Their introduction date may explain their art nouveau look. The fact that some had been in circulation for 70 years by the 1960s (earned a “provenance” sp. of sorts) then made the Smithsonian more willing to accept them as being genuine.

As for the skulls in question it looks like more research needs to be done on the subject. The History Channel program I saw recently on this topic seemed to lack credibility and was more about movie promotion than anything else. However, I found it to be entertaining because that’s what TV programs are most of the time…entertainment…duh!

I guess you can tell from my tone that I’m just a little worn out and turned off. Sorry…but I’ve read the word “ritual” used one too many times. I guess I am going to have to sit down with the one professor who actually teaches class and ask him why so many people are willing to use the word “ritual” as a crutch in their work. Who knows…maybe I am wrong and that is all Anthropology is today. A carbon copy of everyone else’s idea…and that would actually make it a ritual after all!

These findings lead to the conclusion that the British Museum skull was worked in Europe during the nineteenth century. The Smithsonian Institution skull was probably manufactured shortly before it was bought in Mexico City in 1960; large blocks of white quartz would have been available from deposits in Mexico and the U.S.A.

Even if they’re frauds, they’re still interesting. To me, it just raises the questions of who made them and how he or she managed to convince these two institutions that they were genuine Mesoamerican artifacts. Of course, that would be more of a mystery movie than Indy could credibly pull off. Which literary detective would be best for the case, I wonder? :)

In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with a little science fiction.

Indiana Jones is fun. I have not met one person who actually believed that archaeologists dash around the world with a fedora and a whip.

Harrison Ford has taken great interest in our field and if his presence on the BoD garners further interest, and funding, then by all means welcome the gentleman with open arms. Hes a well respected actor and is known for his integrity and intelligence.

And thus even the foundation of this movie, the persuit of recovering the crystal skull artifact, is based on faux pseudo-archaeology. Not surprising… since the other three were based upon finding the Arc of the Covenant, glowing rocks, and the Holy Grail.

Which is amusing in that Jones is clearly portrayed as an atheist in both the first and the third movie. At any rate, I waffle back and forth on my view of Jones. Ultimately, though, the movies are great fun, so I have to take the portrayal of archaeology less seriously. Come to that, scientists in other fields don’t fare much better – none come across as cool as Indie.

P.S. When that article comes out can you email a copy?