Talk:Crystal skull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Page needs more documentary of other crystal skulls

As it stands this page largely focuses on the Mitchell-Hedges skull (Which may or may not be a forgery) and largely ignores the several OTHER skulls in the world of likely more legitimate origin. Also many of the details presented are inconsistent.

The british museum skull and the Mitchell-Hedges skull, to my knowledge, are NOT the same skull, in which case the photograph is labelled incorrectly. The two have been compared to each other and it is speculated due to very close dimensions that one was copied from the other (The Mitchell-Hedges skull having greater detail and a detatchable jaw, the British Museum skull having more in common with South American sculpture, suggesting either the more detailed Mitchell-Hedges one is the original, or the individual copying it from the museum skull added detail) The discussion of the origin, both the claims by Anna and her adoptive father, and the documentary evidence is ot presented in a consistent format, and does not mention the claims by Mitchell-Hedges that it was placed with Mr Burney as collateral on a loan, and subsequently returned to him by Mr Burney upon paying back the loan (A claim yet to be proven, but which would give a consistent timeline, and which mention of would present a possible explanation for the inconsistencies in its past). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.244.34 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] So Where is it now?

???


[edit] = Skulls for sale

Anyone who wants one of the 13 known crystal skulls worldwide can get them here: http://www.mineralminers.com/html/crystal_skulls.stm Too silly for Wikipedia? Nah! Wetman 05:53, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Thanks. I guess the ones being mass produced and sold are part of the unknown variety ;-) -- Infrogmation 06:06, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Er... So what's the deal with these things?

This article seems a little vague and confusing... the introduction in particular reads like a fight between a new age-y editor and skeptical one.... What actual scientific information is there on these things? Apparently the "Mitchell-Hedges skull" comes from "latin America", but I already knew that. Do the others come from Latin America too? Wherabouts exactly? What is the actual history behind the discovery of these skulls? Do they all come from the same areas? Are they all now considered to be fakes as the Mitchell-Hedges skull and the "skull held by the British Museum" are believed to be? If not, why and how where the others made? What significance are the believed to have held to the people who made them? I'm only able to find a whole host of bizarre new-agey links on the net about this, and while thats certainly interesting, i'd like some concrete information to balance that with as well.

Basically, they're a bunch of skulls made of quartz. They were made in Germany in the 19th century, sold by a Mexico-based French antique dealer named Eugene Boban and then, their owners started claiming they had occult or mysterious properties and origin. Of course, lots of gullible people bought into these stories, what with the "New Age" thing going on. It was the era when Erich von Daeniken started selling his preposterous UFO stories... And, of course, we had those "documentaries" on TV with that guy who played Captain Kirk from Star Trek as the presenter, uncritically propagating these stories. Oh well. Elp gr 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I suspect you're thinking of In Search Of, hosted by Leonard Nimoy (Mr. Spock). On a happier note, a crystal skull was used in the credits of the fairly skeptical show Arthur C. Clark hosted in the '80s, which tended to take a dim view of paranormal claims. (In fact, Clarke tended to be more agnostic than the show's writers and producers, who tended to be pretty hard-nosed when putting silly ideas through the wringer.204.152.2.80 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mitchell-Hedges Skull

There is only one skull that is actually of an unusual origin, or at least that has scientific data backing up the idea that it was not created in a conventional way, or could even be created today. That is the Mitchell-Hedges Skull.

Most of the other 'skulls' are new age garbage, without any data showing them to be anything more than traditional Mayan carvings, or, more commonly, modern forgeries.

The original Crystal Skull was seen as a sacred object by a group of Mayan priests, and they created many quartz skulls to honour the real skull. Their skulls possessed none of the properties of the original.

If it indeed is unusual and noteworthy, then Mrs. Mitchell-Hedges should have no objection letting scientists and experts examine it. Her steadfast refusal only leads to the conclusion that there's nothing unusual about it, save for the time that people have been believing it is "unusual". Elp gr 19:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no duty on behalf of Mrs. Mitchel to prove a negative. She did give the skull for some scientific testing once, and she considered that enough. --64.150.152.159 (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The Mitchell-Hedges skull could be easily duplicated today, with abrasives and CAD-CAM technology. It is an very non-Mayan representation of a skull. Although the Mayans could carve hard stones like jade, they did not carve quartz, ordinarily. Who are these supposed Mayan priests? Why haven't they asked for the skull to be re-patriated, like so many other objects in museum collections? Show me any similar carved stone object, found in any Mayan archaeologic site. On the other hand, you can find many examples of European carved quartz, some of which are skull-shaped with vertical holes drilled in them. They are usually found as parts of processional crosses or crucifixes. I have seen the Mitchell-Hedges skull, and I heard the woman who owned it speak. Quite entertaining, but not very credible.Pustelnik (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Info On Mitchell-Hedges

"Without doubt the most famous and enigmatic ancient crystal is the skull, discovered in 1927 by F.A. Mitchell-Hedges atop a ruined temple at the ancient internal linkMayan city of Lubaantum, in British Honduras, now Belize.

