Nexus - 1504 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

travelling in those regions with a 17-year-old daughter was not Observers have noted that, if anything, the US publisher would customary but not necessarily extraordinary either, seeing her dad have requested the author to enlarge upon rather than delete them. was a famous explorer and, unlike most, knew where true danger Let us first look to the UK edition, which has a chapter titled stalked. But what is most remarkable is that Gann's account does "The Skull of Doom and a Bomb". It contains a full-page picture not mention anything about the discovery of a crystal skull—a of the skull, and Mitchell-Hedges adds: unique artefact, regardless of whether they felt it was highly "We took with us [to Africa in 1948] also the sinister Skull of prized or not. Doom of which much has been written. How it came into my Gann was not the only one not to speak of the skull's discovery: possession I have reason for not revealing. neither did the other members such as Lady Richmond Brown or "The Skull of Doom is made of pure rock crystal and according Captain Joyce, each of whom left an account of the expedition. to scientists it must have taken 150 years, generation after Questioned about this problem, Anna Mitchell-Hedges replied generation working all days of their lives, patiently rubbing down that Captain Joyce knew the entire story of the skull but refused to with sand an immense block of rock crystal until the perfect Skull tell anyone—just like her father. emerged. There is one good reason—seldom quoted—as to why Gann "It is at least 3,600 years old and according to legend was used would remain silent about such a discovery. If the skull had been by the High Priest of the Maya when performing esoteric rites. It found during this excavation, is said that when he willed death with ownership would immediately have the help of the skull, death gone vo ne qipedition’s financiers invariaby fotlowed. i has beet and Mitchell-Hedges would never escribed as the embodiment of a have been able to retain this artefact. The controversy over evil. I do not wish to try and explain a seo tea Gann's its origin has led sceptics to tins phenomend be thine t silence in the s, the questions A ere is at first sight nothing too remain: what was so controversial argue that Mitchell-Hedges controversial as to why these few aout the discover of hisstution | only acquired the skull inf parszptsstould be dette from Mitchell-Hedges three decades later 1943 from an auction as Mitchell-Hedges had always said, still refuse to tell? at Sotheby's in London. the ekull. "How it came into my Securing possession of the possession I have reason for not crystal skull revealing." For any publisher, and To get a proper understanding of especially its legal department, this why there was this apparent need for secrecy, we need to turn to sentence was a red flag, and the US publisher surely decided to Mike Mitchell-Hedges himself. A little-known fact is that the ask the author why he did not want to reveal such details. No skull is referenced in Danger My Ally, Mitchell-Hedges's doubt upon learning the facts, the publisher subsequently decided autobiography, but only in the UK edition. Indeed, in the UK to remove the entire section so that no questions would be asked edition, published by Elek Books Ltd, London, in 1954, a scant 13 and so that problems for the publisher, and specifically the author, lines are dedicated to the skull; these were later removed from the could be avoided. American edition, published by Little, Brown & Co. in 1955. The The controversy over its origin has led sceptics to argue that all-important question is why these lines were removed. Mitchell-Hedges only acquired the skull in 1943 from an auction at Sotheby's in London. As is usual, the sceptics have reduced a complex account to a very saleable theory, neglecting certain important aspects that speak against it. The skull was known to be in the possession of Sydney Burney, an old school friend of Mitchell-Hedges, in 1936, when the journal Man featured two articles on it in its July edition (vol. 36). The first article, written by Dr G. M. Morant, titled "Morphological Comparison of Two Crystal Skulls" (pp. 105-107), is followed by Adrian Digby's "Comments on the Morphological Comparison of Two Crystal Skulls" (pp. 107-109). In the article, Digby notes that he could not find any history of the skull prior to January 1934, but that in 1936 it was in the possession of Burney. Whether Burney "owned" the skull or was merely looking after it for Mitchell- Hedges is not highlighted in the article. What is known is that Burney kept it until — 1943, when it was put up for auction at The Mitchell-Hedges Crystal Skull Sotheby's by Burney's son. In the auction its origin has led sceptics to argue that Mitchell-Hedges only acquired the skull in 1943 from an auction 56 = NEXUS JUNE — JULY 2008 The controversy over at Sotheby's in London. www.nexusmagazine.com