Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T06:25:04.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Glozel Forgeries*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

A. Vayson de Pradenne
A. Vayson de Pradenne*
Affiliation:
President of the Prehistoric Society of France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The readers of ANTIQUITY were, from the first, correctly informed about Glozel. But, having exposed the fraud, the Editor decided to ignore the torrent of polemics which ensued. His attitude was a wise one, for a forgery can only be scotched in its own country.

Why then revert now to the subject? Are there not good reasons for saying no more about it? One might urge, for instance, that the affair was now at an end: that it was an absurd hoax which now has been recognized as such by practically all prehistorians; that there remain only a few obstinate dupes who refuse to admit their original mistake; and that in the heat of controversy, inexpert people have become involved and have taken the affair out of the domain of science: so that it has now ceased to be of interest to serious students—it is no longer Science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 4 , Issue 14 , June 1930 , pp. 201 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1930

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Translated by the EDITOR. It will of course be realized that detailed exposures of the hoax have been published in numerous journals and do not therefore require reiteration in an article of a general character like this. Apart from the original exposure by MM. Vayson and Dussaud, the official reports referred to below give detailed categorical proofs of forgery.—Ed.

References

page 212 note † In using the expression ‘majority’ I wished to be strictly accurate. The only ‘genuine’ objects in my opinion, were, as I said, the bricks, crucibles and glass fragments and other dCbris from the glass kiln, together with a few minute flint chips. All except the last were plainly of quite a late date, and irrelevant to the main issue. I never had the least doubt that the rest of the stuff was all of it forged.—TRANSLATOR.

page 221 note * In view of the facts already stated one cannot help hoping that this may not be vindictive .—TRANSLATOR.