The skull was made from a single block of clear quartz, 5 inches high, 7 inches long and 5 inches wide. It is about the size of a small human cranium, with near perfect detail. In 1970, art restorer Frank Dorland was given permission to submit the skull to tests at the internal linkHewlitt-Packard Laboratories. Revealed were many internal linkanomalies.

The skull had been carved with total disregard to the natural crystal axis, ainternal linkprocess unheard-of in modern crystallography. No metal tools were used. Dorland was unable to find any tell-tale scratch marks. Indeed, most metals would have been ineffectual. A modern penknife cannot mark it. From tiny patterns near the carved surfaces, Dorland determined it was first chiseled into rough form, probably using diamonds. The finer shaping, grinding and polishing, Dorland believes, was done with innumerable applications of internal linkwater and silicon-crystal sand. If true, it would have taken 300 years of continuous labor. We must accept this almost unimaginable feat, or admit to the use of some form of lost technology.

Modern science is stumped to explain the skill and knowledge incorporated. As Garvin summarized:It is virtually impossible today, in the time when men have climbed mountains on the internal linkmoon, to duplicate this achievement...It would not be a question of skill, patience and internal linktime. It would simply be impossible. As one crystallographer from Hewlitt-Packard said, The damned thing shouldn't be."

If you had just clicked on that crystalinks link you could have accessed that information.

This information on Mitchell-Hedges is true, as confirmed by a former employee of Hewlett Packard, but the other skulls seem to be mostly bogus.

And who is this former employee? We have no name, no citation, no nothing. If that former employee existed, we'd have his testimony in a textual work and there would be test results to back up all these claims - IF that former employee existed and IF those tests were actually carried out. But then again, Dorland does claim that the Mitchell-Hedges skull (the one that Mrs. Mitchell-Hedges won't allow to be tested and examined by scientists, for reasons quite obvious) came from Atlantis and was carried around by the Knights Templar throughout the crusades. Elp gr 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, I remember this from some TV show. Don't remember if it was on Sci-fi or Discovery. But it speculated on the origins/craftsmanship. Their conclusion was that it WAS possible for a single person to have created this in their lifetime and that the Mayans had the tools required. One thing they mentioned is that Diamond or iron Carbide is not needed to shape quartz. Quartz fragments can be used instead.Marhawkman 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What is so mysterious about this skull? It very closely resembles the Britsh Museum skull, which like the Paris skull was sold by Boban in the nineteenth century, and has been shown to have been carved using typical 19th century techniques. This skull shows up after the British Museum skull is sold by Tiffany's. Don't you think that is is likely that someone at Tiffany's had the skill to carve the Mitchell-Hedges skull in the late nineteenth century? If you agree that British Museum skull is nineteenth century, the Mitchell-Hedges skull had to be carved by someone who had access to it. That the Mitchell-Hedges skull was carved at Tiffany's in the late nineteenth century is the most likely explanation, but I suppose someone associated with the British Museum could have done it as well. The British Museum bid on this skull, so I suspect that they were not involved in its creation, unless they were exceedingly devious. I supect the answer to the mystery of the Mitchell-Hedges skull lies somewhere in the Tiffany archives.Pustelnik (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hewlett Packard story

I moved the below from the article to here pending citation/source info, as it seems to be in dispute. -- Infrogmation 15:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, in 1970 the Mitchell-Hedges family loaned the skull to Hewlett-Packard Laboratories (CITATION NEEDED!! And I mean a citation that goes back straight to Hewlett-Packard, and not some New Age demagogue who has a friend who has a friend who's an ex-employee of HP's main parts supplier) where it was put through extensive testing. They found that the skull was carved against the natural axis of the crystal, which has to be taken into account to prevent the crystal from shattering. This is true even today with modern methods of crystal carving which implement high precision lazers. Furthermore, they were unable to find microscopic scratches, which would indicate that metal tools were used to carve the skull. Art restorer Frank Dorland, who oversaw the testing, hypothesized that the skull was roughly shaped with diamonds and then detailed with a gentle solution of silicon sand and water. This would require man hours equalling aproximately 300 years to complete.

Finding a citation to confirm these tests is extremely unlikely. Elp gr 19:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The Hewlett-Packard tests were featured on a Discovery Channel special about the skulls (Spring 2008). Maybe you should call and ask them where they got the info, I'm sure they'll be able to give you a precise citation. ;) They showed footage of technicians working on the skulls in the documentary. Maybe they got the footage from a friend who has a friend who's an ex-employee of HP's main parts supplier! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.30 (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The HP reference was tracked down some time ago, and is cited in the appropriate section. Available online, anyone can look at it. Not surprisingly perhaps, the testing results at HP labs were rather mundane and revealed nothing out of the ordinary - tho' you wouldn't necessarily think so if one relied on sensationalised 2nd- & 3rd-hand reportage (such as in the "documentary" on Discovery Channel) for the info. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I don't understand why these would be so troublesome to create. We've got lasers that can do very fine precision cutting...so !BAM! you've got a crystal skull...what's so mysterious or supernatural about that? 300 years? try a couple days.

