Glozel

Glozel is the name of a locality of the commune of Tool bag-on-Sichon, in the department Allier located at about thirty kilometers of Vichy.

Starting from 1924, one put at it at the day a whole of objects, allotted initially to a prehistoric time but whose authenticity was quickly disputed. The objects discovered are cut stones, potteries, fragments of glass and engraved shelves carrying of the inscriptions evoking a writing in a Alphabet near to the alphabets phenician or Iberian.

These vestiges are at the origin of a sharp controversy which divided the scientific community, then the general public, in " glozéliens" and " anti-glozéliens". The “Glozel business” knew many legal continuations.

After new analyzes and datings, the Ministère of the Culture made public in 1995 a report/ratio whose authors think that the site is medieval, that it undoubtedly contains some objects of the Âge of iron, but which it was probably enriched by counterfeits whose author remains unknown.

History

Discovered

The initial discovery is carried out on March 1st, 1924 by Emile Fradin , then 17 years old, and its grandfather Claude Fradin by clearing the Duranthon field, then called “the Field of Deaths”. The foot of the one of the cows drawing the plow is inserted in a cavity. Releasing the cow, Fradin discover a pit whose walls are covered bricks and whose ground is covered with clay flagstones. The pit contains human bones, instruments out of stone or bone and ceramics fragments. The neighbors start to excavate in the neighborhoods or come to see the lucky finds, much bring back objects on their premises.

Adrienne Picandet , the teacher of the village, hears soon of discovered and goes to the site. She informs the Inspection of Academy, and the Société of emulation of Bourbonnais and the Société bourbonnaise of the local studies are prevented in the month of June 1924.

At the beginning of July, the Company of Emulation of Bourbonnais dispatch on the spot Benoit Clément , the teacher of the common neighbor of Guillermie. B. Clement starts to excavate in a not very orthodoxe way, helped of the prosecutor Joseph Viple , using the pickaxe sometimes and destroying the first pit. The two men take along many objects with them. After a few weeks, Viple affirmed in Fradin that the objects were without interest and that it was to better give in culture the field and those were carried out.

In January 1925, Clément allots the discovery of the site (and in particular of a brick comprising of the signs) by sending a letter to the Société of emulation of Bourbonnais . He asks for a subsidy of 50 francs to carry out more organized excavations with Glozel but a refusal is meant in issue of February 1925 the January of the bulletin published by the Company.

With the reading of this article, Antonin Morlet , Doctor set on Archeology and exerting with Vichy, takes note of the discovery. It is with Emile Fradin one of the most enthusiastic defenders of Glozel.

Morlet goes to Clément where he discovers attractive objects. The two men visit, in April 1925 the field where the objects were found. Morlet, specialist in the Gallo-Roman time, estimates that the objects of Glozel do not date from the Antiquité but are much older, perhaps Magdalénien S (presence of Harpon S in bone, of engravings representing of the Renne S, etc). It decides to finance itself of new excavations and proposes to rent the field of Fradin for 200 francs per annum in their leaving the property of all the vestiges put at the day.

First excavations

The excavations of Morlet begin in May 1925 and continue until 1936. He discovers shelves, figurines, tools of flint and bone, engraved stones. Great names of archeology come to excavate in Glozel with the invitation of Morlet: Louis Capitan is the first in June 1925.

As of September 1925, Morlet revises its first chronological attribution and publishes a booklet entitled Nouvelle Neolithic station and Co-signed by Emile Fradin. The first press articles relative to Glozel are published in the Morning in October and in the Mercure de France in December.

In two years, the layer delivers approximately 3000 very varied vestiges, of which a hundred shelves carrying of the signs, about fifteen shelves with prints of hands, engraved Idole S sexuées, rollers, objects in cut stone, polished stone, Céramique, Verre, bone and wooden of Cervidé S.

First controversies

Quickly, the attribution of the site to the Neolithic is disputed by the scientific community. For Morlet, it is about the only possible attribution but he is confronted with the diversity of the found objects: part of engravings present on the rollers and the objects in bone and ivory evokes the Magdalénien vaguely, that is to say the end of the Paléolithique superior, but the techniques employed evoke the Neolithic era. For Morlet, Glozel corresponds to the transition between these two times but it is already known at the time they are separated by several millenia.

Certain vestiges are particularly problematic and comprise anachronistic elements . It is the case of a roller carrying an engraving of Renne accompanied by signs considered as alphabetical: the reindeer disappeared from our areas at the end of the Paleolithic superior, approximately 10.000 years front J. - C., and the oldest traces of writing go back to approximately 3.300 years front J. - C. and come from the the Middle East. The signs of Glozel are comparable with those of the Alphabet phenician, fixed towards 1.000 front J. - C., or at those of the Iberian Alphabet which in drift.

