Crystal Skulls

[Grimmace]

Sixteen years ago, a heavy package addressed to the nonexistent "Smithsonian Inst. Curator, MezoAmerican Museum, Washington, D.C." was delivered to the National Museum of American History. It was accompanied by an unsigned letter stating: "This Aztec crystal skull, purported to be part of the Porfirio Díaz collection, was purchased in Mexico in 1960.... I am offering it to the Smithsonian without consideration.

Read more...

I am still amazed the hoopla that is drummed up about these 'Meso-American Artifacts.'

[JonathanVonErich]

thanks for the article...heard of that in a podcast...

[Ashley-Star*Child]

There are people worshipping these crystal skulls

[Joey costa]

i belive that its from Atlantis and it was grown right here on earth and we still don't have the right tech to view what they really contain

[Paramys]

i belive that its from Atlantis and it was grown right here on earth and we still don't have the right tech to view what they really contain

we are getting there though we are using crystals in our tech one day soon we may unlock its secrets maybe on the 21st dec 2012 we will have the tech and it will be too late lol it may well be a time capsule of knowlage of tech and the history of atlantis and maybe where the atlantean race went Stargate atlantis maybe onto something

[aquatus1]

How much more tech are we going to need to be able to analyze the receipt for one Crystal skull, 400 British pounds, from Southby's Auction House?

[The Silver Thong]

I thought the skulls had been dated to no more than a 150 yrs old and made with man made tools.

[Rhomphaia]

I thought the skulls had been dated to no more than a 150 yrs old and made with man made tools.

There's a large number of frauds and forgeries out there. I believe the count of 'authentic' skulls stands at 12. They take into account where they were found, proportional dimensions, clarity of the crystal, all kinds of stuff to make the determination.

[Grimmace]

I thought the skulls had been dated to no more than a 150 yrs old and made with man made tools.

The question was never whether or not they were made with man-made tools, just whether or not they were made with modern tools.

Excerpt from article:

I (Smithsonian anthropologist Jane MacLaren Walsh) believe that all of the smaller crystal skulls that constitute the first generation of fakes were made in Mexico around the time they were sold, between 1856 and 1880. This 24-year period may represent the output of a single artisan, or perhaps a single workshop. The larger 1878 Paris skull seems to be some sort of transitional piece, as it follows the vertical drilling of the smaller pieces, but its size precludes it being a bead, or being worn in any way. This skull now resides in the basement laboratories of the Louvre, and the Musée du Quai Branly has begun a program of scientific testing on the piece that will include advanced elemental analysis techniques like particle induced X-ray emission and Raman spectroscopy, so we may know more about its material and age in the near future.

The 1878 Paris skull and the Boban-Tiffany-British Museum skull that appeared in 1881 are perhaps nineteenth-century European inventions. There is no direct tie to Mexico for either of these two larger skulls, except through Boban (denounced as a fraud in 1885 by Leopoldo Batres, Protector of Pre-Hispanic Monuments with the Mexican National Museum); they simply appear in Paris long after his initial return from Mexico in 1869. The Mitchell-Hedges skull, which appears after 1934, is a veritable copy of the British Museum skull, with stylistic and technical flourishes that only an accomplished faker would devise. In fact, in 1936 British Museum scholar Adrian Digby first raised the possibility that the Mitchell-Hedges skull could be a copy of the British Museum skull since it showed "a perverted ingenuity such as one would expect to find in a forger."

Thus ends the Crystal Skull Cliff Notes. ;P

Edited April 12, 2010 by Grimmace

[The Silver Thong]

The question was never whether or not they were made with man-made tools, just whether or not they were made with modern tools.

Excerpt from article:

I (Smithsonian anthropologist Jane MacLaren Walsh) believe that all of the smaller crystal skulls that constitute the first generation of fakes were made in Mexico around the time they were sold, between 1856 and 1880. This 24-year period may represent the output of a single artisan, or perhaps a single workshop. The larger 1878 Paris skull seems to be some sort of transitional piece, as it follows the vertical drilling of the smaller pieces, but its size precludes it being a bead, or being worn in any way. This skull now resides in the basement laboratories of the Louvre, and the Musée du Quai Branly has begun a program of scientific testing on the piece that will include advanced elemental analysis techniques like particle induced X-ray emission and Raman spectroscopy, so we may know more about its material and age in the near future.

The 1878 Paris skull and the Boban-Tiffany-British Museum skull that appeared in 1881 are perhaps nineteenth-century European inventions. There is no direct tie to Mexico for either of these two larger skulls, except through Boban (denounced as a fraud in 1885 by Leopoldo Batres, Protector of Pre-Hispanic Monuments with the Mexican National Museum); they simply appear in Paris long after his initial return from Mexico in 1869. The Mitchell-Hedges skull, which appears after 1934, is a veritable copy of the British Museum skull, with stylistic and technical flourishes that only an accomplished faker would devise. In fact, in 1936 British Museum scholar Adrian Digby first raised the possibility that the Mitchell-Hedges skull could be a copy of the British Museum skull since it showed "a perverted ingenuity such as one would expect to find in a forger."

Thus ends the Crystal Skull Cliff Notes. ;P

Ahhh yes modern tools sorry I should have made that a little more clear, thanks for the update.

[Grimmace]

There's a large number of frauds and forgeries out there. I believe the count of 'authentic' skulls stands at 12. They take into account where they were found, proportional dimensions, clarity of the crystal, all kinds of stuff to make the determination.

Hate to disagree with you, but another excerpt from the article written by Smithsonian anthropologist Jane MacLaren Walsh who has been studying the skulls for 16 years:

These exotic carvings are usually attributed to pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures, but not a single crystal skull in a museum collection comes from a documented excavation, and they have little stylistic or technical relationship with any genuine pre-Columbian depictions of skulls, which are an important motif in Mesoamerican iconography.

[0011235813]

We often underestimate the ancients, just because they don't have digital computers does not mean they can't have made the skulls

themselves. Why do some say it was aliens? yes some of the skulls have some strange properties, but Crystal can do a lot of strange things.

These skulls, although incredibly fascinating, are probably just fancy ornaments for important people, or maybe they had some religious significance,

The ancients certainly were not as advanced as we are now, so i dont think Atlantis is a possible explanation.

[ShadowSot]

We often underestimate the ancients, just because they don't have digital computers does not mean they can't have made the skulls

themselves. Why do some say it was aliens? yes some of the skulls have some strange properties, but Crystal can do a lot of strange things.

These skulls, although incredibly fascinating, are probably just fancy ornaments for important people, or maybe they had some religious significance,

The ancients certainly were not as advanced as we are now, so i dont think Atlantis is a possible explanation.

Problem is, the tool marks on the skulls indicate much more recent manufacturing, and aside from lack of, or ambiguous providence.

There's also the issue that the stylistic traits of the skulls don't match what's been found in any of the cultures.

[0011235813]

Problem is, the tool marks on the skulls indicate much more recent manufacturing, and aside from lack of, or ambiguous providence.

There's also the issue that the stylistic traits of the skulls don't match what's been found in any of the cultures.

If the skull that was found at the archeological site had no characteristics resembling the area at which it was found,

then one can only deduce it was not originally from that area.

[ShadowSot]

If the skull that was found at the archeological site had no characteristics resembling the area at which it was found,

then one can only deduce it was not originally from that area.

but it wasn't found in an archaeological site.

We have a story, but no providence.

With all similar objects being clear frauds.

[0011235813]

but it wasn't found in an archaeological site.

We have a story, but no providence.

With all similar objects being clear frauds.

Has any information about who had the skull ever been found?

[ShadowSot]

Has any information about who had the skull ever been found?

The one from the article? No, it was sent anonymously, and so far no one's claimed it.