maltese dolichocephaly. Also, Forgione names two "Maltese archeologists" who affirmed racial implications to him. Archeologists Mark Anthony Mifsud and Anthony Buonanno say, "They are another race although C-14 or DNA exams haven't yet been performed."

Mark Anthony Mifsud is reportedly a museum archeologist at the Maltese Archeological Museum of the Valletta. This is where Maltese dolicho-skulls were housed. Forgione reports that in 1985, this museum removed the remarkable specimens from public display? Were the dolicho-racial implications an anathema to Maltese Christians?

The approximately dated origin for Maltese skulls is c. 2500 B.C.. And, religio-cultural history of Malta is generally accepted among scholars. So, a reasonably estimated age can be deduced for these skulls. This dating era is at least just prior to the occupation of Malta by Phoenicians.

The Maltese skulls were mostly found interred in temple-tombs of goddess worship. The in-house proximity between temples and skulls, circumstantially implies direct links between sacred mystery cults and this possible dolicho-head race. These Mother Goddess temples "were built by villagers living in a genuinely Neolithic (late Stone Age) cultural stage."¹¹ Maltese temples and tombs were megalithic evidence that they "were in part inspired from the centers of civilization" off the islands.¹²

Thus, we have another developmental correlation: a relationship between a possible elite dolichocephalous race, and megalithic building skills, during an earliest historical epoch. Of course, it's no coincidence that Malta is nearby the heartland of the oldest, most mega-lithic of all stone work, Baalbek; and is also near to the Edenic Genesis point of the oldest civilizations - Sumer/Akkad (Iraq).

The question is, do we find proto-historic dolicho-head peoples in Iraq? Yes, we do!

The Heartland Skulls
Six kilometers east of Mosul, in northern Iraq, is the ancient site of Tell Arpachiyah. In 1933, Max Mallowan excavated numerous graves of two neolithic cultures: the Halaf and al'Ubaid. "These date from approximately 4600 B.C and 4300 B.C, respectively."¹³ Coincidentally, A. Forgione quotes the megalithic goddess culture epoch of Maltese skulls at 4100 B.C.-2500 B.C..

Evaluations published on Mallowan's excavations report discovery of skulls having a "marked degree of deliberate, artificial deformation." The resulting cranial effects were to create "an elongated skull."¹⁴ No coincidence here!

If there is one revelation I've found re. the preeminent cultural pattern of anomalous human head-formation - it is that none of this is at all new. Even to the extent of finding scientific correlations between iconographic images of dolicho-heads on both pottery and "serpentine" goddess figurines. Current revisionists emphasize this correlation, but they did not originate it. Adriano Forgione's working hypothesis contends meaning of head-binding via serpent symbolism of goddess cult priestess/priest emulation. Likewise, in the monograph cited here,¹⁵ a similar proposition is made, "... that skull deformation was being used to demarcate a particular elite group, either social or functional," the elite group being a priestly caste.

Mellowan's assessment also says, "A high frequency of genetically determined (skull) traits raises the possibility that the (skulls) represent the remains of an inbred group." Although, there is no supposition re. skull elongation being anything other than artificial. So, this is why revisionism should push the envelope of inadequate paradigms of thought and history, with broader realms of possibility.

The monograph on Mallowan's recoveries16 remarks, "Skull deformation at Arpachiyah appears, on current (1995) knowledge, striking ... Skull deformation seems to occur with regularity at other sites of this general period over a very wide area."17 In fact, this report acknowledges elongated "deformation" of the head as "widely practiced in the eastern Mediterranean region"! Specimens of the anomaly have been "recovered from Jericho, Chalcolithic Byblos, Ganj Dareh, and Ali Kesh." Indeed, it was so "widely practiced" that it was an aged tradition in the three oldest or most architecturally advanced centers of early civilization: Mesopotamia, Peru and Mesoamerica. Given that the phenomenon is "widely practiced," in the Peruvian region also - the actual anomaly is that it's not an anomaly! Even greater antiquity has been assigned to dolicho-anomalies at Neolithic-Cyprus, Kow Swamp, Australia (13,000 B.P.), "and perhaps 18000-23000 B.P. at Chou Kou Tien, China."18 The Halaf and Ubaid peoples occupied Arpachiyah successively. The Halaf period was c. "5200 B.C. to 4500 B.C"; the Ubaid period c. "4400 B.C.-4200 B.C" To this degree, Mallowan's excavations "were almost exclusively prehistoric." The Halaf people most prominently influenced the northern Euphrates Valley; the al'Ubaid were "who first settled the Euphrates delta lands," far to the south. From these two was conceived the epoch of Sumer, and the earliest advanced forms of civilized achievements.

Sow Sing Gung Chinese gods of Longevity & Wisdom

All this is a backdrop of origination in which to perceive formative roles played out by longhead peoples? In "the eleventh chapter of Genesis ... the significant feature is the tradition which thus ascribed to the Euphrates Valley the distinction of once harboring all mankind in addition to being a cradle of the human race."¹⁹ A still raging conjecture re. the "cradle" of humanity is not a point of departure - it's the issue of globally archaic dolichocephaly, in racial and artificial forms, in a nutshell. I.e., by tracing evidence back to prehistoric times - how could the global patterns, or traditions, of headbinding practice become as inter-culturally diffused as they are? Is it because a racial role model - or archetype - was simultaneously pre-existent in all parts of the world where the cranial-mimetics became traditions? Is it also suggestive of a contradiction to evolutionary principles of physiologically adaptive mutation for survival of the species? Appreciation of this question is obvious upon seeing how irregular a case of anomalous dolichocephaly is when viewed; how much of a handicap such a head would present the individual born with it.

After close analysis of the dolicho-skulls found at Arpachiyah, a plausible genetic relationship was determined. This genetic evidence is not as provocative as racial conclusions drawn in Peru; nor the professional hypothesis of a racial presence in Malta. Yet, in its own way, genetic possibilities at Arpachiyah may be just as important overall. Here, "the practice has considerable potential for elitism."²⁰

First, the recoveries of "deformed" dolicho-head specimens tend to be female throughout the Euphrates Valley region and neighboring lands. But, "At Arpachiyah it involves females and males of an apparently inbred lineage that spans the Halaf-Ubaid," both.²¹ The evidence for this overlapping inbred relationship, between the two peoples, is a congenital dental pattern. I.e., hypodontia: "The congenital absence of third molars," plus "particularly small (reduced) incisors or pre-molars."²²

Figurines from Ur, c. 3200 BC.

