Nothing revealed: the skull on British TV & the Smithsonian Channel

The (channel) five documentary “Revealed” that ran on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 (repeated on June 29), as well as on the Smithsonian Channel on July 10, 2008, titled “Legend of The Crystal Skulls” was – alas – another documentary trying to offer bogus revelations, in obvious efforts to make the documentary more than it was. At a time when dozens of documentaries are done on the skull, it is hard for lower-budget productions to get sold and hype is often the preferred method of the sales pitch. Alas, it is a sign of our times that television makers feel their documentaries need to be the absolute this, or absolute that – when it isn’t by a long shot.
We feel particularly aggrieved by the documentary makers’ depiction of Anna Mitchell-Hedges as a liar, which they somehow felt necessary to hammer home the point they hoped to make. But it is particularly annoying to see how throughout the length of the documentary, there were dozens of inaccuracies and false claims. Jane Walsh herself is probably not all too pleased either by the words put in her mouth, namely that she was the one that uncovered the 1943 Sotheby sale records for the skull, or the implied references to the MAN 1936 article discovery.

The gravest of errors committed by the documentary is that it accepted the false premise that pre-Columbian cultures did not have any tools to make the skulls. It is none other than Michael Coe who has said this statement should not be taken as dogma, yet it is precisely that which several researchers, whether Jane Walsh, Margaret Sax, or television producers such as those making this documentary, hold. It is similar to the stance archaeologists have held – and largely continue to hold – that earthquakes have never been responsible for the demise of cities or civilisations, whereas there is overwhelming scientific evidence that they are. But denial…
Furthermore, the full verdict of the Hewlett-Packard and British Museum claims – both of whom did extensive testing on the skulls, unlike the few hours Walsh has spent with the skull – were not all fully put together and explained, as if they did not matter.

However, there is worse. This picture shows to what length a director or editor will go to support arguments by false imagery.

They who accuse Mike and Anna Mitchell-Hedges of falsifying their evidence have fallen into their own trap. Thomas Gann has been airbrushed out of the original picture and it was actually he, not Mitchell-Hedges, who used the dynamite. Mitchell-Hedges favoured the method of burning back the vegetation as it was so dense… Dynamite was – however much modern archaeologists seem to hate it – a method their predecessors used to excavate with.
Unless we are accused of inventing these claims, we quote what was said about Gann: “He couldn’t get into the temples very easily and was wondering what was in the centre and the easiest thing was to blow it up,” says Mas. “Perhaps that’s why they named the site the falling stones. Everything collapsed and he didn’t find anything. It’s a shame.”
www.atlanticcallcentres.ca/comment/columnists/article/196456
Then there is Harvard University’s R.E. Merwin who visited the site in 1914 and made off with three priceless ball-court markers, which are now on display in Harvard’s Peabody Museum. It seems Mitchell-Hedges was an amateur – derived from the Latin word for “love” – in the true sense of the word, and no other sense.

The end conclusion is therefore simple: the producers have tampered with copyrighted material to suit their own case, in the most circumspect of manners: in this case the villain was airbrushed out and the one man left standing was to blame alongside his so called “bankroll”!
Furthermore, Lady Richmond-Brown was not twisted into coming on the trip; she was diagnosed with cancer and in that respect, as Mitchell-Hedges put it, “had nothing to loose”. She did return for a second visit, but was too ill for the third. She wrote her own book (Unknown Tribes Uncharted Seas), as did Jane Harvey Houlson (Blue Blaze). Both were ecstatic from their experiences with Mitchell-Hedges, but such supportive evidence was not used in the documentary.

Though we understand that documentaries want to provide a lot of airtime to scientists, in the case of Jane Walsh, we need to underline she is not an expert on Mitchell-Hedges, nor has she ever met Anna. Many of her statements as made in this documentary are personal assumptions and not firm facts themselves. Walsh gets the meeting of Sammy & Mitchell-Hedges off track and makes a yea or nay “assumption” that she had been adopted by Mitchell-Hedges. She was adopted and the papers were filed in Panama. While Mitchell Hedges retuned to the UK he “sometimes” left Anna with an English family on the island of Taboga in the Bay of Panama.
Jane Walsh also says the Anna was short of money after her father died. The man was a millionaire and was very good at pirating and hiding his wealth, as he did most of his personal information! We need to remember that the 1920s were far different than today, and jungle tribes did not accept VISA, nor could one quickly transfer money from England to Mexico or elsewhere, if needed as a matter of urgency.
It has taken years to piece together most of his life from archive material that has lain around in old trunks for many a dusty year. In a letter dated May 1944 (i.e. during World War II) he tells one of his brothers that he has the largest single collection of silver in the UK… one hundred and fifty thousands ounces of silver and not a piece older than 1819. That is 4.18 tonnes, with the majority dated to between 1600 and 1780.
The 1960 B/W BBC film (a very short clip of a greater viewing of the silver was shown in the channel five documentary) showing Anna displaying all the Mitchell-Hedges silver collection was in itself a mass of brilliant display of opulence and wealth. When you add it up it comes to over £200,000, which is a lot of money in those days. Anna broke? Definitely not so!

