Crystal skulls 'are modern fakes'

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters

Post Reply
Rokcet Scientist

Crystal skulls 'are modern fakes'

Post by Rokcet Scientist »

Thursday, 22 May 2008 18:08 UK

Crystal skulls 'are modern fakes'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

Two of the best known crystal skulls - artefacts once thought to be the work of ancient American civilisations - are modern fakes, a scientific study shows.

They are the focus of the story in the latest Indiana Jones film.

But experts say examples held at the British Museum in London and the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC are anything but genuine.

Their results show the skulls were made using tools not available to the ancient Aztecs or Mayans.

Researchers say the work, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, should end decades of speculation over the origins of these controversial objects.

A team including Margaret Sax, from the British Museum in London, and Professor Ian Freestone, from Cardiff University, used sophisticated techniques to work out how the two skulls had been made.

Prof Ian Freestone, Cardiff University: "There are about a dozen or more of these crystal skulls. Except for the British Museum skull and one in Paris, they seem to have entered public awareness since the 60s, with the interest in quartz and the New Age movement," Professor Freestone told BBC News.

"It does appear that people have been making them since then. Some of them are quite good, but some of them look like they were produced with a Black & Decker in someone's garage."

He added: "There seems to be the assumption that if it is roughly worked, it is more likely to have been made by a traditional society. That's untrue of course, because people were quite sophisticated. They might not have had modern tools, but they did a good job."

The researchers used an electron microscope to show that the skulls were probably shaped using a spinning disc-shaped tool made from copper or another suitable metal.
The craftsman added an abrasive to the wheel, allowing the crystal to be worked more easily.

Modern technology
This "rotary wheel" technology was almost certainly not used by pre-Columbian peoples. Instead, analysis of genuine Aztec and Mixtec artefacts show they were crafted using tools made from stone and wood.

The British Museum skull was worked with a harsh abrasive such as corundum or diamond. But X-ray diffraction analysis showed a different substance, called carborundum, was used on the artefact in the Smithsonian.
Carborundum is a synthetic abrasive which only came into use in the 20th Century: "The suggestion is that it was made in the 1950s or later," said Professor Freestone.

Who made the skulls is still a mystery. But, in the case of the British Museum object, some point the finger of suspicion at a 19th Century French antiquities dealer called Eugene Boban.
"We assume that he bought it from, or had it made from [craftsmen] somewhere in Europe," said Professor Freestone, a former deputy keeper of science and conservation at the British Museum.

Anonymous donation
Contemporary documents suggest Mr Boban was involved in selling at least two of the known crystal skulls - the one held in London and another in Paris.
The London skull was probably manufactured no more than a decade before being offered up for sale.

Despite the findings, a spokeswoman for the British Museum said the artefact would remain on permanent display to the public.
The skull held by the Smithsonian was donated to the museum anonymously in 1992, along with a note saying it had been bought in Mexico in 1960.
Nothing is known of its history before that date, but like the British object, it was probably manufactured shortly before being purchased.

The researchers were not able to determine where the quartz used in the skulls was quarried. But locations with suitably large deposits include Brazil, Madagascar and, possibly, the Alps.

Professor Freestone said the work did not prove all crystal skulls were fakes, but it did cast doubt on the authenticity of other examples: "None of them have a good archaeological provenance and most appeared suspiciously in the last decades of the 20th Century. So we have to be sceptical," he explained.

The findings are likely to be a disappointment to enthusiasts and collectors; the skulls have become a part of popular culture, appearing in numerous films and novels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7414637.stm

Archaeology is riddled with fakes. Recently we had Protsch. Piltdown Man comes back to haunt us. And now these crystal skulls.
Although I'm guessing none of us here took those seriously.
Right, guys? Please tell me you never did...!

What fake will be revealed next?
H. Floresiensis? Valsequillo?

I sure hope Charlie isn't chipping his own hand-axes!
Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16025
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Minimalist »

Their results show the skulls were made using tools not available to the ancient Aztecs or Mayans.

Let's say that is true, for the sake of argument. How come the Club does not consistently play by its own rules?

On Page 331 of FOTG Hancock discusses the opinions of no less a personage than Flinders Petrie concerning the tools which would have been necessary to drill out the "sarcophagus" located in the Great Pyramid.

