Talk:Crystal skull/Archive 1

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)

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)

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.
 * No, the feat is not unimaginable. The sand story was originally applied to a jadeite adze (see the 1887 New York Times reference) or the article on George F. Kunz.  I supect that Dorland saw this article, then applied the story to the wrong object.  It is documented that Boban knew of nineteenth century lapidaries who worked jadeite in Mexico. Pustelnik (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

It should be clarified that the reason HP did not investigate dating, that it is infact impossible to date scientifically Quartz as it contains no Carbon, thereby making C14 dating, the standard method of scientific dating, impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.169.76 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

I have worked for the company for 27 years. No one at HP Labs was EVER invited to examine any of these skulls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.232.244 (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that statment would seem to be contradicted by the piece written up about the tests in HP's in-house staff magazine, Measure. There's a link to an online scanned PDF copy of it in the 'References' section of the article, under Hewlett-Packard. It's from 1971 so a bit before your time there, perhaps. As noted in the article and also in comments above, the 'tests' were only for one of the skulls (the Mitchell-Hedges one) and the results were fairly mundane. Nothing unusual or mysterious discovered, despite the hype from some fringe proponents; it seems to have been more of a publicity exercise by the skull's then-caretaker than anything else. Regards, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 03:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

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))

This is explained by Chris Morton and Ceri Louise Thomas in their book, "The Mystery of the Crystal skulls". It goes into detail about the friendship/parting ways of Hedges and the son's friend who sold the skull at the auction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaish (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

*actual* Mesoamerican skull objects
This page needs some stuff from real history. This object here 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 ( ). 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)

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 not 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)

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)

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." --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)

Photograph as part of New York Times article here. Pustelnik (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Unidentified crystal skull photo
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)

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)

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)

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) To confirm the story, see. I revised this section. Mexico would be very surprized to find out that few Aztec sites have been excavated, so this claim was eliminated. The Dunbarton reference lists other documented obsidian mirrors from peer-reviewed excavations. Pustelnik (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Holmes and Boban
William Henry Holmes corresponded with Eugene Boban, shortly after he wrote his paper on fake antiquties. , but the letter is not available on-line. Anyone care to look it up in the Smithsonian archives, or maybe convince them to put it on line? Pustelnik (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This 2005 Smithsonian paper by Jane Walsh contains some details from the Boban-Holmes correspondence. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 08:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

TV Programme, Mitchell-Hedges skull analysis
Hi, I was watching "The Legend of the Crystal Skull" on channel 4 (UK) recently and it said that the Mitchell-Hedges skull *had* been scientifically examined by the same anthropologist who examined the British Museum skull, and that she had noted evidence of modern tool marks on it, to which the present owner of the skull and some guy from the Crystal Skull Worldwide something or other said that it had been made by either a superior ancient civilisation or aliens. Anyway I was wondering why this wasn't mentioned on the page? 89.240.197.93 (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lack of sources. I have mentioned it here and got a reply from Philip Coppens pointing me to the rebuttal but I haven't found a good source (beyond a Times TV review) about the show. I am preparing a follow-up and would be interested if anyone has a source I'd be happy to hear about it. (Emperor 02:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC))


 * As noted in the citation given in the article for the programme, it (the programme) was originally produced for the SciFi Channel, not a noted purveyor of soberly factual material. I wouldn't be using it for the basis of any statements here.
 * If you look at the Walsh 2008 article linked to in the references, you'll see a photo captioned as Dr Walsh & colleague examining the MH skull. However, most of her publs are more on the BM, Smithsonian and Paris skulls, since (I presume) she was allowed to conduct decent and extensive tests on these ones, but not the MH. Even so, she reports that the MH skull is a pretty clear copy of the BM one, albeit done with some skill and augmentation. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 09:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Times review actually says it was a little too sober. Anyway I have updated and included the documentary which is on YouTube for now. Walsh clearly says there are signs of recent tools, ones which would have been available by the turn of the end of the 19th century. (Emperor (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Obsidian mirrors
The mirrors that Taube talks about are NOT the Aztec-style obsidian mirrors. I have gathered all of the information I have been able to find on Aztec-style obsidian mirrors in a paper that is now in press. You can see the draft at:

http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/1-CompleteSet/0-Tez-MES-Full.pdf

The other major source on Aztec-style obsidian mirrors is:

Olivier, Guilhem (2003)  Mockeries and Metamorphoses of an Aztec God: Tezcatlipoca, "Lord of the Smoking Mirror". Translated by Michel Bisson. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

