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 >