Morlet publishes an article evoking a Neolithic alphabet in April 1926. For him, there is not any doubt that the authors of the discovered objects with Glozel had developed a written form very definitely former to that of Phéniciens. Its discoveries call into question the appearance of the writing to the Middle East and make a European invention of it.

Legal contentions

The scientific community, followed soon general public, is divided into antagonistic camps, on a side the glozéliens, other the antiones. The French academic world accommodates with skepticism the ratio of 1925, Co-signed by an amateur and a young farmer. Morlet invites a certain number of archeologists to visit the site in 1926, in particular Solomon Reinach, conservative of the national museum of Saint-Germain-in-Bush hammer, which comes to excavate there during three days. Reinach gives an opinion in favor of the authenticity of the site in a communication with the Académie of the inscriptions and the Humanities. In the same way, archeologist Henri Breuil excavation with Morlet celebrates it and makes a favorable assessment, before giving an opinion against the authenticity of the vestiges of Glozel. He is joined by André Vayson de Pradenne which brings some of the most convincing arguments in favor of a fraud: he finds in particular, in publications of scientific popularization, the prehistoric engravings presented like the models of the forger.

At the time of the congress of the International institute of anthropology to Amsterdam, held in September 1927, Glozel is the subject of a sharp polemic. The institute names a International commission in order to carry out new research. It arrives at Glozel on November 5th, 1927 and includes/understands in particular Eugene Pittard, Denis Peyrony and Dorothy Garrod. During a short excavation campaign three days, the many curious ones observe the archeologists putting at the day of the vestiges. In his report/ratio of December 1927, the commission retains some parts out of flints and ceramics as authentic but does not exclude that old objects were introduced into the layer. She concludes with “nonthe seniority from the unit from the documents which she could study in Glozel”.

Rene Dussaud, preserving of the Museum of Louvre and epigraphist celebrates, shows Emile Fradin of counterfeit. January 10th, 1928, Fradin brings a Procès for Diffamation against Dussaud.

Felix Regnault, then president of the French prehistoric Company , Glozel visit on February 24th. After a short visit with the small museum installed in the farm of Fradin, it carries felt sorry for against X for Escroquerie to the pretext which a price of 4 francs is required to see parts that it regards as false. The next day, accompanied by Regnault, the police force excavates the museum and seizes three cases of vestiges. February 28th, the lawsuit of Fradin against Dussaud is deferred because of the inculpation of Fradin following the charge of Regnault.

A new group of French and foreign archeologists joined together by Morlet, called Committee of the studies, excavates from April 12th to 14th 1928 (postcard of the time). These researchers discover new vestiges similar to those of the collections Morlet and Fradin and conclude with the authenticity from the site, allotted to the Neolithic era.

Gaston-Edmond Bayle , chief of the services of the Criminal records office of Paris, examines the seized objects and, in a submitted report on May 10th, 1929, concludes that it is about recent Contrefaçon S. A few months later, Bayle is assassinated by certain Philipponet, anybody completely foreign with the business but which reproached him a fraudulent report/ratio (monnayé near the owner of this one Mr. Dichamp). Previously in 1929 with sat of Antwerp (Belgium), Bayle which déclaraît science doctor whereas he was only laid off, had confused in the Almazoff business, of the fecal matter with blood, which was unfavourable with the defense which had required it as expert. Emile Fradin is accused for swindle on June 4th, 1929 on the basis of the report/ratio of Bayle, but it profits from a nonsuit on June 26th, 1931. The complaint against Dussaud is judged in March 1932 and this one is condemned for slandering.

In 1936, Morlet decides to stop the excavations with Glozel, leaving many virgin sectors for the future generations of researchers and to apply new methods of excavations.

Epilog

As from 1941, the archaeological Fouille S are not possible any more without authorization of the Ministère of the Culture. The site of Glozel remains intact until this Ministry undertakes there new excavations in 1983, at the request of town councilors. The total return was never published but a summary of 13 pages is made public in 1995. The authors think that the site is medieval, that it probably contains objects of the Âge of iron, but which it was probably enriched by counterfeits.

June 16th, 1990, Emile Fradin was decorated about the Academic Palms.

Datings

Found glass with Glozel was dated by Spectrographie in the years 1920, then again in the years 1990 with the engine of Slowpoke, with the Université of Toronto by analyzes by neutron activation . The two analyzes bring back the fragments of glass to the medieval period.

In 1995, Alice and Sam Gerald as Robert Liris manage to obtain two tubes of bones discovered in tomb II C 14 qu' they date by AMS C14 at the laboratory from the Université from Arizona, obtaining a date of the 13th century.

A dating by Thermoluminescence (TL) of a pottery of Glozel in 1974 confirms that this one was not produced recently. In 1979,39 dates TL out of 27 worked objects the vestiges in three groups separated:

300 av. J.C. /300 AD (time Gallic E),
one medieval period centered over the 13th century,
one recent period.