The fact remains that NONE of these Aztec-style obsidian mirrors come from documented excavations, yet Aztec specialists are in almost universal agreement that they are indeed legitimate objects. The rectangular mirrors are probably a Spanish colonial innovation, but not the circular mirrors with the projection (the John Dee mirror is a good example). Sorry that I neglected to log in before making edits to the page. Michael E. Smith (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks MES, for the clarification & pointer to in-press article. I think this may help to address the questions someone had earlier, above. I tweaked the refs given and additions slightly; I'v presumed the excavated mirrors mentioned in Taube were recovered from Teo (based on the article title, I haven't read it). Pls correct if needed. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Speculations
I have set this section aside as a separate section. It is not related to research on skull origins, and is poorly referenced. I would suggest removal of the entire section, but I would like to see if someone can improve it, first.Pustelnik (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Crystal skull collections, smaller skulls
I have again requested some documention for the assertions regarding pre-Columbian or Mezo-American origins (not the same thing), or that crystals skull had a documented religious use (not impossible, but not supported by a citation either). If the citations are not provided, these sections should be removed, and I will do so.Pustelnik (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Something I noticed about the Mitchel-Hedgens skull was that it was descovered in Belize. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this area of South America controlled by the Incans? Repeatedly it the Mayan and Aztec civilizations are mentioned, but not once are the Incans. A possible reason why some of these skulls do not seem Mayan/Aztec in nature is because they're not. Anonymous 05:02, 13 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.94.136 (talk)


 * No. Belize is not in South America, obviously, and is over 2000 miles from where the Inca held sway. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Skull of Doom's origin: Brazil or Madagascar
A recent National Geographic documentary shows that recent test by the Smithsonian examined the Skull of Doom, which test demonstrated that the origin of the crystal used to make the skull is either Brazil or Madagascar. Furthermore, it was apparently cut and carved with diamonds.

Wish I had a link to the documentary on the Nat. Geo web-site. 206.248.156.74 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Have They Been Dated?
When I was reading this article, I found that one particular question I had seemed to have significance. Just because the skulls found where determined to have been made by technologies that the Aztecs and Mayan civilizations did not have, does that necessitiate that we can precisely "announce" when they have been made (i.e. late 19th century). Unless I see definitive proof that a dating analysis has been performed on the Mitchell-Hedges skull, then by whatever means by which it is made is completely irrelevent. I don't care by which tools supposedly created the artifact, only 'when' it was made. Any arbitrary analysis that concludes that because metal implements used during the ninteenth century where used on the skull, that the skull must be a fake, isn't performing a true scientific conclusion. A true scentific conclusion is one that can provide a testably reliable form of evidence that says: "Even though the artifact was made with 19th century technology, dating analysis concludes the artifact is _________ years old." That is all I care about... 02:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not understand the process. Stylistic and technologic features of an object can be used for dating. If you don't agree with this statement, find a nineteenth century laser cut object, or a depiction of a crucified man done in precious materials that is more than 2000 years old. Pustelnik (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

