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

On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:19:25 +0200, in sci.archaeology, Peter Alaca wrote:

Doug Weller <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:

I found a post by Hu McCulloch, who supports the authenticity of the
find I believe, here is part of that post.

(the entire post and replies to it, which discuss the floor a bit more
also, are at http://tinyurl.com/295cpd - I've only reread this in
haste, can someone please point out the 3rd floor for me? )

"It's not clear to me that Garcia Payon's date of 1476-1510 was based
on pottery chronology. In the posthumous 1979 second volume of GP's
report on Calixtlahuaca and the Matlatzinca, he wrote,

"During these efforts, we saw that the surface of the platform of the
third period was formed of two superimposed floors, separted one from
the other by 20 centimeters, and formed of crushed pumice rock,
leveled and covered with cement (cemento, a mixture of lime and sand,
according to H&G): Under these, but penetrating (atravesando) the
floor of the second period which was formed of cement (cemento), and
that of the first period, which was formed of flat stones (or
flagstones) and tepetate [a kind of porous rock used in construction,
from the Nahuatl "tepetatl", according to
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano], we encountered two burials of burnt
bones which possibly correspond to two important personages, and
a goodly number of cultural pieces pertaining to the last period,
that is, to the Azteco-Matlatzinca [i.e. 1476-1510, after the
conquest of the Matlatzinca by the Aztecs in 1476 but before the
destruction and abandonment of Calixtlahuaca in 1510, explain Hristov
and Genoves].
In addition to various pieces of ceramic, were found two conch
bracelets, a pectoral of the same material, beads of jet, and four
of terra cotta covered with a thin sheet of gold; beads of rock
crystal and the head of an ocelelot made of the same material; a
pipe, a small plaque of gold, a piece of a tube of rock crystal,
fragments of turquoise mosaics, small heads made of copper, two
seals, and a small terra cotta head which
I consider [literally, which I will consider] to be foreign to the
region [to put it mildly!]." (Garcia Payon 1979: 205-6, my perhaps
mangled translation, numerous plate numbers and accents omitted).

Although there was some ceramic material, presumably pottery,
the numerous pieces of art and jewelry appear to be more important
for the identification. Even if these can no longer be located (it
took Hristov 2 1/2 years just to find the Roman head in the bowels of
the
NMAH in Mexico City!), they are mostly illustrated in plates in the
1979 volume, that should give a good idea of their appearance.

Hristov and Genoves do indicate on p. 210 that the date was
established on Garcia Payon's analysis of the pottery per se, but
this is only supported by a second hand quotation of GP in a 1951
overview
of prehispanic architecture by Marquina. GP's then unpublished direct
statement above strongly indicates, to me at least, that it was the
artwork that he was really going by, and that Marquina was just
supposing it was based on pottery.

Anyway, what you actually said was (I retype):

... Payon's date range (Hristov & Genoves 1999:210) for the burial in
which the head was found is quite suspect because:
A) our chronological control of the Aztec pottery used to arrive
at that range is not good enough to establish such a narrow range;
B) Payon did *not* specialise in Central Mexican Archaeology and
probably did not know the material well enough himself to reach a
secure conclusion ...

So I perhaps overstated your position a little -- you were not saying
that he was incompetent with Central Mexican materials generally,
just that
he was incompetent (ie incapable, given whatever other excellent
skills he may have had) to identify a burial as Azteco-Matlatzinca
and therefore as 1476-1510, on the basis of the pottery or artwork or
whatever
he had in mind, and that perhaps no one could have such competence.

Further, with first hand
knowledge of the archaeological context, McCafferty told me that
Payón (like so many of his contemporaries) was not that good of an
archaeologist generally.

Actually, what you said was

C) According to Geof McCafferty, who excavated extensively at
Cholula, Payon was not above "creative reporting" when it came to
sealed floor contexts (at least with regard to Payon's Cholula
excavations).

I read this to say that Garcia Payon was not just a sloppy and perhaps
unobservant excavator, but that he was actually dishonest on occasion.

Not to mention, Payón was not a central
Mexican specialist.

He did write the book on Calixtlahuaca and the Matlatzincas, which at
least gives him the aura of being knowledgeable to people like myself
who otherwise know nothing about him. But if, as McCafferty charges,
he was incompetent to identify Azteco-Matlatzinca materials,
as he claimed to be, and unreliable to boot, this scoundrel
by all means deserves to be exposed in detail!

.... To suggest
that Payón's analysis or interpretation is infallible is really short
sighted and self serving, depending on your position.

No one is claiming Garica Payon is infallible: Hristov and Genoves
readily point out that there are discrepancies between
Garcia Payon's 1961 account and the above version -- e.g. was the
burial in
mound 5 (1979) or mound 6 (1961)? "This imprecision, although not
of crucial importance, must be taken into account." (H&G p. 210) I
was, admittedly, taking him as authoritative, but if you or
McCafferty can prove him to be wrong, more power to you."

From this and the replies, I cannot see how anyone can claim that the
deposit must have been made before there were Spanish in the area.

Thanks Doug, that is illuminating.

And thank you. It's also illuminating that Inger would prefer to malign
Professor Smith than discuss this.

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the "Roman" figurine former SV: Precolumbian artifacts in Mexico....
    ... (the entire post and replies to it, which discuss the floor a bit more ... covered with a thin sheet of gold; beads of rock crystal and the head of ... Although there was some ceramic material, presumably pottery, ... he was incompetent to identify Azteco-Matlatzinca materials, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: OnoChord
    ... up on stage and bang her head into the stage floor.> ... (You could say "John used to go onstage and play a G chord," which would ... Banging her head into the stage floor would mean she has tremendous powers ... Fourth, if you miss the point, that's not the fault of Yoko or Maciunas. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: OnoChord
    ... up on stage and bang her head into the stage floor.> ... (You could say "John used to go onstage and play a G chord," which would ... Banging her head into the stage floor would mean she has tremendous powers ... This "work of art" occurred in 1962. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • SV: the "Roman" figurine former SV: Precolumbian artifacts in Mexico....
    ... Doug Weller skrev i ... (the entire post and replies to it, which discuss the floor a bit more ... Although there was some ceramic material, presumably pottery, ... he was incompetent to identify Azteco-Matlatzinca materials, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: the "Roman" figurine former SV: Precolumbian artifacts in Mexico....
    ... (the entire post and replies to it, which discuss the floor a bit ... crystal and the head of an ocelelot made of the same material; ... Although there was some ceramic material, presumably pottery, ... saying that he was incompetent with Central Mexican materials ...
    (sci.archaeology)