Riddle of the Crystal Skulls

SI J-A 2006 pgs 5/30/06 1:34 PM Page 15 INVESTIGATIVE FILES JOE NICKELL Riddle of the Crystal Skulls ere and there were not mysterious enough, around the world later editions of Danger My Hare found mysteri- Ally omitted all references to ous artifacts, crystal skulls the skull, an action which that many New Age enthu- the publishers disclaimed siasts believe possess mysti- knowledge of. cal powers. Now new To answer the many claims—and new reviews of questions posed by the crys- the evidence—spark further tal skull—specifically, Did controversy. What is the Anna Mitchell-Hedges truth about these remark- indeed find it at Lubaantun able objects? or, if not, where did it come from? and, Does the skull “Skull of Doom” Figure 1. The Mitchell-Hedges “Skull of Doom”—carved from a block of rock actually have the mystical Perhaps the most famous of crystal, allegedly by the ancient Mayans—is shown as it appeared in the July powers ascribed to it?—I 1936 Man, at which time it was owned by art dealer Sidney Burney. the artifacts—dubbed “the began an investigation with weirdest gem in the world” work, and it was supposedly his young my forensic colleague John (Welfare and Fairley 1980, 51) and “the adopted daughter, Anna, who found it F. Fischer that ran from 1982 to 1984. granddaddy of all crystal balls” (Garvin under an altar of the ruined city of We obtained as much data on the skull 1973, 6)—is the one commonly known Lubaantun (from the Mayan word for as possible: we combed through old as the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull. It is “place of fallen stones”). (See figure 1.) newspaper records; corresponded with referred to as “the Skull of Doom” by Mitchell-Hedges mentioned the skull major museums and laboratories; con- those who believe it holds the power of in the first edition of his auto- sulted distinguished experts; amassed death over anyone who would mock it biography, Danger My Ally (1954), yet information on the Maya, on rock crys- (Nickell 1988, 30). did not specify where or by whom it had tal, on the skull motif in art; and sought Fashioned from a single block of nat- been found. He merely published a pho- out those who had examined the skull, ural rock crystal (massive clear quartz) tograph of what he called “the sinister as well as Anna Mitchell-Hedges herself. although its lower jaw detaches, it Skull of Doom,” stating in his customar- So far as is known, F.A. Mitchell- weighs 11 pounds 7 ounces. It allegedly ily glib fashion: “It is at least 3,600 years Hedges—a habitual liar and faker first came to light in 1927 (or 1926 or old and according to legend was used by (Nickell 1988, 38; McConnell 1998)— 1924) during the excavation of a lost the High Priest of the Maya when per- made no reference to the skull at the Mayan citadel in Belize (then British forming esoteric rites. It is said that when time of his return from Lubaantun or in Honduras). The adventurer F.A. he willed death with the help of the skull, the years immediately following. In the Mitchell-Hedges participated in the death invariably followed.” Of the skull’s 1930s he wrote newspaper articles and a provenance, Mitchell-Hedges said only book that discussed Lubaantun at Joe Nickell is CSICOP’s Senior Research that “How it came into my possession I length, but omitted the “Skull of Doom” Fellow. His Web site is www.joenickell.com. have reason for not revealing.” As if that in favor of relatively humble figurines. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER July / August 2006 15 SI J-A 2006 pgs 5/30/06 1:34 PM Page 16 Evidence Uncovered Hedges. Might not such a person have “the result of intense concentration In fact, as we discovered, the earliest threatened to expose the deceiver? and meditation.” published reference to the celebrated We had hoped to conduct an exami- Less in touch with reality is the skull—the July 1936 issue of Man (a nation of the skull in anticipation of approach of one Joshua Shapiro, who, British anthropological journal)— learning more about its origins, and we with others, has had channeling ses- makes no reference to the adventurer. had contacted various experts—includ- sions to seek psychic impressions from Instead the skull was described as “in ing famed microanalyst Walter C. the crystal artifact. These led him to the possession of Mr. Sydney McCrone—about additional analyses opine that it was an “ancient com- Burney,” a London art dealer (Morant that might be performed. Disappoint- puter” storing messages for humanity. 