The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1928. A SCIENTIFIC HOAX.

Evening Star, Issue 19779, 1 February 1928, Page 6

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1928. A SCIENTIFIC HOAX.

A CADi/K message which we published yesterday announced what should be the last important phase of a highly remarkable scientific hoax. The Glozel excavations first became known in England about fourteen months'ago. The authenticity of the finds was guaranteed by M. Salomon Reinach, who is director of a French museum. They wore accepted by a professor of geology and somo other savants, but failed to convince a large number of archaeologists. Mr 0. Cl. S. Crawford, who has don© some of the finest work for archaeology in England, and who was among the sceptics, tells the story in the London ‘Times.’ There are only four houses in Glozel, forming a farm occupied by a peasant family named Fraclin. In March, 1921, young Eradin, then apparently a boy in his teens, struck -some remains while ho was ploughing which were evidently the debris of a glass furnace, perhaps a couple of centuries old. The discovery was reported to the local arclueological society, which deputed a young schoolmaster to make further examinations. The actual digging was carried out by Eradin. The first object to cause a sensation appeared in January, 1925; it was an inscribed clay tablet. There was only Eradin’s word that it was Actually found at an earlier date, but sot aside then as of no particular interest. After six uneventful months there appeared a fiat stone ring and throe slate axes, all with letters carved upon them. Then euteVed upon the scene a neighboring medical man, one Dr Morlct, described by Mr Crawford as “an enthusiastic but inexperienced amateur, whose archaeological opinions are of no value.” He is said to have described a,.-,harpoon of “green” bone ns being made of stag’s horn. In the course of time the output of inscriptions became enormous. “Clay pots,” to quote Mr Crawford, “ began to appear made on mud-pie principles. They are ornamented with ludicrous owlfaces— 1 symbolic of death.’ Other 1 finds ’ include more slate axes, stone rings, bone pins, sharpened and perforated animals’ teeth, perforated pebbles, bone ami slate harpoons, etc. None of this rubbish could ever have been used; the things are too badly made, and the material, though easy to work, is quite unsuitable. . It was claimed that they were ‘ votive ’; but that is a blessed word, which, like ‘horse trappings,’ generally serves to conceal onr ignorance.’’ A lively discussion then set in, in a French paper, concerning the discoveries, and M. Reinach was moved to an interest in them. He is admittedly a great scholar, but not, according to Mr Crawford, an experienced excavator. lie visited Gloze], and told the French Academy that, in his opinion, the inscribed clay tablets could not possibly be forgeries. He regarded the discovery as the most important in France for a hundred years; and he dated it about 4000-5500 n.c. He stated in an English journal that “ any expression of scepticism is now out of date, and need not even be discussed.” That was in. January a year ago. When Mr Crawford made his visit he was convinced that the glass furnace had existed, but that everything else was a modern fabrication. The Abbe Breuil, one of the first authorities, reported adversely on the finds. But, iu the excitement caused by the enthusiasm of those who believed in the discoveries, it was not easy for the sceptics, for some time, to secure a hearing. The believers differed as to the significance of the finds and theories which they might be taken to support. Then it was found by a civil engineer who chose to make investigations that one of the inscribed objects bad been surreptitiously inserted in the ground by a small tunnel, without disturbing the surface. Such tricks, Mr Crawford observes, should have deceived no experienced excavator. Later a M. Dussaud, whoso life has been devoted to a stud/ of inscriptions, pronounced that those at Glozel wore forgeries. A few weeks ago an International Commission reported that the tablets were buried since the war, and did not belong to the terrain in which they were found. Some were fakes and others authentic, but none prehistoric. The latest news is that the French committee which is concerned with prehistoric monuments, with one dissentient, has decided to ask the Government to remove Glozel from the list of prehistoric sites, for which a special custody is ordained, because it is valueless. Not all the believers have been convinced. Proceedings at law, which are now threatened, may assist to show by whom a hoax was deliberately perpetrated, and to what extent the parties hoaxed themselves. But Glozel, as a scientific discovery, would appear to have been quite effectually exploded.