Back in Britain, Ceri and I sat down and reviewed where we had got to in our investigation of the origins and purpose of the crystal skulls. Clearly the image of the skull had been important to the ancient Maya. It was associated with their quest for vision, it was an integral part of their sacred numbering system and calendar, it was linked with the god of Venus, the god of the Earth’s axis and even the Mayans’ prophecies about the end of the world.
We had also discovered that the Mayans not only produced highly stylized works of art like most of the crystal skulls, but also highly realistic ones, akin even to the Mitchell-Hedges skull. Indeed, we had found evidence to suggest that far from being simple peasants incapable of making anatomically accurate crystal skulls, the ancient Mayans had mathematical, astronomical and calendrical skills to rival, and even surpass, our own. But we still had no firm evidence that the ancient Maya really were in possession of any crystal skulls.
While there was some evidence to suggest that the ancient Mayans could have produced crystal skulls, there was also evidence that they could have been created by the later Aztecs and Mixtecs of central and highland Mexico. These people were known to have carved some beautiful objects from crystal and were prolific in their use of skull imagery. Most archaeologists seemed to be of the view that if the crystal skulls were of ancient Mesoamerican origin then they were more likely to have come from either of these two later cultures than from the Mayans. Yet again, some archaeologists doubted that the crystal skulls were of Central American origin at all. They believed them to be nothing more than modern fakes.
Whatever their origins, we were certainly hearing of more and more crystal skulls. Josh Shapiro had told us that he knew of three life-size skulls that belonged to Joke (pronounced ‘Hoka’) Van Dieten, a woman who lived in Florida. One of these was called ‘The Jesuit’ on account of its purported connection with the Jesuits of Italy and possibly even St Francis of Assisi. Another was said to have come from Russia and Joke believed it to be over 1,000 years old. But the one that interested Josh the most was called ‘E.T.’ on account of its decisively non-human looking features and its supposed ‘extra-terrestrial origins’. However, Josh admitted that he had no absolute proof about where any of these crystal skulls had really come from.
Indeed, he warned that we must be wary as there were now several modern crystal skulls around that had been recently manufactured not only in Germany and Mexico, as we had discovered, but also in Brazil! Though these were generally nothing like as beautifully crafted as the really ancient crystal skulls and carried little or no ‘psychic energy’, some people were now trying to pass them off as the genuine article.
Nick Nocerino had told us that he believed that there were now a number of fake skulls on the market. He explained that when he had first started looking into crystal skulls there had been very few around. ‘But now,’ he said, ‘there seem to be more and more, and the majority of these are recently made fakes. They’re showing up all over the place.’
Nick said that a man called Damien Quinn was importing crystal skulls from Brazil into the USA on a regular basis. Quinn himself made no claim for the ancient origin of the skulls he sold, but he could obviously not give the same guarantee for the people he sold them to. As Nick had been keen to point out, there was nothing to stop people buying skulls then burying them, digging them up and claiming that they were ancient artefacts.
Meantime there were rumours of other skulls in South America. Sammy Mitchell-Hedges had been contacted by a family in Argentina who claimed to have a crystal skull just like hers, but they would not allow her to pass on their details for fear of robbery if the information became public. Apparently there was another crystal skull in the northern part of Peru that was held by the Campa people, living quietly in the jungle. According to this rumour the skull was made of a single piece of clear quartz, but the crystal contained blue inclusions both in the eyes and on the top of the head. We were of course reminded of Carole Wilson channelling that a blue crystal skull would soon be found somewhere in South America, but again there was no conclusive evidence.
We had now heard of several roughly life-sized crystal skulls from our researches. Many of these skulls were known to be modern and others we suspected were so. But the legend had said that there were 13 genuinely ancient original crystal skulls.
By now preparations for the tests at the British Museum were well underway. We were hopeful that they would come up with some definite answers to our questions. Were any of the crystal skulls genuinely ancient sacred objects with a mysterious past or were they all the product of modern technology, made simply for profit? It appeared that the only way to find out was to investigate them within the confines of a controlled environment and to subject them to a series of rigorous scientific tests. It was just these kind of tests that the British Museum was now preparing to run.
With the guidance of Dr Jane Walsh, the British Museum now planned to bring together as many crystal skulls as practically possible alongside their own large crystal skull and the Smithsonian skull. The skulls would then be subjected to tests at the British Museum’s research laboratory in London, tucked away behind the museum near Russell Square, under the auspices of the enthusiastic Dr Ian Freestone, a scientist who was accustomed to the practices of dating antiquities.
