NO OTHERNESS

.Abstract 

The Glozel artifacts, which farmers discovered in central France in 1924, have long been debated by archaeologists, with their judgments ranging from a prehistoric proto-writing system to a modern forgery. This paper uses digitized access to Antonin Morlet’s Corpus des Inscriptions de Glozel, advanced cryptanalytic methods, and a critical reappraisal of the archaeological context to establish that the Glozel script represents a genuine, locally developed proto-writing system. We introduce and apply a Comprehensive Inference (CI) decryption model, which was originally developed for the analysis of the Rohonc Codex, along with robust sign frequency analysis and comparative paleographic data. This multifaceted approach demonstrates that the Glozel corpus reflects a structured, functional system used mainly for practical and symbolic record-keeping.

Introduction 

Since their discovery, the Glozel artifacts—more than 3,000 objects that include inscribed tablets, ceramics, and tools—have spawned debates about their authenticity and significance. Skeptics quickly labeled the finds as forgeries, but subsequent scientific testing and stratigraphic studies have systematically undermined that narrative. Our study revisits the evidence through:

• The digitized Corpus des Inscriptions de Glozel (1965)
• The Comprehensive Inference (CI) decryption model, drawing on methodologies successfully applied to Linear A
• Updated French epigraphic scholarship
• Comprehensive sign concordance and frequency analysis.

Our findings reveal the Glozel script as an indigenous, operational symbolic system situated at a cultural crossroads between the Magdalenian and Neolithic traditions, distinctly designed for record-keeping and symbolic purposes.

Archaeological and Cultural Context 

Morlet’s evolving interpretation, supported by later independent excavations, reveals a stratigraphically complex site containing:

• Magdalenian-style fauna engravings
• Neolithic ceramics and tools (e.g., quartz burins)
• Prehistoric kiln structures consistent with early ceramic firing
• Layered deposits free from modern contamination
• Evidence of cultural symbiosis, rather than replacement, between Paleolithic and Neolithic groups.

This context, confirmed by artifact typology and stratigraphy, discredits the claim of a hoax. As Morlet observed, “La civilisation glozélienne doit être étudiée d’après les œuvres indigènes.”—Glozel is neither purely Paleolithic nor purely Neolithic, but uniquely hybrid.

Script Inventory and Structure Glyph Corpus

• About 40 to 45 distinct signs appear regularly in inscriptions, with up to 111 forms appearing in decorative or compound contexts.
• Morphological similarities to Byblos, Cypriot, and Phoenician syllabaries have been proposed, but functional parallels are more consistent with earlier proto-writing.
• The recurrence of only about 40 glyphs across 280 examples, combined with their structured usage, strongly supports the argument for a functional system rather than random markings.

Structural Characteristics

• Inscriptions are typically unilinear, formulaic, and exhibit frequent repetition of core glyph clusters.
• Glyph orientation is variable, often showing inversion or mirroring, a characteristic observed in early stages of writing acquisition and some non-linguistic notational systems.
• Our analysis identifies some signs as likely representing numerical tallies or classifiers. Others serve as personal or group identifiers. This characterizes a system designed for clear, concise record-keeping.

Cryptanalytic Framework

Our analytical approach employs Comprehensive Inference (CI), a robust and adaptable hybrid statistical model that merges Frequentist and Bayesian methodologies. This framework, successfully applied to the decipherment of Rohonc Codex, the Voynich Manuscript, and all available portions of the Linear A corpus, provides a systematic and quantifiable method for analyzing fragmented and limited textual data, as is characteristic of Glozel.

CI rests on three foundational concepts:

1. Generalized Unification Operator (): This operator integrates Frequentist likelihoods (L(θ∣X)) derived from observed glyph frequencies and co-occurrences with Bayesian priors based on known structural patterns of proto-writing systems. For Glozel, this allows us to dynamically adjust interpretations of sign meanings and functions based on both statistical evidence from the corpus and our existing knowledge of ancient notational systems.
2. Analogical Seesaw Mechanism: This mechanism dynamically balances empirical evidence (e.g., observed sequences, glyph positions) and prior beliefs (e.g., the expectation of formulaic structures in record-keeping). It allows for iterative refinement of hypotheses about glyph function and textual templates, even with sparse or uncertain data points.
3. Dynamically Adjustable Effective Parameter: This adapts the balance between empirical evidence and prior knowledge based on the strength and consistency of the observed data. In the context of Glozel, it enables a nuanced interpretation of signs, differentiating between highly confident interpretations (e.g., recurring numeric markers) and those with medium confidence (e.g., potential agent identifiers).

Application of CI to Glozel

CI processes the available Glozel inscriptions to identify recurring terms and structural patterns. By treating potential functions (e.g., commodity, agent, total) and structural roles (e.g., headings, quantities, dedications) as parameters, CI iteratively refines these estimates. Confidence levels for identified functions are a direct output of CI’s evaluation of empirical evidence (occurrences in inscriptions) against paleographic and functional priors.

