GLOZEL. The hamlet of Glozel is 20 km. south-east of Vichy, department of Allier. On March 1, 1924, the son of a local farmer named Fradin discovered the remains of a glass furnace of some antiquity of a type not uncommon in that region. In April 1925 Dr. Morlet, in consulting practice at Vichy, got into touch with Fradin, whose excavations continued. These included three bricks engraved before baking with alphabetic form signs, and the complete apparatus of a glass manufactory. Details were published by Dr. Morlet and Fradin. By the beginning of 1926 twenty-one inscribed tablets had been found. Nine further tablets with new characters were found. In August 1926 M. Salo mon Reinach, the distinguished scholar, visited Glozel and has given the weight of his authority in support of the authenticity of the objects thus discovered.
The attention of the learned world was drawn to Glozel by a letter from M. Reinach published in the London Times. He pointed out that the discoveries included objects akin to the Neolithic cultures of the Aegean, one of them being an idol in the shape of a violin, inscriptions closely related to those found in 1894 in an early Portuguese dolman and numerous engravings of animals on pebbles, in a degenerate Magdalenian style. Ob viously, the most surprising objects were the inscribed clay tab lets. If genuine and if datable to a remote period, many theories of the origin of the alphabet would need revision and the whole question of the content and scope of Neolithic civilization would have to be considered. It is the peculiar virtue of archaeology that it offers us from time to time discoveries which produce a revolution of hypotheses based on earlier, less accurate, less ample, data. Every science, too, demands periodic revision of its funda mental hypotheses. It is necessary, therefore, that discoveries of this nature should be completely free from doubt in order that their value as keys to accurate knowledge may be utilised. The authenticity of these discoveries was criticised by the Abbe Breuil in Anthropologie xxxvi. 1926, pp- Reinach contributed an article to The Antiquary's Journal supporting his views. In June, 1927, Mr. 0. G. S. Crawford, the editor of An tiquity published an article in which, profiting by a visit to Glozel, he concluded that the majority of the objects were certainly forgeries. Some there were which, in his opinion, were genuine antiquities though not prehistoric and his emphatic opinion is that the inscriptions, engravings and the majority of the other finds are forgeries and that those who believe in their authenticity have been the victims of a hoax (Antiquity March and June, 1927). In September 1927 the International Institute of Anthro pology at its meeting in Amsterdam appointed a Commission to visit Glozel to examine the site and the objects found therein and to pronounce their opinion upon the authenticity of the discoveries.
By this time the French government had taken official action to recognize the site as one of scientific importance meriting the protection of the law. The Commission consisted of eight mem bers from Spain, France, Alsace, Great Britain, Belgium, Switzer land and Czecho Slovakia, one of whom was unable to take part in its investigations and deliberations. In November 1927 the Commission visited Glozel, examined and tested the site and the objects already found and reported unanimously the antiquity of the material discovered at Glozel had not been proved. It was admitted that authentic material of an early date may have been introduced by natural methods. In a series of articles in the Mercure de France Dr. Morlet maintained the authenticity of the discoveries, hotly repudiated the suggestion that the scientific world had been hoaxed, and vigorously criticized the methods and findings of the Commission. A remarkable degree of acrimony characterizes the controversy which has arisen and reference to the Law Courts has been made.
See Revue Anthropologique, Supplement No. 10-12, 1927.