The Forbidden Zone....Home of The OrangeBox, keepers of Skully, an ancient, quartz crystal skull.

. . .
(OB-A05) Old skull? New skull? What's the differenece?
David's experiences with new, old and ancient crystal skulls.
Date posted: 17, April, 2003. By David Leslie.
This article © 2003: OrangeBox, and must not be used without permission.

When first I came into possession of Skully I knew very little about the crystal skulls. I was soon to learn that the question of age is a burning issue that sometimes overshadows the more important message and purpose of these beautiful and mysterious objects.

The reason for this is regrettable, if not understandable. Most crystal skull owners exhibit their skulls in return for a -usually quite substantial- fee. It stands to reason that an ancient skull will command a higher price and attract more attention than a recently carved specimen. Since it is currently impossible to date a skull by scientific means, one has to rely on the histories given by the respective owners. In most cases these are highly colourful and of dubious worth.

Another means by which the approximate age of a skull can be determined is by an investigation of the paper trail it leaves. Objects as beautiful and precious as the skulls attract attention: People write about them. It was a natural assumption on my part that the extravagant claims made by the owners on behalf of their skulls could at least, to a degree, be supported by written evidence. How wrong I was. It would surprise me greatly if (with very few exceptions) any crystal skull owner could provide documents demonstrating a real history for their skull going back even as little as fifty years. So much for ancient, eh! Even the most famous skull (Mitchell-Hedges,) a skull creaking with a carefully cultivated sense of antiquity can only be traced back as far as 1943. It was bought at a Sotherby's sale: A long way from the current owner's account of its discovery, in 1924, in a Mayan ruin. Similarly, the Paris skull (held at the Trocadero Museum) and British skull (Museum of Man) surfaced only a hundred years ago. By far the oldest reliable date for a skull is that of the Reliquary skull owned by Norma Reda. This skull is mounted on an ornate gold cross (probably used to hold a sacramental wafer) into which is inscribed the date '1562.' Since the date is inscribed into the cross and not the skull, there is no guarantee that the skull is this old; it may have been added much later: Who can say?

Personally, I have not given much consideration to the question of age. Perhaps this is due -in part- to the fortunate position I find myself in. During the dispute over Skully's ownership, the claimants produced, on oath, many documents testifying to their previous ownership of Skully. More importantly, these papers proved Skully to be in existence two-hundred years ago and suggested he was much older. I am currently negotiating the purchase of further documents that take Skully's history back to the latter part of the 1700s. These implicitly suggest he was in existence at the time of the Spanish conquest (1521) and maybe even further than that. At the time of his carving, Skully sustained slight damage to his left eye-socket. The fragments were housed in a small wooden box. This was demonstrated (with Carbon-14 dating) to be over 2,000 years old. Whilst this is no guarantee that Skull is 2,000 years old; in light of other evidence I see no real reason to suspect that he is not.

I have often been asked what my own opinions are with respect to the esoteric properties of ancient versus contemporary skulls. Until very recently I have been unable to offer a satisfactory answer. A solution came quite unexpectedly as I sat talking to Joshua (on a completely unrelated topic.) It was this:

An old skull is like an ancient manuscript. A new skull is akin to a modern reprint of the same. In this analogy, the modern reprint appears to be a clear winner. Its pages are not faded, damaged or missing. The text (printed rather than hand scripted with an ink quill) is less ambiguous, easier to read and generally free from grammatical and syntax errors. It has been translated into English (a language you do understand) from its original tongue (which you do not.) The reprint also carries with it a related body of documents expressing the interpretations and opinions of the other people who have read the original text. Put another way: If you were to embark on a long journey, would you take an ancient parchment scroll or the RACs. large-scale, large print, 2003 road map?

On the other hand there is another factor that perhaps over-rides all of the above. On this score, the ancient skulls win with a knock-out. I will point out that this killer blow has nothing at all to do with any inherent property of the skull. It is entirely dependent on the Human Factor, and can be explained by means of a simple analogy… A small sliver of wood is passed around a group of people. After a short time the group is told that the sliver is:
A) A piece of the cross upon which Jesus was crucified.
B) A piece of my garage bench.
C) Infected with anthrax.
In each case, the reaction of the group would be dramatically different but the sliver of wood remains constant. It does not change in any way. The differing emotions evoked in each individual are precipitated by their beliefs, and not by the wood. My own experiences are as follows:

Just as we cannot look at ourselves without a mirror, we can not access the Supernatural realms without a Supernatural mirror. Shortly after receiving a copy of the Carbon-14 dating results, I sat looking at Skully. Suddenly it dawned on me that he really could be 2,000 years old. He could have been around at the time the great pyramids were constructed: At the time of Jesus and the Roman Empire. It was this overwhelming sense of awe and reverence for an object deemed important enough to have survived so many years that opened the portal for me. I do not believe that I could have made the same connection with a contemporary skull. But, as I have said previously, the gate was opened exclusively by my reaction to the skull and not by any mysterious power in the skull.

This being said, all crystal skulls have a presence, an atmosphere or aura surrounding them. One does not have to be psychic to detect this. We are all different and, as such, everyone will experience a different emotional response to the skulls. I cannot tell you which skull will open which (if any) doors for you. Nor can I tell you what the 'best' skull for you is. Only you can do this. So, go ahead and let your intuition guide you to a skull with which you feel an affinity. Make the time to visit and spend time with this skull; interact with it. You may very well be surprised at the changes to your life that such a meeting can set in motion.