The datings TL of 1983 carried out in Oxford go the 4th century at the medieval period.

The Carbon dating of fragments of bone reduces the age bracket of 13th to the 20th century. Three C14 analyzes carried out with Oxford into 1984 made it possible to go back a fragment to charcoal from 11th at the 13th century, and a fragment of ivory ring of the 15th century. A human femur was dated from the 5th century.

It should be stressed that the first datings by thermoluminescence intervened whereas the method was still in a debugging run, without measurements of the current Radioactivité natural being carried out on the ground. In addition, it should be recalled that the various evoked methods date the matter from the objects (age of died for Carbon-14, age of cooking for thermoluminescence) but not possible engravings which they carry.

For or against

In such a complex business, there exists inevitably a great number from very moderate points of view and it can appear caricatural to gather all the favorable or unfavourable arguments. It is here only about one freedom taken for the clearness of the talk.

Arguments “glozéliens”

certain objects are difficult to realize;
of many objects is patinated;
certain engraved bones are old;
certain realistic figurations of animals disappeared from the area (reindeer, panther) seem to imply a direct observation;
the excavated ground was not altered;
of the roots crosses certain objects;
Emile Fradin had a level of school education insufficient to carry out such objects;
Emile Fradin always refused to sell its objects and thus did not have any financial motivation;
the majority of the recognized prehistorians of the time were initially convinced of the authenticity of the site, but have, seems it, changed opinion for nonscientific reasons (Capitan and Breuil because Morlet their refused Co-to sign publications on the site, Vayson de Pradenne because Fradin refused to sell its collection to him, etc);
Dussaud would have refused to recognize the authenticity and the seniority of the writing of Glozel because it called into question the thesis which it defended in a recent publication (of “Syria”, T.V, p. 135 & following) and according to which it defended an origin phenician of the alphabetical writing;
the old dates (Antiquity or the Middle Ages) obtained for certain objects make it possible to refute the thesis of a total counterfeit for the whole of the site.
the artificial cave of Puy-Ravel, and At-Warrior, are the places of dwellings of the time of Glozel, moreover there is also the feudal hillock of Montgilbert, fruit of multiple re-employment including one Roman oppidum replacing itself a Gallic fanum, which lets appear the touch of rocks, constituting the remainders of a Neolithic site.
the anti-glozélien Jean-Pierre Adam, archeologist and not prehistorian, recognized with the journalists of the review Kadath , Nicole Torchet, Patrick Ferryn, Jacques Gossart, not to be never gone to see says it site of Glozel. He however saw himself decreeing for his work Archeology in front of imposture , a price by the rationalist Union in 1977.
well before 1924, the preceding owner of the Duranthon field, would have exhumed a covered vase of mysterious inscriptions there. He would have placed it on the chimney of his kitchen, until the day when he moved, breaking the vase of which he threw the pieces.
the Duranthon field, of approximately 1600 m ², was exploited by the owners having preceded E. Fradin; it is false to claim that it is too sloping, because he has only one average declivity.

in Gradechnitcha in Bulgaria, in March 1970, one discovered shelves covered with pictograms gone back to approximately 5.500 years before our era.

there were also controversies for cut flints of Abbeville, the paleolithic burials of Solutré, and paintings magdaléniennes of Altamira.

except subject! -->

the reindeer, animal currently finding itself in the Scandinavian countries (Siberia, Greenland, boreal Scandinavia and Canada of the north, where it is called “caribou” in Amerindian), disappeared from Europe of the South, following the retreat of the glaciations. Nevertheless, of the ancient authors ( Of bello Gallico , the War of Gaules delivers VI chapter XXVI) described some into Germanic and a Gaulle, taking them for a variety of stag or deer. In Scotland, it was maintained until XIIIe century, which proves its sporadic maintenance in certain places, for example in U-shaped valleys of the glacial types, like circuses and amphitheaters, pockets called also cul-de-sac.
in the neighborhoods of Glozel, others discovered of glozélien type were done, At-Warriors, in Puy-Ravel, the Mill-Piat and with Rez-of-Glozel.
Roger Constant, which discovered the cave of Régourdou in 1954, had the same vexations as Fradin, with searching, police raids, lawsuit with companies prehistoric and even of the problems with Lascaux.

