pression:- "It appears to me impossible that this can have been artificially formed."*

Thus, nothing has yet appeared to confirm the doubts raised as to the authenticity of the jaw-bone of Abbeville. On the contrary, everything tends to support the account of M. de Perthes as to the circumstances of its discovery. But, I am most willing to acknowledge, these researches are not yet finished. The entire jaw-bone must be washed and the water examined, in order to see if anything is contained in it which would cause the matrix to adhere to the surface. A portion, at least, of the bone must also be analyzed for the purpose of ascertaining its composition.

All these experiments must be made comparatively. The last, especially, will only be of use, if another fragment of bone taken from the same or a precisely similar stratum be analyzed at the same time. It is well known how much the preservation of bones depends on the composition of the soil; and of this I am myself able to give a striking example.

In two places in Alsace at some distance from each other, in the environs of Schelestadt and Birch willer, are found tumuli which, from the nature of their contents, are known to be of the same period and to belong to the bronze age. The first, I have heard, are in a peaty soil; the second, which I have seen, are in a soil entirely sandy. In the excavations near Schelestadt, entire skeletons have often been found with their most delicate parts in a complete state of preservation.f But in the excavations made in my presence three years ago in the forest of Schirein, the almost entire absence of bones was generally remarked. In one of these old tombs was found an entire set of female ornaments, consisting of a girdle, necklace, bracelets, and eardrops, disposed almost as when they were buried upon the body. But all that remained of the skeleton was a silicified fragment of one of the temporal bones; the rest was decomposed.

From this fact we can understand that, for a case like the one in question to be conclusive, the chemical analysis should be made at the same time upon the disputed object, and upon another of the same nature, which is undoubtedly authentic, and which may be used for the purpose of comparison. Yet even an isolated analysis of the

M. Lartet took part in this investigation. Like myself, he several times requested M. Delesse to use the strictest scrutiny.

Unfortunately none of these skeletons, nor even the skulls, have been pre served. Let us hope that the time will come when archæologists will know that the bones from these ancient tombs are as valuable to science as the specimens of brass and ironwork. But how many anthropological treasures have been lost, even in consequence of the ardour of the students of antiquity!

Abbeville jaw-bone would possess real interest, and might afford presumptive evidence. I hope, therefore, that M. de Perthes will shortly permit a piece of this bone to be detached, and even that he will allow it to be separated from its matrix. His well-known love of truta affords us a sure guarantee of this. But we can understand that before this is done he desires that the present condition of the jaw-bone shall be proved by the greatest possible number of witnesses; for this, once destroyed, cannot be reproduced, any more than can the circumstances of its discovery.

(This paper was written when I received the accompanying letter from M. Delesse, who responds to the desire I had expressed, after he had examined the above-mentioned remains.)

Letter from M. Delesse to M. de Quatrefages.

I believe I recollect that you asked my opinion of the curious fossils which have lately been found at Moulin-Quignon. It appears to me that the flint hatchets, and especially the human jaw-bone are really authentic. Their surface is encrusted with a brown manganetic limonite, presenting in some points a metallic lustre in such a manner that its deposition points out an inimitable action of nature herself. On the jaw-bone as on the worked flints, this limonite cements together clay, pieces of flint, and rounded grains of hyaline quartz. The fossils which have been found were evidently similarly deposited. They were enveloped in the brown clay which you have pointed out as lying near the bottom of the diluvium at Moulin-Quignon.

THIRD PAPER ON THE ABBEVILLE JAW-BONE.

By M. de Quatrefages.

The last paper which I had the honour of reading to the Academy respecting this human jaw-bone extracted by M. de Perthes from the Abbeville diluvium, appears to have been interpreted by some persons in a manner which I desire to rectify. It was considered as a proof of my doubts of the authenticity of the discovery. I hope that the attentive reading of my paper will already have shown how little my ideas upon this subject were understood. My first convictions, far from being shaken by the minute and oft-repeated experiments which I made upon the haches and jaw-bone, have only been strengthened. The misunderstanding which I am endeavouring to clear up, doubtless proceeds from the general tone of the two papers which I have had the honour of presenting to the Academy. In fact, at the time of my first communication I was not yet aware that all the haches brought from Moulin-Quignon had been declared spurious or doubtful, and

that, in consequence the authenticity of the jaw-bone itself was a subject for denial. I confined myself, then, to pointing out the motives which led me to the admission of that authenticity, and to dealing with the anthropological question, which at that time was evidently of paramount importance. But, from the moment when doubt was thrown upon the authenticity of the subject of this study, I have been obliged to endeavour to furnish proofs of it. Now, in a question of this nature, I consider that the man of science should not act like a counsel who brings forward only the facts and arguments favourable to his cause. He ought, on the contrary, to conduct his observations with all the severity that his adversaries themselves could bring to bear upon the examination, to put before his readers the pro and con, and place them in a position to judge for themselves. This is what I have endeavoured to do; but at the same time, I have very clearly established my own conclusions, viz.-That all my researches resulted in a confirmation of the facts related by M. de Perthes.