The British Museum was particularly keen to know about the true origins of their own skull. If Dr Jane Walsh’s theory were correct, and the British Museum skull were found to be a modern fake, it would be a startling revelation. After all, it had been kept and displayed in one of the world’s leading museums for a whole century, having fooled the museum establishment and the public alike.
But what of the skulls that were in private collections? If the owners agreed, these skulls could also be tested, which would reveal whether they too were the victims of unscrupulous dealers, con-artists or tricksters, or whether their skulls were genuine artefacts.
I was surprised that the owners were prepared to take the risk of finding that their skulls might well be fake. It struck me that they were taking a big risk. Each had a lot to lose if their skull were found not to be ancient. Norma Redo, owner of the reliquary cross skull, risked finding out that the precious family heirloom that had been handed down the generations was nothing more than a cheap fake. Perhaps the situation was potentially even more devastating for Nick Nocerino. He had put his reputation on the line as a ‘crystal skull expert’ by putting Sha Na Ra forward for tests. If Sha Na Ra were not found to be at least as old as the Aztecs, then Nick was in trouble. A crystal skull ‘expert’ unable to determine the origin of his own skull would have little credibility. As for JoAnn Parks, she might have the most to lose of all. Max had given her a new life. She toured around with him and had become a regular TV personality, appearing along with her crystal skull. How might she take the news that Max was nothing more than an imitation and that she had been the victim of a hoax? She was currently involved taking Max on a lecture tour to different US cities, but managed to fit a visit to the British Museum into her busy schedule. Norma Redo planned to tie her visit to the British Museum with a visit to two of her sons, who were at school in Britain. The date for the tests was duly set for only a few weeks away.
As we got further into discussions about exactly what the tests would involve, it became apparent that they might not be as straightforward as we would have liked. Dr Freestone explained that there were several problems when dealing with crystal artefacts. First, there was the fact that it is impossible to date crystal. Each piece of crystal could have been formed perhaps billions of years ago and carved at any time since. Neither could anything be achieved by analysing samples taken from the surface of the crystal. As we had seen with the Parisian skull, which had not been submitted for these tests, any examples of, say, metal on the surface could easily have got there well after the skull was first made. As the scientists at Hewlett-Packard had found, the best way to find out when the crystal was carved was by looking for toolmarks.
The technique is to establish what tools were used by examining the markings that were left on the surface of the crystal. This test is known as ‘useware analysis’. With the crystal skulls, the idea was to take small moulds from each, so as not to damage the original. These silicon moulds would then need to be coated with a thin layer of gold so that they could be looked at under a scanning electron microscope. This would reveal if there were any signs of ‘modern’ tool marks.
By ‘modern’ the scientists meant any kind of tool marks that looked as though they might have been made with the assistance of the jeweller’s wheel. Since around the fourteenth century, craftspeople in Europe have used such wheels. Nowadays they are made of metal and coated in diamonds or other hard abrasive materials, which helps speed up the process of carving hard gems and other materials such as crystal. They are now powered electronically, but used to be powered by hand or foot. In fact, as Margaret Sax, the British Museum’s useware analysis specialist, informed us, the ancient Sumerians, who preceded the Babylonians in Mesopotamia, are known to have used the wheel for stone carving as long ago as 2000 BC. But the same is not thought to be true of the Native Americans.
According to Dr Jane Walsh and the British Museum laboratory staff, the jeweller’s wheel was not introduced to the Americas until after the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492. The ancient Olmecs certainly knew about the wheel itself, as an ancient artefact with wheels was found at Tres Zapotes on the Gulf coast of Mexico earlier this century, but this object, thought to date back to at least 200 BC, is thought to have been nothing more than a child’s toy. Jane Walsh and the British Museum did not appear to be aware of any evidence that the ancient Mesoamericans used the wheel for any other purpose. Indeed, as Elizabeth Carmichael pointed out, the early Spanish chroniclers quite specifically stated that the locals used hand carving to make their incredible objects in jade, obsidian and crystal.
Of course the early Spanish conquerors may have wished to paint a picture of the natives as primitive people, even savages, to excuse their brutal treatment of them. This is, however, unlikely to have included their descriptions of the natives’ stone-working techniques. And so the British Museum assumed that before the Europeans arrived, the ancient Mesoamericans did not use the jewellers wheel and carved their artefacts entirely by hand.
