The so-called Starchild skull is touted as an alien/human hybrid. Like so many objects with unusual claims, tests on it are controlled by its owners.
The “Starchild skull” - Bad Archaeology For this site to work properly and to evaluate and improve the site, we need to store small files (called cookies) on your computer. Over 90% of all websites do this; however, since 25 May 2011 we are required by EU regulations to obtain your consent first. What do you say?That's fine I don't agree Home Privacy policy and copyright Bad Archaeology: what is it? Defining Bad Archaeology Diversity in archaeology Misrepresentation Why not ignore it? Cherry picking the data Only the oddities Sceptical archaeology? Indiana Jones does it again The history of archaeology A long time developing The Age of Discovery Rejecting the Bible The Three Age System Evolving concepts Archaeology as an historical discipline The scientific revolution The ‘New Archaeology’ The rash of Post-s Archaeology today Bad data Bad Archaeology’s special data set Exotic places Noah’s Ark Puma Punku: an impossible structure? Religious texts Out-of-place artefacts Anomalous human remains Oldoway man: a Middle Pleistocene Homo… The Kabwe skull: a shot ‘Neanderthal’? Diprothomo platensis: a hominid from… The Castenedolo skull A Pliocene human jaw from Foxhall? Oreopithecus: a human child’s jaw in… The ‘Beartooth Highway molar’ Footprints and the like The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ Jackson County footprints Rockcastle County footprints A ‘footprint’ from the Gobi Desert The Fisher Canyon ‘footprint’ The Antelope Springs ‘footprint’ Anomalously old technology The ‘batteries of Babylon’ The Antikythera mechanism Egyptian ‘aeroplane’ models? The ‘Coso Artifact’ South American ‘model… Mysterious objects The Turin Shroud The Ica Stones The Acámbaro figurines The Wonderstone spheres The Dropa (or Dzopa) stones Crystal skulls Dr Gurlt’s iron cube Very ancient artefacts The Nampa figurine A ‘carved’ fossil shell? Letters inside marble? A chalk ball from Laon A mortar & pestle from Tuolomne Sling stone from the Red Crag Metallic tubes from St-Jean-de-Livet A ‘crystal lens’ from… Gold thread from Rutherford Mill (UK) Gold chain from Morrisonville, Illinois Carved stone from Lehigh, Iowa Iron cup from Wilburton, Oklahoma Hieroglyphs in a coal mine at… Nail in sandstone from Kingoodie (UK) Metallic vase from Dorchester,… A medallion from Lawn Ridge, Illinois An iron nail in Californian quartz An iron object in Scottish coal Tools in rock at Aix-en-Provence Eoliths: tools or naturally fractured… The London Artifact (Texas) Petroglyphs, inscriptions and reliefs A ‘tyrannosaur’ pictogram Stegosaurus pictograms The Paraíba (Parahyba) Stone The Metcalf Stone ‘Technical drawings’ at Dendera The ‘Candelabra of the Andes’ The Kensington Runestone The Newark “Holy Stones” The Los Lunas Inscription Unusual structures The ‘Aṣoka Pillar’ A wall in a coal mine An ancient tiled floor Conspiracy theories The Pireuré de Sion Royston Cave: a secret Templar shrine? Old maps The Piri Re‘is map The Orontius Finaeus map Philippe Buache’s map The text of Buache’s map Lost civilisations Chinese circumnavigation in 1421? The Lost Tribes of Israel Lost continents Atlantis Lemuria Mu The problem with sunken continents Graham Hancock’s ‘Lost Civilisation’ Hancock’s Egypt Hancock’s Antarctica The nature of the ‘lost civilisation’ Extraterrestrials Erich von Däniken’s Spaceman-Gods The Sirius Mystery: did the Dogon know… Zecharia Sitchin Alien archaeology on Mars? The Monuments of the Moon Other moons and planets An alien graveyard in Rwanda! The “Starchild skull” Other chronologies Creationism Creationism today “Creation Science” “Scientific” creationists take on… Immanuel Velikovsky Ahmed Osman The “Wall of Severus” Forbidden Archeology Controversies L’Affaire Glozel A conspiracy of silence? Looking for “King” Arthur The documentary evidence for Arthur The archaeology of Arthur The ‘lost city of Apollo’ A medieval Welsh colony in America? The medieval documents Tudor developments Welsh “Indians”? Contemporary claims Assessing the claims Barry Fell Other dimensions? Theosophy Charles Fort Ley Lines Earth mysteries The Glastonbury Zodiac “New Age” delusions Pauwels and Bergier Religious delusions Herod the Great’s tomb The ‘Jesus family tomb’ The British Israelites Frauds and hoaxes The James the Just ossuary Charles Dawson In the service of politics Ram Setu (Ram Sethu) Great Zimbabwe Dubious methodologies Pyschic archaeology? Experiencing the past? Explanations Explaining Bad Archaeology Pseudoscience The “Two Types” Reference material Glossary Frequently Asked Questions Links General Aliens ancient and modern Creationism Ley Lines Contact the authors Follow me on Academia.edu Recent Bad Archaeology blog posts: Amazing Discovery Number 3 That Won’t Make You Question Anything And so we come to the next Amazing Discovery that will only make the most gullible and credulous question everything. This one – the “Hidden Character Stone” – is