It was found sometime in the 20s or 30s. Only now (2006) are we barely getting close to being able to replicate it

You underestimate both modern and ancient technology. There are Neolithic axe heads from China that were polished using diamonds, and text impling the use of diamond in stone cutting from about 2500 years ago. I suspect that Benvenuto Cellini could have made more anatomically accurate skulls, using a pointing machine and diamond or corundum abrasives. You need skill, but you do not need high technology. Pustelnik (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the Coral Castle was built by a single man decades ago with simple equipment. The guy who built it accomplished incredible feats, such as precision drilling through a 9 ton slab of coral in the 1920's and 30's that can only be matched today by laser guided drilling. Just because the rest of humanity can barely understand how to do great things now, doesn't mean that things like crystal skulls and coral castles couldn't have been made in the early 20th century by a single individual with a unique understanding of what he is doing.

...except that Ockham's razor rarely fails in cases like that.

[edit] This is a bit one-sided

Regardless of whether the Mitchell-Hedges Skull was carved over the course of 300 years, was examined by the fine experts at HP, or was a gift from Ming the Merciless, there is substantial evidence that Mitchell-Hedges bought the thing at Sotheby's in 1943 for 400 pounds (Secrets of the Supernatural by Joe Nickell, John F. Fischer, Prometheus Books(1991))

[edit] Desambiguation needed

I found this page looking for Crystal skull, a song by Mastodon

[edit] Basic Problem With This Page

I came to this page hoping to find out about what is actually known about the Mitchell-Hedges skull but found out very little. Not only "very little" but the Mitchell-Hedges skull seems to be conflated with the low-grade, inferior skulls. The Mitchell-Hedges skull is a work of exquisite craftsmanship, whereas the other crystal skulls are hardly better than something one would find in a giftshop. One can simply google "Mitchell Hedges skull" and find numerous images, which, when compared with the image of one of the low-grade skulls on the article page, show the vast difference between them. The Mitchell-Hedges skull really needs to be treated separately from the other skulls, and there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is known about the Mitchell-Hedges skull - even if almost nothing is known - and what is known about the other skulls, or reasonably assumed. To me, it is a complete mistake to group them together, and to apply what is known about the low-grade skulls, to the Hedges-Mitchell skull without very compelling reasons. A simple visual inspection and comparison of images of the skulls will back up my opinion here, I should think. (As an aside, the means by which the skull came into the possession of Mitchell-Hedges has no bearing on its origin and provenance, or how old it is, &c &c.) Hi There 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Jachowicz?

Who the heck is this guy and this so called Star Protist cult? When I type this into Google all I get is pages regurgitating the text found on this page...so is there any evidence anywhere suggesting that either the cult or their leader are real?

Ha, I was just looking for it myself- when the WP:Talk page came up! this page did too, but just for reprinting the Wiki article. I'm going to delete it...if someone wants to later source it, more power to them. --mordicai. 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page is garbage

We have a claim that the skull was found in 1927 contradicted by evidence that it was purchased in 1943. Only the claim gets published. We have a claim that HP evaluated the thing in 1970 and zero hard evidence to back up that claim. 300 years of labor? Prove it. Where are the studies? Links please!


[edit] Comment left on article page by anon user at 138.116.138.170

Notes from a different person. I don't have the archeological knowledge to comment on the archeology, and I don't want to change the section therefore. However, I saw the Mitchell-Hedges skull on display at Lily Dale near Buffalo NY when I was still a teenager, probably more than 20 years ago. Anna Mitchell-Hedges was with it and lectured on its origins. When it was displayed a copy of a professional report, I recall it as being from a major company, I noted that at the time, and she mentioned it in her lecture, but I don't recall what the logo was, I presume however that it was the Hewlett Packard report mentioned... -- it was about 16 pages if memory serves -- was available for anyone to read who wanted to. Looking back today, as a tenured professional member of faculty at a major university, I must say, the report looked like any other report of similar type prepared on any subject - and there was no reason to think that it was a hoax as I recall it. The reason I take the time to post this (I came across this article as a cross reference from a cross reference from a cross reference) is that whoever wrote the section above that dealt with the report is either unaware of the actual existence of any report -- which would indicate poor research at best, not very thorough, or willing to undertake scholarly methods to vilify a theory or belief with which s/he disagrees which are not terribly professional, or at least don't seem terribly professional to me. I thought that was worth noting.

[edit] Hewlett Packard report?

Out of curiousity, I decided to look for the "mysterious HP report" that is mentioned on 90,000+ fluff-tastic websites without any details or citations.

One source says that the report is detailed in the following text:

The crystal skull; the story of the mystery, myth and magic of the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull discovered in a lost Mayan city during a search for Atlantis

by Richard M. Garvin Type: Book Publisher: Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1973. ISBN: 0385094566 OCLC: 553587


Without access to that sort of literature, I fear I cannot verify the reference, but there it is for others to pursue.

