The Mysterious Glozel Artifacts

Some of those symbols look similar to ones found in Klaus Dona's talks and slides on ancient artifacts.

I'm minded particularly of Pre Columbian artifacts.

There does appears to be earlier written languages that pre-date Sumerian cuneiform, although mainstream archeology seems to have a real problem accepting this,

In two thousand years when someone finds one of our museums buried deep in the dirt and they start dating the finds inside will they believe it is a hoax because there are so many different dates to the items?


I am sure that ancient man collected artifacts just like we do and probably had a place to keep them...

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by chiefsmom

 

reply to post by stirling

 

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

I think that the main reason that this case is generally thought to be a hoax is because of the varying ages of the artifacts found. The artifacts themselves however appear to be authentic (at least IMO) and some of them have be tested.



en.wikipedia.org...

Glass found at Glozel was dated spectrographically in the 1920s, and again in the 1990s at the SLOWPOKE reactor at the University of Toronto by neutron activation analysis. Both analyses place the glass fragments in the medieval period. Alice and Sam Gerard together with Robert Liris in 1995 managed to have two bone tubes found in Tomb II C-14 dated at the AMS C-14 laboratory at the University of Arizona, finding a 13th century date.

Thermoluminescence dating of Glozel pottery in 1974 confirmed that the pottery was not produced recently. By 1979, 39 TL dates on 27 artifacts separated the artifacts into three groups: the first between 300 BC and 300 AD (Celtic and Roman Gaul), the second medieval, centered on the 13th century, and the third recent. TL datings of 1983 performed in Oxford range from the 4th century to the medieval period.

Carbon-14 datings of bone fragments range from the 13th to the 20th century. Three C-14 analyses performed in Oxford in 1984 dated a piece of charcoal to the 11th to 13th century, and a fragment of an ivory ring to the 15th century. A human femur was dated to the 5th century. Some archaeologists dated the rune stones on a fantastic age (about 8000 BC). This was displayed by experts such as Dr. Lois Capitan as clumsy forgery. The reason is that ca. 8000 BC no meaningful civilization could have existed

My thought is that if this was not created to be a hoax, it could have been a collection of artifacts that were stashed there long ago.


I think that this quote below is not very logical thinking. You don't have to have a "meaningful" civilization to create the artifacts in question.

Some archaeologists dated the rune stones on a fantastic age (about 8000 BC). This was displayed by experts such as Dr. Lois Capitan as clumsy forgery. The reason is that ca. 8000 BC no meaningful civilization could have existed

edit on 11-3-2013 by isyeye because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-3-2013 by isyeye because: (no reason given)

Here's an interesting idea, if the objects where all from diffeent time periods...who's to say thatwhere they where found was maybe just a storehouse for holding findings made by a MEDIAEVAL ARCHEOLOGIST? hmmmm.... whenever something like this crops up, and it does quite often, basicaly has archeologists and scholars scratching there heads and stating that its a hoax s its not exclusive to that area or time period, and i wonder, are these scholars really that narrow minded to think that the study of ancient artefacts only came about in this day and age? They are obviously removable objects, ergo.... they could have been brought together in one place from different time periods by an earlier, ancient scholar,who was maybe a precursor to modern archeology/paleontology.... you all catch my drift peeps?

PEACE OUT!!

EDIT:- to add that SAKRATERI beat me to it in the post just above this one, he basicaly said in not so many words exactly what I was trying to get across......go figure!!

S&F. I read a few articles on these in other places on the net. I don't remember seeing them here although they could have been posted within a thread somewhere. They are interesting artifacts. I'll have to see what others say about them here in this thread. Can't understand why no flag? Maybe I already did.

The artifacts were probably from an ancient collector. Someone brought them from Europe. I feel they may have been used as trade artifacts long ago.

Initially, many experts argued in favor of a hoax, but advanced testing from later decades confirmed that many of the Glozel artifacts were most likely of genuine antiquity.

Wikipedia is uaully skeptical and usually overlooks evidence because of that, so to see them say that above is a pretty bold statement.

greyer

Initially, many experts argued in favor of a hoax, but advanced testing from later decades confirmed that many of the Glozel artifacts were most likely of genuine antiquity.

Wikipedia is uaully skeptical and usually overlooks evidence because of that, so to see them say that above is a pretty bold statement.

Wikipedia is under no central editing authority and for most subjects anyone can edit a contribution. It does however usually require evidence for something before stating it is true.


From the same source

Glass found at Glozel was dated spectrographically in the 1920s, and again in the 1990s at the SLOWPOKE reactor at the University of Toronto by neutron activation analysis. Both analyses place the glass fragments in the medieval period. Alice and Sam Gerard together with Robert Liris in 1995 managed to have two bone tubes found in Tomb II C-14 dated at the AMS C-14 laboratory at the University of Arizona, finding a 13th-century date.

Thermoluminescence dating of Glozel pottery in 1974 confirmed that the pottery was not produced recently. By 1979, 39 TL dates on 27 artifacts separated the artifacts into three groups: the first between 300 BC and 300 AD (Celtic and Roman Gaul), the second medieval, centered on the 13th century, and the third recent. TL datings of 1983 performed in Oxford range from the 4th century to the medieval period.

Carbon-14 datings of bone fragments range from the 13th to the 20th century. Three C-14 analyses performed in Oxford in 1984 dated a piece of charcoal to the 11th to 13th century, and a fragment of an ivory ring to the 15th century. A human femur was dated to the 5th century. Some archaeologists dated the rune stones on a fantastic age (about 8000 BC). This was displayed by experts such as Dr. Lois Capitan as clumsy forgery.

IAMTAT
reply to post by isyeye

 

There are some remarkable similarities to this mysterious and, as yet, still untranslated and explained artifact.


It was discussed at length on this earlier thread...to no avail.
Perhaps some fresh eyes and minds can make sense of it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was actually thinking the exact same thing right before I saw your post. Synchronicity, GMTA or just plain ATS mojo? (cue the mysterious music...)

I remember that thread now but haven't thought of it in ages. Wasn't there someone there who claimed to be able to read/decipher this "bowl"? Strangeness abounded if I remember correctly...

These artifacts definitely have similarities to that item and they are really interesting in their own right. Never heard of this site or artifacts before so an S&F is definitely in order to the OP.

Hanslune
It does however usually require evidence for something before stating it is true.

Oh yeah, but for things that happen in history in which do not have much evidence, it is important not to be a complete skeptic. Because if you are a skeptic than you are going to miss the one or two things which are actually true. Believing somebody's lie a few times and being able to perceive the truth of one thing is better than to just not believe in all things just because you know they are all not true.

An example of this thread, the Glozel writing itself mimics the lost Atlantis writing of South America, so to have that writing in two parts of the world just adds on to the overall Atlantis theory, which in the mind of a skeptic is so little because they have not looked into the existing evidence, turning away from it before they dig into it.