1936, 105). ingly, however, Anna Mitchell-Hedges Instead of a Mayan origin, he posits Moreover, there is documentary evi- (1973) refused. Nevertheless, we learned that the skull could be from a lost civi- dence that Mitchell-Hedges bought the that, contrary to assertions that the skull lization or even some extraterrestrial skull in 1944 from Burney, who was said lacked any evidence of modern work- site (Hunter 2005). to have owned it for the preceding ten manship, there were “traces of mechani- Closer to earth, at age ninety-eight years (Morrill 1972, 28; Welfare and cal grinding” on the teeth (Dorland Anna Mitchell-Hedges told reporter Fairley 1980, 53). Anna Mitchell- 1973) and holes, intended for support Colin Hunter (2005) that the skull was Hedges has attempted to rationalize this pegs, that were drilled by metal the secret to her longevity. Hunter had damning evidence by claiming—in a (Hammond 1983). made a pilgrimage to visit her at a letter to me—that her father had left the friend’s home in Indiana. She stuck to Further Claims skull with Burney “as security for a loan her story about having found the skull to finance an expedition” (Mitchell- There remained many fanciful asser- at Lubaantun, although continuing to Hedges 1983). tions about the skull. In his autobiog- give conflicting versions of the facts. Asked if she had any record—such as raphy, F.A. Mitchell-Hedges (1954) Hunter’s investigative report reviewed a letter or newspaper clipping—that described the “Skull of Doom” as my findings and essentially substanti- might help establish her father’s prior “dating back at least 3,600 years, and ated and augmented them. ownership of the skull, Anna Mitchell- taking about 150 years to rub down As to the true origin of the Mitchell- Hedges (1983) replied that she had “no with sand”; the rock crystal, he exag- Hedges crystal skull, there is little evi- documentary evidence” but added, “all gerated, was “nearly as hard as dia- dence beyond the object itself, the mea- my father’s papers were lost in Hatteras mond.” He said further of the skull: ger historical record, and some similar during a cyclone—photographs and “It is stated in legend that it was used rock crystal skulls in museums and pri- all—also a trunk of his belongings was by a high priest of the Maya to con- vate collections. lost in Plymouth.” Be that as it may, centrate on and will death. It is said Additional Skulls none of those who were actually at to be the embodiment of all evil; sev- Lubaantun ever mentioned Anna being eral people who have cynically Various other crystal skulls exist, ranging at the site or the skull being discovered laughed at it have died, others have from as small as an inch in width to a there (Nickell 1988, 35–36). been stricken and become seriously half-life-sized one in the Musée de Subsequently, a letter surfaced that ill.” Or so “it is said.” Richard M. l’Homme (Museum of Man) in Paris further discredits Anna Mitchell- Garvin, author of The Crystal Skull and other life-sized examples, notably Hedges’s claim that she discovered the (1973, 100), concluded: “. .the one in the British Museum. They are crystal skull at Lubaantun. Written by claims that the crystal skull has generally classified as Aztec, but there are Sydney Burney to George Vaillant of the caused or can cause death should doubts that any of them are pre- American Museum of Natural History, most likely be filed right next to the Colombian, according to Gordon F. it makes clear that Burney had the skull curses of old King Tut.” Ekholm (1983), an anthropologist from at that time (March 21, 1933), and that Other claims about the skull also the American Museum of Natural he had indeed “bought it” from an un- failed to survive scrutiny. One was that History. named collector (Burney 1933). it remained at a constant temperature of At least one, the British Museum Clearly F.A. Mitchell-Hedges’s crystal 70° Fahrenheit regardless of the temper- skull, has recently been scientifically skull did not come from Lubaantun, but ature it was subjected to. In fact, the examined. Although fashioned in a sin- he acquired it later from Burney. This skull was no different in its physical gle piece and having more stylized, cir- might explain why references to the properties from other natural quartz cular eye sockets than the Mitchell- skull were deleted from subsequent edi- crystals, according to California art Hedges skull, it nevertheless looks tions of Danger My Ally. No doubt in expert Frank Dorland (1983). remarkably like it (Nickell 1988). 1954 (some three years after Sydney Mystical properties of the skull— Ian Freestone, former head of the Burney’s death) there were persons who perceived sounds of silver bells and museum’s scientific research and now a could recall Burney’s prior ownership of images such as faces—are probably professor at the University of Wales, led the skull and its sale to Mitchell- only what Garvin (1973, 100) terms a museum team that conducted the 16 Volume 30, Issue 4 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER SI J-A 2006 pgs 5/30/06 1:34 PM Page 17 examination.

Load more