The documentary also has several factual errors. The Sotheby’s sale was not reported correctly: Mitchell-Hedges did buy the Crystal Skull at auction for £400, outbidding the British Museum. It was reported in the daily newspaper of the time. Also in a letter to his brother in December 1943 he states: “‘The Collection’ grows and grows. You possibly saw in the papers that I acquired that amazing Crystal Skull that was formally in the ‘Sydney Burney collection’. It is fashioned from a single block of rock crystal, exactly life size. Scientist put it at around 1800 BC and they estimate that it took five generations passing from father to son to complete. It is anthropologically perfect in every detail. A superb piece of craftsmanship. There is only one other in the world like it which is in the British Museum, and it is acknowledge not to be as fine as this”.
In another letter he says “this is one item that no amount of money will induce me to sell and I have had three American museums trying [...] The Anthropological journal Man has nearly devoted an entire issue to it.” In the same letter he refers to the Skull as being “world famous”. So why, when he is totally open, does he write in his book “I have reasons for not revealing” … unless he wants you to look deeper?

There are two very obvious opportunities missed here that in themselves present a mystery. The Crystal Skull was in an auction that was totally out of character with its genre. Also, Mitchell-Hedges, the art collector, had no interest at all in crystals or any artefacts of that nature, but nevertheless had to go to London very early by train and bid for it. Why does a man whose sole interest is in silver suddenly switch tracks and go for a unique piece of crystal in a furniture sale where all other items are “Chinese Porcelain - Needlework & Furniture - Important Oriental Rugs”? Unless, of course, it is as Anna said, and it was because her father was greatly surprised to learn that his Skull was placed at auction and had to react quickly to get it back.
Furthermore, there is suggestion in the documentary that Mitchell-Hedges had no prior knowledge of crystal skulls. If that were the case, then what to make of the references in his only book of fiction “White Tiger”, published in 1931 (i.e. 13 years prior to the auction), where he speaks of “Crystal Heads” as part of the Treasure of the Aztecs? This information was passed to Picturefilms, the producers of this documentary, who decided not to use this evidence. If that avenue was explored, it might have been a documentary of genuine interest, rather than the bogus revelations dished up instead.

Finally, the documentary’s conclusions were muddled in the extreme. It is a known fact that the skull existed in 1934 (as indicated in the MAN 1936 article that was used in the documentary), yet the documentary seems to allege that in 1924 the technology did not exist to create this skull, when Anna said she had found the skull – begging the question what precisely changed, technology or otherwise, between 1924 and 1934. Some viewers also came away with the impression that the documentary seemed to be arguing the skull was made in the 1950s, which is of course preposterous. In short, the documentary conclusions had all the hallmarks of one-liners, strung together in a muddled manner, so that the holes in the argument might not be seen by the viewer. We hope the viewer is more intelligent…

Here are number of letters, sent to Mitchell-Hedges, showing how the major museums had nothing but positive things to say about Mitchell-Hedges. Such primary evidence is totally at odds with the unsubtantiated claims Norman Hammond has made in this and other documentaries.

[Show as slideshow]

The German origin of the skulls

Claims exist that there is “near proof” about how the skulls have been traced to a German village that specialized in crystal. Though it is indeed true that this village had many experts in working with crystals, there is no evidence that they made any or several crystal skulls. Worse, there is not a single piece of evidence which connects the French antiquities dealer Boban (or any other Mexican antiques dealer) with the crystal manufacturers of this village. The claim made by some that it is likely or almost proven that several skulls were fabricated in this village, is unsupported by evidence. It is an unsubstantiated theory, and is hence without scientific validity.

The 1943 auction of the “Skull of Doom”

Certain people have made a lot about how Mitchell-Hedges bought the skull at auction in 1943. This is an undisputed fact. But this “revelation” takes the focus away from the fact that the skull is known to have existed in 1936, when it was studied by the British Museum. The report stated that it could not trace the skull’s existence beyond 1934.
No evidence has been uncovered how Burney acquired it, or that he felt it was of recent origin. If he did acquire it as a “modern fake”, he would surely not have taken the risk and submitted it for testing by the British Museum in 1936? Furthermore, noting that Burney and Mitchell-Hedges were friends, all the available evidence is definitely in favor of Mitchell-Hedges possessing the skull in the early 1930s – which in itself does nothing for or against the age or origin of the skull.