Petrie, in trying to figure out how enormous granite blocks could have been cut out of quarries and concludes that "bronze blades, over 8 feet long and inset with "cutting points" made of even harder jewels..." Petrie then suggests that in order to hollow out the sarcophagus it would have been necessary to create tubular drills made of the same material.

Petrie admits that no actual jewelled drills or saws had ever been found by Egyptologists (and in fact, they never found any bronze, either...the Egyptians used copper). Still and I quote "the visible evidence of the kinds of drilling and sawing that had been done, however, compelled him to infer that such instruments must have existed."

All I ask for is a little consistency.

:wink:
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
User avatar
Cognito
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Provenance

Post by Cognito »

Archaeology is riddled with fakes. Recently we had Protsch. Piltdown Man comes back to haunt us. And now these crystal skulls.
Although I'm guessing none of us here took those seriously.
Right, guys? Please tell me you never did...!

What fake will be revealed next?
H. Floresiensis? Valsequillo?

I sure hope Charlie isn't chipping his own hand-axes!
R/S - fakes occur where there is no provenance. It's fairly easy to make a crystal skull today, but not easy to replicate a 1,000 year old Mayan temple in the jungle. Finding a crystal skull in a sealed tomb would be important, but the ones you referenced came from a dealers in London and Paris with no proof of origin.

Charlie can chip handaxes all day, but he cannot create the carbonate coatings that cover the points and, besides, he does a great job of documenting his finds with pictures and charts. You can replicate his activity by going to his site and finding more tools in situ. Can't do that with those skulls, they just wind up on someone's desk along with a fabricated story.
Natural selection favors the paranoid
War Arrow
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by War Arrow »

Aha!

Actually I heard said skulls would have been doable in prehispanic times using wet sand, a bow drill and a fucking enormous amount of patience, though maybe I heard wrong.
Image
User avatar
Digit
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Post by Digit »

You can shape just about any material with wet sand and enough time WA, and a reason.
War Arrow
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by War Arrow »

Digit wrote:You can shape just about any material with wet sand and enough time WA, and a reason.
Thought so - just looking at some of the things they carved in jadeite suggests rock crystal wouldn't be an impossible medium.
Image
User avatar
Cognito
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Post by Cognito »

You can shape just about any material with wet sand and enough time WA, and a reason.

Thought so - just looking at some of the things they carved in jadeite suggests rock crystal wouldn't be an impossible medium.
Sand (fine grained quartz) would be perfect for working on quartz (Mohs hardness 7) or jadeite (Mohs hardness 6-7). If you're a slave sitting around all day, there's nothing else to do anyway - right?

W/A, I have read in a few places the statement that jade in Mexico proves contact with China. Any rock hound will tell you there's jadeite all over Mexico and Central America, and in many different colours. But, alas, you know this. Too bad some "expert" authors can't figure that out so they keep the myth rolling along. ¡Necesitan un madrazo!:roll:
Natural selection favors the paranoid
War Arrow
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by War Arrow »

Cognito wrote:
You can shape just about any material with wet sand and enough time WA, and a reason.

Thought so - just looking at some of the things they carved in jadeite suggests rock crystal wouldn't be an impossible medium.
Sand (fine grained quartz) would be perfect for working on quartz (Mohs hardness 7) or jadeite (Mohs hardness 6-7). If you're a slave sitting around all day, there's nothing else to do anyway - right?

W/A, I have read in a few places the statement that jade in Mexico proves contact with China. Any rock hound will tell you there's jadeite all over Mexico and Central America, and in many different colours. But, alas, you know this. Too bad some "expert" authors can't figure that out so they keep the myth rolling along. ¡Necesitan un madrazo!:roll:
I hear you, and thanks for the relative hardness (?) info. I've nothing against theories about ancient contact such as this, it's when they come up with crap (they drink water in Mexico? Ha - they also drink water in France! Fucking explain me that Mr. so-called-scientist etc etc) to explain something that doesn't need explaining in the first fucking place that has me heading down to McDonalds with a firearm.

Sorry about the language. Not a happy bunny today. My brand new two day old laptop has already stopped working. Thank you, Bill Gates. Thank you so fucking much.
Image
Rokcet Scientist

Post by Rokcet Scientist »

Cognito wrote:If you're a slave sitting around all day, there's nothing else to do anyway - right?
If the staff then was similar to todays hired help it would have taken another 500 years...

I.o.w. "Vivat Slavery!"
Whips are great production tools.
Post Reply