What it's used for here
Antiquity 4(14): 201-222. The leading French sceptic's English-language summary of the archaeological case against Glozel: incoherent association of Palaeolithic, Neolithic and alphabetic material, fresh breaks, soft unfired clay, and the pattern of finds.
Our copy
Research copy, for editors and curators. The work is the publisher's, so readers are sent to it. We keep this copy so the citation can be checked if the page changes or goes.
doi.org · fetched 31 Oct 2026
Loading…
Cited by on this site 2 records
Cite it
André Vayson de Pradenne (1930). The Glozel Forgeries. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00004518
@article{vayson1930forgeries,
author = {André Vayson de Pradenne},
title = {The Glozel Forgeries},
year = {1930},
doi = {10.1017/S0003598X00004518},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00004518}
}TY - JOUR TI - The Glozel Forgeries AU - André Vayson de Pradenne PY - 1930 DO - 10.1017/S0003598X00004518 UR - https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00004518 ER -
. “The Glozel Forgeries.” 1930. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00004518.