The Roman Head from Mexico

[Tarbicus]

Blimey, I didn't expect this thread to go this far :wink:

But, to recap, there are major doubts about how the head got there. It may well have been contamination from a post-Columbus Roman collector. I think though it is worth looking at the Viking expeditions to America (Vinland), which are generally accepted as fairly legitimate through the Icelandic tales, although not supported by archaeological evidence. But, they're not tales of conquest as far as I know, rather the opposite.

I think it's worth taking a look at these links. They're not verifiable records as such I know, except for a possible map of America, but the authors can always be challenged.

ROMAN ANTONINIANI FOUND IN ICELAND
www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/7c1.htm
www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/coins/coins.htm
www.1worldglobes.com/History/historyofmaps.htm
http://www.1worldglobes.com/images/historyloc/images/geograph%5B1%5D.gif

Personally, my jury is out on the subject although I essentially don't believe it, and I can understand why someone qualified in Mesoamerican archaeology would snort. However, without having sailed on an ancient ship under an ancient captain, I can't say whether it would have made it across the Atlantic or not, even by accident :wink:

That said, I often use the phrase "Worse things happen at sea."

[Viventius]

OK. The crocodile at Maiden Castle is entirely explainable!

Mortimer Wheeler dug there in the 1930s (again the 1930s crops up with strange findings ...). In the 1980s excavations whilst clearing out the backfill from Wheeler's trenches the diggers found a stuffed crocodile. He put it there as a joke 8) In that era of Gentleman Archaeologists, they got up to all sorts of wizard wheezes, probably deriving from the Officers' Mess.

[Sangue]

*crucifies Uwe and 6,000 other gullible dreamers along the Via Appia*

There, that's sooo much better! :twisted:

Too bad I can't be there in 500 years when some jerk digs out my Roman gear stash and wets his breeches! :roll:

[Arthes]

Greetings,
Well, Erich van Daniken may have a theory on this....there was a lot of UFO activety in this part of the world.....!
Another theory by Dr. Michael E. Smith
http://www.albany.edu/~mesmith/tval/RomanFigurine.html
If you follow the link to his Matlatzinco Home Page there is more information about the dig with photographs of the site and the other finds.
regards
Arthes

[Goffredo]

Einstein said something of the following:
"two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, however of the first I am not sure."

[hoplite14gr]

I do not know what Goffredo does exactly want to say but the following might give validity to his comment.
Eminent scientists agreed that the "Petralona Man" found in Chalkidiki was
HOMO SAPIENS and living arround 500000 to 300000 years ago.
If you visit the war museum in Athens where they have a picture of his skull,
the caption says he is Neadertalian and 30000 years old.
So what can somebody who is not a professional scholar or archaologist is supposed to do? Who to belive?
Still though I will reaffirm my agreement to Viventia's comment that even farfetched speculations can be proved with some solid material finds.
Until the finds appear I acccept plausibility but do not accept certainty of wild theories.
Kind regards
Stefanos

[Marcus Mummius]

Check out Tor Heyerdahl's theories about egytian influence on South America with Tenerife as a link between them. I've seen the museum and the pyramids on Tenerife and I must say it's interesting . I'm far from convinced (there are some stratigrafical elements that contradict Tor's theorie) but he showed it was possible to sail to Southern America in a boat made out of Papyrus!

Regards,

[Goffredo]

well what I meant was that people are gullible. Gullibility is type of stupidity that may strike everyone and some people suffer permanently from it.

What little I remember of human and proto-human remains is that HOMO SAPIENS is not 300000 (five zeros) old. For HOMO SAPIENS I would take a zero off so the dating of caption dating sounds reasonable. Indeed even the neanderthal are not 300000 years old (five zeros). What maybe the eminent scientists said is that the species is in the homo lineage and not a cousin species like the neanderthal. To me what seems to be the mystery is that the datings differ a factor ten. Such a difference is, I suspect, a big one with what concerns the dating of bones and fossiles of those eras. A factor ten uncertainty might be normal (expected) for far more ancient fossiles, but I don't think such large differences are normal for fossiles ONLY a half a million years old.

What I would do is look for a couple of texts and articles (the web is nice but also dangerous because you also find crap and bogus stuff). Try to get a feeling for the classification of proto-human species and especially a feeling for the uncertainties in the dating techniques. Only when you get some feeling for the uncertainties can you begin to form a rational and non-gullible judgement.

Science begins once you know and value - give importance to - the uncertainties. Certainty is not certain but it can be well founded if you know your uncertainties! I am not joking!

[hoplite14gr]

Usefull info. Thanks!
Kind regards
Stefanos

[Tarbicus]

What little I remember of human and proto-human remains is that HOMO SAPIENS is not 300000 (five zeros) old. For HOMO SAPIENS I would take a zero off so the dating of caption dating sounds reasonable. Indeed even the neanderthal are not 300000 years old (five zeros). What maybe the eminent scientists said is that the species is in the homo lineage and not a cousin species like the neanderthal.