Realizing that the historical record in the art of Sumerian Ur, illustrates the general labouring public bearing burdens on their heads - having an intentionally deformed cone-head condition would be a counterproductive handicap. Cosmetically, heads so shaped would secure a signifying look, symbolic of role distinctions and (elite) class. The Malta case corresponds with this perspective. Temple-tomb recoveries in Malta are an ideal setting for emphasizing the inductive logic of such longhead symbolism. A cult-authority symbolism, ascribed to artificial dolichocephaly by practitioners, would seem existentially vital, only by being symbolic per sé. Also, when comparing drawings/photos of Mallowan's Halaf/Ubaid skulls with drawings/engravings of Von Tschudi's Aymaraes skulls, the two sets appear to possess contours of relationship. And the Aymaraes were sacerdotally ordained successors to the first Inka, as the Inka aristocracy. The correlations are many.

The evidence for tribal inbreeding at Arpachiyah, thus suggests the "skulls represent members of a hereditary group or class - priests ... or princes might be considered."²³ The possibly votive figurines with elongated-serpentine heads, found in graves of this period, may also symbolize goddess-cult based motivations for headbinding.

At this point in the discussion, cross-cultural facts are mutually self-referential. Imagistic reinforcement of the recognition that actual peoples with elongated or pointed heads were a reality, for a few thousand years, is clear. The effect is a perceptual shift in historical awareness. This sheds a whole new light on arts of this period. It mitigates against the anthropological habit of labeling unrecognizable imagery as mythic. And it would, otherwise, be a misplaced coincidence how consistently a heightened awareness of dolichocephalic imagery applies to both Old and New World culture styles, as noted above re. Mayan art.

In the case of Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian art history, the illustrated figures with dissimilar heads assume greater contrast. Especially noticeable are Sumerian statuary and relief carvings, because Sumerians themselves clearly rendered themselves as diminutive, with very round heads. Yet, certain memorialized figures of prominence consistently wear pointed or conical-erect headgear, while in pottery and figurines there are clearly cone-headed images.

The Egyptian Paradox
Correlating dolicho-art from various ancient cultures literally "comes to a head" when we lastly address the Egyptian record (prehistorically known as KMT, or Khemet). If arts are the media-of-record, re. iconic/archetypal dolicho-head symbology - nowhere is the anomalously dolichocephalous image so literally and mystifyingly controversial as it was in Egypitan art history!

Queen Tety-shery, Mother of King Seqenen-ra, 17th Dynasty, Egypt.

The above culture-sets of facts culminate in a paradox of sorts with Egyptian data. In terms of quantity and quality, the best skeletal evidence for an anomalously dolicho-headed race are skulls found in Peru; the best art rendering of same (e.g., sculpture) is from the Amarna Age of Egypt! Even if Egypt's contribution is but artificially symbolic, toward rendering a global pattern of dolichocephalous anomaly, in cultural development - the degree of artifice is revolutionary. Previously, two revisionist authors have made good hypothetical cases for a possible dolicho-racial presence in ancient Egypt. The two authors are Adriano Forgione (quoted above), and Andrew Collins.24 Both researchers primarily base their theses on the professional archeology of Walter Emery. Emery did original grave excavations of predynastic/early dynastic Upper Egypt, c. 3500-3100 B.C..

Collins and Forgione both quote a salient passage from Emery's book Archaic Egypt. They interpret Emery as qualifying a possible dolichocephalous foreign race influencing Egyptian development. The problem is - Emery does not actually define his anomalous or alien skeletal discoveries in terms required here. What Emery records is his perception of a non-native race, a race "whose skulls were of a greater size and whose bodies were larger than those of the natives."²⁵

Walter Emery's eminent candor is invaluable for understanding racial diversity in Egyptian development. Yet, current revisionist views - as Dr. G. Elliot Smith put it - may "have been led into error by the imperfections in their knowledge of the contents of Predynastic graves."²⁶ The "contents" Smith refers to are what he terms "Proto-Egyptian." Smith and Emery both agreed that clearly non-native peoples fused with native Egyptians in the formative period. The two men drew different views, however. And neither of them reported definitively anomalous dolicho-headed Egyptians - racial or artificial - as reported in Peru or Malta, etc.

G. Elliot Smith was an anatomist doctor, who authored the book The Ancient Egyptians (1923). Smith's "information concerning these earliest inhabitants of the Nile Valley has been acquired from the study of the contents of many thousands of graves." He performed his study between 1901-1908, mostly under direction of Dr. G.A. Reisner. Smith focused on the period 2800-1500 B.C., though Smith said his study at Naga-ed-der was an "extraordinary" resource of skeletons "for the reconstruction of the racial history of one spot during more than 45 centuries."

The bottom line in Smith's clinical second opinion, is that Egyptian cranial variation derives from integrated indigenous heterogeneity of "affiliated peoples." He admits, it's "puzzling" to confront an obvious "paradoxical" picture that bones present. And Smith reports of equivalent evidence, as Emery found later: of "remains examined in Upper Egypt ... a few ... I definitely labeled 'alien' ... and a considerable number in which the head was bigger ... broader, the features finer and the skeletons generally more robust."²⁷

Dr. Smith defines the "alien traits" with osteopathic detail, as Dr. Von Tschudi does in Peru. Smith notes, "cranial form is one of far reaching importance." But he concludes, the "aliens who began to make their way into the Delta from Palestine and Syria about fifty centuries ago all conform to the same racial type, known as ... Armenoid"; not Mediterranean, but from Asia Minor.

After "nine years experience in the Anatomical Department of the School of Medicine in Cairo (Smith had) ... no doubt" the proto-Egyptian was of what he named the "Brown Race"; a non-Negro, non-Semitic race who integrated with these two.

Contrasting Walter Emery, Smith does say, "The people of Upper Egypt were still dolichocephalic at the time of the earliest pyramid-builders; but the inhabitants of Lower Egypt had become mesaticephalic," i.e., their skulls were moderately broadened/shortened. Here, Smith uses "dolichochephalic" in the most general/osteopathic manner - not to confuse Smith's meaning with Dr. Von Tschudi's connotation.

The possibility of applying Smith's dolicho-"Proto-Egyptian" (c. 3400 B.C.) as an inductive clarifier for explaining the following cultural anomaly, I leave to the reader ...

Here, the Egyptian evidence for cross-cultural continuity, re: an anomalously-dolichocephalic race, becomes even more paradoxical because it manifests in art - not mummies. I refer here to the classically dolicho-anomalous sculptures of Pharaoh Akhenaten, his family, and others.