The “controversial” Boban

Jane Walsh should be commended for tracing the Paris and British Museum skull back to Eugène Boban. However, no-one has uncovered any evidence that the Mitchell-Hedges skull has any connection with Boban.
Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that Boban ordered these skulls in Germany, or knew they were fake. As all art dealers, some fake artifacts did pass through his hands, but he is known to have been a man who spoke out against fakes, and felt the sale of fake artifacts was counter-productive for the market in which he was operating. He personally crusaded against frauds and fakes, such as in 1881, when he spoke out against forgeries that were being made in the suburbs of Mexico City.
A contemporary art dealer, Wilson Wilberforce Blake, at a time when he was openly claiming that everyone should buy from him, not Boban, did claim the skull was fake. No shred of evidence exists to substantiate this allegation – which had clear economical motives.

“A third generation skull”

Walsh has labeled the Mitchell-Hedges skull as a third generation skull, seeing it is the most detailed and best of the crystal skulls known to exist. She therefore considers it more modern than the Paris and British Museum skulls. It is implied therefore to be post-Boban. However, no evidence has been produced for her claim, and as the skull is allegedly even more recent than Boban’s, one would expect there to be evidence that is easily obtainable. However, none is produced.
Furthermore, as enticing as her generational approach to cataloguing the skulls is, it suggests a group of people perfecting their techniques over time and thus their end product becoming ever more refined. However, in the case of the crystal skulls, we are talking about 5 to 6 artifacts, which, if indeed of recent origins, were still apparently produced over a period of 40 to 60 years (ca. 1860-1900-1920 AD), which has innate problems:
a. one person would likely only do one skull in his lifetime;
b. there is no evidence at all to argue that the more basic skulls are older than e.g. the Mitchell-Hedges one;
c. there is no evidence that all skulls come from the same location, let alone the same “crystal factory”;
d. why would this German town only have sold to or via Boban, and not put such crystal skulls in their “general catalogue” and on sale elsewhere and locally?

Hence, this generational cataloguing is without any foundation in fact and at present pure speculation.

Evidence of wheels in production as proof of post-Columbian/modern origin

Walsh et al. claim that the presence of evidence on the skulls that wheels were used, is evidence of not only post-Columbian, but specifically modern origins.
However, this conclusion is at odds with the evidence. The crystal skull owned by Mexican Norma Redo supports a large crucifix on its top. This skull shows evidence of wheelwork. But from his analysis, archaeologist Dr Andrew Rankin has argued that the skull was sculpted from the same crystal as that of the crystal goblet from tomb no. 7 at Monte Albán, which is an uncontested archaeological find.
Furthermore, the 1571 hallmark on the crucifix is also deemed to be genuine, thus in general excluding the likelihood that this skull is of 19th century European fabrication. This suggests the skull dates from 1571 or earlier. Though it does not prove the skull is pre-Columbian, it does indicate that crystal skulls were made in Mexico before 1600.
Finally, Professor Michael D. Coe of Yale University stated that evidence of wheel markings in no way proves that the skulls are modern. He stated that although it has long been accepted that no pre-Columbian civilization used the rotary wheel, new evidence contradicts this scientific dogma. Wafer-thin obsidian ear-spools are now known to have been made using some rotary carving equipment and to be dated to the Aztec/Mixtec period. According to Chris Morton and Ceri Louise Thomas in The Mystery of the Crystal Skulls, Coe concluded (p. 226): “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.”

Psychic powers, Atlantis, and alien origins

We cannot be held responsible for other people’s opinions or theories about the origins of the crystal skull. Throughout her lifetime, Anna Mitchell-Hedges was accommodating to psychics, artists and scientists who wanted to work or study the artifact. Claims that she never allowed the skull to be scientifically tested, are erroneous.
Equally, F.A. Mitchell-Hedges never stated the skull was from Atlantis, or an extra-terrestrial civilization, or like. In fact, he is on the record, in his autobiography “Danger My Ally”, as stating his conviction that the skull was a Native American artifact, used by local shamans in their “esoteric rites”.

