whatever their initial reaction, the crystal skull soon held Mitchell-Hedges’ guests entranced. They marvelled at its craftsmanship and became seduced by its beauty. They admired the perfectly chiselled beauty of its teeth, the smooth contours of its cheekbones and the way the jaw fitted faultlessly into the cranium. The question on everyone’s lips was, how could such ‘simple’, ‘primitive’ people, living deep in the jungle all those years ago, have created something so accomplished, so perfect?
Over the years many have been particularly captivated by the way the skull seems to hold, channel and reflect light. For it is made in such a way that any source of light from beneath it is refracted into the prisms at the front of the skull. So if the skull is placed in a darkened room and a fire or candle lit beneath it, the light appears shining right out through the eye sockets.
Others have also observed that the skull has two small holes carved into its base, one on either side of the main cranium. These are just the right size and shape for two narrow sticks to be inserted from below, enabling the skull to be suspended over any fire or light source, and allowing the top part of the skull to be moved in relation to the separate lower jaw. In this way, or with the attachment of the lower jaw by string or animal gut, it is possible to move the skull around in such a manner that it gives the impression that it is talking.7
Taking very literally what Mitchell-Hedges had been told about the skull being ‘made to talk’, some have suggested that it may have been used in this way by the ancient Mayans. They have speculated that the skull could have been placed on an altar at the top of the steps of one of the great pyramids, suspended over a fire concealed from view beneath the altar. The skull’s eyes would have blazed fire red as its jaw moved in precise synchronization with the booming voice of a mighty high priest, whose cohorts would have controlled the skull’s movements. The priest might have made a series of oracular announcements, perhaps announcing the names of the next victims for human sacrifice. This would indeed have been a terrifying spectacle to the masses of ordinary people gathered in the plaza below. Thus, some have concluded, the skull appeared thousands of years ago as a terrifying animated talking god-head, used by the priestly class to wield power over their frightened subjects.8
But this is assuming that when the old Mayan said the skull could be ‘made to talk’, he meant it literally. And the idea that it was a tool the Mayan priests used to fool and terrify their subjects is hardly in keeping with the joy the Mayans are said to have demonstrated on seeing it.
One person who became particularly fascinated by the skull was the author Sibley Morrill. He thought it had been ‘made to talk’ in quite a different way. He was struck by the skull’s incredible anatomical accuracy and noted that it almost faultlessly compared with a real human skull. But one feature was strangely missing. Real human skulls have a series of marks which run across them, known as suture marks. These are the seams that are left when the different plates of the skull have grown together. Morrill pointed out that these markings would have been very easy to add and would have given the skull even greater realism. The fact that they were missing indicated to him that the skull was not made simply to serve as a memorial to any particular individual.
Morrill puzzled over the absence of these marks and reached the rather dramatic conclusion that the only reason they could have been so obviously and intentionally left out was that the maker of the skull was forbidden to add them, or that ‘such an easily carved feature would be completely unacceptable’.9
The reason for this, he thought, was that to have suture marks would interfere with the true purpose of the skull. Morrill believed its primary purpose was for ‘foreseeing the future and affecting the outcome of events’. He said, ‘Suture marks … would be as out of place as engravings on the surface of a crystal ball.’10 His view was that:
‘The foreseeing of the future would be handled by … the priest, [who,] after preliminaries that might include fasting, the use of drugs, or both, and after other prescribed rites, would peer down into the crystal in an effort to see in its depths and striations … what the future held.11
‘[Morrill concluded:] How effective an aid the crystal skull was in foretelling the future is unknowable. All that can be said with certainty … is that it was probably the most effective crystal ball ever devised, and … it is highly probable that in some cases over the centuries the skull served that purpose well.’ 12
So, what had the skull really been used for? Had it been an animated god-head, a sort of talking oracle? Was it an elaborate crystal ball, used for seeing into the past, present and future, or was it the head of some ancient priest? What was meant by it being ‘made to talk’? What clues to its ancient role lay hidden in those polished prismatic surfaces? What secrets lay behind its penetrating crystal gaze? There had been an enormous amount of speculation but as yet no firm evidence or definitive answers.
In 1959 Frederick Mitchell-Hedges died and left his devoted daughter Anna in sole possession of the skull. Anna has looked after it in her own home ever since, although she has allowed more than the occasional visitor to come and experience ‘the power of the skull’ for themselves. This turned out to be our next step.
Through our telephone conversations with Anna it was now becoming increasingly clear that the incredible claims about the crystal skull’s paranormal powers had continued unabated ever since its original discovery. From the moment that the skull had been recovered from deep in the jungle, it had been widely recognized that there was something very strange, extraordinary and powerful about this object. But, over the years, it seemed to have escaped being labelled or categorized. In fact, from what we could tell, it seemed quite simply to have defied explanation altogether.
By now, Ceri and I were quite convinced that the skull would make an excellent subject for a documentary investigation. We mentioned this to Anna and explained that we would need a lot more information. All Anna was prepared to say, however, was that if we wanted to know more about the skull then we would have to ‘come and meet him’ for ourselves.
The strangest thing was that in speaking to Anna on the telephone we kept getting the impression that when she was talking about the skull she was actually talking about a real person. She spoke about the crystal skull as ‘he’ or ‘him’ and used the same affectionate tone that people often use when talking about their children, grandchildren or even a much-loved pet.
We were intrigued, but it seemed that the only way for us to find out more was to take Anna up on her kind offer and make the trip out to Canada. This would not only give us the chance to see the crystal skull for ourselves, but also to make the necessary arrangements for our documentary. This was a bit of a risk, as we had just blown all our money on the trip to Central America and at this stage had no guarantee whatsoever that the film we intended to make would be commissioned at all. But, in what must have been a temporary fit of madness, we decided to make the trip to Canada all the same.
It was during the cold snows of the Canadian winter that we arrived at Anna’s neat modern house in the quiet little town of Kitchener, near Toronto, Ontario. A greater contrast to the steaming tropical jungles of Belize we could hardly imagine. But Anna, looking much younger than her years, greeted us warmly and she and her nephew Jimmy, who was in his late thirties and also visiting, were wonderfully hospitable during our short stay.
As soon as we arrived, Anna led us into her small sitting-room to ‘meet’ the crystal skull. As we entered the room, our eyes were immediately drawn to the skull,