Another rainbow-lovin' website gives this detail:


Quote: "1971: In the February issue of “Measure”, Hewlett Packard’s company-wide newsletter, appears a report of the research conducted upon the Mitchell-Hedges Crystal Skull.

1979: Francisco Reyes, the Mayan Priest, purchases “Ami”, the amethyst crystal skull from the “Lascurian” Family in Mexico.

1979: Hewlett Packard, located in California, conducts research with “Ami”, the amethyst crystal skull and the “Mayan Crystal Skull”. The skulls are brought there by John Zamora, the agent for Mr. Reyes, who has possession of both skulls at this time."


I searched for the "Measure" newsletter, and found the following reference to its actual existence:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4422/is_n11_v12/ai_17781973

Quote:

I now write two electronic newsletters, Connections: Asia Pacific and Connections: Latin America. (I also contribute regularly to Measure, which is now edited by Jay Coleman, ABC.) I am still so completely immersed in HP's corporate communication efforts that some days it takes a crack of thunder to remind me I'm not in California anymore.


Adding Jay Coleman to my search terms comes up with this more useful detail, a quote about "Measure" from Coleman himself.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_5_46/ai_74829363

Quote:

"In June 2000, when we spun off part of our company to form a new organization, we wanted to position Hewlett-Packard as the inventive company it is. We repackaged a successful print publication called Measure, renamed it Invent and supported it with additional information on the intranet," says Jay Coleman, who edits Invent for HP's Organizational Communications Division.

MEASURE Magazine was published from 1963 until 2000, as you can see here.

http://www.hpmuseum.net/exhibit.php?content=Measure%20Magazine

It only remains, then, to do one of three things:

1.) Contact Mr. Coleman and ask him if there is any way to verify the information we have concerning the alleged published reports in 'Measure Magazine'.

2.) Find a source of 'Measure' magazine issues in question here. Due to their limited distribution (internally published for HP) and their age, this seems possible, but unlikely to happen.

3.) Contact the administrators of the HP Museum and ask them if they would be so courteous as to let us know anything about the issues, and reports, in question here.


I am preparing to do #3 with an e-mail to:

jondNOSPAMjohnston@hpmuseum.net

...which is the contact address listed for the HP Museum. If I learn anything, I will post it here.


In an attempt to find out if the crystal was indeed pure and not synthetic like what is being used in computer chips now the scientists as Hewlett-Packard submerged the crystal in alcohol of the same density. The skull basically disappeared inside the tank showing that it was indeed a pure crystal and not synthetically grown.

The computer chip actually use elemental silicon (sometimes mixed with germanuim), while quartz is silicon dioxide. I'm replacing 'computer chip' by 'computer clocks' (which do use synthetic quartz) 68.161.24.117 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This anonymous thing above was me. I'm not going to change anything, because the whole description of this "alcohol analysis" is pure nonsense! I recommend to delete this paragraph, because it's totally unscientific.

First of all, the quartz crystal would only become (almost) invisible in a liquid with the same refractive index or optical density; it has nothing to do with density (volumic mass). Second, any water-ethanol mixture has refractive index much lower, than quartz or glass. Hence, for sure, it would only work with some other liquid (none of common gem refractometer liquids are alcohol-based). And, the synthetic quartz, that is commonly used in clocks and radio transmitters, is actually alpha quartz, identical to the natural mineral. Quite in the contrary, the other crystal forms of silicon dioxide (beta quartz, cristobalite, coesite, tridymite) are usually found exactly in nature, and, as far as I know, are not used in industry. The proccess of synthetic quartz production as, basically, the same as the natural hydrothermal proccess. While it's relatively easy to tell the difference between the contemporary forms of synthetic quartz and its natural analogues, by observing certain specific microscopic intrusions, it would not be possible to determine, whether it was produced by some unknown ancient proccess. Only carbon dating of carbonate intrusions would really help, because in the nature it takes thousands of years to grow a relatively big quartz crystal, while in the lab it should take much shorter time. Laplandian 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I have read the story in other sources and now it makes sense to me. They used Benzyl alcohol, which has almost the same refraction index as quartz, and the purpose was to determine, the it's quartz and not glass (glass - that's what was meant by possible "synthetic origin"). Laplandian 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

One website says it was the Feb. 1971 issue of Measure, if that is any help. I added the external link, pages 8-10. Pustelnik (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] *actual* Mesoamerican skull objects

This page needs some stuff from real history. This object here[1] for example, is an actual Aztec artifact; there are others. It might not be made out of "crystal", but is it possible reports of these mosaic skulls inspired the association of the crystal skulls with classical Mexican civilizations? --Krsont 13:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an amazing example of Aztec art. It is skull related art, but isn't a crystal skull however. I'm not sure what sort of tie-in you propose. Why do you think it is relevent to this article? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 16:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
read what I said, specifically: "is it possible reports of these mosaic skulls inspired the association of the crystal skulls with classical Mexican civilizations?" --Krsont 17:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I read it. I don't know if the fact that Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican artists (like those of many other cultures around the world) made artwork in the form of skulls (and sometimes from skulls) motivated the (apparently dubious) attribution of the crystal skulls to ancient Mesoamerica. I'm sorry; I'm not trying to be dense or rude, I honestly am not sure exactly what you say the page "needs" in relation to this. Perhaps we could use some sort of article about human skulls in art? -- Infrogmation 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear ...