“Anti-glozéliens” arguments

one found in Glozel much objects, but any trace of habitat;
how to explain that a civilization developed apparently well did not leave any trace elsewhere;
the discovery " fortuite" place is highly improbable; Fradin tell that they discovered this site by chance, by plowing their field; however the piece is at the bottom of an inclined small valley very strong, and is completely not exploitable in agriculture; it is an absurd idea to want to plow such a ground;
certain shelves are out of not cooked clay and it is highly improbable that they would have been preserved a long time in the ground;
certain shelves contain fabric fibers in a perfect state of conservation and in addition dyed using modern dyes;
certain shelves contain very fresh vegetable elements and whose chlorophyl is that of plants preserved since less than five years;
certain shelves were whitewashed of liquid clay masking certain imperfections and softening contours of engravings;
a rhizome crossing a part, called upon in favor of a prolonged hiding, was introduced into a hole artificial and maintained in place by a cementing;
the shelves do not carry geological traces of prolonged hiding;
a pan containing of dried mud was seized in Emile Fradin in February 1928. Although this one affirmed that his/her young brother made use of it to make pies, it was observed that this mud had the same composition as material of some of the shelves.
the old dates (Antiquity - Gaulle independent, Gaulle Roman - or the Middle Ages) obtained for certain objects do not make it possible to refute any counterfeit for the whole of the site, a counterfeiter who can mix the old one and the recent one;
“the harpoons resemble neither like form, nor like technique of work (made as with the knife and the grater) of the known prehistoric parts. Except three, less badly made, their technique is stupid and their unusable form. (…) various facets of size of the harpoons have the clearness of those of metal, perhaps coppers. ” Henri Breuil, 1926;
“the bones coming supposedly from the same layer, and which consequently should have the same patina have the most disparate aspects. Moreover they carry traces of work which cannot be the mark of stone tools, but of knives and steel graters. In the same way, the polished stone axes are simple schist rollers coldly filed at an end. The potteries are so badly cooked that they could not have resisted a long hiding in such a wet ground and if little depth. (…) The defenders of Glozel restrict themselves to answer that these are techniques that we do not know; they are the innovations of the discovery. Actually, we know these techniques extremely well: they are those of the forgers. ” Andre Vayson de Pradenne, 1927;
an animal engraving evokes a buffalo domesticates Indian;
J. - P. Adam draws the attention to certain engraved objects of Glozel which seem to be coarse copies of prehistoric works authentic but reversed “out of mirror”, as if they had been copied and that one turned over the copy before reproducing them. It also mentions a head of female statuette which awkwardly reproduces all the characteristics of the Dame of Brassempouy, to the accidental break of the base. In 1924, the Lady of Brassempouy was already illustrated in many handbooks of Prehistory;
the signs found on the shelves juxtapose concise signs borrowed very accurately from several distinct sources (but mainly from the alphabets of the phenician family), signs already largely diffused at the time in the reviews and in the books of history of Article This juxtaposition of the loans is made in a disordered way: “(…) the best specialists in the writing phenician and the languages using this graphic system are all formal: the letters of the shelves glozéliennes are laid out in disorder, in a completely random way, and the reading of the texts is impossible. ” J. - P. Adam 1988;
In 1917, B. Clement had published two articles entitled “a schist axe carrying a cross and various signs” and “Cabalistic signs engraved on a schist amulet of the Bronze Age”;
the authenticity of the whole of the engraved objects would imply “the abandonment of a writing used with Glozel at the time magdalénienne, then reinvented of all parts to identical in the Mediterranean East some ten or twelve thousand years later. ” J. - P. Adam 1988;
Enfin, but this constitutes a proof by no means, if it is exact that Emile Fradin always refused to sell his objects, it had a financial interest (200 francs per annum for the hiring of the “Field of Died” of 1925 to 1936 and especially 4 francs per visit of the Museum). In addition, it is current that forgers are driven only by the taste of the celebrity, or pleasure of having succeeded in misleading in the recognized scientists.

Glozel today

In spite of the report/ratio of the Ministry for the culture of 1995, the debate is still not closed. A group of impassioned created the International Center of Study and Research and continued to meet every year of 1999 to 2005 with Vichy for a conference about Glozel.

If Glozel a long time allured and still allured some, undoubtedly this is because it brought the proof of the existence of an old European civilization well having invented the writing before it appears in the Middle East.

It is still burning defenders of the authenticity and great seniority of the whole of the vestiges put at the day with Glozel. Their rows count much less prehistorians than of ufologist S and amateurs of Paranormal, followers of Robert Charroux and Erich von Däniken. Their sales leaflet often joined the Théorie of the plot: Glozel is authentic but is not recognized, its implications calling too radically in question “official science”.

According to J. - P. Unmoulds, “it is the place of Glozel in the history and the sociology of the archaeological research which can appear the most interesting aspect of this business”.

Bonds and references

List of the archeological sites by country

External bonds favorable to the authenticity of Glozel

site of the museum of Glozel (many images of the objects discovered)
site defending the authenticity of discovered the
the section of the site '' impossible discoveries '' devoted to Glozel
site of Alice Gerald and of the International Research and Study Center of {{in}}
Site of Joseph Grivel analyzing all the aspects of the business of Glozel
on the site the Heretics
a history chronology of the proceedings of Glozel

Random links: