Nexus - 1405 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

3300 BC, and that was in the Middle East. The general consensus was that, locally, one would have to wait a further three millennia before the introduction of writing. Worse, the script appeared to be comparable with the Phoenician alphabet, dated to c. 1000 BC, or to the Iberian script, which was derived from it. But, of course, it was "known" that no Phoenician colony could have been located in Glozel. From a site that seemed to have little or no importance, Glozel had become a site that could upset the world of archaeology. was unable to do so, or find where Fradin had supposedly salted the trench, Morlet felt he had successfully dealt with that imposter. He was wrong: Vayson de Pradenne's allegation made it into print. But it would be a reindeer that soured the relationship between Breuil and Morlet, as Breuil had identified an engraved animal on a tablet as a cervid, neither reindeer nor elk. Morlet had received confirmation from Professor August Brinkmann, director of the Zoology Department at Bergen Museum, Norway, and informed Breuil of his mistake. It was the moment when Breuil changed his attitude. Morlet had begun to make powerful enemies... Incontestable evidence—or not? moment when Breuil changed his attitude. Morlet had begun to No wonder that French archaeological academics were make powerful enemies... dismissive of Dr Morlet's report—after all, it was published by an amateur (a medical doctor) and a peasant boy (who perhaps could More controversy over site excavations not even write properly). In their opinion, the amateurism dripped Rather than talk, Morlet dug, unearthing 3,000 objects over a off their conclusion, for it period of two years, all challenged their carefully of varied forms and established and shape, including 100 vociferously defended tablets carrying signs dogma on several levels. and approximately 15 Prehistoric writing? A tablets carrying the crossover between a imprints of human Palaeolithic and a ands. Other Neolithic civilisation? discoveries included Nonsense! And hence, two tombs, sexual idols, the criticism continued. lished stones, dressed One person claimed stones, ceramics, glass, that the artefacts had to be ones, etc. Surely, fakes, as some of the these could not be tablets were discovered at fakes? a depth of 10 centimetres. On 2 August 1927, Indeed, if that were the Breuil reiterated that he case they would indeed be wanted to stay away fakes, but the problem is rom the site. On2 that all the tablets were . October, he wrote that found at substantia] One of the more notorious carved stones at the centre of controversy. For "everything is false some, the animal has been extinct since prehistoric times, resulting in the t the st argument that the Glozel site was thousands of years old. exeepr mie stoneware depths—clear evidence of manipulation of the facts jottery". when the facts don't fit the dogma. It should be noted that the "10 Just before that, at the meeting of the International Institute of centimetre" argument continues to be used by several sceptics, Anthropology in Amsterdam held in September 1927, the Glozel who falsely continue to assume it is true. Unfortunately for French __ site was the subject of heated controversy. A commission was academic circles, Morlet was not one to lie down easily, and today appointed to conduct further investigation. Its membership was his ghost continues to hang—if not watch—over Glozel. largely comprised of people who had already decided the Glozel Morlet invited a number of archaeologists to visit the site finds were fraudulent. Among the group was Dorothy Garrod, during 1926; they included Salomon Reinach, curator of the who had studied with Breuil. Musée d'Archéologie Nationale de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, who The commissioners arrived at Glozel on 5 November 1927. spent three days excavating. Reinach confirmed the authenticity During their excavations, several members found artefacts. But of the site in a communication to the Académie des Inscriptions et on the third day, Morlet saw commission members Dorothy Belles-Lettres. Even higher academic circles descended on the Garrod, Abbé Favret and Mr Hamil-Nandrin slip under the barbed site: the famous archaeologist Abbé Breuil excavated with Morlet —_ wire and set off towards the open trench before he had opened the and was impressed with the site. In late 1926, he wrote two gate. Morlet followed her and saw that she had stuck one of her articles, in which Breuil stated that the authenticity of the Glozel _ fingers into the plaster pattern on the side of the trench, making a site was "incontestable". It seemed too good to be true, and it hole. He shouted out, reprimanding her for what she had just was... done. Caught in the act, she at first denied it, but in the presence Breuil worked together with prehistorian André Vayson de of her two colleagues as well as the attorney, Mallat, and a Pradenne, who had visited the site under an assumed name and scientific journalist, Tricot-Royer, she had to admit that she had attempted to buy the artefacts from Fradin. When Fradin refused, — made the hole. Vayson became angry and threatened to destroy the site. Under Though it was agreed they would not speak about the incident his own name, he obtained permission to excavate from Dr (underlining the fact that some people have more privileges than Morlet, but then claimed to have detected Fradin spreading salt in others), Morlet did speak about it after the commission had the excavation trench. Was Vayson de Pradenne keeping his published its unfavourable report. This might be seen as promise? Again Morlet chose to attack, and he challenged mudslinging, trying to get back at the commission, but, Vayson to duplicate what Fradin had allegedly done. When he unfortunately for those willing to adhere to this theory, a was... Breuil worked together with prehistorian André Vayson de Pradenne, who had visited the site under an assumed name and attempted to buy the artefacts from Fradin. When Fradin refused, Vayson became angry and threatened to destroy the site. Under his own name, he obtained permission to excavate from Dr Morlet, but then claimed to have detected Fradin spreading salt in the excavation trench. Was Vayson de Pradenne keeping his promise? Again Morlet chose to attack, and he challenged Vayson to duplicate what Fradin had allegedly done. When he 52 = NEXUS www.nexusmagazine.com AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2007