To the naked eye it is usually impossible to tell the difference between a piece of crystal carved by hand and a piece carved with a jeweller’s wheel. But under the intense magnification of the electron microscope, if an object has been carved by wheel this shows up as tiny ‘parallel’ scratch marks across the surface of the crystal, whilst a hand-carved object displays a more ‘random’ pattern of scratches.
The museum scientists now had access to the crystal skull known to have been carved with the assistance of a wheel in Germany as recently as 1993 with which to compare the minute scratches on the surface of the other crystal skulls. They knew that under intense magnification the German crystal skull would show the parallel grooves on its surface that would demonstrate that it was carved with modern tools. Hans-Jürgen Henn, the owner of the skull, was quite happy for the museum to use it as a benchmark against which to compare the others. If the other skulls showed similar parallel scratch marks or grooves, there could be little doubt that they were of modern manufacture.
But what was also needed was an ancient crystal artefact from Central America against which to test this theory. It was believed that such an artefact would show the more random pattern of scratch marks created when an object is made without using a jeweller’s wheel. But an ancient Mesoamerican artefact was needed to prove this point. A benchmark of the antiquarian methods of carving would be necessary to make the tests properly scientifically valid. The question was, where was such a piece of definitely ancient and presumably hand-carved piece of crystal known to be Central American going to come from?
The problem was that large pieces of crystal from properly recorded archaeological digs in Central America were extremely rare. So how were we to find our benchmark? As we pondered this question, the possibility of obtaining a crystal artefact from Mesoamerica that was known to be ancient seemed remote. So we were anxious to hear from Dr Freestone whether there were any alternative tests, besides usewear analysis, that he could carry out.
Dr Freestone explained that there was another test that could be carried out. He said that the crystal itself could give us information about where it had originally come from. If this were known, it would help establish when the skulls might have been carved. If the skulls were found to have been made of crystal originating in Central America, that would indicate more strongly that they were made by indigenous people. If they were found to be made of European or Brazilian crystal, we could fairly safely make the assumption that they were modern. Jane Walsh suspected that the British Museum crystal skull might be made from Brazilian crystal rather than crystal from Central America. Archaeologists generally believe that crystal from Brazil was not imported into ancient Central America before the Europeans arrived (despite what we had previously heard about massive slabs of mica apparently having been transported from Brazil to the ancient city of Teotihuacán). However, as we had already discovered, crystal had been imported from Brazil to Europe for use by carvers in towns such as Idar-Oberstein in Germany.
Examination of the source of the crystal appeared a useful way of determining the origins of the skulls. As Dr Freestone explained, there were several techniques that could be used here. All were to do with studying the tiny bubbles, or ‘inclusions’, as they are known, of other material that are often trapped inside the crystal at the time of its formation. These other materials, such as ‘greenstone’, often get caught inside minute pockets in the crystal and it is possible to analyse both the size and shape of these pockets, and their contents, usually a combination of solids, liquids and sometimes air, in order to find out where the crystal originally came from. Ideally, the precise chemical composition of these impurities is analysed, but as they are trapped within the crystal, this usually involves damaging the object under study.
The most advanced and sophisticated way around this problem is a technique known as ‘laser raman spectroscopy’. This involves firing a laser at the inclusions in the crystal and because each element heats up at a different rate, computer analysis of the movement observed within the inclusions can be used to work out exactly which chemicals are present. When Nick Nocerino heard about this test, he said, ‘The British Museum had better be careful with my skull. I heard a rumour that government scientists in Brazil tried to extract information from a crystal skull by firing lasers at it and it just blew up! So they’d better not try anything like that on mine!’
Fortunately for Nick, laser raman spectroscopy requires very expensive equipment that the British Museum does not have and could not afford to hire in.
The next best alternative is a technique known as ‘X-ray diffraction analysis’. This involves obtaining a tiny sample from any inclusion that appears near the surface of the crystal and subjecting it to a high-radiation bombardment of X-rays. This provides X-ray photographs displaying a particular pattern of diffraction. Because each element has a different atomic structure, or shape, from any other, it diffracts X-rays in its own distinctive way. The resulting pattern of diffraction therefore can be used to work out exactly which chemicals are present and therefore where the crystal comes from. This technique sounds impressive, but the problem is that it does involve slightly damaging the object under study.