why don't we use facial reconstruction on the crystal skulls that look realistically human?
why don't we use facial reconstruction on the crystal skulls that look realistically human? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_facial_reconstruction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blix1ms0ns (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is covered in the book "Mystery of the Crystal Skulls" by Ceri Lousie Thomas and Chris Morton. There are pictures of the reconstructed skull done by an artist who does that type of work for police departments. I suggest anyone who wants to find out more about the crystal skulls to do so by reading this book. There is a ton of first person accounts as well as details about the HP testing (with names of those involved, who were contacted for the book, along with several pages of details about the testing process and results) and several other of the particular details discussed in this wiki page regarding the skulls. The book is pretty "outlandish" by Western standards (just FYI). The book also includes interviews and pictures of some Native Americans who have other skulls, including a Navajo spiritual leader as well as a Mayan tribal elder.
 * And a claim that Mayan priests believe the MH skull to be 100,000 years old, some discussion with 'channelers', etc. If you believe in channeling, etc. you'll probably like the book. See this review: . This is just part of a continuing effort to get a mention of the book here. But this page is not a page to discuss crystal skulls, it's a page to discuss the article - sources, etc. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The book is a detailed account of the skulls and cites sources so therefore is a source itself. I would ask that the above comment be edited so that this is reflected. Saying something as rude and presumptuous as "This is just a part of a continuing effort to get mention of the book here" reflects a certain bigoted attitude that violates the talk page guidelines. Or on the other hand, perhaps a detailed list could be generated of what constitutes an acceptable source. Obviously, you do not consider first hand Native American accounts of the skulls valid. ---jvaish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaish (talk • contribs) 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe that a book that uses channelers is valid or a reliable source for alleged Native American accounts. If you can point to a source that fulfills our guidelines at WP:RS for these alleged accounts, great. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, this cannot be done as the final "proof" remains in the field of a particular syntax or definition of reality, although the book itself lists many sources that can be verified in terms of names, dates etc..(In particular the names and contact info for the HP testing.) At least you can admit your bigotry; the honesty is appreciated. Thank you for pointing me to the guidelines as well. I am not sure how the reviewer you refer to is a qualified source to review the book, as per his website he is a cartoonist, but it seems apparent that is a reflection of how you view the material. Writing "alleged" obviously indicates you feel the source is not trustworthy in terms of reportage. I will not address this anymore as peope can make their own choice but will leave this here to represent an alternative viewpoint, albeit one that apparently does not really even exist according to the guidelines of wikipedia. (P.s. I am not associated with the authors and do not gain from any promoting of the book) ---jvaish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaish (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bigotry? Try reading WP:AGF for a start. Yep, I don't think the source is trustworthy, but I don't think taking a scientific perspective makes me a bigot. As for the cartoonist, are you accusing him of being wrong about the channelers and claims of belief in 100,000 year old skulls? If not, his profession doesnt' matter. On the other hand, I don't think television producers, as they are described, are a good choice to rely on for expertise in crystal skulls, Native American legends, etc. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am accusing him of being wrong or at least close minded, as there are many other points of contention he has with the book other than the two you mention (things much better left to anthropoligists and historians etc). Read the book; they are not experts but rather interview experts and others who have experience in their various fields including noted anthropologists and the people for Hewlett-Packard etc..The tone of the book is skeptical but shows the opinions and experiences of others fairly un-biasedly. Taking a scientific perspective is fine but it makes you a bigot by definition if you do not cede the fact there are other viewpoints not based in a western-based consensus reality. You are implying, directly and indirectly, that there is no way anyone can "channel" or that a skull can be 100,000 years old because it does not fit your paradigm of what constitutes reality. I apologize if this offends your reason but I have, through my own experience, found that there are other possiblities. By definition, this argument does not fit the guidelines of wikipedia if interpreted through a particular lens, so to speak, so you would be justified in taking it down or editing it out but I would ask you leave the reference to the book as a source for the skulls, if not just as a "Statement of Opinion". I think other than that, it is a waste of time to discuss further. Jvaish (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)jvaish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaish (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to see what Hewlett-Packard found out about the M-H skull, one doesn't have to read Thomas & Morton's book. If you look in the references section of this article, you'll see that we directly cite and link to the account of that study written at the time that was published in HP's in-house journal.


 * Their findings are not very exciting- they cld establish that it was made from quartz crystal, and the two pieces were made from the same crystal. They did not date the carving, in fact would have been unable to date the carving since the techniques to do so were not developed back in the 1970s. Quartz hydration dating (QHD) has only recently been developed as a dating technique, within the past five years or so.


 * Only a couple of months ago France's C2RMF labs published their findings on the Paris skull, in which they used QHD to date its carving. Results showed that the carving was younger than a control specimen of carved quartz known to have been cut in 1740. So some way off from 100,000 years, then.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The book has many more details about the HP report as well as discussions with one of the gentleman who worked there (with regards to the other interesting facets about the Mitchell-Hedges skull). Hunbatz Men, the Mayan elder mentioned is quoted as saying his people had worked with skulls for "thousands of years" but did not mention the french museum skull particularly as it had nothing to do with him or the skulls his people had. Two of the skulls, reported to have powers were found by the British Museum to not be of Aztec or Mayan era origin when tested. Two more of the skulls tested, "Max" and Sha Na Ra were tested but the Museum refused to comment on them, for reasons they would not state. Some of the other skulls have been found to have markings on them indicating modern markings but this doesn't prove that the stones themselves are not of ancient origin, just as proving one of the skulls in the french museum is not ancient thereby verifies all of them are fake and no others exist that are of ancient origin. The book goes into detail about Boban and how he most likely sold "fakes" to the British and French Museums. Again, rather than quote the book endlessly, I can only refer to it as a source. The report you cite is not clear about the nature of the skulls tested and mentions that "the anthropomorphic" skull that was tested could be of Aztec or Mayan era origin. Jvaish (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)jvaish


