Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [234]
Boman (1921, p. 336) wrote: “Before November 1913, at which time commenced the discoveries of vestiges of human industry in the Chapadmalalan of Miramar, the theories of F. Ameghino could be considered to have been definitely rejected. But now there was reason to question whether these additional discoveries did not constitute a new proof for the existence of Tertiary man in South America. Carlos Ameghino, brother of Florentino, announced these discoveries in various summary and preliminary reports. These notices were received with ironic skepticism in the few scientific journals that continued publication during the war in Europe.”
At that time, Boman (1921, p. 337) wrote a short article reviewing Carlos Ameghino’s finds, citing negative assessments by Antonio A. Romero and the Italian anthropologist and geologist Guido Bonarelli, who believed the objects were not found in situ. Boman later stated: “I must observe that at the time I wrote my article, I had not yet visited Miramar and was thus guided by the facts furnished to me by Carlos Ameghino and others who had personally visited the site. I also personally inspected the objects that had been gathered there.”
Boman (1921, p. 337) then carefully yet deliberately raised the possibility of fraud by Lorenzo Parodi, the collector who worked for Carlos Ameghino: “Regarding the intervention of Lorenzo Parodi in the discoveries . . . I had no right to express any suspicions about him, because Carlos Ameghino had spoken highly of him, assuring me that he was as honest and trustworthy a man as could be found.” Boman (1921, p. 341) added: “I do not have any personal reason to doubt the honesty of Parodi, but generally speaking, a person in his condition participates in discoveries of this kind without any scientific interest. Instead, such persons tend to be solely interested in obtaining money and keeping their employment. Therefore, it is not possible to do anything but raise suspicions about fraud. Concerning the question of where it is possible to obtain objects for fraudulent introduction into the Chapadmalalan strata, that is a problem easily resolved. A couple of miles from the discoveries exists a paradero, an abandoned Indian settlement, exposed on the surface and relatively modern—about four or five hundred years old—where there exist many objects identical to those found in the Chapadmalalan strata.”
Boman (1921, p. 342) went on to describe his own visit to the Miramar site on November 22, 1920: “Parodi had given a report of a stone ball, uncovered by the surf and still encrusted in the barranca. Carlos Ameghino invited various persons to witness its extraction, and I went there along with Dr. Estanislao S. Zeballos, ex-minister of foreign affairs; Dr. H. von Ihering, ex-director of the Museum of São Paulo in Brazil; and Dr. R. Lehmann-Nitsche, the well known anthropologist.” At the Miramar barranca, Boman (1921, p. 343) convinced himself that the geological information earlier reported by Carlos Ameghino was essentially correct. Boman’s admission confirms our assessment that the contrary views of Romero are not to be given much credibility (Section 5.2.3).
“Arriving at the final point of our journey,” wrote Boman (1921, p. 343), “Parodi showed us a stone object encrusted in a perpendicular section of the barranca, where there was a slight concavity, apparently produced by the action of waves. This object presented a visible surface only 2 centimeters [just under an inch] in diameter. Parodi proceeded to remove some of the surrounding earth so it could be photographed, and at that time it could be seen that the object was a stone ball with an equatorial groove of the kind found on bola stones. Photographs were taken of the