Hello.

-edit- talking about the part about the Mitchell-Hedges skull ...

As a new reader for this article, I'd like to point out that it is unclear wether the skull was actually tested at HP at all. It is said at one point that HP never confirmed that any of thoses tests happened. However, later in the article, I read that

"In an attempt to find out if the crystal was pure crystalline quartz and not glass or another mineral, Hewlett-Packard submerged the crystal in Benzyl alcohol, which has the same diffraction coefficient (Garvin 75). The skull became invisible inside the tank, showing that it was indeed pure crystalline quartz. By exposing the submerged skull to polarized light, the Hewlett-Packard team also showed that that the skull was made from a single left-handed growing crystal (Garvin 75-76)."

Those sentence are in a very affirmative form, suggesting that HP did indeed ran some test. And I wondered if none of the tests where confirmed, of only parts of them. I had to read the discussion to clear that point.

I would be good to repeat that the information is not confirmed.

Also, if any source is available, it would be good to mention that Mitchell-Hedges refuses to have the skull tested again.

[edit] New skull image please?

This current one is artistic, but the face isn't visible enough.--76.25.36.37 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

i have one i took of the one in London while i was there last week if you want me to post it let me know it is a full front on shot ( i think you can make out the whole face). i would have to do it tomorrow though. ( there might be a small flash glare the room is a bit dark)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.31.100 (talk • contribs) 2 June 2008
Load it up, if you've got a pic & are prepared to release it under suitable license, then by all means let's see.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Skulls

I was watching tv and I saw a special about this, arent there 13 skulls. It also said if theyre put all together something will happen. They said aliens might come,end of the world, or meaning of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.40.14 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of skulls, I don't think there is any definitive number but there have been at least five 'generations' of skulls from various parts of the world, some made of crystal, others of glass or resin. If you put them all together you'd have a bunch of skulls.Doug Weller (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

These are a bit of a mess. I am removing some according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. If anyone objects to a particular removal could they please discuss it here? Thanks.

[edit] Arthur C. Clarke's "Mysterious World" and the Mitchell-Hedges Skull

I recently obtained a 2 disc DVD set of Mr. Clarke's 1980 paranormal series and the segment regarding the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull (used as the iconic image for the show's logo) from Episode 3, titled "Ancient Knowledge", stuck out as improbable to say the least and downright fishy in all candor. Clarke himself does not directly address what he may or may not have thought about the legend of the crystal skull, other than to suggest that it's existence doesn't make much matter in how we regard ancient civilizations and their technologies. The story of the crystal skull is an enigmatic mystery rather than a profound insight into human evolution.

I did some basic Yahoo web searching using various terms relating to crystal skulls and in less than an hour or so had found enough convincing anecdotal evidence to conclude that the whole thing is a somewhat haphazard if endearing little hoax. First off the skull was supposedly found by F.A. Mitchell-Hedges' adopted daughter Anna on -- surprise! -- her 17th birthday while "rummaging about" in a small room in Mitchell-Hedges' "lost city" of Lubaantun. According to her statements made on Clarke's show, young Anna and the other excavators had seen the skull "shining through the rocks" for days before she finally unearthed it. According to her claim she was present for the Lubaantun excavations for seven years "living as the Maya lived", and was the one who was selected to remove it because her hands were smaller than the others present.

So the whole idea of her "finding it" unexpectedly on her 17th birthday is undermined by her own recollections, but never mind. The skull was made of two distinct sections (the large cranial piece and a lower mandible, which may or may not have been connected by an articulated hinge) and according to the tale Anna first found the main cranial section and then "three weeks later" the jaw was discovered in the same room about 25 feet away.

There are several problems with this account. Most importantly is that there is no documentation of the find at the time: Proper archaeological technique would have compelled those who had discovered it to thoroughly document the find up to and including taking photographs of the object as it was found -- one need look no further than the exhaustive documentation of the excavation of Tutankhamen's tomb for an example of an expedition of contemporaneous time following the correct procedure. According to Anna Mitchell-Hedges' statements from the show, she unearthed the skull and held it up for her father to see, and he could not believe what he was looking at.

While I am sure that young Anna was a bright young lady at the first sight of such a remarkable and unexpected find all efforts to remove the skull from it's resting spot, supposedly underneath a "Mayan altar", should have ground to a halt to allow proper documentation of just how it appeared upon first sight. While there are extensive photographs of Mitchell-Hedges' Lubaantun excavations there are none of the skull. Not in the place it was discovered nor afterwards when cataloging whatever artifacts may have been unearthed.