 * The "anthropomorphic" quartz object mentioned in the C2RMF study is not a skull, it's a separate piece with an altogether different form and provenance, that was tested along with the skull for comparison purposes. Unlike the skull, the results for the anthropomorphic piece indicate that a pre-Columbian origin for it is plausible. "Hunbatz Men", tour operator and convenor of spiritual workshops whose real name is César Mena Toto, is not quite the Maya elder and keeper of traditional knowledge he makes out to be.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 05:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Directly from your posted reference: "a skull approximately half of the size of a real cranium and a smaller anthropomorphic head, purportedly attributed to pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures, were studied to assess their authenticity." and "The shallower penetration of H clearly indicates that the rock crystal skull was manufactured more recently than the reference quartz sample cut in 1740. As for the anthropomorphic head, the deep penetration profiles indicate an older artefact (sic)." and "The anthropomorphic head, on the other hand, could have been carved in the pre-Columbian period." As far as Hunbatz Men, I haven't been able to find a direct source to prove him as fake, only hearsay and "i know someone who told me he was fake/phony/not Mayan...". You did not give a specific source on that one. That doesn't prove he is not a "fake", but most of what he says is similar to what many shamans and "wise men" of that area have said before. There are many other references in the book to some of these shamans and elders.Jvaish (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)jvaish

Suggestion of the removal of the link to the article for Anna Le Guillon Mitchell-Hedges
The page for Anna is merely a redirection to the her father F. A. Mitchell-Hedges. From the record of page history, this seems to be the set-up from the very first day. Since it would not quite fulfill reader's intention of finding more specific information regarding Anna (only whose father-daughter relationship was briefly on the page for F.A Mitchell-Hedges) by clicking the link, retaining the link will more likely confuse readers than not. Could the editors confirm the purpose of the link? May I suggest for a removal of the link until the topic has enough content to cover in its independent page?

Wpliao (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Um.....
All 13 have been found, but yet never been together. [] this shows each skull, by name and a bit of history on some of them. 98.82.112.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Ami
I would like to start a section for this skull, but it appears to be poorly documented. Said to be from Mexico, Mayan, 3.86 kg amethest, and brought to the US in the 1970's. I can not document that it belonged to P. Diaz or that it was examined by Hewlett-Packard, and wonder if these were stories appropriated from the Smithsonian skull and the Mitchell-hedges skull. Pustelnik (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler's crystal skull
What about this recent discovery? A 13th crystal skull should definitely be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.82.151 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Description of Smithsonian Skull
Can we come up with a better description than "modern fake" or at least justify a change? --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

[I thought Wikipedia was supposed to have a neutral Point of View. The above is written from a sceptics POV. Putting this another way "Scientists continue to harass Mitchell-Hedges to comply with their requests to have the skull tested again." She agreed to have it tested once - how many more tests do the scientists need? Did the first lot forget something?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.151.254 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * NPOV doesn't mean being neutral. Wikipedia puts greater weight on mainstream views than fringe views, that's the way we work. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So who decides which views are mainstream and which aren't? Who is this mysterious "we"? Sounds very Orwellian to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.151.254 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Our policies and guidelines, read WP:VERIFY and then WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"To will death"
I've removed this HTML comment from the page: "This quote doesn't really scan grammatically, should be checked for accuracy," referring to the quote that says Anna Mitchell-Hedges was "told by the few remaining Maya that the skull was used by the high priest to will death." It's perfectly correct grammar; the verb "to will" is being used in a transitive way to mean "to cause something to happen by mental force," which is a relatively rare but still standard usage and also appears in a quote from a different source in the previous paragraph. "Doesn't really scan" is an incorrect use of "scan," for that matter; that word refers to poetic scansion and not to grammar at all. Maybe the quote should be checked for accuracy, but not because of its correct grammar. 206.45.166.191 (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

National Geographic shows Mitchell-Hedges skull a fake
In "The Truth Behind the Crystal Skulls" episode, National Geographic did numerous tests on the Mitchell-Hedges skull, many of which (especially the tool marking comparison between the original and a machine-created replica skull) showed the skull to be a fake. [A fake what???. The skull itself is real. I think you mean the claim that the skull might be an extraterrestrial artifact is not supported by the evidence or alternatively the claim as to origins might be false.] There was also evidence of Mitchell buying a crystal skull from Sotheby's before the expedition, with similar characteristics to the Skull. This page should probably be edited for the new information, however I'm loathe to do so in case I miss-reference something and the whole batch is taken for bad information. The closest NG website I could find with this information is http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/archaeology/crystal-skulls/ but it doesn't talk about the extensive tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.149.114 (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

So Where is it now?
???

