The Mt Perry, Qld pgmy-size Homo skull [sideview].
The shadow details shows the eye sockets and mouth, both areas crushed inwards through geological distortion of the specimen.

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

The Mudgee, NSW, Archaic Homo erectus skull.
[left side view]Note missing skull cap, revealing mineralised mud filling of the skull cavity.

[above right] The Mudgee [left] and Bejing, China [right] Homo erectus skull-types [rear view]

Note the exposed thickness of the basal area of the rear braincase of the Mudgee specimen.
This is in keeping with Homo erectus skull-types generally.
Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

Above photo, left:The Mudgee, NSW, archaic Homo erectus skull [right], with cast of a Bejing Man {Chinese Homo erectus] on the left. The frontal views of both skulls clearly display physical variations.

For example, the incomplete Mudgee skull has no forehead while the bejing specimen displays a receeding forehead, placing it in the 'late' Homo erectus group.

[Down view-photo above right] Note the long, narrow [ie doliocephalic] braincase of each specimen
Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

The Bejing Man, China, [Homo beijingensis] skull cast [left profile], showing the receding forehead not present in the 'archaic' Mudgee NSW skull-type.

[above right] The Fish River, Tarana, NSW 'archaic' Homo sapien skull endocast [left view]. Note receding forehead and round [ie brachiocephalic] shape of the braincase.

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

Flinders Ranges, SA, Late Homo erectus skull No 1. [Frontal view}. [above middle] Flinders ranges, SA, Late Homo erectus Skull No 1. [left view].

The lower jaw has been fused to the palate, and the cranium flattened, both due to geological pressures upon the skull during the early stages of it's burial before the mineralisation process took over.

Thick, projecting eyebrow ridges [although worn down]
are recognisable.

[above right] Flinders Ranges, SA, Late Homo erectus Skull no 2. [frontal left view]. As this and the smaller Skull no1 were recovered a short distance apart, it is not unlikely they were part of a family


Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

The Katoomba, NSW, archaic Homo sapien cranium. [left view]. Note receding forehead. Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

[above middle] The Katoomba, NSW, archaic Homo sapien Cranium. [Downview]. Note right side crushed inwards.

Reconstruction shows that if this was returned to its correct shape in the manner of the left side, the skull would be brachiocephalic in the manner of modern humans.

[above right] The Katoomba, NSW Homo Sapien Cranium. [right view]. Ancient gravel and plant roots have become mineralised to the specimen.

[above far right]The Katoomba, NSW, archaic Homo sapien Cranium.[frontal view]. The receding forehead rises from thick, projecting eyebrow ridges which have been crushed inwards.

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

Frontal view of the Fish River, Tarana, NSW, Late Homo erectus skull endocast, with the larger, Archaic Homo sapien skull endocast.

Both specimens were recovered from the same strata.
The presence of both fossils in the same occuptaion layers
suggest that, Homo erectus populations persisted hearabouts
long after the appearance of their offshoot, Homo sapiens

[above right] Frontal view of the FishRiver, Tarana,
NSW, Late Homo erectus skull endocast, with the larger, Archaic Homo sapien skull endocast.

Both specimens were recovered from the same strata. The presence of both fossils in the same occuptaion layers suggest that, Homo erectus populations persisted hearabouts long after the appearance of their offshoot, Homo sapiens

The Fish River, Tarana, NSW Late Homo erectus skull endocast [left view]. Note receding forehead and strata lines of the mud infill

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

The Warrialda, NSW, juvenile archaic Homo sapien skull [frontal view].[above middle]The warrialda, NSW, Juvenile Homo sapien skull [left view], showing a receding forehead.[above right] Reconstruction of the Warrialda juvenile Homo sapein skull, based upon reconstruction of this badly distorted specimen.

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

The Mudgee, NSW, archaic Homo sapien Palate.

[Downview].[above right]

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

The Sarina, QLD, archaic Homo sapien skull dome fragment, at the time of its discovery.

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

 

 

 

Macdonald River, Bendemere, NSW Late Homo sapiens braincase [frontal view].

Specimen crushed from both sides of cranium, hense pointed dome and pressure cracks.

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

A New Zealand Giant archaic form of Homo sapien?

This large endocast specimen remains hidden at its site pending the preparation of a mould, from which a cast can be made for futher research in Australia. The fossil belonged to a being at least 3 metres in height.

[above middle]The endocast is badly distorted, but reconstruction shows it to be the skull of a definit Homo sapien type, but of immense stature. This [left view] of the specimen shows the outline of the distorted lower jaw area, and left eye socket and slightly recedign forehead.

