GREAT HOAX STORY.

Grey River Argus, 1 December 1927, Page 6

GREAT HOAX STORY.

Scientific World Misled. ' PREHISTORIC” WRITINGS. BONES of modern cows A great sensation has been caused in sc eiiiilie circles in Paris, notably in the learn d world of history and archaeology, by Al. Rene Dussaud, a distinguished French savant and member of the Academy of Classical Inscriptions and Literature. In a long and important communication to that select body he has asserted that th*famous archaeological discoveries of Glozel near Vichy, w|hich for the last three years’ have passionately interested th “whole scientific, world were ‘ 1 fakes. ”

These revelations caused a tremendous stir among members of the Institute of France. They were much divided, not only on thP authenticity of the discoveries, but as to the periods to which they belonged. So the Academy of Classical Inscriptions and Literature decided to hold its meeting in camera and to hear M. Dus—sand’s r port. The finds of - archaeological relics at Glozel date from three years ago. A local farmer, when digging in his field brought to light some curious old bricks and broken potteries with mysterious inscriptons on them. Tie informed a local doctor of his discovery. The curious old stones were shown to learned palaeologists, who declared them to be of high historical value. Further excavations were made, and more .siou'S twith. inscriptions were found iu what resembled prehistoric graves.

The Academy of Classical Inscriptions and Literature was informed and research continued. Some of the most eminent mombi' rs of that Academy—such as M. Salomon Reinach and Camille Julian, professor of the College of France. ami some of the greatest French experts on the Gallo-Roman period—spent considerable time studying Glozel finds, and the savants declared thorn to be genuine.

But a “scientific” quarrel broke out regarding these vestiges of a long past ag l '. One one side there was M. Salomon Reinach and his supporters who affirmed that they were absolute lv certain these stones and potteries of Glozel dated from the Stone Ago and wcip at least 5,500 years old. They added that the inscriptions on the stones wore a revelation that prehistoric man could read ami write, ami that lhe relies had an alphabet of their own. which bore curious res) mblonce to the Phoenician alphabet On the other hand. M. Garni!Jullian. in an important statement to th? Academy of Classical Inscriptions ami Literature, stated that M. Reina eh was wrong. AT. Jullian had mad' << long study Af th? Glozel relics, and he said he had come to the definite con elusion that they dated from the Gal-lo-Roman period, or about the third century of the Christian era. There was till Tefore a difference of som?

3000 years between the two learne I savants.

M. Jullian said he had been able to ■•pad most of the inscriptions engraved on the stones. They all r?f rred to sorcery, he said, ami where they wore found was in all probability the haunt oF witches of the common type of the period of Diocletian 'third century A. 1;.). While the discussions continue 1 between the two camps of acadamicians researches continued at Glozel. Th? place beanie such an attraction for people from all parts of the world who wore interested in archaeology that the “ Cavern of Glozel” had to be enclosed and transformed into a museum, with guardians and a four franc entrance- fee. Then came the “Coup de Theatre,’ when M. Dussaud, “threw a big stone into the frogs ’ pond,” as the French say. It astonished members of the Academy, who included M. Salomon Reinach and M. Cam ill? Jullian. M. Dussaud said the discoveries made at Glozel had neither archaeological nor historical values. He declared that the inscriptions on the stones had no sense what eV r, and wore a gross and vulgar imitation in some instances of the letters of the ancient alphabets—the Roman letter “B” being mixed up by some ‘‘manufacturer of archaeological roues’' with letters of the classical Flioeni ci an alphabet. On the first st on, ■ —a sort of a brick' —brought to light by the Glozel farmer. were unintelligible signs ■which n sonibled no kind of writing. They had been grossly engraved after the brich had been fired. Later discoveries showed that the “manufacturer” had learned some* thing. The engraving of the signs had been made before the brick had had been fired. A reindeer was fdund drawn c:a one s>one. M. Dussaud said that was simply copied by th? “fakir” of Glozel from a dictionary of archaeology. Thp most crushing proof given bv M. Dussaud that the Glozel discoveries are the work of an imposter is the evidence of a French engineer, 51. Bezons de Varenne, who was pr* sent, at some of the researches. The person who was digging the ground struck something hard with his pick.

M. de Varenne immediately had a trench mad/ 1 at the side of the object. It was in this case a piece of nottery. He then discovered, while digging lhe trench, that a portion of the earth had been recently disturbed, doubtl,'ss in the course of making a hole in which to place the archaeological remains.

Later on M. de Varenne, as the evidence* w*ent on to say, while examining one of the big stones forming a sort of ancient grave in which pottery and engraved bricks were discovered, was able to pass his arm along the side of the stone —rwhich would haxv been impossible if centuries had pressed the earth against the stone. M. Dussaud’s conclusion was that the Government should take the affair in hand, and have an inquiry made. Xe suggested a chemical examination certain “prehistoric tools made ot

bones,” which were among the “rare remains found in the Cavern of Glozel.” He says he feels certain that it will be proved that these bones comio from cows who hut a Few years ago wiere still enjoying the grass in the fields of Glozel.