The end first.

The date range is extremely large in both cases. No where does the date range even come close to post contact times. And both ranges fall within Roman times.

This so called planting of the head.
1. Did payton know about it? If so why would he have gone along with it. It certainly would have discredited his site work.
2. When Hirstov REVIVED the head story (and if it was a ell known fake why mention it at all) why submit it for testing if it was a fake?
3. The head was supposedly found or planted on the site. That is rather good provenence.
4. Obviously the head was still in the collection or it wouldn't have been photographed. If it was a known prank then why bother with it at all. It would discredit Payton and any others that followed.

It says NOWHERE that the head was found by Payton or later by Hirtsove. WHO did find it. If it was payton my comments stand. A 70 year prank for what purpose. The INAH is extraordinarily sensitive about the credibility of their archaeological efforts. They would not take kindly to this to say the least.

>Smith also says that just because soomeone says it is a Roman head is not proof that it is. <

That is pretty lame. The photographs exist. Do you see an Aztec or Maya? We have many roman heads so it isn't rocket science to do a match of similarity. Maybe a Viking head? With an attached helmet a good likeness.

Since you are in the rumor business on the opposite side of the fake stuff claims (this site and valsequillo and others) there is the persistent rumor of a viking type being sacrificed in the mayan area with a wall drawing of the same. My federal tour guide from mexico mentioned it in passing that as part of his training he was taken to the location (now closed off and guarded) to see it. Chichen itza.

A Mexica of any type is truly out of the ballpark.

valsequillo is almost the same pattern of hoax and denial. I find that striking. Maybe soon the last holdout thread ( an alleged late insert) may be put to rest. Then conversion won't be necessary.