Akhenaten (1378 B.C.) is a major revolutionary figure in both ancient religio-history and art history. I culminate the foregoing pattern of racial/cultural evidence with Akhenaten's imagistic legacy.

One of Akhenaten's daughters.

Akhenaten, and especially his daughters, were memorialized in sculpted-stone as being inexplicably or anomalously dolichocephalous. Ironically, a revolution in Egyptian art, towards more adept realism, was decreed/inspired by Akhenaten. Thus, there was a controversy about the reasoning in how he and his family are portrayed: given the topical evidence here, the Amarna stone portraits are too good to be true. If the goal of Akhenaten's art policy was greater realism, Egyptologists can't reconcile the peculiar way they were sculpted. As described in The Amarna Age by Rev. James Baikie, "The heads are ... of Akhenaten ... (and) statuettes of Queen Nefertiti, of extraordinary realism ... the princesses, of astonishing charm ... the art of the Armana Age ... unfortunately ... the whole school ... has been prejudiced by one unlucky peculiarity ... due to Akhenaten's exaggeration ... It would seem that among the features of his abnormality were an unusual development of the cranium ... Professor Elliot Smith has suggested that these abnormal features are ... of ... disease ..."28

Such were the Egyptological views in the years prior to our opportunity now, for revising provincial biases with appreciation of interconnected global findings, both old and new.

I would agree that lacking skeletal insights availed in Peru and Mesoamerica, the portraitures of Akhenaten, et al., would be reasonably inexplicable.

However, the global variety of culturo-skeletal evidence does exist. It affords a sea-change in identifying the plausible logic that Akhenaten was genetically related to elite lineages of non-linear/cultural co-creators. A non-linear lineage is meant in the sense that traditional accounts about various pre-dynastic culture phases identify non-native figures who were like mentors for what was developed. Further, I mean to define the elite dolicho-racial co-creators as subordinates; not originators of prerequisite civilizing knowledge, but ordained managers. The resource base for future developments in our proto-historical past was the same as the future world economic basis of today: "A knowledge based economic structure." The people possessing the "knowledge" were the traditional figures known as Wira Kocha, Quetzalcoatl, Yahweh (Elohim), Kukulcan, Osiris, Sargon of Agade, et al. From these creators came the archetypal arcana of the previous cycle. And in their hands manifest an ultimate art form - not diversities of arts and styles comprising cultures, but entire panoramas of cultural permutation in which a civilized-culture and its inhabitants are themselves the art form! It is this perspective that logically explains why, in all the most highly evolved archaic civilizations, forms of the pyramid are outstanding landmarks of continuity.

The rational minds of modern historical analysis expect archaic developments to be logically linear, from simple to complex. But, traditional accounts of archaic origins contradict this linear presumption. Thus, data which doesn't fit the preconception is classified as Myth.

The Reality Of Akhenaten's Realism
In summing up the in-depth pattern of evidence cited above, an obvious detail is conspicuously absent: academic authorities have enigmatically failed to recognize the pattern in their own data. In turn, Pharaoh Akhenaten's historical irony here begs the absent question. Explain why this apparently "self-centered egoist"²⁹ pharaoh chose memorializing his "ungainly and malformed"³⁰ image as - of all things - anomalously dolichocephalic? The pattern of facts re Akhenaten is a set of scholarly documented facts, not revisionist facts ...

A precept basic to Egyptian dynastic history is that, as a ruler, "Akhenaten was himself a god, as his forefathers had been." ³¹ Thus, Akhenaten's conscious immortalization of his station, "High Priest of Rê," with emphatically sculpted head "deformity," should color how he was symbolizing his lineage and image of authority. His logical purpose also, at least, paid lip service to ma'at - a principle of "truth and justice," indispensable for canonizing his historical moment. But, the truth or reality of Akhenaten's sculpted realism should not nowadays be limited, as it is, to theories re however hollow were his moral intentions. Such theories exclude potential insights availed by the global pattern of facts, amassed by archeologists, and itemized here.

The cross-cultural or skeletal/cultural evidence - now - demands an alternative worldview perspective: i.e., the issue of Akhenaten's sculpted-realism is not a question of what is truthful or deceitful. The question is, what is memory and what time is it in which Akhenaten insisted upon being remembered as anomalously coneheaded, not to mention his family as well?

Egyptologists accept Akhenaten as being actually "deformed," by disease or genetics. Yet, his case is crucial to our perspective here, regardless of whether his deformity was anomalously natural or artificial. Also, Akhenaten's mummy has apparently never been recovered for verification. So, if perhaps he was not dolichocephalous at all, his image would be even more symbolic.

It would be surely fortuitous to physically confirm Akhenaten was as his portraiture exhibits. However, given the significance of cited cross-civilizational anthropological correlations - Akhenaten's stone images sufficiently keep a memory alive: headbinding traditions of artificial dolichocephaly were rooted in archaic meaning. This tradition was globally longstanding prior to Akhenaten's life. Thus, his decree to render his memorial in this manner reminds the viewer of headbinding history, its symbology and possible racial connectedness. Today, Akhenaten's exaggerated image is the memory that headbinding existed before and long after his reign. Cultural-continuity of this tradition in America proves this. Our reported plethora of historic correlations make the symbolic agency of Akhenaten and his family a quite unlikely coincidence in art. And deducting a symbolic value for the headbinding tradition may be oddly facilitated by Akhenaten's own sacerdotal exclamation point, placed upon a logical racial model for headbinding. As pharaoh, Akhenaten was a revolutionary High Priest of Rê. His heresy may very well have been a conflict of interest between his revived priestly race, and the dynastic race theorized by Egyptologists.

In each case of discovery cited above, the role of a priestly-class figures in the set of correlations. Adriano Forgione, cited above, presents one of the most direct associations between evidence for racially distinct dolicho-skulls and Maltese temples. Forgione's hypothesis re Akhenaten is that the pharaoh-priest's religious reformations were "aimed to restore an ancient order" of theocratic guidance. The Maltese case for dolicho-priest influence seems to have died out centuries before. Such a scenario does lend greater logic to Akhenaten's sacerdotal reforms and imagistic legacy. And yet, dolicho-racial evidence consistently points to a priestly-order heritage, not a dynastic race per sé.

Pharaoh Sneferu Bas-relief, Peruvian Dolicho-head Mockups, and Assyrian Bas-relief.

