342 M. BOUCHER DE PERTHES. 



weapons, but unfortunately the figures were rude, and did but 

 scanty justice to the originals. For seven years M. Boucher 

 de Perthes made few converts ; he was looked upon as an 

 enthusiast, almost as a madman. At length, in 1853, Dr. 

 Eigollot, till then sceptical, examined for himself the drift- 

 beds at the now celebrated St. Acheul near Amiens, found 

 several weapons, and believed. Still the new creed met with 

 but little favour; prophets are proverbially without honour 

 in their own country, and M. Boucher de Perthes was no 

 exception to the rule. At last, however, the tide turned in 

 his favour. In 1859, Dr Falconer examined his collection, 

 and on his return to England called the attention of Mr. 

 Prestwich, Mr. Evans, and other English geologists, to the 

 importance of his discoveries. In consequence, the Valley of 

 the Somme was visited in 1859 and I860, firstly, by Messrs. 

 Prestwich and Evans, and shortly afterwards by Sir C. Lyell, 

 Sir R Murchison, Messrs. Busk, Flower, Mylne, Godwin- 

 Austen, and Galton ; Professors Henslow, Eamsay, Eogers ; 

 Messrs. H. Christy, Eupert Jones, James Wyatt, myself, and 

 other geologists. M. L'Abb4 Cochet, therefore, in his "Eapport 

 address^ a Monsieur le Senateur Prefet de la Seine- Inferieure," 

 does no more than justice to our countrymen, when after a 

 well-merited tribute of praise to M. Boucher de Perthes and 

 Dr. Eigollot, he adds, " Mais ce sont les Geologues Anglais, 

 en tete desquels il faut placer d'abord MM. Prestwich et 

 Evans .... qui .... ont fini par clever a la dignit4 de fait 

 scientifique la de"couverte de M. Boucher de Perthes." 



My first visit to the Somme Valley was made in company 

 with Mr. Busk, Captain Galton, and Mr. Prestwich, and I com- 

 municated the results to the Natural History Eeview, in an 

 article " On the Evidence of the Antiquity of Man afforded by 

 the Physical Structure of the Somme Valley."* I have seen 

 no reason to modify the general conclusions contained in that 

 * Natural History Review, 1862, pp. 244269. 



