Author Topic: Brace Yourselves: Fake Crystal Skulls at Center of New Indiana Jones Movie  (Read 9489 times)

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4742
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080418/ennew_afp/entertainmentfilmcannesindianajonesskull;_ylt=AtJxKQ44F7ztVboc0mrlRNEEtbAF
Skullduggery, Indiana Jones? Museum says crystal skull not Aztec by Claire Rosemberg
Fri Apr 18, 1:00 PM ET
 
PARIS (AFP) - As Indiana Jones gets set to hit cinema screens with a new death-defying adventure in the "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", a Paris museum acknowledged Friday that its own star exhibit crystal skull was not what it was cracked up to be.

One of only a dozen such skulls known to exist worldwide, the Quai Branly museum's piece was acquired in 1878 from an Indiana Jones-type explorer, Alphonse Pinart, as an Aztec masterpiece believed to be hundreds of years old, the remnant of an ancient and mysterious civilisation.

But in a statement Friday the museum admitted the skull, rather than dating from the Aztec period, was probably made in the 19th century.

From May 20 the Paris skull goes on view to coincide with the premiere at the Cannes Film Festival of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" -- the fourth installment in Harrison Ford's archaeologist's adventures since the 1981 blockbuster "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

While the plot of the latest archeological epic by Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas remains a tightly-guarded secret, bets are the Indiana Jones movie will mirror Aztec beliefs surrounding the skulls.

Legend has it that the Paris skull represents the Aztecs' Mictlantecuhtli, who reigned over the land of the deceased, Mictlan. Reuniting all 12 existing skulls plus a supposed-to-exist 13th could prevent the earth from tipping over, according to fable.

In a statement Friday, the Quai Branly said results of an analysis of its skull in 2007-2008 by the country's C2RMF research and restoration centre "seem to indicate that it was made late in the 19th century."

Over the past decade experts had voiced growing doubts over the Aztec origin of the crystal skulls, one of which is in the British Museum, another at Washington's Smithsonian Institute.

The London skull was examined twice, in 1996 and 2004, and both studies tended to prove it was a fake, though the final conclusions have not been made public.

Fashioned in clear quartz crystal and 11 centimetres (4.4 inches) high, the Paris skull is marked by grooves and perforations that "reveal the use of jewellery burrs and other modern tools," the museum said.

"Never has such technical precision been found in pre-Colombian art."

C2RMF engineers Thomas Calligaro and Yvan Coquinot told AFP that three months of analysis of the skull highlighted that the piece "is certainly not pre-Columbian, it shows traces of polishing and abrasion by modern tools."

Analysis by a particle accelerator had also shown traces of water dating from the 19th century, they said.

Like the London skull, the Paris piece was once in the hands of Eugene Boban, a controversial Paris dealer in archaeological objects believed to be well aware of the production of fake antiquities.

But though no crystal skull yet found at archaeological digs has proved to be authentic, the 12 located around the world continue to arouse interest and speculation.

Apart from the Paris, London and Smithsonian skulls, nine belong to private individuals -- the skull of destiny, the Sha-Na-Ra skull, the synergy skull, the Max skull, the Maya skull, a so-called E.T. skull, the amethyst skull, the reliquary cross skull and the pink crystal skull.

Each skull was supposed to correspond to 12 worlds in which human life was present. They were brought by the Itza, the ancient people of Atlantis, to their civilisation in order to pass on their knowledge to man.

The 13th world, the land, also had its own crystal skull, and all 13 skulls were kept in a great pyramid by the Olmecs, the Mayas and ultimately the Aztecs.

The Aztecs are said to have been responsible for the dispersal and loss of the skulls, which when brought together possessed great powers, including being lined up on the last day of the Maya calendar -- December 21, 2012 -- to prevent the earth from tipping over.

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4742
The good news is that the film is poorly made getting very poor reviews. A big hit would've pulled lots of people to the crystal numbskulls.

