June 1, 2007...12:24 pm
Damien Hirst’s diamond encrusted Skull & Jeweled Skulls in Archaeology
I think most people would agree that their skulls are a priceless asset. But what artist Damien Hirst has done to the following skull has actually made a nondescript skull into one of the most expensive pieces of art ever.
The diamond encrusted skull is a product of Hirst’s artwork. It is estimated to be worth more than $50 million, maybe even $100 million! It is believed to come from the skeleton of a man who lived between 1720 and 1810. From Reuters,
“British artist Damien Hirst revealed his latest work of art at the White Cube Gallery in London, June 1, 2007. “For the Love of God” is a life-size cast of a human skull in platinum and covered by 8,601 pave-set diamonds weighing 1,106.18 carats. The single large diamond in the middle of the forehead is reportedly worth $4.2 million alone. Hirst financed the project himself, and estimates it cost between 10 and 15 million. Of course, it will cost someone a pretty penny toown the work: It’s priced at $99 million. But given the cultlike following for Hirst’s previous works — and corresponding financial takings — some hedge fund manager, and closet Hirst fan, may shell out the cash for the diamond-crusted skull.”
Hirst’s Diamond skulls represents a curious intersection for me. One where archaeology is inspiring modern art. There are quite a lot of examples of bejeweled skulls in the archaeological record. Now, I don’t know for sure if Hirst’s inspiration for this work stemmed from the prevalence of jeweled skulls in the archaeological record. And I understand his skull is just a cast. But, I think it is notable that Hirst has taken something that has been done in many cultures throughout many different times and reproduced it into popular and profitable art.
One example of jeweled skulls in the fossil record is the one of a woman from Ur that unfortunately got looted from Iraq’s National Museum several years ago. It has not yet been recovered nor can I find an image of it. I do, however, have a photograph of a jade encrusted skull from Oaxaca, Mexico — specifically from the Monte Alban Tomb 7 Museum. This skull was formerly at the convent in Iglesias Santo Domingo.
And from the blog, Mosiac Art Source, I found an image of the Mosaic mask of Tezcatlipoca, 
originally uploaded by Nolan Willis. Here’s a description of the skull,
The Skull of the Smoking Mirror
This mask is believed to represent the god Tezcatlipoca, one of the Aztec creator gods. He was also the god of rulers, warriors and sorcerers. His name can be translated as ‘Smoking Mirror’. In fact, in many depictions during the Postclassic period (A.D. 900/1000-1521) his foot is replaced by a mirror.
The base for this mask is a human skull. Alternate bands of turquoise and lignite mosaic work cover the front of the skull. The eyes are made of two discs of iron pyrites set in rings made of shell. The back of the skull has been cut away and lined with leather. The jaw is movable and hinged on the leather.
Turquoise was sent as tribute to the Aztec capital from several provinces of the empire.
Lastly, I have an very tiny image of inlade jade and turquoise stones inside the teeth of a Mayan skull from the ninth century. Unlike the skulls above, inlaying jewels inside teeth was practiced on living Mayans at the time. This was not done after death.
Although I have only shown you mostly examples of jeweled skulls from Mesoamerican cultures, I hope you do trust that examples of jewel encrusted skulls also have been found from archaeological digs from ancient China and Mesopotamia. I just can’t find images of them on the internets. I would even argue that the golden masks that covered the mummies of Egyptian pharoahs fall under the jewelled skulls.
So what’s it with skulls and adorning them with precious metals and stones? Is the skull considered the center of being in many cultures? No, not necessarily. Many cultures consider other parts of the human body central to existance, such as the gut in many Asian cultures. My best guess is that accross cultures and times, people subconciously consider the skull the home of humanity. It is where our words come from and our emotions are shown. And what would better a way to embrace that for eterinity than to inlay precious jewels and metals?
What’s your best guess?
15 Comments
June 2, 2007 at 9:12 am
Skull modification is one of my interests since it falls under the heading of ‘ancient beliefs.’
In discussions with various archaeologists and students, the one theme that continues to return, particularly in regards to Mesopotamian skulls, is the concepts of ancestor worship and establishing a way of showing ownership of land.
Many skull worship/skull modifications of Mesopotamia occur with pre-sedentary and newly sedentary societies (i.e. the Natufians). With the advent of food production as a subsistence strategy rather than foraging, a more intensive investment must be made on a given parcel of land. Previously, a society would move from parcel to parcel as the seasons changed, following the available food. Modern foragers (what few remain) still adhere to this model today as much as is possible.
Once a society began farming, the land had to be maintained and sedentism took hold. Marking out and delineating what the boundaries of a farmers fields were was an issue, but another was deciding which child inherits the land after the patriarch (or, perhaps, the matriarch) died. Agricultures creates a need for a larger workforce and family sizes grow.
The skulls, therefore, may have been both a method of ancestor worship and a way of passing property from one generation to the next.
