Could it be a Roman figurine head imported by a 16th-20th century
collector, and lost? Could it (if small enough) be something brought to
Mexico in mud ballast from a Spanish/Mediterranean port, like the Roman
coins and ancient British pottery found in the James River, Va. estuary
(discussed, to the best of my recollection, in Noel-Hume's
Historical Archaeology)? Again, the German article
seems to be trying for sensation and, to the best of my limited abilities
at reading the language, does not mention these more mundane, but much
more explicable, possiblities.
David Babson.
At 01:06 PM 2/13/00 -0800, you wrote:
>I heard the report on MPR radio science report. Don't recall names or
>anything just they reported that the figurine was agreed to be Roman,
they
>didn't get into the context of where it was found only the period that
it
>was typical of which I don't remember. One can only imagine that ships
did
>on occassion come to this side of the world probably by accident most of
the
>times that it happened just any thing left would be so few and no
telling
>where.
>
>
>>From: geoff carver <<[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <<[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: romans in mexico? news from germany
>>Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 21:27:18 +0100
>>
>>according to a newspaper report which has got some german
archaeologists
>>e-mailing theories back and forth, dated february 10 and reported
from
>>london
>>(!?), an american anthropologist named Roman Hristov (anybody heard of
him?
>>does
>>he exist?) is studying a small black terracotta head which was found
near
>>Mexico
>>City in 1933, and subsequently disappeared before rediscovery by this
Roman
>>Hristov, and has since been dated to AD 200 -
>> anybody heard of this? also supposed to have been reported in
New
>>Scientist, so i'll check that out, but thought i'd get some scoop
before
>>this
>>debate here gets out of hand (ever wonder just where eric von daniken
was
>>coming
>>from...? [ie not geographically, just... mind-set wise?]) -
>> all sounds very suspicious to me (1933, inexact provenience
>>[although
>>the layer is supposed to be correct], disappearance, etc.)
>> the article in question, for those of you who do read the
stuff:
>>
>>LONDON, 10. Februar (rtr). Ein kleiner schwarzer Kopf aus Terrakotta
könnte
>> > die historische Wahrheit in Frage stellen, dass Christoph Kolumbus
>>Amerika
>> > entdeckt hat. Dem US-Anthropologen Roman Hristov zufolge waren es
die
>>Römer,
>> > die den Kopf mitbrachten und damit vor Kolumbus in der Neuen Welt
waren.
>>Das
>> > berichtet das britische Wissenschaftsmagazin New Scientist. Der
>> > Terrakotta-Kopf, der 1933 in der Nähe von Mexiko-Stadt gefunden
wurde,
>>sei
>> > Hristov zufolge ein antikes römisches Kunstwerk und der Beweis
dafür,
>>dass
>> > es bereits vor den Überfahrten der Spanier Handelsbeziehungen
zwischen
>>der
>> > Alten Welt und Amerika gegeben habe.
>> > Der Kopf sei nach seinem Fund zunächst in einem mexikanischen
Museum
>> > verschwunden, bevor ihn der Anthropologe entdeckte, berichtete das
>>Magazin.
>> > Mit Hilfe einer Probe aus der Rückseite des Kopfes hätten Forscher
des
>> > Heidelberger Max-Planck-Instituts das Kunstwerk auf das Jahr 200
>>datiert.
>> > Archäologen hätten zudem bestätigt, dass der Kopf in einer
Erdschicht
>> > gefunden worden sei, die ebenfalls auf diese Zeit hindeute.
Fachleute
>> > streiten jedoch noch über die Beweiskraft des Fundes.
>>
>>geoff carver
>>http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
>>[log in to unmask]
>>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>