As such it was rendered as a mute artifact upon its alleged discovery, immediately removed from the circumstances it was claimed to have been found in and thusly in the words of a web page I found on the mystery "had absolutely no archaeological value and exists only as a curiosity". While I am impressed by the elder Mitchell-Hedges' reported flights of fancy (he claimed to have been a roommate of Trotsky's at one time) I do have trust in his ability to have understood that IF the skull had been discovered as claimed that he would have recognized the importance of the find at the time and at least made a rudimentary attempt to document the object in it's original circumstance.

That he did not is the main dead giveaway that the story is not as claimed. Either Mitchell-Hedges knew that the skull had no value or the whole tale is a fabrication. Further evidence to back this up is found in a 1944 document in the records of the British Museum of Mankind that they actually lost an auction for a crystal skull at Sotheby's in 1943, and that the winner of the auction was indeed F.A. Mitchell-Hedges. Further gumshoe work reveals that there was no mention of the crystal skull in any writings or statements made by Mr. Mitchell-Hedges before 1943 -- though there is mention of a second crystal skull being purchased by the Museum of Mankind in 1929 from Tiffany's of New York, who had acquired it from a Paris based curios dealer named Eugène Boban in 1898 and who's credibility on the nature of the skulls' origin has long been in question.

Regardless, Mr. Mitchell-Hedges made no mention of the skull publicly in any verifiable manner prior to 1943, but did come up with an amusing reason as to why he purchased the object at auction before claiming his daughter had found it in 1927: He claimed to have given the skull to an art collector named Sydney Burney as a lien on a loan that he failed to repay for whatever reason. Mr. Burney then presented the skull to Sotheby's for auction, Mitchell-Hedges learned of the pending auction, attempted to persuade Sotheby's to release the skull to him, and eventually had to bid in the auction to reclaim his property (with the British Museum being the underbidder).

So like all good hoaxes the explanation as to why he had to purchase the artifact at auction is woven into the basic underlying mythology as to how he came to possess it in the first place. If any kind of research should be done it seems to me the first step is to find out where Sydney Burney acquired the skull from and when. The main wiki page for Crystal Skulls stated that he had come into possession of it in 1933, and what it sounds like to me is that there had been a little "mini rage" of interest in these objects during the late 1920s - early 1930s, Mitchell-Hedges found himself caught up in the wave of fascination and perhaps concocted a story about finding one as a way to entertain his parlor guests who would have been quite struck by the sight of the thing sitting on a curios shelf.

But it also seems to me that there might be some veracity to some of the claims, though events may not have happened exactly as related by the Mitchell-Hedges'. Some have questioned whether Anna Mitchell-Hedges had indeed accompanied her father to Lubaatan in 1927 (some cite 1924 as the year) but I can say from watching the Arthur C. Clarke show that she makes a compelling witness and is insistent upon the circumstances under which it was claimed to have been found. Given the elder Mitchell-Hedges' romanticized tales, I would be surprised if it turned out that he had indeed purchased the skull prior to 1927, brought it along with him on the expedition, secreted it in the room in question, and assigned his adopted daughter to work in the room in question on the date of her 17th birthday to find it herself, and set the subsequent mythology about the skull's nature into motion.

Mitchell-Hedges also may indeed have given it to Sydney Burney as collateral on a personal loan as he claimed and then purchased it back at a lesser price at auction, possibly even getting the better of the deal by managing to buy it back at a lesser amount than the original loan. While mere conjecture it does seem a bit fortuitous that Mitchell-Hedges was able to reclaim his property at all. Regardless the object was only referred to publicly by Mitchell-Hedges after the verified 1943 Sotheby's auction, so there is a compelling reason to state that before he started boasting about it's story in 1944 there is no evidence that he possessed the thing at all.

Anna Mitchell-Hedges' role in the story then becomes somewhat dubious. Not only did she perpetuate the somewhat romantic tale of finding it for some sixty years afterwards, she elaborated on the properties of the object, claiming that it channeled visions of Mayan pre-history life into her own head when she would place the skull on a bedside table at night. She also "toured" with the skull and most likely profited from relating her stories to New Agers for decades, never straying from her claims even after gem experts (supposedly Hewlett-Packard and the British Museum, one of who's experts is shown evaluating the skull on the Clarke program) more or less confirmed that the techniques used to shape the skull could be dated to the 19th century. Her claims that it was 3600 years old also seem somewhat arbitrary: Why not 4000 or 5000 years old? And how did F.A. Mitchell-Hedges arrive at the date of 3600 years?

The stone itself cannot be dated. There is no way to affix any kind of age to a lump of crystal, especially after it has been removed from the alleged circumstance under which it was found without any kind of documentation proving that it was found under the circumstances cited. So what we are left with is the claims of a charming elderly woman with a wonderful story about finding something "that shouldn't exist" on her 17th birthday. If experts on gem carvings state that the technique used to make it can be dated to the 19th century, then that is the most which can be said of it. All of the experts who have examined it have agreed that there are no tell tale "random scratchings" on the surface that would indicate that it had been carved with "primitive tools", which would inevitably left tooling marks on the surface no matter how careful and precise the artisan(s) who had made it tried to be in shaping it.

