>
>"In a few cases, claims have been made for the pre-Columbian New World
>occurrence of actual objects of Old World manufacture, including a cache
>of Roman to early Medieval coins from Venezuela, a late Roman torso of
>Venus from Veracruz state, Mexico (Heine-Geldern, 1967: 22), and "a cache
>of Chinese brass coins said to be dated 1200 b. c. [sic]" from British
>Columbia (Larson, 1966: 44). The most convincing case is that of a third
>century a. d. Roman terra-cotta head in apparently unequivocal association
>with a twelfth century a. d. tomb in the state of Mexico (Heine-Geldern,
>1967). ... In addition to these objects, various rock inscriptions have
>been attributed to the Phoenicians (see esp. TIME, 1968b; Gordon, 1968)
>and the Norse." (p. 30)

Apparently you misunderstood what I had to say about smoking guns: for
me a smoking guns has to be OF DEFINITE EXTRA-LOCAL ORIGIN, MUST REQUIRE
HUMAN AGENCY, AND MUST BE FOUND IN A SECURE, VERIFIABLE PRE-COLUMBIAN
CONTEXT.  The subsequent paragraph (which you ommitted) indicated that
there were problems with these "smoking guns" - that's why you left them
out.  Heaven forfend that anything should ever weaken your oh-so strong
case for diffusion.

While you have spent the weekend moaning and griping about your supposed
poor treatment, always confident that "Man Across the Sea" never be wrong
- I actually spent time in the library tracking down the original sources.
Let's see what they say shall we:

1. The Roman/Medieval Coins from Venezuela:
      These are given the briefest of mentions in Heine-Geldbern (1967)
      where he says, "No report has yet been released regarding an
      apparently quite extensive find of Roman coins in Venezuela a few
      years ago and still being examined in Washington. It is therefore,
      temporarily, not possible to determine whether this is a pre-Columbian
      hoard or a collection dating from Spanish colonial times."

   Possibly a report has been written on this find but I have not yet
   found it to see what it has to say.  It is interesting to note that
   in 1983 Jett put out an article which is very similar to his "Man
   Across the Sea" article but this later article contains no mention
   of these coins.  I tentatively conclude that if such a report was
   written it was not favorable toward the Pre-Columbian hypothesis.

2. The Roman torso of Venus
     Heine-Geldern mentions it was "gathered in the last century by
     Seler for the Berlin Museum fur Vokerunde...Unfortunately nothing
     more is known of the circumstances of the find, although all of
     the articles in the collection ostensibly stem from the same dig."
     (p. 22).

  While Seler was a well-respected archaeologist in his day, it is
  unfortunate that he did not provide records surrounding the recovery
  of this and other artifacts.  Without such records it is IMPOSSIBLE
  TO VERIFY the artifact's context and therefore is not a good candidate
  for a smoking gun.

3. The bronze chinese coins:
     Said to have been dug up in 1882 by a group of miners in British
     Columbia along with some other supposed chinese artifacts (Larson
     1966:44).
   Where are these artifacts now?  I don't know and neither does anyone
   else apparently.
   Is the identification correct?  I don't know and neither does anyone
   else apparently since I have no idea where the artifacts are.
   Were these artifacts found in a pre-columbian context?  I don't know
   and neither does anyone else apparently since they were recovered by
   a bunch of miners who I doubt were taking careful notes of their
   excavation.
   Again this claim is at present IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.

   This is definitely the weakest of the bunch you mention.

4. The Roman terra-cotta head
   Discussed in a TWO-PAGE article by Heine Geldern (1967), also in a
   TWO-PAGE article by the original excavator Jose Garcia Payon (1961)

   This artifact, is a 2.0-2.5 CM. terra-cotta head purported to be of
   Roman style in a 12th century A.D. Mexican burial.

   This is the best candidate of the bunch because it was found during
   an actual archaeological excavation and the lead excavator says it
   was found in a good pre-columbian context.

   But I still have reservations because the artifact was recovered
   in the 1930s but Dr. Garcia Payon never wrote anything about it
   until 30 years later, and even then he only wrote the briefest of
   articles.  This makes it extremely difficult to judge the validity
   of the artifact. What was the size of the unit dug? By what levels
   was the unit dug?  Dr. Garcia Payon mentions that it was found
   under three later floor levels but since he hasn't published the
   materials we can't see the stratigraphic profiles.  The artifact
   in question only measures about 1 inch around (small), this increases
   the chances of problems.

   None of the questions I mention necessarily invalidate this artifact
   as a possible smoking gun (in my opinion) but I would like to see
   more information before I would feel confident in concluding that
   it was definitely conclusive proof of contact.

So you see, Yuri, while you lounge around reading the same sources over
and over there are others of us who actually go back and try to track the
original data so that we can provide more informed opinions.  But then
for you that would just confuse you since as Mr. Keyes (in one of his
many insightful posts which you have tended to ignore) has pointed out
you seem to be one who has an answer but is in search of a question.

>When scholars are given the evidence that goes against their pet theories,
>we can expect a number of things. The evidence can be ignored. Or
>minimized. Whatever. But to launch into a campaign of ad hominem
>accusations on tangential issues -- I think it takes special dishonesty.

Hey, Yuri, just what is my "pet theory" then?  I have always maintained
that Old/New World contacts were possible but I had not seen good evidence
to indicate that they had occurred.  Thus far I and others have been able
(to my satisfaction at least) come up with reasonable scientific objections
to all evidence you have put forward as indicators of contact - the
most compelling one I've seen so far is this small terra-cotta head.
The biggest problem with this for me is that there is not sufficient
published material for me to evaluate it in any meaningful sense.

Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU

Jett, Stephen C.
  1983 "Precolumbian Transoceanic Contacts," Ancient North Americans,
       Jennings, ed. pp. 557-613.

Heine-Geldern, Robert
  1967 "A Roman Find from Pre-Columbian Mexico," Anthropological Journal
       of Canada, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.21-22.

Larson, Robert
  1966 "Was America the Wonderful Land of Fusang," American Heritage
       Vol. 17, April, pp. 42-45&106-109.