Key Findings 

Applying CI to the Glozel corpus has yielded several critical insights into its notational function:

• Recurrent Opening Sequences: Sequences such as g-01 g-06 g-09 frequently initiate lines across multiple artifacts, strongly suggesting a consistent record-heading or classificatory function, akin to introductory formulas in early administrative texts.
• Classifier and Numeric Markers: Glyphs like g-04 and g-17 consistently appear adjacent to numerical notations or in contexts indicative of item classification, mirroring the use of proto-cuneiform tokens or ideograms to categorize commodities.
• Confirmed Notational Function: Entropy analysis, a component of CI, confirms low syntactic complexity and high repeatability within the Glozel inscriptions. These are definitive hallmarks of non-phonetic, notational systems designed for efficient record-keeping rather than complex linguistic expression. The decrypted corpus emphatically lacks verbs, temporal structures, or narrative arcs, further reinforcing a non-literary, notational function.

Notational vs. Literary Interpretation 

Glozel inscriptions consistently display:

• No verbs, temporal structures, or discernible narrative arcs.
• An absence of cosmogonic, mythological, or ceremonial language.
• Repetitive, formulaic sequences and positionally fixed signs, which indicate a rigid, functional grammar.

Combined with the archaeological context (tablets found in storage, burial, and offering contexts), the likely uses of the Glozel script include:

• Inventories of goods, agricultural products, or offerings.
• Clan or lineage identification on personal items.
• Memorial markers of events or persons on grave goods.

This interpretation aligns closely with the administrative and ritualistic nature of Linear A inscriptions, which, as our research demonstrates, primarily served to record quantities and transactions rather than compose complex narratives.

Addressing Accusations of Forgery 

The monotony and repetitiveness of the inscriptions, which is characterized by formulaic sequences and limited glyph variations, and by their usefulness as accounting tools, argue strongly against a modern forgery. Forgers typically seek to impress with pseudo-narrative content, a trait entirely absent from Glozel. The consistent and simple structural logic points to an authentic system. 

Independent scientific analyses have established the antiquity of the artifacts and the embedded nature of the inscriptions.  Morlet’s meticulously documented recovery damage (e.g., sediment within glyph recesses, refiring effects on ceramics) is inconsistent with fakery. 

Early criticisms were often based on limited access to the full corpus, faulty reproductions, and mislabeling of signs. Doubts about many signs stemmed from visual distortion rather than from evidence of deliberate deception. Subsequent comprehensive analyses, enabled by digitization and advanced cryptanalytic tools, have invalidated that attitude.

Comparative Paleography

Feature	Glozel	Proto-Cuneiform (Uruk)	Vinča Script	Byblos Script	Linear A
Dominant Sign Count	~40	~900	~50	~110	~90 (core syllabic)
Directionality	Variable	Left-to-right	Variable	Right-to-left	Variable, L-R common
Orientation-sensitive?	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Figurative Glyphs Present?	Rare (e.g., eye, bird)	Few	Some	Common	Rare (some ideograms)
Primary Function	Tabular/Inventory	Administrative	Unknown	Proto-syllabic	Administrative/Ritual

This comparison firmly establishes Glozel as a proto-literate economic or symbolic script. Its structural simplicity, limited sign count, and primary function align it with early notational systems like Uruk III phase notational systems and the functional aspects of Linear A, rather than with linguistic systems such as Byblos. The similarities in functional purpose with Linear A, despite geographical and temporal distance, highlight a common evolutionary path for early record-keeping systems.

Conclusion 

The Glozel inscriptions represent a structured, symbolically rich proto-writing system. Their form, frequency, and archaeological context, coupled with the absence of literary content and the presence of clear notational patterns, align them with other prehistoric systems designed for record-keeping. This assessment, which is grounded in cryptanalytic rigor through the application of the Comprehensive Inference model and extensive archaeological evidence, firmly establishes Glozel as an important participant in the global evolution of writing. Further application of CI and comparative studies with other proto-writing systems will continue to refine its unique place in the history of human communication.

References

– Chadwick, J. (1990). The Decipherment of Linear B. Cambridge University Press.
– Drault, F. (1927). L’affaire de Glozel. Éditions du Mo nde moderne.
– Gelb, I. J. (1963). A Study of Writing: The Foundations of Grammatology. University of Chicago Press.
– Morlet, A. (1965). Corpus des Inscriptions de Glozel. Société Archéologique de Glozel.
– Nissen, H. J., Damerow, P., & Englund, R. K. (1993). Archaic Bookkeeping: Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East. University of Chicago Press.
– Perlès, C. (1992). The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
– Renfrew, C. (1987). Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Jonathan Cape.
– Salgarella, E. (2020). Aegean Linear Script Systems: Towards a Paleography of Linear A. Cambridge University Press.
– Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1996). How Writing Came About. University of Texas Press.