622 HUMAN JAW AND FLINT-IMPLEMENTS 



' Cette 3ieme conclusion a ete adoptee par toutes les personnes pre- 

 sentes sauf par M. Falconer, qui reserve son opinion jusqu'a plus ample 

 informe. 



1 4. II n'y a aucune raison suffisante pour revoquer en doute la con- 

 temporaneite du depot des silex tailles avec celui de la rnachoire 

 trouvee dans la " Couche Noire." 



' Cette proposition est adoptee par tous les membres de la reunion 

 sauf par MM. Falconer et Busk, qui desirent reserver leur opinion.' 



My verdict on the whole case, which is embodied in the 

 proces-verbaux, was as follows : — 



' I am of opinion that the finding of the human jaw at Moulin- 

 Quignon is authentic ; but that the characters which it presents, taken 

 in connection with the conditions under which it lay, are not consistent 

 Avith the said jaw being of any very great antiquity.' 



Professor Busk expressed his in the following terms : — 



' Mr. Busk desires to add, that although he is of opinion, judging 

 from the external condition of the jaw, and from other considerations of 

 a more circumstantial nature, that there is no longer reason to doubt 

 that the jaw was found in the situation and under the conditions re- 

 ported by M. Boucher de Perthes, nevertheless it appears to him that 

 the internal condition of the bone is wholly irreconcileable with an 

 antiquity equal to that assigned to the deposits in which it was found.' 



Throughout he questioned the antiquity of the jaw. 



The first clause of my verdict, 'that the finding of the 

 human jaw at Moulm-Quignon is authentic,' was intended to 

 absolve the workmen from the imputation of having fraudu- 

 lently hitroduced the bone into the bed, when no direct proof 

 could be adduced to support it ; while by the second clause 

 it was meant to express my opinion that the bone was not of 

 fossil antiquity, i.e. not reaching further back than some 

 date in the modern period. I think it necessary to indicate 

 this clearly, as a wider meaning appears to have been 

 attached to my use of the term ' authenticity of finding,' 

 in the communications which were made to the ' Academy 

 of Sciences ' by M. Milne-Edwards and by M. Quatrefages, 

 on the 18th May, than I intended the words to convey. They 

 did not include an admission of the ' authenticity of the jaw' 

 as a true fossil bone. The ' proces-verbaux ' show that from 

 first to last I entertained an» adverse opinion on this head. 



The necessarily hurried proceedings and unexpected re- 

 sults at the close of the Conference were not favourable to a 

 well considered and deliberate verdict, under the perplexing 

 contradictions of the case. I now believe that I committed 

 an error of judgment in not reserving my opinion on all the 

 moot points, instead of reserving it upon three only. I must 

 bear the blame which this admission carries with it, consider- 

 ing how strong my negative convictions, founded upon the 