In fact in the event of the tests it transpired that the only technique for establishing where a piece of crystal came from that was both affordable and could be properly guaranteed not to damage the skulls in any way was the vague art of Videomicroscopy’. This is simply a question of pointing a videomicroscope – a microscope with a video recorder attached – at the inclusions and then asking an expert geologist to give an opinion as to where the crystal comes from, based on the size, shape and any colouring of the pockets of inclusions. This struck us as rather un-scientific. Could any expert really know where in the world a piece of crystal came from just by looking at it under a microscope, without in any way analysing its chemical contents?
So we spoke to Professor Andrew Rankin, the British Museum’s consultant geologist at the University of Kingston in London, who was due to help with the tests. We were most disappointed to learn from him that when the museum had talked of determining where the crystal had come from to make the crystal skulls, what was really meant was where geologically speaking, rather than geographically speaking. In other words, Professor Rankin would be able to give his opinion as to roughly at what temperature and under what pressure a piece of crystal had been formed and what other minerals might have been present in the area of growth. He could not say for sure whether a piece had definitely come from Brazil or Central America. However, some geological types of crystal are more common in Brazil and others more common in Central America, so he could ‘hazard a guess’ as to which of these geographical locations the crystal had originally come from. The problem was that there are sometimes more similarities between crystal from different areas than differences. The same types of crystal can be found in vastly different geographical regions. So we could not be sure exactly where any piece of crystal came from and it would be impossible to gain a truly accurate picture of whether the skulls were ancient or modern by analysing the crystal itself. But we could get a pretty good idea.
We now had several of the crystal skulls lined up and ready for testing, but so far it seemed that the tests were not likely to prove definitive, as we still lacked the necessary comparative object to make the usewear analysis scientifically verifiable, and testing the crystal itself looked as though it would not provide the hard geographical evidence we required.
We were beginning to wonder how we were going to get to the truth about the skulls when Dr Jane Walsh came up with a solution. She had discovered the object that we needed to verify the usewear analysis tests: a genuinely ancient and large crystal artefact discovered on an archaeological dig in Mexico.
This object, known as ‘the crystal goblet from Tomb No.7 ar Monte Albán’ was tucked away in an obscure little museum in central Mexico. Not only was the goblet of great interest scientifically, but the more we heard about it, the more fascinating it sounded in its own right.
The place of its discovery, Monte Albán, lies near the beautiful town of Oaxaca in highland Mexico, to the south of the former Aztec empire and to the north of the ancient Mayan territories. Believed to date back to at least 500 BC, the archaeological site is situated on a flat plateau at the top of Monte Albán, or ‘White Mountain’, and is unusual in that when the original city was built the whole of the top of the mountain had first to be removed.
Archaeologists believe the city was built by the Zapotecs, a somewhat obscure civilization who populated this region at around the same time as the early Maya further south. Little is known about them, though Monte Albán contains evidence that they too possessed a form of hieroglyphic writing. Generally regarded as the earliest known writing in Mexico, it has not yet been decoded. There is also evidence to suggest that the Zapotecs possessed an earlier version of the Mayans’ famous calendar and dot-and-bar numbering system, and may even have invented it. But little or nothing is left of them today, apart from some mysterious stone carvings of ‘dancers’. No one is sure that they really are dancers, but, like the even more ancient Olmec carvings on the Gulf coast, they do appear to show what look like Negro people and bearded Caucasian figures and so provide more evidence that the people of Central America were once visited by peoples from either across the Atlantic or elsewhere (see Figure 24).
It is believed that Monte Albán was ultimately abandoned by the Zapotecs and in its later years became home to the Mixtecs, who arose in highland Mexico just after the collapse of the ancient Maya and before the rise of the Aztecs. Again, little is known about them except that they were highly skilled craftspeople and were particularly renowned for their many pottery figures of skulls in various guises (see plate section). Craftspeople were apparently the highest strata of Mixtec society and later the Mixtecs were absorbed into Aztec society as craftsmen-slaves.
Figure 24: Some of the bearded Caucasian ‘dancers’ found at Olmec sites such as La Venta and at Monte Albán
But the Mixtecs, it seems, were also great stargazers. One of the most prominent features of Monte Albán is the J-shaped astronomical observatory. It appears that the city was built in this strange location precisely to take advantage of the high place and clear skies to gaze at the stars while remaining almost unseen from the surrounding countryside. Whether the Zapotecs or Mixtecs built the observatory is unknown, but whoever it was clearly had aspirations that extended right out into the heavens.
