ANTEDILUVIAN IIISTOET IN POITOU. 529 



discovery of certain caves described by tliem. Miss Austin, in one 

 of her novels, describing a somewliat stupid young man, says, that 

 "Jack knew a puddle when he saw one," and we suppose 

 there is no one who does not know a cavern when he happens to 

 see one. We remember once to have heard of a somewhat similar 

 dispute between two entomologists, who were out collecting together. 

 One of them showed to the other a beetle, which he had just found. 

 " What is this ?" he asked. " Oh," replied the second, " it is such 

 and such a beetle, and I am very glad I have found it, as it has never 

 yet been observed in this country." ^^You found it ?" answered the 

 first, "it was I. I have just swept it off that clematis." " Tes," 

 replied the second, " but you didn't know what it was," and so on. 

 The Entomologists however, were not so foolish as to rush into print, 

 and we regret that M.M. Brouillet and Meillet could not keep their 

 quarrels to themselves. It is a matter of small importance by whom 

 the cavern of Chaffaud was discovered ; the real merit consisted in 

 examining it carefully. There is, however, one discovery which M. 

 Meillet generously offered to share with M. Brouillet, and w^hich the 

 latter entirely repudiates. Many of the bones obtained from the 

 caverns examined by these gentlemen, have upon them very curious 

 engravings ; but the most remarkable specimen of all, is a bone on 

 which are engraved several Sanscrit letters. This extraordinary 

 specimen was found in tlie stalagmite, " pele-mele avec des os 

 " d'hyene, d'ours, d'aurochs, &c., dans une position bien definie. C'est 

 " M. Brouillet et moi qui les avons trouves nous-memes et dans un 

 " terrain vierge de toute fouille." M. Brouillet, however, indignantly 

 repudiates the soft impeachment. " I had nothing to do with it," 

 he says, " and it was M. Meillet alone who found this specimen." 

 Why should M. Brouillet indignantly repudiate that w^hich is with- 

 out doubt the most remarkable fact recorded in the volume ? The 

 answer is very curious. The engravings are a forgery — the work of 

 some miscreant, who, knowing that the majority of Ethnologists 

 believed that in very ancient times an Eastern nation, speaking a 

 language belonging to the Sanscrit family had migrated into Eui'ope, 

 thought rightly, that to discover for the first time traces of the use 

 of a Sanscrit alphabet, or indeed of any alphabet at all at so ancient 

 a period, w^ould be a fact of the greatest interest. 



Fortunately, however, such a fraud was almost certain to be 

 detected, and in this case the discovery has been immediate. The 

 forger, whoever he may be, did not use the old Sanscrit characters, 



