From: dgkilday57
Message: 64723
Date: 2009-08-13
>The viewpoint of the three PDF articles seems reasonable to me. That is, we appear to be dealing with some actual Gaulish inscriptions, some artefacts of medieval glassmakers with characters copied or imitated from the inscriptions, and modern forest fires making the dating of the objects difficult.
> [...]
>
> 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.