OF MOULIN- QUIGNON. 



6-25 



inquiry, on the part of myself and others, 

 than was possible on the occasion of the 

 Conference at Abbeville, leads me now to 

 revert to my original opinion, and to be- 

 lieve that we were mistaken in conclud- 

 ing on that occasion that no fraud had 

 been practised. In addition to the ob- 

 jections originally urged, I found, on 

 washing a portion of the gravel contain- 

 ing the flint-implements (an experi- 

 ment contemplated, but unaccountably 

 omitted in May last), the discordance 

 between the mineral condition of the 

 flint fragments and the flint imple- 

 ments to be so great, as to render it evi- 

 dent that the two could not possibly 

 have been subjected during the same 

 time to the same influences. Further, 

 instead of being confined to a special 

 bed and a special level, we found, on a 

 subsequent visit, that specimens had 

 been brought by the men from Eparg- 

 nette (a bed on a yet higher level 

 and hitherto unproductive) ; and again, 

 we were given, at Mautort, at a low- 

 level valley-gravel-pit, three flint-imple- 

 ments of precisely the same type and in 



the same condition as those of Moulin- 

 Quignon ; whilst, from the indications 

 given by the men, the specimens would 

 have been taken from a bed of gravel 

 subordinate to the Loess, and not even 

 part of the mass of fluviatile low-level 

 gravel. Our verdict in this case re- 

 specting the flint-implements (leaving 

 apart the question of the jaw) will, 

 therefore, I fear, have to be reconsidered. 

 The precautions we took seemed to ren- 

 der imposition on the part of the work- 

 men impossible ; still, although it re- 

 mains undetected, I cannot, with the 

 strong and increased doubts (not one of 

 them since removed) attached to the 

 point, continue to accept the authenticity 

 of these specimens. The essential fact, 

 however, of the occurrence of genuine 

 flint-implements at Moulin-Quignon, 

 the Champ de Mars, and Menchecourt, 

 receives additional confirmation from 

 every fresh investigation, and places M. 

 Boucher de Perthes's important origi- 

 nal discovery beyond all doubt. — J. P., 

 Oct. 1863.— [Ed.] 



VOL. II. 



S S 