There is compelling reason to believe the claims that the quartz block itself that was used to make the skull came from Brazil, where quartz nodules of the size needed to make the skull were apparently quite abundant. The tooling itself that was used to shape the skull's features are attributed by the expert on the Arthur C. Clarke show as probably being of European in origin, with Germany in particular cited as the probable place where the quartz block was shaped. I personally am of the opinion that the whole Lubaatan story is a ruse of some sort, though again it may just have been a harmless "prank" pulled by Mitchell-Hedges to help make his adopted daughter Anna's 17th birthday more special. The subsequent tales of elaborate properties of the skull seem to have taken on a life of their own to the point where all we know for sure is that in 1943 F.A. Mitchell-Hedges purchased a crystal skull at auction from Sotheby's.

Stating anything beyond that is mere speculation, conjecture, or wishful thinking, though I am satisfied that Anna Mitchell-Hedges was at least convinced of the story she perpetuated through the years, which makes me believe that she herself was a "victim" of her adopted father's harmless little hoax. I see nothing too damaging about the subsequent history of the Mitchell-Hedges skull, and if believing that it had been shaped by ancient astronauts or had been found in the ruins of a lost Mayan city established by people from Atlantis will help people find meaning in their universe I think that's just fine. But without any verifiable evidence it's all just an entertaining story, with contemporary study of the object suggesting that it was made in Europe during the 19th century.

What might deserve further research would be citing how Sydney Burney actually did come into possession of it, and if F.A. Mitchell-Hedges and the mysterious Eugène Boban crossed paths at some point during the mid 1920s, perhaps in Mexico City where Boban was known to have had a shop.

(Apologies if any of my text may not correspond to strict guidelines, it's my first wiki entry ever.)

Squonkamatic (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Squonkamatic

[edit] Recent rollback

Note that I've just rolled back an attempt to change the lead to publicise the book by Chris Morton and Ceri Louise Thomas, which included a link to their website. Doug Weller (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps with the upcoming release of the latest from the Raiders franchise, someone's hopeful of an opportunity to bandwaggon some attention for this uncritical work...--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Article by Jane MacLaren Walsh

I've started to work on this based on a new article in Archaeology Magazine which I bought yesterday at Barnes and Noble, should be available at Borders Books, etc. It's by the Smithsonian anthropologist Jane MacLaren Walsh. It's very good, I recommend it.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I see a link has already been made to the online version, which seems complete. So, do I replace my footnotes with the online one and remove the one in references?Doug Weller (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the online Archaeology article reproduces the print version in full, may as well just use the single resource. The reference in the biblio section here gives the full print details (vol, iss, pp's, etc) anyways. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation/referencing style

Hi, I've restored the references section to the style/layout that had been established for the article. As per the edit summary, WP:CITE does not mandate the use of any one particular style or presentation, beyond noting that there's a conventional sequence & some standard naming for "appendices" sections - and the style used did not conflict with this. Possibly the style used is not to everyone's tastes, but taste alone would be an insufficient reason to change a system that was fully functional and internally consistent; leastways, not without some prior discussion.

I would also disagree with the comment that had been added to the 'References' section (<!--This section should be merged with the inline citations; there is no point in having two notes/refs sections for the same purpose, as this just confuses readers.-->). Firstly, I'm not convinced that the general readership would be bewildered upon encountering separated 'notes' and 'references' sections, the purpose of each seems clear enough. And secondly, maintaining a 'notes' section (used for footnotes, parenthetical comments and abbreviated inline cites for particular pieces of info) that is separated from a 'references' section (containing alpha-sorted biblio of works consulted, with details fully expanded) is a common, not to mention useful, method seen here on wiki and elsewhere. The current guidelines go so far as to even recommend this method, such as here and also at WP:FN. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why might crystal skulls have emerged in the 19th century?

In 1839, John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood, after hearing reports of lost ruins in the jungle, visited Copán, Palenque, and other Mayan sites, causing a surge of interest in Mesoamerican ruins. By the end of the 19th century, people like Désiré Charnay, Alfred Maudslay, and Thomas Gann were exploring Mesoamerican ruins and writing about their travels, and interest in antiquities from Central America grew. So of course someone's going to think, "oh, here's a nice treasure, I could make some money by faking an artifact and selling it to a museum". And apparently enterprising Germans and French did just that. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be doing Boban a disservice. He sold artifacts, but nor necessarily as representatives of a culture, a concept that was still being developed at the time. He may or may not have bought all of his skulls in Mexico, but sold them as art objects. In at least one of his catalogs, he did not attribute a crystal skull to any particular group of people. The Paris skull was sold as part of a large collection, and it is not clear that he made any representations regarding who manufactured it. He may not have even considered this to be a relevant fact. Two similar art controversies of the late nineteenth and early 20th century are the Rodin and Degas bronze sculptures, many of which were cast posthumously. Some modern art critics consider these to be "fakes", but it appears that the foundries who cast these considered them to be "art". It is not clear that the Paris or British museum skulls were sold "as" cultural artifacts, but they certainly have artistic value regardless of their origin. The Mitchell-Hedges skull was and is represented as an ancient artifact, but the provenence is doubtful.Pustelnik (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of crystal skulls occurence in popular fiction is NOT trivia