Speaking of the internet, it's always useful to look at a variety of pages rather than just the one:
Homo sapiens: Earliest forms of our own species
Archaic Homo sapiens Culture
Cro-Magnon and "Moderns" 30,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE
Age of Homo sapiens

[Marcus Mummius]

Oh my God! roll:

[Arthes]

Greeting,
surely the difference can be told between the skull of a Neanderthal and Cro Magnon....unless a lot of it was missing?
Neanderthal man was not related to Cro Magnon or Homo Sapiens, they were a different species of man who, yes, were still living alongside Homo Sapiens.
They are thought to be the Nephalim, almost certainly the original cave trolls and I think some of their descendants may still live in isolated areas....
Goffredo is correct with his comment about dodgy websites amongst authentic....I sometimes read articles and do not know what to think when you read 'for' and 'against'.
The Starchild skull for instance and the hybrid Neanderthal/Cro Magnon skeleton. The Crystal Skulls are another subject that fascinated me until I read a report on how they were possibly made, which was just as fascinating in itself...lol
regards
Arthes

[Robert Vermaat]

Greeting,
surely the difference can be told between the skull of a Neanderthal and Cro Magnon....unless a lot of it was missing?

Indeed, the bone ridges aross the eyes, the totally different jaw, telling signs.

Neanderthal man was not related to Cro Magnon or Homo Sapiens, they were a different species of man

Ah.. technically, not quite correct.

Cro Magnon belongs to the Homo sapiens species, who had the same ancestors as the Homo neandethalensis species. So yes, they were related. For more about our family tree: look here.

What little I remember of human and proto-human remains is that HOMO SAPIENS is not 300000 (five zeros) old. For HOMO SAPIENS I would take a zero off so the dating of caption dating sounds reasonable. Indeed even the neanderthal are not 300000 years old (five zeros). What maybe the eminent scientists said is that the species is in the homo lineage and not a cousin species like the neanderthal. To me what seems to be the mystery is that the datings differ a factor ten.

I've read that the Homo sapiens species is older than the Homo neanderthalensis. Peopleoften think the latter is the older one. Also, the Homo Sapiens species is a collection of several skull types, and Cro magnon is not a scientific name for the whole species but just for the type found in France. As such, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans (homo sapiens) is about 130,000 years old in Africa. The ancestor of both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, dates back to 800.000 BP.

[Marcus Mummius]

A little bit off topic but I'l try to explain some things

Yes there are morfological differences between an Neanderthal and a Cromagnon/Early Modern Man. We must always keep in mind though that in how far those morfological differences can be used to say they are different species. It is however quite difficult to distinguish a gracile Neanderthal from a robust Homo Sapiens(HS) . There are some parts about the cranial morfology like the suprainiac fossa and the occipital bun that are characteristic for Neanderthals.

There are a lot of theories about the exact relation between N's and HS's. It has to be clear that with our present knowledge we cannot offer a true view on this problem. They only thing that is clear is that the Neanderthal was not our ancestor.

DNA research has shown that the origin of modern man lies in Africa. The genetic variety of modern man is greatest among African populations. This means that their DNA has been evolving for the longest time. The Out of Africa II theory is therefor more probable than the Multi Regional theory.

Has there been interbreeding between HS's and N's? On a small scale probably yes. It is very likely that there was a constant geneflow between between certain populations in border areas (like the Middle East). In these parts interbreeding between N and HS is very likely. It is however unlikely that Neanderthal populations in Northern Europe would have been geneticaly compatible with Hs populations living in Africa because geneflow between them had ceased for hundreds of thousand years.

Were the Neanderthals and HS a different species? DNA research has shown that the difference between N's and HS's is larger than any difference between Modern HS's populations. So it appears that we are another species. It is however possible that Neanderthals did interbreed with early modern European man. There are elements of cranial morfology that are thought to be typical for Neanderthals like the occipital bun that occur rather often in Early Modern European man but are absent in Erly Modern African man or Asian man. This early genetic contribution (from neanderthal populations that were strongly declining because of a number of causes like climate, changing ecology and competition with the HS) was erased by succesive immigration waves out of Africa. Our present DNA research techniques are not good enough to offer a detailed resolution. A contribution of 25% or less to the genepool of Early modern European man cannot be traced!

What about hybrids? Well the portugese child is thought by some to be such an hybrid. Juliano Zilhao is a strong supporter of this theory. Others however do not believe this and say it is just a robust HS... It is very unfortunate that the bulldozer crushed the skull of the child. Why does this always happen I wonder 8)

As you see a lot is uncertain, a lot off different theories exist. Which one is the best I'm not going to say. I have my preferences though.

Mmmm I suppose everyone who started reading this fell asleep halfway, if not sooner If you want to know more, just ask!

Kindest regards,

[Marcus Mummius]

Indeed, the bone ridges aross the eyes, the totally different jaw, telling signs

Be careful Robert, these are far from straightforward signs. The morfological diferences among Modern Man are also vast! There are quite a few amongst us that also have very pronounced eyebrow ridges. It is only possible to make a distinction if a lot of the morfological characteristic are seen together on a skeleton. Just one or two elemnts is not enough to make a distinction. It is often very difficult or even impossible considering the fragmentary character of the fossil material we have.

Regards,