Intelligent Capability vs. Applied Wisdom
Here, we digress to establish the logic that priestly-classes became surrogates for "gods," whom cultural traditions credit giving the gifts of civilizing wisdom to archaic peoples.

Among Egyptologists, evidence for a dynastic race in Egypt is well known. Dr. G. Elliot Smith, cited above, devotes his entire book, The Ancient Egyptians, toward refuting the view that a foreign dynastic race inspired Egyptian developments; that was in 1923. Since then, Mesopotamian discoveries have conclusively antedated Egypt in "cradling" first civil achievements: writing, schools, bicameral congress, social reforms, law codes, etc. Thus, some sort of cultural diffusion of influence is more than plausible - yet, perhaps not on the scale which dynastic race is defined by Egyptologists.

For those not familiar with the "dynastic race" thesis, I quote a colleague of Dr. G. Elliot Smith. D.E. Derry wrote in The Journal of Egyptian Archeology (1956) a survey of skeletal remains. Derry said, skulls "... (of) Predynastic people ... under no circumstances could we consider them to be the same race" as the clearly larger headed bodies also found buried in Egypt. Derry continues, "It is also very suggestive of the presence of a dominant race, perhaps relatively few in numbers but greatly exceeding the original inhabitants in intelligence; a race which brought into Egypt the knowledge of building in stone, of sculpture, painting, reliefs, and above all writing; hence the enormous jump from the primitive predynastic Egyptian to the advanced civilization of the Old Empire."

Notice, Derry did not say "the advanced civilization" culminated, after a few thousand years of advancement, in the New Kingdom or even Middle Kingdom - but "Old Empire" (kingdom). In terms of megalithic architecture, the "Old Empire" was more advanced - in orders of magnitude - than the rest of Egyptian history. A paradox!

Leaving aside all judgmental biases re "race" and "intelligence," from Derry's quote, a passage is salient to our revisionism here: "A dominant race, perhaps relatively few in numbers but greatly exceeding ... in intelligence." However, the issue of intelligence would be more comprehensively precise when substituted with learned application of wisdom. Derry's survey deduced a practical correlation between people with larger skulls/brains and presumably higher intelligence. This could very well be - but simply the issue of intelligence is not sufficient for explaining how a nearly archaic capability, by "original inhabitants" of early dynastic times, applied themselves in realizing certain early achievements. "Intelligence" is simply a potential or capability.

Meanwhile, within a period of only about 210 years, Egyptians built the most enduring, monumental megalithic and fully realized true pyramids, culminating in the Great Pyramid c. 2480 B.C.! Where did the template of experience in execution of concept and social organization for this learning curve come from? Where did the masonic wisdom of workmanship perform its apprenticeship? As Dr. Ahmed Fakhry put it in his book The Pyramids: Wondering how the Great Pyramid was built, "Even equipped with modern tools and instruments, and profiting from nearly five thousand years of experience, architects and engineers today might well quail if called upon to erect a duplicate"(!) Yet, early dynastic Egyptians - recently having left archaic primitivism - simultaneously embarked on a sort of systems theory approach to learning the organizational and technical skills, while applying them, with artful precision. This, of course, makes no evolutionary sense, as inferred by Dr. Fakhry's challenge. And for skeptics who deny some sort of outside source of knowledge influence in Egypt: absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence!

The answer lies in common sense: "The fund of technical knowledge" for these megalithic pursuits was based on wise and ordered preconception. Planning is logically rooted in what the capabilities are; in this case, holistic, systematic wisdom of experience and pre-existent know-how. And through the agency of a perceived "god," a dynastic race ordained by the "god," or other, thus originated developments in Egypt; as they originated in other proto-civilizational centers under identical circumstances.

An understatement of scholarly authority in this regard, by archeologist Dr. I.E.S. Edwards, illustrates how the principle here has been perceived by academics. Commenting on an earliest pyramid complex enigma, Pharaoh Djoser's Step Pyramid, Edwards disclaims: "Doubts have sometimes been entertained whether so high a degree of architectural perfection could have been achieved without having been preceded by a long process of development. There is, however, no evidence that stone had been employed in an earlier building ... Moreover, the Step Pyramid (Third Dynasty) displays many features which suggest that its builders lacked experience in the use of stone." If the Step Pyramid is a sort of prototype complex beginning what is called The Pyramid Age - prototypical flaws or shortcuts would be expected. The hands-on labor of actually piecing the complex together was done by the early dynastic natives, in transition from archaic unsophistication. Flaws notwithstanding, the point of revisionism regards a knowledge-base that the Paleolithic, Neolithic, Archaic/Predynastic epochs did not prepare natives to possess. This knowledge-base of expertise is the "efficient process indicative of careful planning, centralized decision-making, and mobilization of a large labor force."³² And such were the same prerequisite organizational structures in place when the oldest New World civilization of Caral was built by archaic Peruvians. Caral was an irrigation-based society featuring a large multi-pyramidal mound complex. It was built coincidental with the early phase of the Egyptian Pyramid Age, c. 2627 B.C.!

Returning to the thesis of D.E. Derry - he proposes the influence of "... a ... race, perhaps relatively few in numbers ..." Taking Derry's deduction further, our revisionism concludes that these "few in numbers" were knowledge bearers, not an invading horde of master masons. Thus, the building shortcuts I.E.S. Edwards reports in the Step Pyramid can be fairly indicative of a learning curve: e.g., the technique in building, plans of which a knowledge-race logically instilled in actual laborers. This plausibility would reconcile the views of Derry and Edwards, since - of this "remarkable" Step Pyramid edifice by the ancient Egyptians - Edwards implies a paradox by affirming, "No other known pyramid was surrounded with such an array of imposing buildings."³³

Some researchers contend the Old Kingdom was not a beginning. Rather, it was a culmination of thousands of years of prehistoric civilizing. In this case, Edwards confirms the archaic people had accrued little mastery of masonic skill - cultural developments yes, but not a systems-set of megalithic building industry skills. Then, a quantum leap in wisdom and capability appeared ...

Myth Is Memory; Myth Is History
Simply taking for granted implicit levels of social organization required in megalithic construction is inadequate. And presuming a sudden leap in intelligence or know-how, by "primitives" in such ancient times, is simplistic. Especially in Egypt, capabilities which Egyptians had were paradoxically combined with a perfected wisdom of planning. Somehow the route to Egyptian perfection provided this evolutionarily elusive shortcut.