The discovery at Monte Albán that interested the British Museum, however, took place back in the 1930s, when a young Spanish archaeologist named Alfonso Caso was excavating the ruins. Caso, now widely regarded as the founder of modern Mexican archaeology, discovered that just below ground level, all around the site, below what looked like mere mounds of grass, lay buried dozens of small burial chambers or tombs. It seemed that these dated back to the Mixtec period of occupation. The tombs were painted red, the colour of the womb. Inside were huge earthenware pots containing human skeletons, many of them coiled into the obligatory foetal position. Each tomb also contained various small artefacts, bits of jade or pottery, which were given to the occupants to accompany them on their journey into a new life after death.
The most remarkable discoveries were made in the rather unimaginatively titled ‘Tomb No.7’. Although only around six feet (two metres) wide by nine feet (three metres) long, it was filled with all manner of strange and beautiful objects, many made of solid gold. It was a veritable hoard of buried treasure, with ornate jewellery, exquisitely carved pottery and precious stones in abundance. Alongside the skeletal remains of the still unidentified inhabitant of this small treasure-chamber, Alfonso Caso found a small crystal lip-plug, crystal ear-spools and crystal beads, all believed to have been associated with the astronomer caste in ancient Mesoamerica. But most impressive of all was a large and beautifully crafted object that looked like a goblet or drinking vessel, made from pure, clear and flawless solid rock crystal.
With the tests now less than a few weeks away, was it going to be possible to get this almost priceless object to the British Museum’s research laboratory in London in time for the tests? Museums are known for their cumbersome bureaucracy. Inter-museum loans are a complex business which require incredibly detailed paperwork – understandably, as on more than one occasion, objects not properly accounted for have been known to disappear without trace. There was little time to persuade the Mexican authorities to agree to take this fragile object from its home in highland Mexico and fly it half-way round the world only to be subjected to scientific tests. Yet if the Mexicans decided against the loan, the tests on the crystal skulls would be invalid.
There was a flurry of activity to ensure that the goblet could make the trip to London. Both the British Museum and the National Archaeological Institute of Mexico (INAH) put in a tremendous effort to speed the goblet to Britain. Museum committees met, lawyers were called in and contracts drawn up, and insurance was put in place. The goblet was valued at over three million dollars, placed in a specially made box and, under a cloak of great secrecy and security, flown over the Atlantic, accompanied by the Mexican museum’s keeper, Arturo Oliveros, who arrived at the British Museum’s research laboratory in a security van.
The British Museum skull had been removed from its display case and cleaned, and was waiting in the museum safe, along with the German skull and the Smithsonian skull. The private owners were flying in. All was ready for the tests to begin.
As we arrived at the British Museum laboratory on the day of the tests, we felt a real sense of anticipation. At last it seemed that we had the chance to find out the truth about the crystal skulls. We would find out how old they were and solve the mystery. At least after the tests we would know if any of the crystal skulls were genuinely ancient or whether they had all been made using European technology sometime during the last 500 years.
The atmosphere in the British Museum research laboratory that morning was one of expectancy. As we looked on, a visual feast unfolded on the old wooden benches of the now somewhat dilapidated laboratory. One by one the crystal skulls were carefully removed from their packing cases. Max came out of his brand new vanity case, Sha Na Ra out of his travelling case and the Smithsonian skull out of a huge specially constructed wooden box, while Norma’s skull had been carried wrapped only in a headscarf. The crystal goblet was the finishing touch. They were all roughly arranged in a small grouping on the table top and the differences in size, style and shape were immediately obvious. The arrangement was stunning. There was the gargantuan, and some would say ‘cursed’, Smithsonian skull with its heavy clouded features and wry-looking smile; the stylized but still beautiful and almost transparent British Museum skull; the smooth lines of the modern ‘hi-tech’ looking German skull with its silver-grey transparent crystal; the cloudy and simple features of Max the ‘healing’ skull, said to have originally belonged to a Guatemalan shaman; and the still dirty, rough-tooth, primitive features of Sha Na Ra, the skull that had shown Nick Nocerino so many images over the years. Alongside these was the reliquary cross skull, skewered beneath its crowning crucifix; and beside that the beautiful crystal goblet that looked just as I would imagine the Holy Grail. British Museum employees from other sections of the research lab couldn’t resist squeezing into the room to look on the extraordinary spectacle of the crystal skulls that had gathered there (see plates 25 and 26).
