Hans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Hi Bernard
>
> I agree with what you wrote but I seem to remember
> one alleged Roman statuette from Mexico being run
> thru the guantlet for acceptance. What was the
> final opinion on that item, fake, fraud, unknown
> or real?
>
> Hans

HI,
You can search in the Maat archives. Here is a posting I did some time ago.

Here are some comments I made in another discussion site:

There are several problems with this miniscule head. 1) This purported Roman head (200 B.C.?) was found in a dig in Central Mexico, not near the shore, at a level dated about A.D.1450 Where was this little head sitting around for 1500 years?

2) The dig by Garcia Payon was done in the early 1930's and several of the senior Mexican archaeologists tell me that he had a reputation for sloppyness and the dig was not controlled very well.

3) My informants also tell me that, in fact, one of Garcia Payon's students at the time, Hugo Moedano, planted the head in the dig as a joke. He later repented of his prank but it was too late and he felt that Garcia Payon's feelings would be hurt and never told him.

Anecdotal evidence, take it as such.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano\
******

There are several questions and problems associated with this claim- which
is not new.

It is based primarily on circular logic with no independent variable. The
head is declared to be Roman on the basis of a stereotypical concept of
Indian physiognomy (“nonamerindian facial features”) and impressionistic
stylistics. This identification “proves” that it is old.
Thermoluminescence does show that the head is old. Although the
measurement has a large standard deviation and a +/- of about 22% a
possible age range of circa 230 B.C. to A.D. 570 (after the fall or Rome)
so that this datum is not as convincing as it could be. This date, because
it is old, “proves” that this is a Roman head. Imagery and stylistics
might have been satisfactory in the 1930’s because that was all that was
available, but they are not sufficient today. As it was, this head was
originally considered to be Etruscan rather than Roman and older than the
A.D. 200 proposed now. Beards are not unique in Mesoamerican
representations, for example the god Huehueteotl, the Old god of Fire is
often represented as bearded.

A second set of circular arguments is employed. The head is Roman
therefore the Romans had ships that got to the New World--- and--- The
Romans had ships that could get to the New World therefore the head is
Roman. This circularity is also invalid. Commenting on Heyerdahl’s replica
Egyptian ship Atlantic crossing, Genovés [one of the authors of this paperand a companion of Heyerdahl's] stated:

“In trying to cross the Atlantic at its widest point in a papyrus raft, we
were not trying, in the least [italics in original], to prove that an
ancient Egyptian or Mesopotamian papyrus raft, actually crossed, the
Atlantic Ocean, hundreds of years ago in order to influence in a
fundamental way the development of the high Mesoamerican cultures (Genovés
1972: 19-20), and "The crossings of the Atlantic in themselves have not
proved anything in terms of concrete anthropology. (Genovés 1973)."

The autors never explain how a Roman head made in A D 170 came to be in a
burial in Central Mexico made about over a thousand years later around AD
1500. It is a pretty undistinguished piece of pottery and doubtfully an
important cult object. There are also no other traces of Roman influence
in Mesoamerica.
*******
In fact, the thermoluminiscent data (which is the only reason it got published in a reviewed journal) is invalid. The following is a letter sent to New Scientist by the scientist who did the themoluminiscent analysis.


"Sir (New Scientist):
In the contribution entitled Did Roman sailors shake hands with
ancient Mexicans? (New Scientist, issue of 12 February 2000, p.
7) the Max-Planck-Institute of Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg is mentioned
in connection with the thermoluminescence (TL) analysis of the allegedly
Roman head found in the Toluca Valley. It was said that we were able to
estimate that this terracotta head was fired 1800 years ago. This
statement is not correct.

A couple of years ago drilled powder of this head was submitted by
anthropologist R. Hristov and geoscientist Dr. P. Schaaf (at that time
both of them were associated with UNAM, Mexico City) to our laboratory in
order to test it by thermoluminescence dating. For methodological reasons
one can apply only an "authencity TL test" to such drill powder,
resulting in larger uncertainties than in proper TL dating. However, even
when applying this "authenticity" procedure to the sample powder, major
difficulties were encountered since the material did not pass the
so-called plateau-test. We finally concluded, that the figurine gives an
apparent TL age range from 730 years to 2880 years. Although this result
does not disprove the alleged Roman manufacture date it certainly cannot
be used in support of the statement that the terracotta head "was fired
1800 years ago". Actually, this thermoluminescence result is only of
little use in the debate about the head's origin. In the past I had
communicated this conclusion to Mr. R. Hristov.

Sincerely yours,
Gunther Wagner"
*********
Bernard
*****

definitely not real.

Bernard