In choices and technique, the greatest Egyptian achievements came at the earliest dynastic period. Coincidentally, Egyptian traditions recount how this was realized. However, the prerequisite for presently appreciating Egyptian traditions is to de-mythologize them. And, of course, the ‘Father of Modern Archeology’ himself, Heinrich Schliemann (1822-90), began the science by demythologizing Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, thus locating the historical site of Mysian Troas, or Troy.

Archeologist T.C. Lethbridge, formerly of the Cambridge Archeology Museum, suggested an alternative perception of mythologized traditions. Lethbridge concluded that the traditional enigma of instructional "gods," is that the traditions are histories. Myths were historical memories of possible relationships, which tradition holders were at a loss to totally comprehend. An example is the account of Ptah, one of Egypt's greatest "gods." Ptah was a creator of things. In the Pyramid Text of Teta, Ptah is the owner of a "workshop." He was a great worker in metals, a master architect. Egyptologists consider Ptah mythological. Yet, it is Ptah to whom Egyptians credit giving them their cultural knowledge. What is interesting, is that the early Egyptians created the greatest of all megalithic wonders of the world - the Great Pyramid - and never, in all Egyptian texts, do they take credit for it? What they do is defer to an archetype/role model for having given them basic knowledge.

Ptah was one of a certain group of beings called the Seven Wise Ones. These bearers of knowledge presided over bringing learning and letters to the predynastic archaic people. Another example of Egyptians deferring the potential of their own capabilities involves Osiris. Lewis Spence described this principle of learned "outsourcing" in his book The Myths of Ancient Egypt: "So ... good ... and so pleasant were his methods of instilling knowledge into the minds of the barbarians, that they worshipped the very ground whereon he trod." Common sense should tell us that any people who can realize the greatest civil engineering projects on a grand scale, and in an ancient age with no machines or electricity - such people are certainly intelligent enough to preserve memories of their own history in terms which they do have capacities to comprehend. The myth is actually their history: Seven wise and learned people remarkably impressed natives at a pre-literate stage of development. Out of this globally duplicated relationship was co-created the artforms-of civilized Egypt; civilized Peru; civilized Sumer; civilized Tiahuanaco, etc.

This is a fine-tuning of what D.E. Derry is quoted saying above. He perceived a likely connection between skulls of a larger headed race and, thus, knowledge and capability "greatly exceeding the original "proto-dynastic Egyptians. For Derry, the logic of this equation seemed scientifically more rational than the myth: "instilling knowledge into the minds" of un-learned peoples attributed to a mythic allegory. However, the global pattern of traditional histories are consistent. Archaic cultural accounts of non-native knowledge sources demand revisionist considerations. This New and Old-world constant, among emergent civilizations, and rooted in an actual non-native involvement, has a parallel. Mythologist Joseph Campbell discerned this - that cultures worldwide possessed origination knowledge essentially the same, including a biblical-type flood. And this tradition of knowledge-outsourcing would logically apply to the mystery-rites for merging science with theology, by the Egyptian priestly-class, in their theological colleges ...

At this point we return to interconnected correlations linking sacerdotal knowledge with a distinct race: The Dolichocephaloids. But, first, one more point about historical reckoning.

Censorship By Omission and the Double-Bind
Throughout the formative era of modern archeology, the "science" of excavation recovered invaluable historical insights. The facts, however, cannot impart their service of enlightenment, when politically acceptable artifacts become marketable commodities for the politicized worldviews affecting research funding. This has happened. Numerous published books document the wealth of anomalous artifacts compiled for decades. But these out-of-place artifacts are exactly that - inaccessible to researchers with revisionist perspectives.

Such disservices of archeological pursuits is why revisioning the "conventional wisdom" of interpretation is increasingly vital to historical clarification. Within the halls of academia, the biases of prevailing worldviews predictably translate into intractable impediments to fair reporting; to open-door policies of artifact accessibility.

The political climate of 21st Century academia is in this way constrained by ideologies of politically correct interpretations. Summarizing briefly, the effects of this constraint is known as "the double-bind." The double-bind is where people aspire to careers which demand commitment to ideologies of conventional wisdom. And as a result of their co-dependency with the prevailing worldview of their career relationship - the people become incapable of being able to accurately describe their own system. This loss of perspective has led to censorship by omission. It is why revisionism is valid and necessary.

As erudite and eloquent as academic scholars are, in their limit-set of ancient historical perceptions, they remain hopelessly at odds with their explanatory reasoning; their explanatory model: on one hand, they give archaic peoples the benefit of presumptive doubt, i.e., monumental short term leaps in expertise produced incomparable achievements (e.g., pyramid complexes in Peru, Central America, Mexico, Egypt, even China). On the other hand - when faced with traditional native accounts of who and how native funds of knowledge were provided to them - the rational moderns dismiss symbolic historicity of traditions as a primitive Mythos. Archaic peoples possessed very symbolic worldviews of perception. Moderns have digressively become alienated from perceptual symbology, in the occult sense.

If no other system is more universally constant among the ancients, worldwide, it is the symbology of their worldviews. And for all practical purposes, today, modern sensibility does not identify with a personal symbolic connectedness. As Marshall McLuhan has so rigorously shown, the moderns or postmoderns of today advocate a worldview whose universal constant is social-fragmentation! As this management force of fragmentation has spread, the modern system undermined the sanctity of old percepts. Long ago, then, the value-set of symbols passed into the limbo of the forgotten lost.

Having become alienated from a living-comprehension of symbolic reality, has left archeologists groping and rationalizing a mytholo-genesis when interpreting archaic worldviews. In Mayan rebus texts, or the Sumerian texts, the oral traditions and hieroglyphics of Peruvians, or Egyptian texts, modern perception cannot penetrate symbolic mysteries encrypted within. It has been tried. But as Lewis Spence states, "Regarding the Egyptian mysteries but little is known" - that is, known to the uninitiated profane.

Dr. Albert Churchward put it well in his book The Origin and Evolution of Freemasonry: "No better definition of 'myth' or 'mythology' could be given than is conveyed by the Egyptian word 'Sem.' This signifies 'representation on the ground of likeness,' which led to all the forms of Sign Language that ever could be employed." If the ancient texts were anything, they were a Sign Language. And they were authored for preserving the gnosis of transformative domains at all levels of being. The universally ancient wisdom seen in these texts, was also a gnosis which archaic primitives should have been too rudimentary to author. Thus, in the Egyptian case, they credit Ptah, Osiris, Horus, et al., while the Popular Science of cosmetic archeology obscures mythic-history as fabled or fictitious legend. Presumptive conclusions are presented as facts about how developments originated.

