Talk:Glozel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject France (Rated Start-Class) France Portal Glozel is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Start-Class) Archaeology Portal This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. WikiProject Rational Skepticism      (Rated Start-Class) This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Comments

There can be no case of "Stone Age writing" here. The artifacts clearly date to various epochs, and even if some of the artifacts are Neolithic, the presence of Iron Age, Medieval and even Modern bones shows that the objects, if genuine, must have been interred at a time when they were already ancient. The possibility that the tablets contain Gaulish inscriptions is sensational enough, and of great importance for Celtic studies, comparable to the Lepontic inscriptions. But Gerard's analysis dates to 2005, and we'll have to wait for how it is received by experts. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In the fourth para under Discovery and Excavation "After 1942, a new law outlawed private excavations, and the site remained untouched until the Ministry of Culture re-opened excavations in 1938." These dates don't make sense, 1938 does not follow 1942. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.59.242 (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)