I'm referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca_head
A large statue that pretty clearly derives its architectural inspirations from the Roman Empire... but it's thousands of years old, according to Wikipedia. And somehow was found in Mexico. Reading the article, a couple hypotheses have been put forward but they all seem kind of weak.
Is there a prevailing historical consensus on how the head got there? What's the most likely explanation?
What is the thing in the picture?
The picture shows a terra cotta head possibly Roman possibly Northern European definitely not pre-Columbian Mesoamerican in origin. The terra cotta head was supposedly found with a collection of artifacts excavated from a burial offering dated between 1476 and 1510 AD.
When did the object arrive in Mexico?
Dating of the object indicates it was not manufactured before the 9th century BC. The head may have been found in 1933 and may have been buried with objects from 1476 -1510. The head was viewed in 1961 and asserted to be of probable roman origin. R. Hristov located the head in 1992 and took pictures of the head. From this evidence we are absolutely certain the head arrived in Mexico sometime after 900 BC and before 1993 AD.
What does this mean for Mesoamerican archeology?
It means that Mesoamerican archeologists will forever be annoyed by questions about Romans as well as aliens. (I've done some searching and I think somebody at the AMA should ask "If you had a time machine would you stop Erich von Däniken or Adolf Hitler?" I think the results might be interesting.)
What does this mean for anomalous artifacts?
Most archeologists reject or ignore the head as they do with all other artifacts of questionable origin. Because the finding of the head was not documented properly it has an equal chance of being genuine proof of pre Columbian contact or of being the miraculously petrified remains of Jimmy Hoffa.
Is there a prevailing historical consensus on how the head got there?
The prevailing consensus is that it doesn't matter. We don't know what it is. We don't know how it got there. We know nothing about the head so we can't draw any conclusions about it.
What's the most likely explanation?
I personally like the Jimmy Hoffa hypothesis. However, there is no most likely explanation.
R. Hristov's defense of the find as genuine
Dr. Michael Smiths discussion of problems with the head
Discussion of the head helpful in providing background
All breakthroughs in archeology start out as an amazing finding of an outlier. Something found that isn't in keeping with the accepted narrative. If the find is documented and researched properly the accepted narrative changes. If the find is dug up without proper documentation mixed with other artifacts and then forgotten in a museum for 50 years it is ignored by the community.
I have been deleting a number of posts from flaired and unflaired users alike that do not answer the critical question: what is the thing in the picture, and what does it mean for Mesoamerican archaeology? For this you need to first establish if the artefact truly is a Roman artefact, then when it most likely ended up in Mexico, and finally what this means for anomalous artefacts in general. Nobody has answered this so far.
Also, as usual, you need to substantiate your answers, do not simply state your own speculation.
Is there any evidence that this is, in fact, a Roman artifact? I assume it would be possible to analyse the clay from which it was made, has this been done? Or is the Roman provenance as much speculation as the theories on how it came to be there?