What the legends of Ptah or Osiris say is that knowledge was passed onto common people in a Master/initiate relationship. As time ensued, those men taught by the wise ones, or sages, became priests. It will be an issue of priests and wisdom which will bring us back to the Dolichocephaloids.

From the perspective of occult arcana, Ancient Wisdom was ancient already in the earliest epochs of civilization. A symbolized reckoning of their history would be normal for the protoliterate sensibilities of people at that time. Symbolizing an ancient wisdom, entering the history of archaic people, would seem paradoxically odd in its sophistication to moderns. And an alternative perspective on this sophistication is warranted, given recent discoveries. To paraphrase Lewis Spence, on various theories for penetrating the systematic depth of nuance comprising Egyptian myth, he concedes the following insight: "If these qualities and circumstances are not allegorical ... a much more ingenious hypothesis than the above (The Myths of Ancient Egypt) will be necessary to account for their mythological connection." Yes, and the comprehension of occult knowledge is required for such an "ingenious hypothesis," for understanding the mysteries of Egyptian and other symbolized theologies. Occult knowledge is what is lacking in archeology!

The organized understanding of natural mysteries was, and is, knowledge of power. So, in the original cultural contexts, this knowledge was veiled in a universally symbolic language. Thus, wise or initiated people might read it throughout the ages. However, the precepts of wisdom inherent in the veiled mysteries were also written in parable and allegory for unlettered, uninitiated people, generally. Therefore, words of power could be kept from abuse, yet the wise precepts would dissipate the archaic ignorance of civilized origins. This definitive system of preservation is what the "experts" are not prepared (initiated) to apprehend! Nor would they divulge the specifics or the historical implications if they did apprehend the system. Experts are stuck on the allegorical version of mythic-history.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, colleges for the priesthood formally institutionalized the principles of unifying spirit and matter. The unity of human relationship, born out of the history of Ancient Wisdom, was the Master/instructor: pupil/initiate paradigm. And the unity in human endeavor, born out of the historical wisdom, was merging science and theology. This perspective explains the Chief Architect of Pharaoh Djoser's Step Pyramid also having the title of High Priest of Heliopolis; he was also Chief Ritualist and Overseer of Works of Upper and Lower Egypt...

Tradition Was the Persistence of Memory
The revisionist authors credited above unanimously identify dolicho-head people as fraternally allied with orders of the serpent cult. Evidence for this is plausible. The question, is whether the serpentine qualities of wisdom and/or evil are either symbolic or anthropomorphic in origins?

Here, the concern is more general. In each case of dolicho-skull discovery above, there clearly exists some apparent context plus affiliation between these people, and circumstances of priest-craft. The Mayan vase depiction of an initiation ceremony by dolichocephalous priests (shown here) is an example. Pharaoh Akhenaten, described in detail, seemed to go out of his way to identify his lasting, anomalous, dolicho-head image with his High Priest-King status. A point for reconciling the odd anatomy with priesthood, is that dolicho-heads were wise and knowledgeable about the mysteries; e.g., the Sumerian tradition of how "kingship was lowered from heaven."

The only persuasive logic for explaining Akhenaten's (family) image, is the constant evidence finding anatomy and priestship in consort. Regarding sacerdotal connections, the emphasis here introduces a more substantive racial possibility for origins of anomalous dolichocephaly. It could be that dolicho-people inherited an ancient predisposition for priestcraft. Thus, the inherent or inherited memory of associating dolicho-priests with influential knowledge and wisdom would have imprinted psyches of common peoples. And their traditions of headbinding would logically symbolize their persistence of such memory ...

Enigma of a New World Tradition
In America, the mythic-proportions, or tradition, of dolicho-priest memory persisted into the 19th century. In conclusion here, an extensive set of direct observations will be quoted by a witness of American dolicho-headbinding tradition. The witness was explorer/illustrator, George Catlin. "Written during eight years travel amongst the wildest tribes ... in North America," Catlin self-published his self-illustrated history: 'North American Indians,' 1832-1839. This two volume book was published by the author at the Egyptian Hall, London, 1841.

The insights of value provided here by George Catlin are due to the questions he posed, not the certainty of his solutions! Rather than proclaiming his discovery of why the backward natives "deformed" their own heads - it is the expression of Catlin's vexation, when facing the enigma of the custom, that illuminates the nexus between headbinding and racial dolichocephaly!

Catlin poignantly and bluntly stated what would be "conventional wisdom" of the time. In so doing, Catlin's response to the "utterly ridiculous" headbinding practice also demonstrated a paradox of his time. With hindsight, the evidence presented at the beginning of our discussion, by Dr. J.J. Von Tschudi, is Catlin's counterpart in this paradox. Tschudi's dolicho-race discovery now can be recognized as research occurring simultaneous to Catlin's publishing, and ultimately provides explanatory clarification of questions Catlin felt were unanswerable ...

Catlin observed that the "Flathead" tribe is "A very numerous people living along the Columbia River (Washington State) ... they have undoubtedly got their name from the custom of flattening the head ...

"The Nez Perce's ... are a part of this tribe ... though they are seldom known to flatten the head like those (living) about the mouth of the (Columbia) river ..."

The Chinooks "... are almost the only people who strictly adhere to the custom of squeezing and flattening the head ...

"... This process is seemingly a very cruel one .... done in earliest infancy ...

"By this remarkable operation, those who have the head flattened, are in no way inferior in intellectual powers ...

"This mode of flattening the head is certainly one of the most unaccountable, as well as unmeaning customs, found amongst the North American Indians. What it could have originated in, or for what purpose, other than mere useless fashion, it could have been invented, no human being can probably ever tell. The Indians have many curious and ridiculous fashions, which have come into existence, no doubt, by accident, and are of no earthly use (like many silly fashions in enlightened society), yet they are perpetuated much longer, and that only because their ancestors practiced them in ages gone by ... for which the inquisitive world, I am sure, may forever look in vain to this stupid and useless fashion, that has most unfortunately been engendered on these ignorant people, whose superstition forbids them to lay it down." (Italics added.)

"It is a curious fact ... that these people have not been alone in this strange custom; but that it existed and was practiced precisely the same, until recently, amongst Choctaws and Chickasaws ... of Mississippi and Alabama ... and hundreds of their skulls have been procured, bearing incontrovertible evidence of a similar treatment, with similar results."

