Talk:Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head

message: Hi to anyone watching this page - an editor has been attempting to edit the article in such a way as to remove mention of the possibility that the Head is a hoax.  I can't see anyway of justifying that kind of change, and unless subsequent discussion on this talk page convinces me otherwise, I intend to make sure that the article does not become a truncated advocacy piece.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note, I do realize that the article needs to be rewritten to include all the possibilities discussed by researchers.  For example, Michael E. Smith of ASU lists about a half dozen possibily interpretations here and Romeo Hristov, briefly of UNM, seems to change his tune here where he makes the astonishing suggestion that the Head is a Viking artifact.  I intend to begin the process of expanding this article as I have time to digest sources.  Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good plan. Particularly the parlous state of contemporary documentation from the 1930s dig ought to be mentioned.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits (November 2008) 

message: The photo caption erroneously attributes it to Michael Smith.  In fact, as now acknowledged on Smith's page, the photo was taken by Romeo Hristov.  Although Hristov retains copyright, he has given me permission to share its non-commercial use with anyone, including Wikipedia.  The source of the photo should therefore be given as Hristov, not Smith.  
A higher resolution scan of Hristov's photo (from which Smith's reduced image was directly or indirectly taken) is on my Calixtlahuaca page, now linked here.  This may be downloaded here with photo credit to Hristov.  
BTW, Smith, an expert on the Calixtlahuaca site, mentions on his page that the head has nothing to do with Tecaxic per se.  Hence, there is no reason to have Tecaxic in the title of the article. HuMcCulloch (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo and Title 

message: This is something that has always troubled me. If I were doing research into this, I would have tried to rule out the null hypothesis, that this is Meso-American art. So far as I can see, no evidence has been put forward that this is not Meso-American, only suggestions by people not qualified to comment on Meso-American artefacts that it might be something else.
And thanks to Paul Barlow for the rewrite. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the Michael Smith link is still valid, and he is a Mesoamericanist. He doesn't seem to consider that it may be a Mesoamerican artefact at all. I'll try to see if I can dig anything else up. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, which is why I emailed him. But he isn't an art expert so far as I know. In any case, it seems a valid question. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What experts on Meso-American art have examined the head? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302231549/http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/romehead.htm to http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/romehead.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/tval/RomanFigurine.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: why no photo of the head? 2806:10AE:12:26E5:DD8F:35F:B3E5:479 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  no head