I have had the pleasure of seeing my convictions shared by all those who have been themselves willing to verify the facts upon which they rest. M. Delesse, at the close of a second investigation, longer and more minute than the first, remained entirely convinced of the identity of the matrices which covered one of my haches and a part of the jawbone, of the antiquity of this matrix, and of the impossibility of imitating it artificially. MM. Desnoyers and Gandry have acknowledged the jaw-bone as perfectly authentic, as well as the two haches which I brought from Abbeville. MM. de Vibraye and Lyman, who have just been studying flints in Denmark, have expressed the same convictions. M. Pictet, after having examined the jaw-bone with the greatest care, has declared to me that he did not expect to "find in it such marks of genuineness," and has authorized me to repeat before the Academy that he left with an entire conviction of its authenticity. To these testimonies, which begin to counterbalance those hitherto opposed to me, I will add a few brief considerations.

And we will first notice that the greatest objection which has been made to the authenticity of the jaw-bone rests upon the examination of a tooth which has been found, it is said, very white, and preserving at least a great proportion of its original gelatine. I have partly replied before-hand to this last argument. It is evident that the conditions under which any portion of a skeleton is placed would have considerable influence upon its state of preservation. It is evident also that the texture of the part itself exercises an analogous influence. Now, in the whole skeleton no part is so well protected

as the teeth, against the action of external agents. The presence of gelatine, if I am not mistaken, has been demonstrated in various bones, properly so-called, belonging to fossils much more ancient than those of the diluvium can be by any possibility. Would it then be strange that a tooth derived from this latter deposit should still preserve a considerable portion of its first organic substance? Here, perhaps more than ever, the comparative analysis which I mentioned in my preceding paper would have been necessary to authorize the investigators to regard as recent the object experimented upon. Now, no such analysis, that I know of, has been made; the conclusion then being drawn from an isolated observation, is wanting in a positive basis, even when applied to the tooth which has been put in evidence. But, if we admit for the moment that within these limits the conclusion, which yet I do not look upon as legitimate, be well founded, how would this result authorize us to declare that the jaw-bone itself is false? The tooth examined in London does not belong to the jaw-bone. That was a fact proved previously to any discussion. We cannot, therefore, argue from one to the other. Much more, it appears from an account which M. de Perthes has given me, that he himself was in doubt upon the subject of this tooth; and he assures me that he has never been willing to answer for it. How, then, can we derive from this tooth, to which exception has been taken beforehand by M. de Perthes, serious arguments against the authenticity of the jaw-bone. Those who deny that authenticity again fall back on the slight colouring of the bone, and the small depth to which that colouring has penetrated. But these again are peculiarities which depend in a great measure on the composition of the soil, and the nature of the colouring matter. If this be insoluble it is clear it will stop at the surface of the bones, and not penetrate their substance.

I have already pointed out facts which prove that the colouring matter of the stratum here in question penetrates to a very small extent. The following is a still more remarkable case in point. In examining under a magnifying-glass a piece of the base of this bed, M. Desnoyers perceived a fragment, unfortunately very small and very thin, of what appeared to us to be a lamella of a tooth, or perhaps a fragment of shell. Whatever it may have been, this little flake was entirely buried in the coloured matrix. I raised a portion of this matrix, under the magnifying-glass, and merely with a pair of pincers, and the small substance in question was discovered almost as white as paper; at any rate, much less coloured than the bone in

dispute. The colouring matter has not even tinged the surface. How can we be astonished, after this, at the small amount of colouring in the jaw-bone.*

One word more upon the subject of my second hache, that which I extracted from the solid side of the quarry. At the suggestion of M. Delesse I washed one of its ends, by pouring boiling water on it. A gravel pebble from the quarry was washed in the same manner. Both were cleaned with equal facility. It will be understood that if, for the purpose of causing an artificial matrix to adhere, gelatine or gum had been employed, either would have been easily detected upon the moistened surface of the matrix. Not the slightest trace was discovered. On the contrary, this washing brought to light on the hache, a point where the limonite forms a thin stratum, and follows the sinuosities of the flint, and presents that metallic appearance which so forcibly struck M. Delesse when he made the first examination of these objects.

The members of the Academy will see that in the kind of inquiry to which I have devoted myself I have only to notice to-day facts which are favourable to the authenticity of the Abbeville jaw-bone. Had facts tending to a contrary conclusion presented themselves I should equally have published them; but up to the present time everything argues in favour of its authenticity, and tends to confirm the reality of the discovery made by M. de Perthes.

OBSERVATIONS MADE ON THE JAW-BONE OF MOULIN-QUIGNON.

By M. de Quatrefages.

I beg leave of the Academy to add a few words to the report, otherwise so complete, of M. Edwards. I desire to unite with my honourable colleague in expressing the sentiments of profound esteem which I have been led to entertain with regard to the proceedings and entire conduct of the English savans during the few days that we have passed, so to speak, in continuous discussion. It is impossible to bring to bear on a debate of this kind a more disinterested love for science, or a more honourable feeling; or to accept with a more complete frankness facts which have once been established. At the commencement of our conferences conflicting opinions were held, with equal tenacity, and yet the strict minuteness which each one brought to bear upon the subject did not for a moment interfere with their cordiality towards each other; and I am so bold as to hope that this scientific contest has laid the foundation, among all those * I have preserved this small white substance still encased in its matrix.