Editing Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories (section)

=== Claims of ancient Roman contact ===
Evidence of contacts with the civilizations of [[Classical Antiquity]]—primarily with the [[Roman Empire]], but sometimes also with other contemporaneous cultures—have been based on isolated archaeological finds in American sites that originated in the Old World. For example, the Bay of Jars in Brazil has been yielding ancient clay storage jars that resemble [[Amphora#Ancient Rome|Roman amphorae]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://webmuseum.mit.edu/detail.php?type=related&kv=87136&t=objects |title=MIT Museum Collections – Objects |publisher=MIT Museum |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141009085241/http://webmuseum.mit.edu/detail.php?type=related&kv=87136&t=objects |archive-date=9 October 2014}}</ref> for over 150 years. It has been proposed that the origin of these jars is a Roman shipwreck, although it has also been suggested that they could be 15th- or 16th-century Spanish olive oil jars.

Archaeologist Romeo Hristov argues that a Roman ship, or the drifting of such a shipwreck to American shores, is a possible explanation for the alleged discovery of artifacts that are apparently ancient Roman in origin (such as the [[Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head|Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca bearded head]]) in America. Hristov claims that the possibility of such an event has been made more likely by the discovery of evidence of travels by Romans to [[Tenerife]] and [[Lanzarote]] in the [[Canary Islands]], and of a Roman settlement (from the 1st century BCE to the 4th century CE) on Lanzarote.<ref>{{citation|last1=Hristov|first1=Romeo H.|last2=Genovés T.|first2=Santiago|year=1999|title=Mesoamerica evidence of pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts|journal=Ancient Mesoamerica|volume=10|pages=207–213|doi=10.1017/S0956536199102013|issue=2|s2cid=163071420 }}</ref>

[[File:0 Mosaico pavimentale – Grotte Celloni – Pal. Massimo.JPG|thumb|Floor mosaic depicting a fruit which looks like a [[pineapple]]. Opus vermiculatum, Roman artwork of the end of the 1st century BCE/beginning of the 1st century CE.]]
In 1950, an Italian botanist, Domenico Casella, suggested that a depiction of a [[pineapple]] (a fruit native to the New World tropics) was represented among wall paintings of Mediterranean fruits at [[Pompeii]]. According to [[Wilhelmina Feemster Jashemski]], this interpretation has been challenged by other botanists, who identify it as a pine [[conifer cone|cone]] from the [[stone pine|umbrella pine tree]], which is native to the Mediterranean area.<ref>{{cite book |last=Jashemski |first=Wilhelmina |title=The natural history of Pompeii |year=2002 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-80054-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3xfjyTqqR7IC&pg=PA81 |page=81}}</ref> The leaves shown in the depiction (as with stone carvings from [[Nineveh]])<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Collins |first=J. L. |date=1951 |title=Antiquity of the Pineapple in America |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3628620 |journal=Southwestern Journal of Anthropology |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=145–155 |doi=10.1086/soutjanth.7.2.3628620 |jstor=3628620 |s2cid=87859413 |issn=0038-4801}}</ref> make the pine cone identification problematic.

Roman and other European coins have been found in the United States.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Epstein |first1=Jeremiah F. |last2=Buchanan |first2=Donal B. |last3=Buttrey |first3=T. V. |last4=Carter |first4=George F. |last5=Cook |first5=Warren L. |last6=Covey |first6=Cyclone |last7=Jett |first7=Stephen C. |last8=Lee |first8=Thomas A. |last9=Mundkur |first9=Balaji |last10=Paulsen |first10=Allison C. |last11=Prem |first11=Hanns J. |last12=Reyman |first12=Jonathan E. |last13=Dorado |first13=Miguel Rivera |last14=Totten |first14=Norman |title=Pre-Columbian Old World Coins in America: An Examination of the Evidence [and Comments and Reply] |journal=Current Anthropology |date=1980 |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=1–20 |doi=10.1086/202398 |jstor=2741739 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2741739 |issn=0011-3204}}</ref> Jeremiah Epstein, an American anthropologist, rejected the suggestion that these coins can be cited as evidence of Pre-Columbian contact between Europe and the Americas pointing out the lack of any pre-Columbian archaeological contexts relating to these finds, the lack of detail concerning the discoveries, and the possibility of forgery (at least two were clearly forgeries).<ref>{{cite news |title=An Expert Doubts Roman Coins Found in U.S. Are Sea-Link Clue |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1978/12/10/archives/an-expert-doubts-roman-coins-found-in-us-are-sealink-clue-vikings.html |access-date=18 June 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=10 December 1978}}</ref>

==== Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head ====
{{Main|Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head}}
A small [[terracotta]] sculpture of a head, with a beard and European-like features, was found in 1933 in the [[Toluca Valley]], {{convert|72|km|mi}} southwest of [[Mexico City]], in a burial offering under three intact floors of a [[Spanish conquest of Mexico|pre-colonial]] building dated to between 1476 and 1510. The artifact has been studied by Roman art authority Bernard Andreae, director emeritus of the German Institute of Archaeology in Rome, Italy, and Austrian anthropologist [[Robert von Heine-Geldern]], both of whom stated that the style of the artifact was compatible with small Roman sculptures of the 2nd century. If genuine and if not placed there after 1492 (the pottery found with it dates to between 1476 and 1510),<ref>Forbes, Jack D. ''The American Discovery of Europe'' University of Illinois Press; 2007 {{ISBN|978-0-252-03152-6}} p. 108</ref> the find provides evidence for at least a one-time contact between the Old and New Worlds.<ref>Hristov and Genovés (1999).</ref>

According to [[Arizona State University]]'s Michael E. Smith, a leading Mesoamerican scholar named John Paddock used to tell his classes in the years before he died that the artifact was planted as a joke by Hugo Moedano, a student who originally worked on the site. Despite speaking with individuals who knew the original discoverer (García Payón), and Moedano, Smith says he has been unable to confirm or reject this claim. Though he remains skeptical, Smith concedes he cannot rule out the possibility that the head was a genuinely buried post-Classic offering at [[Calixtlahuaca]].<ref>Smith, Michael E., "[http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/tval/RomanFigurine.html The 'Roman Figurine' Supposedly Excavated at Calixtlahuaca]". Accessed: February 13, 2012. [https://archive.today/20120805122505/http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/tval/RomanFigurine.html Archived] at WebCite, February 13, 2012.</ref>