[above right]Downview of the giant archaic Homo sapien skull endocast. Note brachiocephalic [ie rounded] shape of the skull.

[above far right] Archaic Homo erectus skull endocast, Corromandel Range, New Zealand. [left profile] Note flat cranium and well preserved shape of rear braincase.

Late Homo erectus skull, Corromandel Range, New Zealand. [right profile]. There are features in this specimen suggesting 'he' was on the way to evoloving into modern humans.
Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

A giant hominid molar tooth.

This mineralised pre-molar tooth belonged to a giant being of at least 3 m in height.

The tooth could be evidence of the presence of a giant form of Homo erectus having inhabitied Australia up to 300,000 years BP.

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

The giant man of ancient Coolah! This [left profile] view shows the basaltised jaw fragment of a 3 m or so tall hominid [probable Homo erectus], recovered from the same location as the giant hominid skull fragment.
A single molar tooth cracked down the centre can be seen

[above middle left] The basaltised giant hominid jaw fragment recovered at Coolah, NSW, [downview].

[above middle] The Coolah, NSW, giant hominid skull fragment [downview]. The fragment belongs to the left cranial area and includes the left brow ridge.

[above middle right] The Coolah, NSW, left cranial skull fragment showing the large left eyebrow ridge.

[above right] The Coolah, NSW, giant hominid left cranial skull fragment, showing the left eyebrow ridge, sloping back to a low forehead.

[above far right] A reconstruction of a complete skull and lower jaw, based upon the Coolah, NSW skull fragment. Note size comparisons between the gianty skul and that of the smaller Homo erectus.

The reconstructed shape of the giant skull does suggest the owner to have been a giant form of Homo erectus of at least 3 metres height.

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

The Katoomba Skull No 2, actually a mummified head and neck showing some crushing through geological pressure, pre-dates the Katoomba Skull No 1 [archaic Homo sapiens, 400,000 years BP] at around 2 million years. Its brachiocephalic [reconstruction] suggests a form of Homo closer to[later] modern humans than Homo erectus.

This [right profile] view suggests a receding forehead [and possible prominent nose], with projecting face.

It has been tentatively placed as a possible new line of primitive Homo.

[above middle] Katoomba Skull No 2. [left profile]. As with the right facial side, the chalked-in features repeated on both sides show eyes, cheek bone outlines, and the outline, continuous on both sides of the rear of the head of apparent hair.

[above right]Katoomba Skull No 2. Frontal view, showing the degree of flattening caused by geological pressure during the early stages of the specimen's burial.

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

The Christmas Creek, Qld, muffified head and neck.

This flattened specimen, through reconstruction, presents features which could suggest it is a hominoid, rather than a hominid in origin.

it is also possible that the race to which this specimen belonged, was a primitive ape-like race ancestral to the Homo erectus line. This remains to be seen.

Photo copyright (c) Rex Gilroy 2003.

Mysterious Australia Homepage Link Above

The Australian Yowie Research Centre Homepage

This truly unique collection of mineralised skulls and endocasts, the results of over 30 years fieldwork, presents what can only be described as an indisputable case for the evolution of the earliest modern humans [Homo sapiens] in Australia from Homo erectus, prior to the supposed first appearance of modern humans in Africa around 100,000 years ago, and long before the appearance of the earliest Australoids [Aborigines] in Australia by hundreds of thousands of years.

The findings presented here are subject to gradual change through new discoveries and reinterpretation of the evidence. As the skull-types demonstrate, the Australian Homo erectus specimens are of both the earlier flat-cranium 'archaic' and receding forehead 'late' forms, followed by both 'archaic' and 'modern' Homo sapiens.

Three small skull-types may represent a pygmy-size race of Homo with 'modern' features of considerable antiquity.

One skull-type suggests a primate presence in Pleistocene Australia at a remote period.

From New Zealand evidence of penetration there by Homo erectus is presented by two skull-types; an endocast of the 'archaic', and mineralised skull of the 'late' forms.

A word about the skull-types: These are either of limestone, mudstone or ironstone mineralisation, and are either endocasts [i.e. internal casts formed by sediments filling the skull interior which solidified prior to the loss of the bone covering] or completely mineralised skulls.

As these skulls have all suffered various degrees of geological distortion in the early stages of burial beneath varying depths of sediments, their identification has been arrived at through reconstruction. In the dating of these skulls these and other factors, such as the approximate ages of overlying geological deposits have also been taken into account in arriving at their various [approximate] ages.

We shall now proceed to study each skull-type in detail….Enter here for the collection on one page