-------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_en_mo/film_review_indiana_jones;_ylt=AlAGdPikmFWfxOEUuQ7KEtkEtbAF
Review: Good to see Indy, but `Skull' is a mess By CHRISTY LEMIRE, AP Movie Critic
Sun May 18, 10:51 PM ET
 
....Once you get past the initial reintroduction, though, it's obvious that this fourth film in the Indy series really has no idea where to go. Except for the opening — which literally starts the film off with a bang — and a couple of dazzling chase sequences, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is about as unfocused and meandering as the title itself.

....Instead of the breathless action of previous films, though, this one gets draggy and repetitive in the middle, with Indy and Co. traipsing through various tombs, searching by torchlight for clues to the origin of the mysterious and powerful Crystal Skull of Akator. (What the thing is, or what it does, doesn't really matter. It is the MacGuffin, as they say. But it does look eerily like Larry King.)

...."Crystal Skull" (someone's gotta shorten that title) feels like an homage to Spielberg himself: sort of a prequel to "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," with a dash of "Duel" and the daddy issues that have permeated most of his movies....

Both allusions are time-appropriate, though. "Crystal Skull" begins in 1957 Nevada, with Indy and his partner Mac (Ray Winstone) trying to escape from the Soviets who've kidnapped them. Blanchett's fearsome Irina Spalko wants them to locate the crystal skull within Area 51 for some kind of nefarious mind-control plan involving alien intelligence (a long-standing Spielberg subject).

A former colleague of Indy's, Professor Oxley (John Hurt), also was after the skull — and went missing in pursuit of it. LaBeouf's young tough Mutt Williams tracks Indy down and pleads with him to help find their mutual friend, which sends the two on a quest to determine the purpose behind the mystical artifact and keep it out of the wrong hands.

....it's time to hang up the fedora after all.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," a Paramount Pictures release, is rated PG-13 for adventure violence and scary images. Running time: 126 minutes. Two stars out of four.

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4742
Article put out debunking them as fake in anticipation of the film.

-------------
http://www.archaeology.org/0805/etc/indy.html
....These exotic carvings are usually attributed to pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures, but not a single crystal skull in a museum collection comes from a documented excavation, and they have little stylistic or technical relationship with any genuine pre-Columbian depictions of skulls, which are an important motif in Mesoamerican iconography.

They are intensely loved today by a large coterie of aging hippies and New Age devotees, but what is the truth behind the crystal skulls? Where did they come from, and why were they made?

Museums began collecting rock-crystal skulls during the second half of the nineteenth century, when no scientific archaeological excavations had been undertaken in Mexico and knowledge of real pre-Columbian artifacts was scarce. It was also a period that saw a burgeoning industry in faking pre-Columbian objects. When Smithsonian archaeologist W. H. Holmes visited Mexico City in 1884, he saw "relic shops" on every corner filled with fake ceramic vessels, whistles, and figurines. Two years later, Holmes warned about the abundance of fake pre-Columbian artifacts in museum collections in an article for the journal Science titled "The Trade in Spurious Mexican Antiquities."

French antiquarian Eugène Boban with his collection of Mesoamerican artifacts at an 1867 Paris exposition. Among the objects on display were two crystal skulls. At his feet rest a pot and a battleaxe Boban exhibited as Aztec. Both are fakes. (Courtesy Jane Walsh/Museo Nacional de Historia, Mexico City)....

Although nearly all of the crystal skulls have at times been identified as Aztec, Toltec, Mixtec, or occasionally Maya, they do not reflect the artistic or stylistic characteristics of any of these cultures. The Aztec and Toltec versions of death heads were nearly always carved in basalt, occasionally were covered with stucco, and were probably all painted. They were usually either attached to walls or altars, or depicted in bas reliefs of deities as ornaments worn on belts. They are comparatively crudely carved, but are more naturalistic than the crystal skulls, particularly in the depiction of the teeth. The Mixtec occasionally fabricated skulls in gold, but these representations are more precisely described as skull-like faces with intact eyes, noses, and ears. The Maya also carved skulls, but in relief on limestone. Often these skulls, depicted in profile, represent days of their calendars.