Its just a speculation -barely a hypothesis. But an idea worth kicking around as the contexts for skull finds are examined. There’s evidence that many were stored under floors and platforms in houses.
June 2, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Wow, I learn a new thing everyday don’t I? Excellent comment, Carl. I can see how this speculation can be supported even with a generalized context like the one you supported.
About the evidence decorated skulls were kept in houses in Mesopotamian cultures — these people also ‘processed’ their dead right in their front lawns. That was how they remembered their dead, I’m sure you know.
What I’m getting at is that since they kept their dead so close to home, adorning and decorating their family member’s skull is not only an understandable behavior — but when applied to land ownership and keeping track of lineage, this makes even more sense.
Thanks for throwing in your two cents on this, much appreciated and very enlightening.
June 5, 2007 at 3:14 am
[...] 05.06.07: Carl Feargan bei Anthropology.net beschreibt, existieren künstlerische Bearbeitungen von Schädeln wenn nicht ubiquitär, so doch [...]
June 8, 2007 at 3:21 am
THE ASTRONOMICAL NEW HISTORY OF ART
Following Damien Hirst’s £50 million “For the love of God”, I have decided to put my painting “The eternal and infinite universe (94)” on the market for £50 million and one pence. This work, painted in 1994, November, carried a brief explanation of the universe as eternal and infinite, reasoning that the visible universe should be accelerating apart (in a way that also explained the ‘clumping of matter’ phenomenon). It also provided an explanation for Olbers paradox, in an infinite universe, in terms of basic physics. The painting was publicly exhibited first in Jan 1995 with a price of £7 million.
Gathering observations of supernovae about two-to-three years later showed the universe was accelerating apart (against all the expectations of astrophysicists) affirming the theory in the painting.
Naturally, if the universe is infinite and eternal (something we can never know for sure) then everything is ultimately unfathomable. Maybe that is why the universe becomes more understandable ultimately to an artist than to scientists.
The new price reflects the painting’s (not yet widely known) unique achievement in the history of art and the history of understanding the universe: two histories that should converge, as they do in this work.
Mark Bridger
June 8, 2007 at 5:46 am
Good for you Mark, now in the future please keep your comments on the topic of anthropology and not self promotion of your own art.
We’re an anthropology site — while your painting of the universe maybe grand and explain some complex physical paradigms it really has nothing to do with anthropology.
It maybe really hard to sell art, and the more exposure one gets, the better their chances are to sell the piece — but this place ain’t the site to be advertising your work.
June 13, 2007 at 9:22 pm
That does it I’m craigslisting “Infinity on Coconut”. No reserve.
June 23, 2007 at 3:58 am
Sorry Kambiz but a culture’s understanding of the nature of the universe is the most crucial part of anthropology.
There’s a tendency for science and religion to believe the universe is finite. That gives us the illusion that we can someday know it all. An infinite universe means the universe is ultimately mysterious - so there can be no authority, no absolutism - which those in power fear.
August 12, 2007 at 6:19 am
I’m so glad I came across this website. I’m doing research on effigies of the dead for my B.A. degree in fine arts. I’m very interested in death masks, portraits and skull modification. Though my research is for a project for Art History, I’m dabbling more in Anthropology.
I’ve only really heard of the Jericho-skulls - fascinating. Why reconstruct a person’s face in plaster and put shells in the eye sockets to represent eyes? Is it really ancestor worship? Did they try to “bring the person to life again”? Why not just paint a picture of the person’s face, no matter how primitive, instead of reconstructing his or her skull?
Questions I guess we’ll never be able to answer. But I’m fascinated by ancient cultures’ “obsession” with death. Why go through all the trouble of making death masks and constructing elaborate tombs? Why was the afterlife a greater reality for them as it is for us?
If someone has more info for me on any of these, please comment. Thanx.
September 2, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Now a days i like to think that there was or is some sort of intimate relationship between the artist and the subject center of the piece(the dead individual) It might make me look past all the richy rich bs to the actual heart of the Thin-slice of life that would make me think that this person acually had to suffer in some sence to in some way to have this be a paramount “slice of there life”.
September 2, 2007 at 11:20 pm
sorry that was in no way grammatical
September 2, 2007 at 11:22 pm
i am awaiting your moderated comment.
January 7, 2008 at 7:45 pm
You should see the “Kapala” if you are interested in skulls and artifacts made of human rests.
March 24, 2008 at 10:27 am
gee wizz!
May 6, 2008 at 11:41 am
I agree with only some people in here…. I believe that although the look is fascinating, the dead should remain at peace instead of played around with for the entertainment. I personally would not like my head to be filled with diamonds and shown around like a prize….
May 6, 2008 at 11:44 am
cooldude, you miss the point completely. Damien Hirst’s artwork is based off cast of a human skull, not an actual skull. The dead was left at peace here.
Kambiz
Leave a Reply