Re: the "Roman" figurine former SV: Precolumbian artifacts in Mexico....

On Sun, 06 May 2007 23:46:57 +0200, Erik Hammerstad
<egeha.is.all.you.need@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alan Crozier wrote:
"johansson" <1732johansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:HDq%h.40270$E02.16326@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's typical Erik H not to tell the full story only chosing the few
who have
same opinions as Erik H.
I guess Alan that you haven't this information:
In 1994 the "Roman" head of Calixtlahuaja, Mexico made news especially
after
Hristov Romeo H.'s article: 'the little "Roman" head of Calixtlahuaja,
Mexico: some reflections'
(easiest read here: <http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/romehead.htm>

At that time the "Roman" head was thought to be the only artifact
found
during for most archaeologists acceptable excavations etc. To the ones
found
during later years I return under own subjectline.

Then again in this case as in other there are naysayers beliving in
the
brickwall that make any contacts over the Atlantic before Columbus
voyages
impossible give or take a few contacts by Vikings with Indians in
northern
America. Such a scholar can be read at
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/tval/RomanFigurine.html> How
someone
who isn't specialist studying the subject can maintain a brickwall
against
new information, that's incredible.

Thus I would like to give you more ref for Romeo H Hristov:
<http://www.unm.edu/~rhristov/RHH.html>
<http://www.unm.edu/~rhristov/>

More support for Hristov's precolumbian contacts can be read about at:
<http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/romanbust.htm>
<http://migration.steinwender.co.uk/archaeology11.htm>


Because I doubt that you will mention it, I think I should cite this
admission from the article by Hristov and Genovés in Ancient
Mesoamerica:

"Hristov (1994:69), based on the imprecise chronological placement of
the context in which the piece was found, explored the possibilities of
relating it with a probable arrival of Vikings to the Atlantic coasts of
Mesoamerica between the tenth and eleventh centuries A.D. The results of
the thermoluminescent age test make both hypotheses untenable."

Even more untenable is the Quetzalcoatl hypothesis mentioned by that
dreadful website loosely associated with the University of Guadalajara
(which doesn't teach any archaeology).

And the dating that Rhistov finally used (1800 ybp) is also quite
dubious:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16622337.600-hole-in-the-head.html

See the response I have just made to Alan Crozier.



Eric Stevens
.

Relevant Pages