French and other European buyers imagined they were buying skillful pre-Columbian carvings, partially convinced perhaps by their own fascinated horror with Aztec human sacrifice. But the Aztecs didn't hang crystal skulls around their necks. Instead, they displayed the skulls of sacrificial victims on racks, impaling them horizontally through the sides (the parietal-temporal region), not vertically.

I believe that all of the smaller crystal skulls that constitute the first generation of fakes were made in Mexico around the time they were sold, between 1856 and 1880. This 24-year period may represent the output of a single artisan, or perhaps a single workshop. The larger 1878 Paris skull seems to be some sort of transitional piece, as it follows the vertical drilling of the smaller pieces, but its size precludes it being a bead, or being worn in any way. This skull now resides in the basement laboratories of the Louvre, and the Musée du Quai Branly has begun a program of scientific testing on the piece that will include advanced elemental analysis techniques like particle induced X-ray emission and Raman spectroscopy, so we may know more about its material and age in the near future.

South American Idol?

In the opening scenes of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Indiana Jones is hot on the trail of an extremely valuable golden idol created by an unidentified ancient South American culture. The goddess's image, which Jones deftly snatches from an altar (setting off a series of booby traps that culminate with an enormous boulder nearly crushing our hero), is of a woman in the act of giving birth. The golden figure was modeled on a purportedly Aztec greenstone carving called Tlazolteotl, considered to be a masterpiece by the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington, D.C.

In my research into the object's acquisition history, I discovered that a Chinese dealer in Paris sold the figure in 1883 to a famous French mineralogist, Augustin Damour. His friend, Eugene Boban, advised Damour on the purchase. In examining the artifact's iconography, I found that the birthing position is unknown in documented pre-Columbian artifacts or depictions in codices. I have also used scanning electron microscopy to analyze the manufacture of the idol and have found there is ample evidence of the use of modern rotary cutting tools on the object's surface. In my opinion, the Tlazolteotl idol, like the crystal skulls, is a nineteenth-century fake. The 1878 Paris skull and the Boban-Tiffany-British Museum skull that appeared in 1881 are perhaps nineteenth-century European inventions. There is no direct tie to Mexico for either of these two larger skulls, except through Boban; they simply appear in Paris long after his initial return from Mexico in 1869. The Mitchell-Hedges skull, which appears after 1934, is a veritable copy of the British Museum skull, with stylistic and technical flourishes that only an accomplished faker would devise. In fact, in 1936 British Museum scholar Adrian Digby first raised the possibility that the Mitchell-Hedges skull could be a copy of the British Museum skull since it showed "a perverted ingenuity such as one would expect to find in a forger." However, Digby, then a young curator, did not suggest it was a modern forgery and also dismissed the possibility that his museum's own crystal skull was a fraud, as early twentieth-century microscopic examination did not reveal the presence of modern tool marks.

The skull that arrived at the Smithsonian 16 years ago represents yet another generation of these hoaxes. According to its anonymous donor, it was purchased in Mexico in 1960, and its size perhaps reflects the exuberance of the time. In comparison with the original nineteenth-century skulls, the Smithsonian skull is enormous; at 31 pounds and nearly 10 inches high, it dwarfs all others. I believe it was probably manufactured in Mexico shortly before it was sold. (The skull is now part of the Smithsonian's national collections and even has its own catalogue number: 409954. At the moment it is stored in a locked cabinet in my office.)

There are now fifth- and probably sixth-generation skulls, and I have been asked to examine quite a number of them. Collectors have brought me skulls purportedly from Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, and even Tibet. Some of these "crystal" skulls have turned out to be glass; a few are made of resin.