"... The distance of the Choctaws from the country of the Chinooks is ... between two and three thousand miles; and there being ... no probability that any two tribes in a state of Nature, would ever hit upon so peculiar an absurdity, we come, whether willingly or not, to the conclusion, that these tribes must at some former period, have lived neighbors to each other, or have been parts of the same family ... (and this) carries a strong argument ... furnishing proof of the very great tenacity these people have for their peculiar customs."

Re Catlin's conclusive observation of the "tenacity" with which natives preserved their headbinding tradition, this sums up a revised perception that the custom reflected the persistence of archaic memory. Judgmental though he was, Catlin's criticism of headbinding underscores the logical missing link for recognizing headbinding for what it symbolized.

In a word, the insight linking the ancient custom with symbolic purpose, persisting in value, would be iconic and racial. It would not be as it appeared, cosmetic "fashion," because native peoples place an existential premium on wisdom.

And, as the evidence worldwide shows (e.g., Dr. Tschudi in Peru), the facts of knowledge, wisdom and priesthood are essential to identifying the dolichocephalous anomaly.

With this, we arrive at the greatest enigma of all. Wherefrom and when did the coneheads originate? Is there a regular appearance of these anomalous-headed people found in routine archeological excavations? No! Has National Geographic published a detailed photo-spread on the dolicho-skulls - as yet another case of cultural-minutia; and if N.G. did so report, what evolutionary "spin" would they place on the evidence? Alas, inductive reasoning suggests the following.

Given provoking Egyptian correlations cited above, it is here, in this epochal nexus of influences, the most likely source for dolicho-head racial history may be - coincidentally - located. The global connotation of anomalously-racial-dolichocephaly may logically be linked to a global history reportedly given to Athenian statesman Solon (c. 575 B.C.) by Egyptian priests.

From the 55 dialogues of Plato, The Timaeus dialogue imparts Solon's account. During his extended visit to the Egyptian city of Sais, Solon was "very honorably received." Solon reportedly declared "that neither himself, nor any one of the Greeks ... had any knowledge of very remote antiquity ... 'I mean the traditions, ... covering after the deluge'... upon this, one of those more ancient priests exclaimed, 'O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children, ... Because all your souls are juvenile; neither containing any ancient opinion derived from remote tradition, nor any discipline hoary from its existence in former periods of time. But the reason for this is the multitude and variety of destructions of the human race, which formerly have been ... And from these causes the most ancient traditions are preserved in our country ... whatever has been transacted either by us, or by you, or in any other place ... of which we have heard the report, every thing of this kind is to be found described in our temples, and preserved to the present day ...

'The transactions, therefore, O Solon, which you relate from your antiquities, differ very little from puerile fables. For, ... you only mention one deluge of the earth, when at the same time many have happened. And, ... you are ignorant of a most illustrious and excellent race of men, who once inhabited your country ... For prior, O Solon, to that mighty deluge ... a city of Athenians existed ... by a priority to ours of a thousand years, receiving the seed of your race from Vulcan and the Earth ... For at that time the Atlantic sea was navigable, and had an island ... this island was greater than both Libya and all Asia together ... In this Atlantic island a combination of kings was formed, ... and, besides this, subjected to their dominion all Libya, as far as to Egypt...'" This last point, re dominion over all Libya as far as Egypt, is a related antediluvian detail. It affords a more practical, de-mythed, solution to the "extremely obscure" origins of Osiris - as Lewis Spence said of Osiris. Spence took issue with a theory re Osiris held by three most eminent Egyptologists, Budge, Brugsch and Maspero. The theory is that Osiris is a water-god of the Nile. Dr. Budge professes that all texts show Osiris originating in Northeast Africa, possibly Libya. Spence saw contradiction here: "If Osiris is a god of the Nile alone, why import him from the Libyan desert, which boasts of no rivers? River gods do not as a rule emanate from regions of sand."³⁴ Not unless the excluded point here is that in remote antediluvian antiquity, the whole Libyan region was paternalized by wiser-"god"-like people from an antediluvian civilization. And the aforementioned Solon credited Egyptian priests with clarifying for him the same Libyan connection as a revised version of Earth history. (A whole book of Libyan connections with an antediluvian civilization can be found in Atlantis in Andalucia, E.M. Whishaw 1929.)

Without naming it specifically, this Egyptian "tradition" of Atlantis is attributed to a sequence of sources (Plato, back to Priests of Sais) to whom our classicists would deem impeccably credible - had the historical subject been any other. Yet, once again, the historical coincidence is too consistent and unexpected, whereas a detailed accent on Atlantis is declared via Plato by Egyptian Priests, 500 years B.C.. Because, as you recall, it was eminent Egyptologist I.E.S. Edwards who acknowledged the "doubts ... (as to) whether so high a degree of (Egyptian) architectural perfection could have been achieved without having been preceded by a long process of development." Since Edwards reports no evidence of such a "long period of development" - the logical source, for megalithic expertise and wisdom, should be hypothesized as coming from the source in remote history recounted to Solon by Egyptian Priests: Atlantis. Likewise, with the possible dolichocephalous race. They are definitively linked to the centers of birthing post-diluvian civilizations, but limited in numbers. It is therefore logical that the Atlantis myth is actually the history accounting for the priestly-knowledge of which the dolicho-heads became proponents, worldwide.

From Museo De National. Lima, Peru.

Addendum
Assertions above intend to establish a basis for progressing beyond our popular historical paradigm. Recognizing unforeseen patterns of circumstantial fundamentals, quite worthy of shifting the paradigm, can now be greatly enhanced in our information environment.

In this vein, an addendum of recent anthropological discovery is offered. Coinciding with the writing of this article, the new discovery deserves being illuminated with much more comprehensive perception than afforded by popular evolution.

This new discovery does not directly involve a race of dolichocephaloids. However, a profound insight into the historical memory imbedded in "myth" & legend is availed by the discovery. And we have already cited the value of revisiting myth as history, not fictitious tradition.

On 28 October 2004, "experts in human origins" were quoted in both Nature Magazine and the Los Angeles Times. The subject was "the most important - and surprising - human find in the last 50 years." Previously unknown humans have been found. They were unique enough to qualify for being an entirely separate species because they were "barely three feet tall"! They were much smaller than pygmies.

