Nexus - 1405 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRENCH WARFARE AT GLOZEL ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRENCH GLOZEL WARFARE The excavations near the French village of Glozel, a hamlet located 17 kilometres from the French spa town of Vichy, are among the most controversial of archaeological endeavours. These excavations lasted between 1924 and 1938, but the vast majority of finds—more than 3,000 artefacts—were unearthed in the first two years. The artefacts were variously dated to Neolithic, Iron Age and Mediaeval times. What transpired is a Wh en afr tef. a cts textbook case of archaeological feuding and fraud versus truth. unearthed at Glozel 101: How to get ahead in archaeology H f one word could be used to describe the Glozel affair, it should be "controversial". It Glozel, France, in has been described as the "Dreyfus affair" of French archaeology, and the Dreyfus y sy y the mid- 1920s equivalent was Emile Fradin, a seventeen-year-old, who together with his grandfather . . Claude Fradin stepped into history on 1 March 1924. didn t fit the Working in a field known as Duranthon, Emile was holding the handles of a plough when one of the cows pulling it stuck a foot in a cavity. Freeing the cow, the Fradins accepted scholarly uncovered a cavity containing human bones and ceramic fragments. So far, this could . have been just any usual archaeological discovery, of which some are made every week. explanation of That soon changed... It is said that the first to arrive the following day were the neighbours. They not only human prehistory found but also took some of the objects. That same month, Adrienne Picandet, a local H H teacher, visited the Fradins' farm and decided to inform the minister of education. On 9 in that region, July, Benoit Clément, another teacher, this time from the neighbouring village and archaeologists representing La Société d'Emulation du Bourbonnais, visited the site and later returned with a man called Viple. Clément and Viple used pickaxes to break down the remaining engaged in a bitter walls, which they took away with them. Some weeks later, Emile Fradin received a letter from Viple, identifying the site as Gallo-Roman. He added that he felt it to be of little battle that has still interest. His advice was to recommence cultivation of the field—which is what the Fradin family did. And this might perhaps have been the end of the saga...but not so. not seen a clear The January 1925 Bulletin de la Société d'Emulation du Bourbonnais reported on the A findings. It brought the story to the attention of Antonin Morlet, a Vichy physician and winner. amateur archaeologist. Morlet visited Clément and was intrigued by the findings. Morlet was an "amateur specialist" in the Gallo-Roman period (first to fourth centuries AD) and elieved that the objects from Glozel were older. He thought that some might even date from the Magdalenian period (12,000-9500 BC). Both Morlet and Clément visited the farm and the field on 26 April 1925, and Morlet offered the Fradins 200 francs per year to e allowed to complete the excavation. Morlet began his excavations on 24 May, Glozel 101: How to get ahead in archaeology f one word could be used to describe the Glozel affair, it should be "controversial". It has been described as the "Dreyfus affair" of French archaeology, and the Dreyfus equivalent was Emile Fradin, a seventeen-year-old, who together with his grandfather Claude Fradin stepped into history on | March 1924. Working in a field known as Duranthon, Emile was holding the handles of a plough when one of the cows pulling it stuck a foot in a cavity. Freeing the cow, the Fradins uncovered a cavity containing human bones and ceramic fragments. So far, this could have been just any usual archaeological discovery, of which some are made every week. That soon changed... It is said that the first to arrive the following day were the neighbours. They not only found but also took some of the objects. That same month, Adrienne Picandet, a local teacher, visited the Fradins' farm and decided to inform the minister of education. On 9 July, Benoit Clément, another teacher, this time from the neighbouring village and representing La Société d'Emulation du Bourbonnais, visited the site and later returned with a man called Viple. Clément and Viple used pickaxes to break down the remaining walls, which they took away with them. Some weeks later, Emile Fradin received a letter from Viple, identifying the site as Gallo-Roman. He added that he felt it to be of little interest. His advice was to recommence cultivation of the field—which is what the Fradin family did. And this might perhaps have been the end of the saga...but not so. The January 1925 Bulletin de la Société d'Emulation du Bourbonnais reported on the findings. It brought the story to the attention of Antonin Morlet, a Vichy physician and amateur archaeologist. Morlet visited Clément and was intrigued by the findings. Morlet was an "amateur specialist" in the Gallo-Roman period (first to fourth centuries AD) and believed that the objects from Glozel were older. He thought that some might even date from the Magdalenian period (12,000-9500 BC). Both Morlet and Clément visited the farm and the field on 26 April 1925, and Morlet offered the Fradins 200 francs per year to be allowed to complete the excavation. Morlet began his excavations on 24 May, discovering tablets, idols, bone and flint tools, and engraved stones. He identified the site as Neolithic and published his "Nouvelle Station Néolithique" in September 1925, listing Emile Fradin as co-author. He argued that the site was, as the title of the article states, Neolithic in nature. Though Morlet dated it as Neolithic, he was not blind to see that the site contained objects from various epochs. He still upheld his belief that some artefacts appeared to be older, belonging to the Magdalenian period, but added that the techniques that had been used appeared to be Neolithic. As such, he identified Glozel as a transition site between both eras, even though it was known that the two eras were separated by several millennia. Certain objects were indeed anachronistic: one stone showed a reindeer, accompanied by letters that appeared to be an alphabet. The reindeer vanished from that region around 10,000 BC, yet the earliest known form of writing was established around by Philip Coppens © 2007 PO Box 13722 North Berwick EH39 4WB United Kingdom Email: info@philipcoppens.com Website: http://www. philipcoppens.com PO Box 13722 North Berwick EH39 4WB United Kingdom Email: info@philipcoppens.com Website: http://www. philipcoppens.com NEXUS + 51 by Philip Coppens © 2007 AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2007 www.nexusmagazine.com