British Museum scientist Margaret Sax and I examined the British Museum and Smithsonian skulls under light and scanning electron microscope and conclusively determined that they were carved with relatively modern lapidary equipment, which were unavailable to pre-Columbian Mesoamerican carvers. (A preliminary report on our research is on the British Museum website, www.britishmuseum.ac.uk/compass).

So why have crystal skulls had such a long and successful run, and why do some museums continue to exhibit them, despite their lack of archaeological context and obvious iconographic, stylistic, and technical problems? Though the British Museum exhibits its skulls as examples of fakes, others still offer them up as the genuine article. Mexico's national museum, for example, identifies its skulls as the work of Aztec and Mixtec artisans. Perhaps it is because, like the Indiana Jones movies, these macabre objects are reliable crowd-pleasers.

Impressed by their technical excellence and gleaming polish, generations of museum curators and private collectors have been taken in by these objects. But they are too good to be true. If we consider that pre-Columbian lapidaries used stone, bone, wooden, and possibly copper tools with abrasive sand to carve stone, crystal skulls are much too perfectly carved and highly polished to be believed.

Ultimately, the truth behind the skulls may have gone to the grave with Boban, a masterful dealer of many thousands of pre-Columbian artifacts--including at least five different crystal skulls--now safely ensconced in museums worldwide. He managed to confound a great many people for a very long time and has left an intriguing legacy, one that continues to puzzle us a century after his death. Boban confidently sold museums and private collectors some of the most intriguing fakes known, and perhaps many more yet to be recognized. It sounds like a great premise for a movie.

Jane MacLaren Walsh is an anthropologist at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

Offline Barnaby_McEwan

  • Posts: 861
BBC News: Crystal skulls 'are modern fakes'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7414637.stm

Quote
"Some of them are quite good, but some of them look like they were produced with a Black & Decker in someone's garage."...

Professor [Ian] 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 true believers wil have no such problems, of course.


Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4742
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080709/sc_afp/sciencearchaeologyentertainmentfilmskull;_ylt=AkmKNEML9E7WBS_t55cvZ9YEtbAF
Art of deception: Crystal skulls in British, US museums were fakes by Richard Ingham
Tue Jul 8, 8:20 PM ET
 
PARIS (AFP) - How about this for the next instalment of the Indy franchise: "Indiana Jones and the Dodgy Antiques Dealer"?
 
Less than three months after the Quai Branly Museum in Paris discovered that a crystal skull once proclaimed as a mystical Aztec masterpiece was a fake, it is now the turn of the British Museum and the Smithsonian Institution to find they were victims of skull-duggery.

Scientists from those two prestigious institutions on Wednesday said their crystal skulls were cut, honed and polished by tools of the industrial age, not by Mesoamerican craftsmen of yore.

"The skulls under consideration are not pre-Columbian. They must surely be regarded as of relatively modern manufacture," they say.

"Each skull was probably worked not more than a decade before it was first offered for sale."

The skulls became star exhibits in all three museums long before the Indiana Jones movie, "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," hit the movie screens this year.

The superstitious deemed them part of a collection of 12 skulls, endowed with healing or mystical powers, that dated back to the ancient culture of Central America.

Reuniting all 12 skulls, together with a putative 13th, would conjure up a massive power that would prevent the Earth from tipping over on December 21 2012, the "doomsday" in the Mayan calendar, according to one fable.

Legend-lovers had a bad day on April 18 when the Quai Branly said it had found grooves and perforations in its 11-centimetre (4.4-inch) -high quartz skull revealing the use of "jewellery burrs and other modern tools."

Doubts had also surfaced about the skulls in London and Washington, with art experts noting they were unusually large and with teeth markings that were exceptionally linear.

Seeking the verdict of science, researchers from those two museums examined the skulls with electron microscopes, looking at tiny scratches and marks left by the carving implements.

These were then compared with the surfaces of a crystal goblet, rock crystal beads and dozens of greenstone jewels known to be of genuine Aztec or Mixtec origin.

