NationStates Jolt Archive


It's a fake!

Kyronea
23-05-2008, 04:29
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7414637.stm

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.

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
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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs

Clearly.

This is really disappointing, because I kinda liked the idea of the crystal skulls. They were neat. Now it turns out they were faked.

Actually, it's not just disappointing; now that I think about it, it really pisses me off, because it means a lot of archaeological work and a large amount of information we thought was true is actually all a lie. I despise it when people fake archaeological artifacts.
Pirated Corsairs
23-05-2008, 04:33
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7414637.stm



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs

Clearly.

This is really disappointing, because I kinda liked the idea of the crystal skulls. They were neat. Now it turns out they were faked.

Actually, it's not just disappointing; now that I think about it, it really pisses me off, because it means a lot of archaeological work and a large amount of information we thought was true is actually all a lie. I despise it when people fake archaeological artifacts.

As somebody strongly considering going into archaeology when I graduate...

QF FUCKING T.
1010102
23-05-2008, 04:35
The fact the that first one was discovered in the late 1890s means nothing right?
Trollgaard
23-05-2008, 04:38
Well god damn!

:eek:
JuNii
23-05-2008, 04:41
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7414637.stm



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs

Clearly.

This is really disappointing, because I kinda liked the idea of the crystal skulls. They were neat. Now it turns out they were faked.

Actually, it's not just disappointing; now that I think about it, it really pisses me off, because it means a lot of archaeological work and a large amount of information we thought was true is actually all a lie. I despise it when people fake archaeological artifacts.
naw, it's proof that an Alien Civilization came down and helped the ancient peoles! :p
Poliwanacraca
23-05-2008, 04:41
Archaeological fakes are indeed highly annoying things, with the possible exception of the Piltdown man's cricket bat, which I can't help but find a bit charming.
Kyronea
23-05-2008, 04:47
The fact the that first one was discovered in the late 1890s means nothing right?

Maybe, maybe not. There were certainly techniques to manufacture a skull like that even in the 1890s that were far beyond the ancient Americans.

But that's not the point. Even if not all of the crystal skulls are fake, at least some of them are, and that is more than enough to piss me off, because it's just not right.
JuNii
23-05-2008, 04:49
The fact the that first one was discovered in the late 1890s means nothing right?

no, it was touched upon in the article.

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.

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.

and Wiki's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_skull)article.
Research into crystal skull origins
Many crystal skulls are claimed to be pre-Columbian, usually attributed to the Aztec or Maya civilizations. Mesoamerican art has numerous representations of skulls, but these do not share similar stylistic elements with the crystal skulls, and none of the skulls in museum collections comes from documented excavations.[6] Research carried out on several crystal skulls at the British Museum in 1996 and again in 2004 has shown that the indented lines marking the teeth (for these skulls had no separate jawbone, unlike the Mitchell-Hedges skull) were carved using jeweler's equipment (rotary tools) developed in the 19th century, making a supposed pre-Columbian origin even more dubious. The type of (rather poor quality) crystal is Brazilian, and unknown within the Aztec or Maya territories. The study concluded that the skulls were crafted in the 19th century in Germany.

It has been established that both the British Museum and Paris' Musée de l'Homme[7] crystal skulls were originally sold by the French antiquities dealer Eugène Boban, who was operating in Mexico City between 1860 and 1880.[8] The British Museum crystal skull transited through New York's Tiffany's, whilst the Musée de l'Homme's crystal skull was donated by Alphonse Pinart, an ethnographer who had bought it from Boban.
Andaluciae
23-05-2008, 04:54
Given what I've read, the big ones are, without question, fakes. Especially the Mitchell-Hedges baloney.

I suspect that the inspiration to create the fakes probably came from the little skull-beads that are often used to celebrate the Day of the Dead in Mexico. Someone just scaled those up, and suckered some collectors (and, later, new-age crystal freaks).
greed and death
23-05-2008, 04:55
Well looks like the British museum got left with some crap.
CthulhuFhtagn
23-05-2008, 05:01
This is news? Could have sworn they identified all the skulls as forgeries years ago.
JuNii
23-05-2008, 05:05
Well looks like the British museum got left with some crap.

