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

On Sun, 06 May 2007 16:16:15 -0500, Tom McDonald
<kiltmac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

johansson wrote:

<snip>

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>

From the article:

"In summary, I would like to remind you again that the piece in
question is the only archaeological find of nonAmerindian
origin discovered in Mesoamerica today, by a professional
archaeologist and in a non-altered context of the pre-Hispanic
era."

Given the taking to the woodshed Michael Smith provides for the
provenance of the artifact, this admission by Hristov is telling.

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.

With good references? Without them, assertions are just
interesting stories.

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.

This article takes apart the claim of "Roman figurine". In the
end, this article suggests that to use the figurine as a proof of
pre-Columbian transatlantic travel is to build on a reed so
slender as to be nearly broken.

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/>

Nice looking man. No evidence that he might not be wrong.

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

Andrew Collins appears to be a 'scholar' who likes to find the
odd and the spectacular, whether it's there or not.

You might be right, but what about David H. Kelley?

David Kelley, an archaeologist at Canada's University of Calgary
stated that the bust was found 'sealed under three floors. It is as
close to archaeological certainty as you can get'.(2)

Was Kelley right in this respect?

His web site says that Collins is going to be on Whitley
Strieber's radio show. This does not increase my confidence in
Collins' value as a reporter and researcher.

<http://migration.steinwender.co.uk/archaeology11.htm>

Could be useful. Where's the full article, Inger?

Of course there are 'artifacts' which doesn't hold what they
seem to be telling from first analyses. One such is the so
called The 'Phoenician' head from Las Balsas. As well as some
Precolumbian coins found in Mexico.
<http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/hristov/index.html>

Aha! Finally a proof of pre-Columbian transatlantic travel that
you do not believe in! Goodonya!


And last but not least I see I have to remind Erik H as well
as you Alan (?) that a person who written an article and
recieves personal Ad Hominem as I did have the full rights to
return the comments to the person who started the attacks.
That Doug did. So at least Erik H needs to learn more before
continuing his usual personal attacks on me. He also needs to
grow up and get himself a better reputation by presenting
valid contra-arguments not only using specially chosen ones.

I agree that personal attacks are not necessary. In fact, most of
the time your own references undercut your arguments. As in this
post.



Eric Stevens
.

Relevant Pages