JET. 51.] MOULIN QUIGNON. 179 



But the authenticity of the jaw, which M. Boucher 

 de Perthes firmly believed to be of the same age as the 

 accepted palaeolithic implements, was generally quest- 

 ioned in face of his assertion of having extricated it 

 with his own hands on the 28th of March 1863. The 

 announcement, as we have said, had been made early 

 in April, and two days later Evans and Prestwich were 

 at Abbeville, Falconer following on the 14th, when the 

 evidence was most minutely examined and sifted. 

 Naturally the most lively interest was shown in the 

 subject on both sides of the Channel. Falconer at first 

 had been inclined to believe in the remote age of the 

 jaw, but the " deliberate scrutiny " of the materials 

 which he carried away from Abbeville compelled him 

 eventually to alter his opinion. 



M. de Quatrefages, the eminent naturalist, was also 

 on the spot, and carried the jaw back with him to 

 Paris, while M. de Perthes confided to Falconer a 

 detached molar from the jaw, which he took to London 

 for examination. Here it was submitted to his two 

 friends, Mr George Busk, F.R.S., and Mr (Sir John) 

 Tomes, F.R.S., both of whom were practised anthro- 

 pologists. They proceeded to saw up the detached 

 molar from Moulin Quignon, and the question was soon 

 settled. To quote Falconer's words, it proved to be 

 quite recent ; the section was white, glistening, full of 

 gelatine, and fresh-looking. There was an end of the 

 case. First, the flint hatchets were pronounced by 

 highly competent experts (Evans and Prestwich) to be 

 spurious ; secondly, the reputed fossil jaw showed no 

 character different from those that may be met with in 

 the contents of a London churchyard. 



M. de Quatrefages, like the majority of his French 

 confreres, persisted in the jaw being a genuine fossil, 



