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.
Two down? Let's see.
Their results show the skulls were made using tools not available to the ancient Aztecs or Mayans.
So? If the Mayans and co were here long after the flood, and the skull was pre flood, how would that matter?? Who said they made it??
And it casts serious doubt over the authenticity of other crystal skulls held in collections around the world.
Try telling us why, rather than casting doubts.
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.
...
"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."
Rough art or polished work isn't the issue, is it? What I asked was if you could make these things now.
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.
Great. How do you claim to know this, and what was it, exactly, and who says that a copper tool is rocket science, only available in the nuclear age?
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.
So? Diamons were not around pre flood?? Seems like so far all you offer is an opinion that they were cavemenlike. But even if people were knocked back into the stone age after the flood, some of them, if they ended up with crystal works from before the flood, who says they had to make them??
But X-ray diffraction analysis showed a different material, 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. [/quote]
Well, it is found in nature, apparently. If the past nature was different, one suspects it would be possibly more easily found!
"
Moissanite is the rare mineral form of
silicon carbide (SiC) which has been found in
meteorites and in
mantle derived
igneous rocks.
[1] It is classed in the
element group in both the
Dana and
mineral class. It crystallizes in the
hexagonal system.
[2] Synthetic moissanite is used as a diamond simulant by
gemmologists.[/quote]
"
Silicon carbide (
SiC) is a
compound of
silicon and
carbon bonded together to form
ceramics, but it also occurs in nature as the extremely rare mineral
moissanite."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_carbide
The fact that it is usually apparently oonly either from deep in the earth, or outer space raises suspicion, like iridium, that we may be looking at a clue of the different state past. You would need something more than this doubbt casting, to make your claims stick.
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.
Assume smume. You assume a same state present origin, because that is all you believe in! Why weary us with religion on a science forum?? Either you got something or not. So far, ..not!
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.
Why??? Isn't this supposed to be a research article? Why not explain your stories and claims?? Typical.
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.
Why, because a diamond like substance was used?? So?
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.
OK, so they have no idea where ir came from! Hardly conclusive doubt casting, I would sugggest!
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.
So what? I am skeptical of your ignorance on the issue, and would have thought it should have kept your wild claims in check.
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.
Not me. I have no ax to grind, and simpply look at what we actually know. If they were made in a garage, I would like to know. If they are relics, passed along, from a different state, some of them, I have no problem with that. I don't know. But nothing you have said limits the manufature of these things to the present. That all you got???
