Glozel tablets [Was: Barba and Bestia: bH>b (dissimilation)]

Rick McCallister:

> Anybody know anything about the GLozel tablets? I never heard of them
> till I saw the Wiki article. Are they Lepontic? If so, why the big
> deal?
>
> Glozel tablets
> Some 100 ceramic tablets bearing inscriptions are among the artefacts
> found at Glozel. The inscriptions are, on average, on six or seven
> lines, mostly on a single side, although some specimens are inscribed
> on both faces.
> The symbols on the tablets are reminiscent of the Phoenician
> alphabet, but they have not been conclusively deciphered. There were
> numerous claims of decypherment, including identification of the
> language of the inscriptions as Basque, Chaldean, Eteocretan, Hebrew,
> Iberian, Latin, Berber, Ligurian, Phoenician and Turkic.[2][3][4]
> In 1982, Hans-Rudolf Hitz suggested a Celtic origin for the
> inscriptions, and dated the inscriptions to between the 3rd century
> BC and the 1st century AD, suggesting a Gaulish dialect. He counts 25
> signs, augmented by some 60 variations and ligatures. Hitz
> hypothesizes that the alphabet was influenced by the Lepontic
> alphabet of Lugano, itself descended from the Etruscan alphabet,
> reading some Lepontic proper names like Setu (Lepontic Setu-pokios),
> Attec (Lepontic Ati, Atecua), Uenit (Lepontic Uenia), Tepu (Lepontic
> Atepu). Hitz even claims discovery of the toponym Glozel itself, as
> nemu chlausei "in the sacred place of Glozel" (comparing nemu to
> Gaulish nemeton).

I've never heard of them. But I can throw in some more reading:

The English Wikipedia article isn't very good, but the French is better.
Following the links from the Wiki article I find (e.g.):

<http://www.glozel.net/pdf/Scientific_Analyses_at_Glozel.pdf>
<http://www.glozel.net/pdf/The_Glozel_Writing.pdf>
<http://www.glozel.net/pdf/The_Bone_Scripts_from_Glozel.pdf>

(I see that they are also linked from the English article)

I gather that the finds are highly problematic. It's likely that some
artifacts were thrown into the digs and that others have been
manipulated after digging (although maybe just to make the script
visible). Human remains can be dated to the 16th-19th centuries.
Inscribed animal bones and much pottery are medieval (but how the
reindeers got there beats me ... maybe it's medieval Santa's workshop).
And some items may be from the Celtic period, but the dating is
insecure. If the items are genuine they seem to be offerings, dug out
and reused (and copied on bones) in medieval glassmaker's furnaces (and
thereby resetting the pottery dates), perhaps reused for 18th century
burials. But apparently there's no corraborating evidence -- surrounding
settlements, similar finds elsewhere -- for their authenticity. OTOH, if
the medieval dates are secure the existence of the script isn't easy to
explain.

If they _are_ authentic it seems to me that Hirtz's Celtic readings are
a good start, and certainly better than all those other fantasies, but
that's a worthless opinion. Douglas might have one of more substance.

--
Trond Engen