The study appears in the Journal of Archaeological Science, published by the Elsevier group.

The skull in the British Museum, purchased in 1897, is made of transparent rock crystal and is 15 centimetres (six inches) high. The Smithsonian skull, acquired by the museum in 1992, is of white quartz and measures 25.5 cms (10 inches) in height.

The investigators found that rotary wheels gave the British skull its sharp definition, a drill had dug out the nostrils and eyes, and diamond or corondum had been applied with iron or steel tools to smooth its upper surfaces.

As for the US skull, "faint traces" of tool marks remain, but these too are consistent with rotary wheels or grinding pads, the authors say.

No evidence has ever been found that rotary wheels were used to cut stones in Central America before the arrival of Europeans.

The investigators also found a black-and-red deposit in a tiny cavity of the Smithsonian skull. X-ray diffraction showed it to be silicon carbide -- a tough compound that only exists naturally in meteorites but is widespread in modern industrial abrasives.

Tiny irregularities in the quartz suggest the mineral for the London skull came from the European Alps, Brazil or Madagascar, while the quartz for the Washington skull had "many potential sources," including Mexico and the United States.

The sleuths pored over the archives of both museums, the Museum of Mankind in Paris, the French National Library, the Hispanic Society of America and newspaper records in a bid to find where the skulls came from.

The only documentation existing for the Smithsonian skull indicates it had been purchased in Mexico City in 1960. The scientists believe the skull was "probably manufactured shortly before it was purchased" there.

As for the British Museum and Quai Branly skulls, the paper trail leads to a French antiques collector by the name of Eugene Boban Duverge.

Boban had a shop in Mexico City and parlayed his way to the salons of Paris thanks to the 1863-67 "French Intervention," when troops of France's Second Empire invaded Mexico.

He built up a collection of 2,000 pre-Columbian artefacts, the biggest in Europe at the time. It included several crystal skulls, including the newly-unmasked fakes in London and Paris.

The skull that would eventually be bought by the British Museum was acquired by Boban between 1878 and 1881, possibly in Europe, the study says. In 1885, he tried to sell it to the National Museum of Mexico, but was turned down.

A year later, Boban sold it an auction to the New York jeweller's Tiffany's.

Two years later, Tiffany's sold the skull to a Californian businessman who nearly a decade later went bust and asked the jeweller to hunt for a new buyer.

So it was that Tiffany's vice president, George Kunz, made a pitch to the British Museum.

He recommended the purchase of "this remarkable object," sketched a past of colourful ownership, beginning with a Spanish soldier who had brought it back from Mexico, and quoting the opinion of others that the skull was of ancient Mexican origin but no-one knew for sure.

The rest, as they say, belongs to history... and human gullibility.

Offline snorks

  • Posts: 99
  • I Love YaBB 2!
The Wash.Post had an article about how the Smithsonian debunked their skull, which they exhibit as an eleborate fraud.

TrishaRoseJacobs

  • Guest
I went to go see it the other night and I liked it - but then I really like Indiana Jones and that film genre in general. However - if you see the film - brace yourself! It's like the motherload of new age crap all rolled up into one plot, including the not so subtle overtones of 'aliens must have built the pyramids and every other thing any native civilization ever created because ndns are too dumb to have done it themselves.' Other than that it was very entertaining.

Offline Barnaby_McEwan

  • Posts: 861
That's Hollywood! Wasn't there some deeply racist bug-eating version of India in one of the earlier ones?

TrishaRoseJacobs

  • Guest
Yeah - Temple of Doom, wasn't it?

Although I believe that those bugs are edible - there were chilled monkey brains, eyeball soup, and "snake surprise" as well if I remember correctly.

But I have to say that when I go to see films I don't have great expectations as to cultural sensitivity or historical accuracy anymore. The last remake of Pride and Prejudice was enough to convince me that the entertainment industry has no sense of decency whatsoever. :D