Page 24 - The 'X' Chronicles Newspaper - Febrary/March 2020 Edition

24 The Skull of Doom

Employing a scan of the profiles of the two skulls published in the journal Man, Smithsonian illustrator Marcia Bakry produced these drawings.
The British Museum specimen (left) is outlined in yellow, while the Burney or Mitchell-Hedges skull (right) is outlined by a broken red line. The
yellow outline superimposed over the broken red line. (Courtesy Jane M. Walsh)

The Mitchell-Hedges as the article's author, British Museum physical Lubaantun, which was abandoned around A.D.
anthropologist Geoffrey M. Morant, notes (pp. 800, the tools used to carve it would have been
crystal skull: Fact, 105-106), "A more interesting comparison can sharpened stone implements combined with
be made by superposing the outlines," which abrasive sand. Pre-Columbian lapidary
fiction, and the clearly illustrates how nearly identical the skulls technology has been studied with considerable
detail for more than a century. Through my own
are in size and shape.
Adrian Digby, a young British Museum
creation of myth archaeologist, commented on the measurements research, I have compiled a large bibliography
from
controlled
carvings
on
stone
and observations made by Morant in a short archaeological excavations in Mexico and
article accompanying the latter's comparative Central America documenting the fact that pre-
Continued From Page 24
study. Digby (1936: p. 108) offered the contact artisans carved stone by abrading the
possibility that the… surface with stone tools, as well as wood, and in
later pre-Columbian times, copper tools, in
“Museum skull was copied from an combination with a variety of abrasive sands or
In Danger My Ally, Frederick Mitchell-Hedges
original skull, and that at a later date the pulverized stone. No historic or ethnographic
warned that the skull was "the embodiment of
Burney skull was a sort of composite copy source of which I am aware indicates pre-
all evil" and that "several people who have
relying for its proportions on the skull now in Columbian lapidaries used hard metal, such as
cynically laughed at it have died, others have the Museum and for its anatomical detail on iron or steel, as filing, drilling, or cutting tools,
been stricken and become seriously ill" (1954:
some human skull in the possession of the or that they employed any type of wheeled or
p. 240). Clearly, we should not believe
carver.” rotary technology (Walsh 2008: pp. 18-19).
everything we read, and, ultimately, we must be Comparison of SEM (scanning electron
brave and tell the truth. The Mitchell-Hedges
He came to the conclusion that it would be quite microscopy) images of ancient and modern
crystal skull is not ancient; not even very old. It strange that carvings shows the difference. A line incised
was probably made in Europe in the 20th with pre-Columbian tools appears as rough with
century, and was not polished for five
“anybody wishing to carve a skull out of a slight twisting, indicating the movement of the
generations. It is not powerful, not scary and not
rock crystal, and taking a real skull as his model hand pushing a sharpened stone. Modern
at all what it purports to be.
should modify its dimensions to fit those of diamond-coated, high-speed rotary cutting tools
another crystal skull which he would see was show lines that are perfectly straight. Parallel
Under the Microscope but a poor copy of nature. It shows a perverted lines within the incisions are evidence of
ingenuity such as one would expect to find in a permanently embedded abrasive. The sharpness
In November 2007, Bill Homann, Anna forger, but Mr. Burney's skull bears no traces of of the cut and the exactness of the abrasive lines
Mitchell-Hedges's widower, brought the artifact recent (metal age) workmanship; so this indicate the use of a hard metal tool with a very
to my office in the Smithsonian's Museum of suggestion may almost certainly be dismissed.” hard abrasive, i.e. diamond.
Natural History for examination. Slightly
smaller than life size, it recalled a crystal skull Digby's analysis was perceptive. By (Continued on Page 25)
in the British Museum, and it seemed to me to copying the British Museum skull, then thought
be a close copy of that object, at least in size and to be authentic, a forger would make his work
shape. However, it differed from the British look more legitimate. Unfortunately the science
Museum example in its more elaborate carving, of the day was limited. Without modern
extremely high polish, and separate mandible. equipment Digby was unable to detect any
The similarity of the two skulls' size and evidence of the skull's recent manufacture.
shape can be verified using measurements and After my first encounter with the skull in
photographs taken at the British Museum in 2007, Homann returned with it to the museum
1936, when the museum's skull was compared in 2008 so it could be filmed for a Smithsonian
to the Mitchell-Hedges one, which was then Networks documentary, "Legend of the Crystal
called the Burney skull after its owner, London Skull." Following up on my initial study, which
art dealer Sydney Burney. According to an included examining the skull under a high-
article published in the journal Man, the British powered light microscope, under ultraviolet
Museum (BM) skull is 17.7 cm front to back light, and computerized tomography (CT scan)
(glabellar-occipital length), and the Mitchell- to determine what we could without harming
Hedges (MH) skull is 17.4; the BM skull is 13.5 the object in any way, I took two sets of silicone
cm from side to side (maximum calvarial molds of surface tool marks for SEM analysis.
breadth) and the MH skull is 14. Many of the If the skull were actually Maya from
other measurements taken are equally close, but