Nexus - 1405 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

photograph attested to the incident. In it, Garrod is hiding behind Morlet was highlighting one of the main goals of the four men, who are in heated discussion about what she had archaeologists: to have their name on top of a report and be just done. Most importantly, Tricot-Royer and Mallat also gave identified as the discoverer. It is standard practice, in which written testimony confirming Morlet's account. amateurs specifically are supposed to stand aside and let the What was Garrod trying to do? Some have claimed it was "professionals" deal with it—and take the credit for the discovery. merely an accident, but it is remarkable that she was part of a Again, Morlet did not want to have any of it. posse that entered the site before the "official start" of the day and had an accident that could have been interpreted as interfering with | Peasant boy versus Louvre curator the excavation. If others had found that the excavation had been The commission's report of December 1927 declared that tampered with, fingers would not have been pointed at Garrod but, everything found at the Glozel site, with the exception of a few instead, at Fradin—whom the archaeologists suspected of being pieces of flint axes and stoneware, was fake. Still, members of the forger, burying artefacts in the ground only to have amateur the commission, like Professor Mendes Corréa, argued that the archaeologists like Morlet, who did not know "better", discover conclusions were incorrect and misrepresentative. In fact, he them. If this suggestion that Fradin had entered the site at night argued that the results of his analyses, when completed, would be had been made, it would have resulted in a "case closed" and the opposite of what had been claimed by Count Bégouen, the Glozel artefacts would have been qualified as fraudulent. principal author of the report. Bégouen had to confess that he had The incident did not cause any harm to Dorothy Garrod, who made up an alleged dispatch from Mendes Corréa! then went on to teach a generation of British archaeologists at René Dussaud, curator at the Louvre and a famous epigrapher, Cambridge. Perhaps unremarkably, she made sure to tell all of had written a dissertation that argued that our alphabet is of them that the Glozel artefacts were fakes. And several of her Phoenician origin. If Morlet was correct, Dussaud's life's work students echoed her "informed would be discredited. Dussaud made opinion"; the list included Glyn Daniel sure that would not happen, and thus and Colin Renfrew, both fervent critics he told everyone that Fradin was a of the Clozel finds. We can only Morlet was highlighting forger and even sent an anonymous wonder whether the "finger incident” is : etter about Fradin to one of the known to these pillars of archaeology. one of the main goals of Parisian newspapers. But when Remarkably, when challenged with archaeologists: to have similar Finds to those at Clozel were evidence that thermoluminescence an ; unearthed in Alvao in Portugal, carbon dating had shown that the their name on top of a Dussaud stated that they, too, had to Glozel artefacts could not be forgeries report and be identified be fraudulent—even though the created by Fradin, Renfrew wrote in . artefacts were discovered beneath a 1975: as the discoverer. dolmen, leaving little doubt they were "The three papers, taken together, of Neolithic origin. suggest strongly that the pottery and When similar artefacts were found terracotta objects from Glozel, in the immediate vicinity of Glozel, at including the inscribed tablets, should be regarded as genuine, and two sites at Chez Guerrier and Puyravel, Dussaud wrote: with them, presumably, the remainder of the material... I still find "If, as they claim, the stones discovered in the Mercier field and it beyond my powers of imagination to take Glozel entirely in the cave of Puyravel bear the writing of Glozel, there can be no seriously." doubt the engravings on the stones are false." Though all the archaeological evidence suggested the site was What could Fradin do? In a move that seems to have been a genuine, Renfrew's emotions prevented him from taking it few decades ahead of his time, on 10 January 1928 Fradin filed seriously. Whoever said men of science let the facts rule over suit for defamation against Dussaud. Indeed, a peasant boy of emotions? twenty was suing the curator of the Louvre for defamation! But back to the past. Morlet sent a letter to Mercure de France Dussaud had no intention of appearing in court and must have (published on 15 November 1927), still upset with Breuil's realised that, if he did, he could lose the case. He needed help, qualification of the site as a fake and having spotted one of his fast, for the first hearing was set for 28 February and Fradin had students sticking an unwanted finger into an archaeological already received the free nce of a lawyer who was greatly trench: intrigued by a case of "peasant boy versus Louvre curator". "From the time your article appeared I declared to anyone who Dussaud engineered the help of the president of the Société wanted to listen, especially to your friends so that you would hear —_—Préhistorique Francaise, Dr Félix Régnault, who visited Glozel on about it, that I would not allow you to present a site already 24 February and, after the briefest of visits to the small museum, studied at length as a discovery which had not been described filed a complaint against "X". before you wrote about it. I know that in a note you quoted the That the entire incident was engineered is clear, as Régnault titles of our articles; that you thank me for having led you to had come with his attorney, Maurice Gargon, who immediately Glozel; and that finally you give thanks to our 'kindness' in having travelled from Glozel to Moulins to file the complaint. The allowed you to examine our collections. You acknowledge that I accusation was that the admission charge of four francs was am a good chauffeur. I have perceived, a little, that I have also excessive to see objects which in his opinion were fakes. The been a dupe... Your report on Glozel is conceived as if you were police identified "X" as Emile Fradin. The next day, the police the first to study the site...so much so that several foreign searched the museum, destroyed glass display cases and scholars are misinformed about it... Your first master, Dr confiscated three c: of artefacts. Emile was beaten when he Capitan, suggested to me forthrightly that we republish our leaflet —_ protested against the taking of his little brother's schoolbooks as with the engravings at the end and his name before mine. With evidence. Saucepans filled with dirt by his little brother were you, the system has evolved: you take no more than the ideas." assumed to be artefacts in the making. Despite all of this, the raid Morlet was highlighting one of the main goals of archaeologis to have their name on top of a report and be identified as the discoverer. It is standard practice, in which amateurs specifically are supposed to stand aside and let the "professionals" deal with it—and take the credit for the discovery. Again, Morlet did not want to have any of it. Morlet was highlighting one of the main goals of archaeologists: to have a a oe their name on top of a report and be identified aan Sees = ena NEXUS + 53 as the discoverer. AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2007 www.nexusmagazine.com