Then the tests began. Margaret Sax began the process of cleaning the surface of the skulls, starting with giving Max’s teeth a good clean as JoAnn looked on protectively. She then began making small moulds of parts of each skull. I watched as she took a sample cast from Max. The idea was to make casts of the areas of each skull that had required the most detailed carving, particularly around the eyes and teeth. Moulds were also taken from the smoother areas on the very top of each skull so that the workmanship on the different parts of the skulls could be compared. Later these moulds would be scanned under the electron microscope where the intense magnification would reveal any tool markings used to create the skulls.
Although the usewear analysis was likely to be the most effective test, the British Museum was also interested in an analysis of the geological source of the crystal. After Margaret Sax had finished with each skull it was handed on to Dr Andrew Rankin, who began looking at it through his videomicroscope. The microscope showed an enhanced image of the inclusions within each piece of crystal. I watched as Dr Rankin scanned the reliquary cross skull. He was extracting as much information as possible from visual comparisons of the types of crystal that the skulls had been carved from.
We would have to wait two days before the results of the tests would be available.
As we waited for the results we were on tenterhooks. We had been pursing the truth about the skulls for so long and now, at last, we were going to know. What was the museum going to find? Had Nick Nocerino, JoAnn Parks and Norma Redo travelled all the way to Britain only to find that their precious skulls were modern fakes, or were they about to receive confirmation of their authenticity? What about the skulls belonging to the Smithsonian and the British Museum? Had the experts been duped or were these skulls authentic?
We crowded into the British Museum research laboratory again to get the results. A member of staff from the museum started going through the skulls one at a time, starting with the British Museum’s own skull. We were somewhat disappointed to learn that traces of wheel markings had been found on its teeth. This meant that it would now be considered ‘post-Columbian’, the assumption being that it had been made using so-called ‘European technology’ either in Europe or in Central America some time after the arrival of the Europeans in 1492. It turned out that the Smithsonian skull also showed evidence of wheel markings.
As for the source of the crystal used to make these skulls, as far as the British Museum skull was concerned, the geological evidence seemed to support the notion that it was not ancient. Dr Andrew Rankin thought that the crystal might have come from Brazil. He was unable to say where the crystal used to make the Smithsonian skull had come from, but Dr Jane Walsh appeared very satisfied with the results, presumably concluding that her theory about Eugène Boban was correct: that Boban had obtained at the very least the British Museum skull in Europe towards the end of the end of the nineteenth century, where it had been made using crystal imported from Brazil.
It seemed that two skulls had been shown to be ‘fakes’, but what of the others? Norma Redo had been philosophical about her skull. She said that it would ‘still mean the same’ to her if it was found to be modern. However, the tests on the reliquary cross skull appeared to give strangely contradictory evidence. Margaret Sax had found evidence of both types of workmanship on this skull. It seemed that the detail of the teeth had been produced with a wheel and also the area on the top of the skull where the cross had been added. But the rest of the skull had definitely been hand-carved and displayed markings that were, considered ‘characteristic of pre-Columbian work’. This piece appeared to have been originally carved by hand, presumably by pre-Columbian Mesoamericans, and then later the teeth were retouched by wheel.
According to Dr Rankin, the reliquary cross skull was made from a largish piece of crystal, of the size normally only found in Brazil. Curiously though, he found the type of crystal from which it was made looked almost exactly the same as that used to make the crystal goblet of Monte Albán, known to be over 1,000 years old, and presumably made of crystal from Central America. The 1571 hallmark on the crucifix on top of the skull was thought to be genuine, so the skull itself had presumably been made sometime before this date. So here indeed was what appeared to be a genuinely ancient crystal skull made in Central America at some time before, or possibly immediately after, the Spanish conquest. Its teeth, it seemed, had been retouched at around the same time as the early European conquerors had drilled a hole in its head to add the crucifix.
But what were the results for the other skulls? Nick Nocerino and JoAnn and Carl Parks looked tense with expectation. We were all waiting to hear the truth about their skulls, Max and Sha Na Ra. But the British Museum representative simply stated, ‘I’m afraid we are unable to comment on the other two skulls.’
We were taken aback. The British Museum representative sounded very embarrassed and added that strict orders had been given from above to all staff ‘not to comment’.