so bizarre that I frankly don’t understand how anyone could believe the claims made for it. So, here we go with a continuation of Spirit Science’s […] 10 Amazing Discoveries That <del>Will</del> Won’t Make You Question Everything Sometimes, just the name of a website is enough to make my heart sink. So, when my partner began reading out the name of a page that a mutual friend had ‘Liked’ on Facebook, I had an awful feeling of déjà vu: Spirit Science. As if to confirm my worst fears, the Welcome page includes […] Meta Log in Entries feed Comments feed WordPress.org Home » Extraterrestrials » The “Starchild skull” The “Starchild skull” Published 21 October 2012 | By Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews The so-called “starchild” skull (source Wikipedia) The “Starchild skull”, a real enough skull, is claimed to be physical evidence for a dead alien (or alien/human hybrid) right here on earth. Unfortunately, like so many of these objects that are supposed to derive from elsewhere in the cosmos, it is treated as private property and access to it for testing is tightly controlled. No independent scientific reports on it have ever been published and there are suspicions that data that demonstrates that it is human has been suppressed. Yet it has a very vocal community of supporters who tout it as proof of extraterrestrial contact (or a variety of other equally outlandish claims). The problems with the skull go way beyond simple data collection, analysis and interpretation: there are important ethical issues about the way in which the remains of a child – whether they are human or alien – are being used for commercial gain. Discovery The skull is supposed to have been discovered in the 1930s by an American girl from El Paso (Texas, USA) in an abandoned mine near Copper Canyon in Mexico, about 160 km south-west of Chihuahua. According to its current “owners”, the discoverer died in the early 1990s and it did not come into their possession until 1998, so information about its discovery is third hand, at best (it should be obvious that the discoverer cannot have given an account directly to its current “owners” after her death). Nevertheless, it is said to have been discovered with the complete skeleton of an adult that lay exposed on the floor of the mine. The skeleton to which this skull belongs was covered by a small mound of earth, leaving only an arm and hand projecting from it; the child’s hand was clutching the upper arm of the adult. Although the girl tried to recover both skeletons, a flash flood washed away most of the remains and all she could take home were the two skulls. The skulls were given to Ray and Melanie Young in 1998; Melanie is a neonatal nurse and was convinced that the shape of the child’s skull could not be the result of ordinary human deformities. To try to find out more about it, they approached the author Lloyd Pye (1946-2013), although it is not clear why they sought his assistance in examining the skulls rather than an archaeologist or palaeopathologist. He had published Everything you know is wrong, book 1: human origins in 1997, which promotes the ideas of Zechariah Sitchin about the alien origins of humanity, using tendentiously wrong translations of Sumerian texts as his principal evidence. This makes the choice of Lloyd Pye as someone to research the remains look as if the Youngs had already formed an idea about the nature of the child’s skull. Pye and the Youngs founded The Starchild Project early in 1999, when Lloyd Pye became the “caretaker” of the child’s skull. Since then, all access to the remains has been controlled by Pye who, by 2010, had engaged the services of his own geneticist for reasons that will become apparent. The Project has promoted the skull, principally to UFO and New Age groups, among which the term “star child” is used to refer to alleged human/alien hybrids or to “the next stage in human evolution”. Description The skull of the child is large, with a capacity of 1600 cm3, some 200 cm3 larger than the average human adult, although it falls within the overall range of 1000–1900 cm3. While claims have been made that it is composed of a material resembling tooth enamel, it is of the standard mammalian bone chemical calcium hydroxyapatite. It contains the usual bones of the skull, together with all the features such as muscle attachments found in humans. However, it exhibits considerable deformities in all of them. For instance, the orbits are unusually shallow and the canal for the optic nerve is closer to the base of the orbit, suggesting a rotational deformity, while the occipital bone at the back of the skull is flattened. There are said to be no frontal sinuses, a condition that affects about ten percent of the population. Analysis of a detached portion of the right maxilla showed unerupted permanent dentition and an age at death of around five to six years has been suggested. Three views of the ‘starchild’ skull DNA tests The first DNA test was carried out by the Bureau of Legal Dentistry laboratory