Classified as Homo floresiensis, their skeletal remains were recovered on the Indonesian island of Flores. Found near the skeletons was "evidence of stone tools." Artifacts, therefore, suggest that "despite their small brains," these people "commanded fire, cooked ... and demonstrated other basic" human behaviors. Their brains were but one-third that of some Homo erectus brains. Among other crucial circumstances, H. floresiensis facts are congruent with evidence for antediluvian origins of cultural-dolichocephaly: e.g., an important correlation occurs with H. floresiensis dating. Researchers deduce that "the entire population [became extinct] after a massive volcanic eruption 12,000 years ago blanketed the region with ash ... This is remarkably recent," said archeologist Michael J. Morwood. Yet, the more elucidating fact of "Flores Man" is that the skeletons "were so new that the bones had yet to actually fossilize." Catastrophic dating and absent fossilization, dovetails well with antedeluvian origins of dolicho-racial culture at Tiahuanaco. Why? As emphasized by A. Hyatt Verrill, cited above, "The extremely great age of [Tiahuanaco] is proved by the discovery of human skulls that have been completely fossilized. They are now [1953] in the museum at La Paz." It is also clear that dolicho-skulls are exhibited in museums at La Paz and Tiahuanaco.

If H. floresiensis remains are not petrified, then plausible reports of fossilized skulls at Tiahuanaco call into question the "evolutionary" parameters for qualifying the dating of "primitive" and "civilized." A.H. Verrill credits Prof. Arthur Posnansky with applying archeoastronomical formulas for dating the earliest Tiahuanaco to between 9,300 years and 14,600 years. This would make fossilized Tiahuanacan inhabitants contemporaries of "Flores Man," at the time of the catastrophe; a catastrophe coinciding with the mythic destruction of the Atlantean final phase.

It would not be unreasonable here to deconstruct some mythological implications re "Flores Man." Dating of the specimens spans a period from "95,000 years" to "about 12,000 years ago." Since Homo sapiens lived coincident in time, such a long period is sufficient for initiating legends/myths about encounters with the "Flores" people: legends giving way to oral traditions about "the little people," "faeries," the "Nature sprites." Homo sapiens (moderns) also inhabited the Flores region for tens of thousands of years. We have the myths, and now we have a physical reason to apprehend historic fact imbedded therein.

In The Story of Atlantis by W. Scott-Elliot (1896), the author provides four large, detailed maps. The maps chart the reconfigured land masses of the Atlantean domain, subsequent to catastrophic change. Remarkably, the final earth-change was dated at 11,564 years ago - rather close to the incident that experts presume to have caused the "Flores Man" extinction.

In W. Scott-Elliot's map titled "The World ... up to the Catastrophe of About 80,000 Years Ago," there is another coincidence. The charted period of 200,000 to 80,000 B.P. was the Atlantean epoch of Ruta & Daitya. Scott-Elliot's charting of this period shows the entire Sumatran/Indonesian archipelago being solid contiguous land, thus suggesting that "Flores Man" could have originated on what is now the mainland. Lastly, if miniature "Flores Man" has finally been found to exist, the opposite can surely be regarded as reasonable: i.e., the legends/myths of true giants. Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! This is a proven principle by the self-proclaimed expert opinion regarding the "comes out of nowhere" uniqueness of discovering "Flores Man." Biblical accounts of (mythic) giants are apocryphal, at best, in the eyes of rationalists. Yet, between the King James and the Revised Versions of the Bible, giants are referred to 14 times. The Scripture speaks of the Giants who lived prior to the flood. The Hebrews named them the Nephilim ..., or, as Genesis, Chapter 6, describes them: Those Who Have Come Down, from the Heaven to Earth. This description adds a whole other dimension of revisionist purpose and necessity. For purposes here, however, we must remain limited to what "science" is capable of contributing, in its mode of insight by default.

If faerie-sized humans are possible, so are giants. The L.A. Times article above even explains why giants are possible: "Experts said, ... the pattern of evolutionary biology documented among other species, [shows that] in long-term isolation [creatures] often breed into extremely large or small versions of their ... relatives." And there have been many unofficial reports of finding giant sized human bones. The problem with evolutionism is that anomalous evidence is systematically rejected! Evolutionary theory cannot be reasoned as viable because of such rejection. The reported wealth of rejected anomalies has been relegated to the status of politically motivated data denial. No science can survive by ignoring and denying substantial proportions of its own data! ...
Meanwhile - as of 9 November 2004, the local public school district in Cobb County, Georgia was being sued for disclaiming a need to think critically about evolution.

A sticker was placed on the inside cover of a biology textbook. It reads: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

This sentiment of critical review is precisely what has motivated the research presented here. The Cobb County disclaimer on evolution is a position the author here emphatically agrees with - but not for reasons doctrinaire to orthodox religious creationists.

NOTES

* Original color plates by Shawn Atlanti.
1. Childress, David Hatcher. The Coneheads of Peru, World Explorer Magazine.
Kempton, Il: World Explorers Club, Vol. 3, No. 4.
2. Forgione, Adriano. Malta: The Skulls of the Mother Goddess, Hera Magazine.
Rome, Italy.
3. Collins, Andrew. Gods of Eden. London: Headline Book Pub., 1998.
4. Posnansky, Arthur. Tiahuanacu. New York: J.J. Augustin, 1946.
5. Id.
6. Graña, Francisco, Dr.; Rocca, Esteban D., Dr. Las Trepanaciones Craneanas
En El Peru En La Epoca pre-Hispanica. Lima: Imprenta Santa Maria, 1954.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Hawkes, Jacquetta; Woolley, Leonard. Prehistory and the Beginnings of
Civilization. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
12. Ibid.
13. Campbell, Stuart; Molleson, Theya. Deformed Skulls at Tell Arpachiyah: The
Social Context; The Archeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. USA:
Oxbow Monograph 51, 1995.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Jastrow, Jr., Morris. The Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria. Philadelphia
and London: J.B. Lippincott, 1915.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Id.
26. Smith, G. Elliot, Dr. The Ancient Egyptians. London and New York:
Harper, 1923.
27. Ibid.
28. Baikie, Rev. James. The Amarna Age. New York: MacMillan, 1926.
29. Hawkes, Jacquetta; Woolley, Leonard. Prehistory and the Beginnings of
Civilization. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Maugh, Thomas H. Site in Peru Marks Oldest City in Americas. Los Angeles
Times, 27 April 2001.
33. Edwards, I.E.S. The Pyramids of Egypt. England and USA: Penguin Books
Ltd., 1947, 1961.
34. Spence, Lewis. Myths and Legends of Ancient Egypt. New York: Frederick A.
Stokes Co., printed in England.