Researchers who have analyzed the artifact have come up with several possible explanations for the object's presence at the site: • A
hoax: according to an informal declaration by Paul Schmidt, an archaeologist at UNAM, the head was planted in the site by a participating archaeologist, Hugo Moedano, in an attempt to play a practical joke on José García Payón, supervisor of the dig. Schmidt stated earlier that García Payón was not present during the entirety of the excavation. García Payón's son insists that his father stated that he was on the site at the time of discovery. According to Hristov, these allegations are
hearsay, and because the individuals directly involved have since died, a confirmation or refutation of the allegations has become impossible. • An import from an early European visitor who came to Central Mexico. The date range for the burial includes the early period of European exploration of the Americas, though it predates the first sustained contact with Mexico under
Hernán Cortés. According to Hristov, it is possible but highly unlikely that the head was introduced during the Medieval or early Colonial period. Hristov notes that other historians have considered the possibility of a
Norse visit to the region and that the figure's unusual head-dress bears a possible resemblance to Norse or
Viking headgear. • Hristov argues that a Roman,
Phoenician, or
Berber ship, or the drifting of such a shipwreck to the Mesoamerican shores is the best explanation. Hristov claims that the possibility of such an event has been made more likely by the discovery of evidence of travels from Romans, Phoenicians and Berbers in the 6th or 5th century BC to
Tenerife and
Lanzarote in the
Canaries, and of a Roman settlement (from the 1st century BC to the 4th century AD) on Lanzarote. == See also ==