of the University of British Columbia (Vancouver, Canada) in 1999, which recovered a small quantity of nuclear DNA, which was said to demonstrate that the child was male. This result was set aside by Pye, who said it was the result of contamination, although we are not told how the contamination occurred. If the skull as a whole is contaminated, it means that any DNA results from it will be compromised, whether mtDNA or nuDNA (the latter is always more difficult to detect in ancient samples). A second test was carried out in 2003 by Trace Genetics of Davis (California, USA), a commercial company with a singularly unhelpful website (perhaps its takeover by DNAPrint Genomics Inc. in 2005 has something to do with this). According to the report on the examination, the skull “has mtDNA consistent with Native American haplogroup C, as revealed through two independent extractions performed on fragments of parietal bone”. The inability to extract nuclear DNA is unsurprising and the analysts cite a number of factors that could make its sequencing difficult. This includes evidence “that X-Ray exposure damages and degrades DNA, which may have decreased the quantity and quality of DNA available in the bone prior to extraction”. In 2010, further DNA analysis was undertaken by the National Institutes of Health BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) programme, which “compares nucleotide or protein sequences to sequence databases and calculates the statistical significance of matches… to infer functional and evolutionary relationships between sequences as well as help identify members of gene families”. The procedure found that 265 base pairs could be matched, demonstrating “that at least some of the nuclear DNA from the Starchild is from a human being”. What Lloyd Pye was keen to promote, though, is that a sequence of 342 base pairs produced no significant similarities; Pye span this statement into “there is NO known earthly corollary for what has been analyzed!”, which is not what the report says. He also glosses over the part of the report that explains why no significant similarities have been found, saying that it is merely “an automatically generated list of possible procedural errors designed to help geneticists check all possible flaws in their testing techniques”. It would be helpful to see this! Further testing was carried out in 2011, which concentrated again on the mtDNA. This time, we are not told the name of the laboratory that carried out the analysis (although we are told that it involved techniques similar to those of the National Institutes of Health’s BLAST programme) or the names of the scientists as “[t]he identity of certain research team members requires temporary anonymity”. This is not helpful, especially when it is appended to an appeal for $7,000,000 as “funding needed to carry out the recovery and sequencing of its entire genome”. Yet another claim was made in 2012. Firstly, an extrapolation of the anonymous 2011 tests made it appear that the child’s mtDNA differs in 977 places from humans, comparing it with the 385 places in Denisovan humans and 1500 places in chimpanzees. The second (“preliminary”) claim is that there are significant differences in the FOXP2 gene (a gene that is believed to be implicated in the development of language skills). According to Pye, there are 56 differences, which mean that this gene is not human, although significant mutations of the gene are reported. A Mexican skull exhibiting deliberate deformation (source) Dating Radiocarbon dating was carried out in 2004 by Beta Analytic of Miami (Florida, USA), which gave a determination of 900 ± 40 bp, which calibrates to Cal AD 1117 ± 59; an earlier test on the adult skull gave exactly the same result. This places the two bodies firmly within the Casas Grandes tradition of the later Mogollon culture, which flourished in northern Mexico and the south-western USA in the early second millennium CE. Significantly, skull deformation was widely practised by this culture. Significance Deformed skulls are a widespread phenomenon in the ancient Americas. The skull of newborn infants consists of bones that are not yet fused (the fontanelle on the top of the head is where the frontal and parietal bones will eventually meet) and can be persuaded to grow into artificial shapes by means of pressing boards against the head and binding. A variety of deformations has been practised; the flattening of the occipital bone visible on the ‘starchild’ skull looks like this type of cultural flattening. However, other aspects of the skull look distinctly pathological: the lack of frontal sinuses, the over-large cranial capacity and the shapes of the orbits. The DNA tests performed on the skull for Lloyd Pye have shown that it belongs to haplogroup C, a typical Native American type, demonstrating that the child’s mother was beyond doubt a Native American, not an alien. The adult skull recovered with the child’s yielded mtDNA of haplogroup A, another Native American type, but which means that