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)

Dating
"The results of these studies demonstrated that those examined were manufactured in the mid-19th century or later, almost certainly in Europe" How did they date it? How do they know they are right? Not C14 I assume, it's made of crystal! 2.101.128.129 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

General comment
'Whoever created them and why' (as artworks and/or for some other purposes) had a high level of technical skill and ability. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How much research has been done into who could have created the skulls and where? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So far as I know, all of the reliable research is in the article now. Unless there is something recent that's been missed. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * But probably the most interesting aspect (if someone is looking for one). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I just check...
To quote the page: "The SEM micrographs revealed evidence that the crystal had been worked with a high speed, hard metal rotary tool coated with a hard abrasive such as diamond. Walsh's extensive research on artifacts from Mexico and Central America showed that pre-contact artisans carved stone by abrading the surface with stone or wooden tools and in later pre-Columbian times, copper tools, in combination with a variety of abrasive sands or pulverized stone. These examinations led Walsh to the conclusion that the skull was probably carved in the 1930s"

So basically, what it's saying is that, based on our inaccurate perception of what these 'pre contact' people were capable of (which includes building temples around the world that we can't understand or replicate, except via wildly fantastic and unfounded statements which then become accepted fact), that it must have been created in 1930s? Even though other tests by other people (such as Hewlett Packard) have indicated that it would have to have been made by lasers? So who are we to believe? Just this study because it sings to a debunking theme?

Also, presumably, even though these people who we've written off in a Conquistador-esq way as limited in some way achieved some impressive things with gold and other metals (let alone the cut and transported stone in the buildings), we're saying that the things they created were just done using wooden tools? It's all a bit mad, that we cling desperately to the notion that we're the most advanced civilisation in spite of evidence that we just have to bury instead.

Isn't wikipedia about telling the truth, not just a particular side of that truth? Guy.shrimpton (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hewlett Packard said it had to be made by lasers? Where did you get that idea? Doug Weller  talk 20:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Crystal skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805012416/http://artworld.uea.ac.uk/cms/index.php?q=node/873 to http://artworld.uea.ac.uk/cms/index.php?q=node/873

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
The article gives an overall, rather strong impression that the claims about the dates and origins of these skulls is a hoax, without providing sufficient evidence to really show that. It seems the facts as known should be presented and the wording made in such a way as to leave the decision up to the reader as to what they conclude from this data, rather than using loaded statements. From what I can see, the claims about these skulls have neither been authenticated nor disproved. It's the addition of those last two words to the previous sentence that makes it neutral (unless of course there are specific references that contradict them.) There also seem to be some (or at least one) statement(s) to support this viewpoint that don't seem accurate (or are unreferenced). For example, it states that the type of crystal the skulls are made from can only be found in Madagascar and Brazil, and would therefore be unobtainable in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. Maybe I'm missing something, but how would a mineral obtainable in Brazil be "unobtainable" in Mesoamerica? I have no invested belief on this topic, btw...I could really care less about when or where these skulls were really made, it's just that I've noticed there seems to be a kind of trend to make up a reader's mind for them come up often in some articles and its a bit bothersome. I'm not inclined to make any changes unless there is some kind of consensus, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.60.189 (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Quartz or acrylic?
According to James Randi in this recent article, the skull (which he calls by the nickname "Skully") was demonstrated to be made of clear acrylic plastic. A close look at the image in the lede of the British Museum skull shows air bubbles in the (supposed) quartz material, something that does not occur in natural stone but which does occur in cast plastics. Can anyone verify what the skull is actually made of? — Loadmaster (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crystal skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130103054921/http://www.illinoistimes.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:7678 to http://www.illinoistimes.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A7678
 * Added tag to http://www.mitchell-hedges.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crystal skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080523214350/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i0MtZtshBPW5OUhodfTDezFkR5_Q to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i0MtZtshBPW5OUhodfTDezFkR5_Q
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208025738/http://www.si.edu/opa/insideresearch/articles/V9_CrystalSkulls.html to http://www.si.edu/opa/insideresearch/articles/V9_CrystalSkulls.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)