It is Indiana Jones, but you would think it is Don Quichote. Like The Da Vinci Code, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull got a lot of mainstream media attention, with specifically the magazines and newspapers decided to launch a crusade against crystal skulls.
Archaeology published a particularly bad article (no doubt because it had to be rushed into print) by Jane Walsh of the Smithsonian. Specifically, Jane Walsh called Mitchell-Hedges a “yarn-spinner extraordinaire” – not the most scientific of wording, and an allegation that is not supported by any examples or details.
Despite the officialdom of archaeology claiming all skulls are fake, the Paris and British Museum skulls were nevertheless pushed forward as museum flagships, hoping they would bring extra visitors.

On April 18, 2008, the Quai Branly museum felt it had to release a press statement that the skull was “probably” made in the 19th century. In the statement, the museum said that 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.” Note the word “seem”.
Another article, on the British Museum skull, read: “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.” What are we to make of statements like “tended to prove”? There is either proof, or there isn’t. Everything else is evidence, and up for interpretation.
All of the articles sang from the same hymn-sheet: how evidence of wheels “proved” they are not pre-Columbian; the Boban connection; the speculation about possible German origins. All of this “evidence” has been countered in the rebuttal article and the “German connection” is so unsubstantiated that even the newspaper and magazine articles used words like “may”, “probably” or “could” – but there is no evidence for it. It is purely a theory by Jane Walsh, unsupported by any evidence.

The various stories that have been published highlight how badly one-sided the debate has become, but this is typical of the mainstream media’s approach to “news” in general. And what are we to make of the “Skull of Doom” – also known as the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull – being labelled the “skull of destiny”?
AFP even decided it would invent its own variation of the “gathering of the skulls” legend, highlighting it either got that from a new age webpage, or just invented it altogether. Note no-one is quoted: “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.” And one wonders why no-one is buying newspapers anymore!

This “crystal skulls war” has brought about another divide, which only few journalists seem to have noticed: that between archaeologists and their claims/interpretations, and that of anthropology/living traditions. For example: archaeologists stick around Jane Walsh, who almost single-handedly leads the archaeologists’ assault, claiming that all crystal skulls are 19th century fabrications. Yet it is clear that Mayans in Middle America have a living tradition about a gathering of the skulls. Indeed, social beliefs change over time, but the Guatemalan shamans were uttering these beliefs before the crystal skulls achieved any notoriety whatsoever, suggesting their opinions were genuinely their own – which implies also that archaeologists have it dead wrong.
For example, in the jungles of southern Mexico, the Lacandon, the last unassimilated Mayas, still have communities that worship crystal skulls. In the shadow of the Palenque ruins, Lacandon priest K’in Garcia fans copal incense and holds a heavy crystal skull above his head during ceremonies for Hacha’kyum, the Mayan god of creation. Garcia, the son of the Lancandon’s most respected elder, Chan Kin, believes the skull has special powers, including the ability to stave off sickness and deforestation in the rain forest where the last Lacandon still live. “When I am alone at night, at about 2 a.m., it starts to glow, it emits light, and it stays like that for about a minute,” says Garcia, underlining that in his eyes, the skull has otherworldy, if not supernatural, connotations.

As we head towards 2012, there is one clear new development, which is that the Mayans, after centuries of oppression, are now becoming ever stronger, ever more socially sure about their self-identity, and their desire to have social respect. A most remarkable change for the better occurred on April 23, 2008, when a television station that once was the voice of the Guatemalan military dictatorship that had massacred thousands of Mayans, showed the glyph of the day from the millennial Mayan calendar and announced itself as ”TV Maya: Guatemala’s multi-cultural station.”
The station, funded by the Guatemalan Academy of Mayan Languages (ALMG), broadcasts for 30 minutes, three times a day, showing programs that teach Mayan culture, worldview and language. Its programs are broadcast in indigenous languages with Spanish subtitles.
The station will be of particular importance in healing the wounds of the past and creating unity in Guatemala, a country that is sixty percent indigenous, with 22 different linguistic groups of Maya, as well as Garifuna and Xinca. It continues the country’s commitment to peace accords made in 1996, after the Guatemalan military adopted a ‘’scorched earth” policy in its efforts to fight leftist guerillas. That policy left more than 200,000 people dead, most of them rural Mayans. It is a massacre that has, as is usual for Central and Southern America, hardly received any attention from the international media – not even from those who claim to help Mayan knowledge enter the West.

With the rise of the Maya, there might be an interest clash on the horizon, once they have the self-assurance to “pick a fight” with the archaeologists who, from their ivory towers in “Colonial Headquarters” seem to continue to dictate what the truth should be – rather than could be, or is.

Philip Coppens is a journalist and researcher. He has been writing on the crystal skulls since 1995. His website is www.philipcoppens.com.