There is notation on the page that says that trivia sections are discouraged. It occurs at the section that lists the occurence of crystal skulls in popular fiction. Such a list is not necessarily trivia, it is information directly related to the topic and provides a useful tool for cross referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.226.192 (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The section that is no longer there was a particularly bad example of trivia sections. Anything to do with x in popular culture "should contain verifiable facts of genuine interest to a broad audience of readers. Although some information can be verified from primary sources, this does not demonstrate whether such information has been discussed in independent secondary sources. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it will be easy to find a secondary reliable source to attribute that judgment. Quoting a respected expert as attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged." --Doug Weller (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skull in Mexico's National Museum of Anthropology

I can find no mention of it anywhere, but at one time, there was a life-size crystal skull in Mexico City's National Museum of Anthropology. I saw it in the old museum, same one with the Aztec Sun Stone, also called the Aztec Calendar Stone, back in 1960. Back in the 70s, or 80s I read that it had been stolen from the museum, but a few years later, it was recovered. I think it strange that I can find no mention of it anywhere. Perhaps they decided it was a fake, i.e. of modern origin, and no longer display it. That I could understand. But, it seems to have dropped from the record entirely. Very odd. Does anyone know anything about this particular crystal skull? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.173.101 (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Though the British Museum exhibits its skulls as examples of fakes, others still offer them up as the genuine article. Mexico's national museum, for example, identifies its skulls as the work of Aztec and Mixtec artisans. Perhaps it is because, like the Indiana Jones movies, these macabre objects are reliable crowd-pleasers." [2]--Pharos (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember seeing a large crystal skull at the Mexican museum in the late '70s, but my memory may be playing tricks on me. On the other hand, Archaeology mag. online (http://www.archaeology.org/0805/etc/indy.html ) reports, "One small crystal skull was purchased in 1874 for 28 pesos by Mexico City's national museum from the Mexican collector Luis Costantino, and another for 30 pesos in 1880."

And another site says, "The near-human-size fakes might have been inspired by two real crystal skulls now on display at Mexico City's respected National Anthropology Museum. Much smaller and less perfectly carved than the ones held at the museums in Europe, these jewelry-sized trinkets, about an inch in height, are in the Aztec and Oaxaca collections, where the museum classifies them as either late pre-Hispanic or early colonial" ("Mexico's crystal skulls inspire myths Real-life Mayan skull worship lends storyline to new 'Indiana Jones' movie." By Mark Stevenson ASSOCIATED PRESS: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/05/18/0518crystalskulls.html)Kdammers (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info on Skulls

As mentioned in earlier articles there are in fact supposed to be 13 crystal skulls. The skulls are shrouded with claims of paranormal activity. Such as seeing into the future and past. Some beleive the skulls were brought by aliens to jump start human civilization. They've been rumored to have great healing powers. When the 13 skulls are reunited all man-kinds problems are supposed to be solved. This date was pre-determined by some force unknown. God,aliens whatever. Also some even believe that the skulls originate from a super advance race long gone. They theroize that is some kind of computer that holds great mysteries. As for the making of the skills some reports claim there are no tool marks visible on the skulls. Still as mention in previous articles it is thought that most are fakes.

For more info on this I suggest watching the last part of the special on the History Channel titled Indiana Jones: The Ultimate Quest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diemert (talk • contribs) 06:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Another show

There was another show on the SCI FI channel hosted by Lester Holts on the mysteries of the Skulls, a lot of information all about it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.183.67 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unidentified crystal skull photo

The mystery skull!!!
The mystery skull!!!

Can anyone visually identify this crystal skull photo uploaded by a German Wikipedian? I'd like to put it in the article, but right now I have no idea which crystal skull it is.--Pharos (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The original uploader de:Benutzer:Kuddel still seems to be recently active on de.wiki; perhaps you can ask them on their de.wiki talkpg. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Unclear

In the opening sentences, the use of 'instead of 19th century...' is very unclear. The 'of' is really superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.123.228 (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Now reworded for clarity. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Channel Citation

Removed the "citation needed". Here is the article referring to the claim: http://www.discoverychannel.ca/shows/showdetails.aspx?sid=8825 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.235.130 (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; cite now added. After some more digging, seems it was produced for the Sci Fi Channel, which figures I guess. It appears they even wheeled out Hoagland for another bite at the cherry.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obsidian Mirrors

This is not a good example. Obsidian mirrors are well documented in use in Mesoamerican art, as an attribute of a god of astronomy. I agree that John Dee's mirror in the British Museum was not from an archaeologic site, as far as we know. I'll try to find citations for excavated obsidian mirrors, as I am fairly sure they exist in collections. Pustelnik (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)