What was going on? What was it about Max and Sha Na Ra that couldn’t be made public? Had the museum discovered that these skulls were genuinely ancient? But why could they not say so? Had they discovered some important information too sensitive for public consumption? Had the skulls been made by aliens or something? Or were they such obvious modern fakes the museum was simply afraid to admit it?
I pressed the point further and was told that it was museum policy not to do any tests on privately owned artefacts. But this didn’t make any sense. The museum had been preparing for these tests for almost six months and knew that some of the skulls belonged to private owners. Certainly Dr Jane Walsh had stated in her own research report that she hoped to borrow skulls both from museums and private collectors for the purpose of scientific examination and to make the findings public.1
In any case, the reliquary cross skull quite obviously belonged to ‘a private collector,’ the aristocratic Norma Redo, and yet the museum had duly commented on her skull.
Nick Nocerino and JoAnn Parks left the museum disgruntled and went back to their hotel. We arranged to meet them later to discuss the day’s proceedings. Then it suddenly occurred to me that perhaps, having found their own large skull and the Smithsonian skull to be modern, the British Museum had discovered these other two skulls to be the same, but was afraid to comment for fear of some sort of legal reprisal from the owners. I spoke to the museum’s representative and asked whether they would be able to let us know the results if we could get some written guarantee from the owners that there would be no comeback against them whatever their comments. But I was told this wouldn’t make any difference.
Regardless, I spoke to the skulls’ owners. They both said that, having come all this way, they too were determined to get to the truth about their skulls, even if the tests should prove them to be modern. So both JoAnn Parks and Nick Nocerino duly signed written affidavits. In these documents the owners guaranteed not to argue with the results of the tests, whatever they might be, and guaranteed not to take any action, legal or otherwise, against the British Museum or the BBC, whatever comments they made or whatever results they published about Max or Sha Na Ra. These documents were hand-delivered to the British Museum, but their representative still refused to comment, now adding, to our surprise, that no tests had actually been done on either of the skulls in question.
But JoAnn and I had actually watched while a plastic mould was taken from Max and Nick said he had seen Sha Na Ra being examined under the video microscope. Surely the scientists would not have scanned and recorded the inclusions in the crystal or taken such moulds and then never analysed the results? But the museum representative now said they could not release any results because they had not carried out any tests on these two skulls. And they point blank refused to give any reason for not doing so.
It just didn’t make any sense and we tried hard to think of a reason. I could think of only one other possibility. I remembered that while the moulds were being taken two days earlier, some of the skulls’ keepers and the museum staff had been chatting to each other and I had overheard Jane Walsh talking to Nick Nocerino. She had asked him where he had got his skull from. Nick had produced a map and proceeded to explain that he had dug up Sha Na Ra while doing some psychic archaeology up the Rio Bravo river. Jane Walsh had enquired whether this was a museum-sponsored dig, to which Nick had replied, ‘Hell, no!’
Dr Walsh had pressed him further. ‘Was it an official government dig?’
‘Hell, no!’ Nick exclaimed once again. ‘You don’t find nothing on those digs!’
Perhaps this conversation had had something to do with it. I know Jane Walsh did not seem pleased at the time and had said something about how the Smithsonian and the British Museum would not want to have anything to do with any ‘illegal’ archaeological artefacts. However Nick had explained that in Mexico in the 1950s private digs were not considered illegal and that had seemed to be the end of it. But understandably, in archaeological circles, ‘illegal’ digs are anathema. If digs are not properly recorded, historical ‘facts’ become very difficult to verify and so archaeologists’ jobs become even more difficult. Sensitivity on the subject is further heightened by the number of artefacts in the great museums of the world whose ownership is hotly disputed. Understandably again, the countries from which many of the exhibits have been taken claim that at one stage or another their treasures were ‘looted’. So museums these days now try to steer well clear of any further such controversy.
But the ‘illegal dig’ theory still didn’t seem to make sense in explaining the museum’s refusal to comment on Max and Sha Na Ra. JoAnn had told the British Museum only what she knew for sure about Max, that she got him from a Tibetan Buddhist healer who said he had been given the skull by a Guatemalan shaman. She had said nothing to the British Museum to suggest that Max might have come from any sort of dig, illegal or otherwise. The Smithsonian skull and perhaps the British Museum skull could have had ‘illegal’ origins, and yet the museum had tested and commented on these. And when I put the question of whether worries about ‘illegal’ origins had anything to do with the museum’s silence, I was simply told that the British Museum did not have to give any reason why it had chosen not to comment.