the skull cannot be that of the child’s mother, which would by definition have mtDNA of the same haplogroup. Pye’s insistence that the failure to extract a coherent sequence of nuDNA is evidence that the father was not human is simply not a valid inference. There are greater difficulties in the extraction of nuclear DNA from ancient bone than in the extraction of mitochondrial DNA, so the lack of nuclear DNA from the “starchild” skull is not at all mysterious and certainly not evidence for a non-human father. What Pye did not dwell on is the identification of both X and Y chromosomes, which show that the child was a boy; Y chromosomes can only be inherited from the father (men have an XY chromosome pair, women an XX chromosome pair), so the child’s father must have been as human as his mother. Deformity So why does the skull look so unusual? Although Lloyd Pye quoted doctors who state that it cannot have been a pathological condition, he ignores similar skeletal remains that are clearly the result of hydrocephalus, a condition in which the skull fills with cerebrospinal fluid in and around the brain and which can be fatal. Another condition that can yield similar skeletal pathologies is progeria, in which symptoms resembling premature ageing are caused by a genetic mutation. Add to this the deliberate deformation of the skull likely to have been started immediately after birth and it is obvious why the skull should look so odd. The scientific evidence shows very clearly that the “starchild” skull is that of a very sick human boy who probably died from the condition that caused the unusual pathological features of the skull. To promote this unfortunate Native American, whose remains are being displayed for public entertainment, is immoral, does an immense disservice to his memory and is something that under the American NAGPRA legislation is probably illegal. Lloyd Pye was not a scientist about to bring astounding revelations about alien contact with humans to public attention: he was a writer who already believed this before being given the skull and his promotion of it is nothing short of disgusting. Aliens in popular culture In 1987, a new image became a cultural icon: the almond-faced alien with shining black eyes that adorned the cover of Whitley Streiber’s Communion, painted by artist Ted Seth Jacobs. From that moment on, virtually every alleged encounter with alien beings reported in the English speaking world involved creatures of this type, commonly referred to as ‘Greys’. This is not the place to delve into the complex world of alien typology, but it is worth noting that Greys seem to be a largely American alien, with other regions reporting predominantly different types of creature (such as the South American preference for dwarves, the European preference for Nordics, which suggests a strong cultural component to the phenomenon). However, during the burgeoning of the stories of alien abduction during the 1980s and 1990s, the Grey quickly established itself as the abductor par excellence if only because the majority of abduction accounts come from North America and the USA in particular. A Grey alien or a fake? Photographs of Greys and other aliens are notoriously unreliable and easily faked. Many look like models (indeed, many photographs of supposed aliens touted on the web turn out to be stills taken from Hollywood films or television dramas), some are crudely retouched photographs of humans, some are misidentifications of shadows and so on, and at least one shows a dead human pilot horribly burnt following a crash (the wire rims of his spectacles are glearly visible). Photographic evidence, as so often in UFOlogy, is useless. So what other evidence might there be for their presence on earth? Not the fantasies of Erich von Däniken, who has been unable in a career spanning more than fifty years, to produce a single artefact of extraterrestrial origin, despite his penchant for ascribing virtually all of humanity’s cultural achievements to assistance given by aliens. Abduction and interbreeding Nevertheless, Lloyd Pye continued until his death in 2013 to promote the skull as evidence for an alien/human hybrid (although he did not specify whether this is an artificial hybrid made by manipulating the DNA of the fertilised egg or the result of inter-species sex). Such hybrids have been reported by numerous “alien abductees”, whose (usually hypnotically recovered) accounts of their abductions often refer to the aliens’ obsessive interest in their reproductive organs. Some claim to have undergone frequently painful and disturbing procedures to remove eggs and sperm; some claim to have become pregnant as a result of their treatment and subsequently to have discovered that they are no longer pregnant following a further abduction. There are accounts of abductees being shown humanoid but emotionless children during an abduction and being given impressions that these are their own offspring. Whatever the objective reali… truncated (4,760 more characters in archive)