Crap? damn, I'll take their Crap if they don't want it!

*imagines that skull sitting on my monitor at work* :D
Pirated Corsairs
23-05-2008, 05:14
Crap? damn, I'll take their Crap if they don't want it!

*imagines that skull sitting on my monitor at work* :D

that would be awesome
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
23-05-2008, 05:33
This is news? Could have sworn they identified all the skulls as forgeries years ago.

I had also thought that.

Also, "artefacts" and "Black & Decker?" Am I just noticing Britishisms more easily because of the thread on Americanisms? :p
Demented Hamsters
23-05-2008, 05:45
This piece of news has ruined Indy Jones IV for me. I don't think I'll go now.
Next you'll be telling me that the US military doesn't have the ark of the covenant hidden in a warehouse somewhere.
Indri
23-05-2008, 05:48
It all blew up in my face.
Kyronea
23-05-2008, 06:17
This is news? Could have sworn they identified all the skulls as forgeries years ago.

Oh...

Well, I didn't know about it.
greed and death
23-05-2008, 06:19
Oh...

Well, I didn't know about it.

yeah when the US collectors sold them. the rest of the world however didn't trust them so kept saying they were real until now.
Levee en masse
23-05-2008, 06:35
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7414637.stm



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs

Clearly.

This is really disappointing, because I kinda liked the idea of the crystal skulls. They were neat. Now it turns out they were faked.

Actually, it's not just disappointing; now that I think about it, it really pisses me off, because it means a lot of archaeological work and a large amount of information we thought was true is actually all a lie. I despise it when people fake archaeological artifacts.

Good to see the BBC science reporting is jumping from strength to strength. Grabbing all the up to date research and discoveries :rolleyes:
CthulhuFhtagn
23-05-2008, 07:01
This piece of news has ruined Indy Jones IV for me. I don't think I'll go now.
Next you'll be telling me that the US military doesn't have the ark of the covenant hidden in a warehouse somewhere.

They've actually got it stashed under Ann Coulter's dress.
Megaloria
23-05-2008, 07:03
They've actually got it stashed under Ann Coulter's dress.

Along with who knows what else that's also unmentionable and probably politically incorrect.
Redwulf
23-05-2008, 07:41
no, it was touched upon in the article.


I read that quote as "a dealer of 19th century antiquities" rather than "a dealer of antiquities who was from the 19th century", but that may just be because I'm tired.
Damor
23-05-2008, 08:48
Actually, it's not just disappointing; now that I think about it, it really pisses me off, because it means a lot of archaeological work and a large amount of information we thought was true is actually all a lie. I doubt it has any noticeable consequences for the archaeological field. Not to mention they've been under suspicion a long time.
It's nothing like the Piltdown man hoax, for example; which kept archeology on the wrong track for a lot longer.
Kyronea
23-05-2008, 10:37
I doubt it has any noticeable consequences for the archaeological field. Not to mention they've been under suspicion a long time.
It's nothing like the Piltdown man hoax, for example; which kept archeology on the wrong track for a lot longer.
That's not the point. I know that in the scheme of things this is hardly all that important. But it's the principle of the matter, and that's why I'm angry.
Call to power
23-05-2008, 12:53
the skulls have become a part of popular culture

should I be ashamed that I had never heard of the things? does this mean I'm not popular!?

Crap? damn, I'll take their Crap if they don't want it!

eww looks like we have a crystal ornament collector *displays overpriced crap involving dragons*
Laerod
23-05-2008, 13:43
This piece of news has ruined Indy Jones IV for me. I don't think I'll go now.
Next you'll be telling me that the US military doesn't have the ark of the covenant hidden in a warehouse somewhere.
No, but Indians (dots, not feathers) don't consider monkey brains on ice a delicacy either.
Kyronea
23-05-2008, 13:58
No, but Indians (dots, not feathers) don't consider monkey brains on ice a delicacy either.

Well of course they don't. You were expecting something like Indiana Jones to be accurate? Please. It's an American action film series. You're lucky it gets anything right at all.