But why not? We were even more intrigued. JoAnn Parks was convinced that the museum had something to hide, that the scientists had found something they did not want the public to know about. But what could this be? Had they, like Hewlett-Packard with the Mitchell-Hedges skull, been unable to find any kind of tool marks whatsoever, no sign of either wheel or hand carving? If so, the implications would certainly be phenomenal. It would imply that these two skulls were not man-made at all, but had some kind of strange, perhaps unearthly, origin. Had the museum been frightened off in some way? Or could the scientists have found that these two crystal skulls really were some kind of store of important and ancient information? But this seemed very unlikely.
Alternatively, had the museum experts perhaps found some more down-to-earth results that they just did not like or were not prepared to accept, because they challenged the conventional views held by archaeologists? Had they found that the skulls had been made by hand from the same type of crystal and as long ago as the crystal goblet? But, if so, why were they not prepared to say so?
It was time for the skull owners to make their way home. JoAnn and Carl were disappointed at not finding out the scientific facts about Max. Nick was cynical. ‘The problem is that the archaeologists and the scientists just don’t want to upset the applecart,’ he said. ‘They have their opinions on things and they don’t want them challenged. They like the way things are. There is a whole lot more to those skulls than they will ever know, or at least admit to.’
As I looked at Max and Sha Na Ra being carefully packed back into their carry cases, I remembered the original legend of the skulls. This had said that information would only be forthcoming from the skulls when they were all gathered together, not just a handful like this gathered only for scientific tests. It had also said that knowledge would only be revealed when mankind was ready for it, apparently to prevent the information the skulls contained from being abused. Could that perhaps be it? Could it be that perhaps we were just not ready to hear the truth about the skulls, not sufficiently ‘evolved’ and ‘developed’, as the legend had said?
I thought about how we had put our trust in the scientists to provide the answers, but these had not been forthcoming. Indeed, it struck me that our approach to the questions posed by the riddle of the skulls was typical of the way our whole society responds to so many of the mysteries with which we are faced: we look to science to provide all the answers. Maybe this is just not possible.
As I looked again at Max the whole situation suddenly seemed quite comic and I found myself reminded of Douglas Adams’ science-fiction comedy The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. In this story one of the most powerful and brilliant computers ever invented is asked to come up with an answer to ‘the mystery of life, the universe, and everything’. The computer is duly fed with all the data it is possible to collect and then spends years and years completing the task. Finally it comes up with an answer: ‘42’! That’s when everyone realizes they may not have asked the right question…
Had we asked the right question about the crystal skulls? We had believed the scientific tests were going to prove the origins of the skulls once and for all. But now we were none the wiser. The skull owners had gone home puzzled and we ourselves were bewildered. What had stopped the British Museum from producing the much needed answers?
Some time later I put in a call to another eminent Mesoamerican expert, Professor Michael D. Coe of Yale University. When I told him about the British Museum tests I was greatly taken aback by his reply. According to him the scientists we had been relying on at the British Museum may not have been asking the right questions at all.
Professor Coe told us that evidence of wheel markings on a crystal skull, such as those found on the British Museum and Smithsonian skulls, did not in any way prove that these skulls were modern. He explained that although it had long been accepted by the archaeological establishment that no pre-Columbian civilization had used the rotary wheel, new evidence contradicted this belief. Apparently some obsidian ear-spools had now been found that were wafer-thin, perfectly and absolutely circular and could only have been made using rotary carving equipment. These ear-spools were definitely known to date back to the Aztec/Mixtec period. So even the British Museum and Smithsonian skulls might not have been ‘modern’ after all.
Michael Coe added:
‘People who sit in scientific laboratories don’t know the full range of the culture they’re dealing with. We really don’t know half as much about these early cultures as we think we do. People need to re-examine their beliefs.’
In his opinion, the British Museum tests didn’t prove anything. Indeed, this view was further reinforced by other Mesoamerican experts, such as Dr John Pohl of UCLA.
Only one thing seemed certain. The scientists had let us down. For whatever political or other reasons, it appeared that perhaps they had not even asked the right questions, let alone provided us with the answers.
How were we going to continue our investigation? We were very disappointed. It felt as if we had been so close to finding out where the skulls had really come from. What could we do now? Somehow it didn’t feel right to give up our investigation completely. We just couldn’t. There had to be an answer. But the question was, how were we going to find it?