Crystal skulls mystery

Large quartz crystal skulls have generated great interest and fascination since they began to surface in public and private collections, during the second half of the nineteenth century. Some of them have been attributed to the work of ancient Mexica*, Mixtec or even Maya stone workers in Mexico. Others are said to be examples of colonial Mexican art, for use in churches, perhaps as bases for crucifixes.

Scientists at the British Museum studied traces of tool marks preserved in the highly polished surfaces of this crystal skull. These show that it was extensively worked using rotary cutting wheels, unknown in Mexico before the arrival of the Spanish in 1519. Furthermore, analysis of inclusions in the quartz crystal indicates that the large block of material was obtained in the nineteenth century from a source far beyond ancient Mexican trade links, probably Brazil or Madagascar.
First, art critic Frank Dordland started investigating the strange skull. After a closer investigation, he discovered that the skull had a complicated system of lenses, prisms, and channels, creating unusual optical effects. The investigator was surprised to discover no signs of processing on the skull's perfectly polished surface. They couldn't be seen even with a microscope. Frank Dordland even addressed Hewlett-Packard, the famous company that specialized in crystal oscillators at that time, for a competent examination of the crystal.

The results were shocking not only for the scientist himself. The research by Hewlett-Packard in 1964 in a special laboratory revealed that the skull had been made long before the first civilizations appeared in that part of America where the skull was found. In addition, rock crystal of such perfect quality couldn'tt be found in that area. The most amazing thing was that the ancient skull weighing 5.13 kg, 203.4 mm long and 125.4 wide had been made of a whole crystal. This fact contradicted the laws of physics.

Hewlett-Packard experts analyzed the skull and discovered that it consisted of three or four joints grown together. After close analysis, they found out that the skull had been cut of one piece of crystal, together with the lower jaw. The rock crystal has a hardness that is slightly lower than that of topaz, corundum, and diamond; it can be cut with diamonds only. It is astonishing, but the ancient Indians managed to cut it somehow, and even made a lower jaw with the joints. Someone had made the skull of a whole crystal so carefully that it seemed that nobody had ever touched it. A kind of a prism was found at the back bottom of the skull; any ray of light that strikes the eye-sockets is reflected there. If you look into the eye-sockets, you may see the whole room reflected.

Hewlett-Packard experts say that the skull had been made regardless of all laws and rules. They surprisingly said: "The damned thing can't exist at all. Those who had done it had no idea of crystallography or of fiber optics. The people completely ignored the axis of symmetry, which was to prevent the crystal from splitting during processing. It is strange why it didn't split at that!" No matter how unbelievable it may seem, the strange crystal skull can be seen in the Museum of American Indians.

Researchers found that the skull had been carved against the natural axis of the crystal. Modern crystal sculptors always take into account the axis, or orientation of the crystal's molecular symmetry, because if they carve "against the grain," the piece is bound to shatter -- even with the use of lasers and other high-tech cutting methods.

To compound the strangeness, HP could find no microscopic scratches on the crystal which would indicate it had been carved with metal instruments. Dorland's best hypothesis for the skull's construction is that it was roughly hewn out with diamonds, and then the detail work was meticulously done with a gentle solution of silicon sand and water. The exhausting job -- assuming it could possibly be done in this way -- would have required man-hours adding up to 300 years to complete.
Source : britishmuseum , mendhak


Post a Comment