who have taken part in it, of a sincere and lasting friendship. I ought to add that the discussion has fully brought to light a fact easily admitted, and which, for my part, I have never doubted. No one could have entertained the idea that men so eminent as Messrs. Falconer, Busk, Prestwich, etc., would lightly, and without serious motives, have embraced the opinions which they came to Paris to defend; and we can understand that the same causes would give rise to doubts in the mind of Dr. Carpenter. I also am willing to acknowledge that these causes existed. In the absence of any other means of judging, the external appearance of certain haches after washing, the remarkable preservation of the animal matter in the tooth examined in England, and the consequences which that preservation entailed, might well appear to be a sufficient cause of the conclusions arrived at by our London colleagues. In order to counterbalance the opinion which would result from the establishment of these facts, and to preserve and defend the contrary convictions, it is necessary to possess a thoroughly firm basis, and, so to speak, an absolute point of comparison. Now, these two elements were wanting in the case of our learned friends in London, whilst I had the immense advantage of possessing them. In fact I alone could be perfectly certain that one of my two haches was uncontestably authentic; for I alone had seen it in its place in the undisturbed section of the quarry, in a place which the pick-axe had not even touched. Here, as I said in my second paper, all fraud was absolutely impossible. Henceforth, whatever were the proper characteristics of this hache, they could prove nothing against its authenticity. On the contrary, the study of these characteristics ought evidently to enlighten me as to the value of those presented by the other objects of the same nature, and by the jaw-bone itself; it ought, above all, to show whether the latter had been fraudulently introduced into the bed where M. Boucher de Perthes found it, or whether it belonged to the same period as that bed.

Now this study, minutely entered upon from every point of view, leads us to admit the contemporaneity of the hache serving as a point of comparison with the other haches of the same derivation, and with the human jaw-bone. I cannot, therefore, doubt the authenticity of this last.

It will be seen upon how certain a basis the opinion which I have defended rests. Without it, I do not hesitate to acknowledge, my first convictions would, doubtless, have been, if not changed, at least rudely shaken by the weighty facts opposed to them by such com

petent judges as Messrs. Falconer, Prestwich, Busk, and Evans; without it, perhaps, also, the savans who were the first unhesitatingly to accept with me the authenticity of the jaw-bone, MM. Delesse, Desnoyers, Lartet, Gaudry, Lyman, and Pictet, would still have hesitated to give an opinion; and I am happy to thank them here for the confidence which they have testified in the accuracy of my observations.*

But a reproduction of the same fact should have led others to an entirely similar result, and this has actually happened. Since our eminent colleagues from London have had the same elements of appreciation at their disposal, since they have seen haches extracted from the quarry—and, above all, established the presence of the hache No. 5 in the very sides of the working-since they have been able to compare the characteristics of that hache with those of the haches hitherto regarded by them as false or doubtful, they have adopted our opinion with the honourable frankness of which they have given proof during the whole discussion.

For the rest, even the discord which has separated us for some days will be very useful to science. "The trial of the jaw," Dr. Carpenter writes to me,† "will take a place among the causes célèbres of science." Now this trial has been conducted in such a way, that it appears to me impossible not to accept the verdict carried unanimously by a jury lately so widely divided. The authenticity, then, of the discovery made by M. Boucher de Perches is henceforth beyond doubt.

OBSERVATIONS RESPECTING THE MEMOIR OF M. PRUNER-BEY, AND THE PAPER BY M. ELIE DE BEAUMONT.

For several years M. Pruner-Bey has been engaged in collecting materials for the elucidation of the characteristics presented by the most ancient race in Europe. He is then better able than any one else to take advantage of the discovery made by M. Boucher de Perthes. His labours were at first carried on entirely by the aid of photographs, which I had caused to be taken; but, seeing the importance of the results at which my learned colleague of the Anthropological Society had already arrived, I hastened to put at his disposal the jaw-bone of Moulin-Quignon itself. M. Pruner-Bey has kindly * M. Alphonse Edwards, who came to study these objects at my house after the reading of my third paper, also admitted their authenticity without any contradictory discussion.

+ Dr. Carpenter, who besides has in no way officially mentioned the doubts he may have entertained, adopts all the conclusions of the meeting, and expresses to me his opinion upon the subject in a letter, for which I thank him extremely.

communicated to me in return that which served him as a point of comparison. We proceeded together to a detailed and rigorous examination, which has only served to bring out still more the exactitude of the appreciations of M. Pruner-Bey, and the truly surprising similitude between these two specimens, belonging, one to the stone, the other to the iron age.

The members of the Academy will certainly understand, from what has gone before, that the jaw-bone of Moulin Quignon, looked at from an ethnological point of view, and with regard to the origin of European populations, possesses the highest interest. This interest, I repeat, is quite independent of the geological question. This is why I have endeavoured, from the commencement of these debates, and again at the last meeting, to distinguish clearly between the question of the authenticity of the jaw-bone and all those which I foresaw would arise from the discussions.

Thus my regret was very great when I saw that the report made no mention of the opinions expressed upon this subject by our illustrious perpetual secretary. Now that is all that I wished to show in my preceding communications; for that is what had been almost universally denied in Paris as in London. It will be understood, then, how important to me was the assent of M. Elie de Beaumont, and how sorry I was not to find any traces of it in the report. I trust that our illustrious colleague will only see, in the expression of this sentiment, another proof of the high value which I attach to his opinion.

May I be allowed to make another observation upon the subject of the paper by M. Elie de Beaumont ?

This paper raises two questions, both new, and both entirely distinct from the question of the authenticity of the jaw-bone and the haches of Moulin-Quignon. Besides, these questions are, from certain points of view, very different from each other.

First, M. Elie de Beaumont declares that he shares the opinion of Cuvier, and does not believe in the contemporaneity of man with elephas primigenius. Secondly, he expresses the opinion that the drift worked at Moulin-Quignon does not belong, properly, to the diluvium.

The first of these questions, that of the contemporaneity of man with certain species of extinct animals, may be solved, it seems to me, apart from geological controversy. I therefore think myself allowed to have upon this point an individual opinion; I should state, that, after having for a long time shared the belief of Cuvier, I have arrived at a contrary opinion.

The second question, that which touches upon the age and origin of the soil of Moulin-Quignon, Menchecourt, Saint-Acheul, etc., is exclusively geological. Once more, I have no pretentions to deal with this last problem, and I intend to remain entirely aloof from the discussions which may arise from it. But for this very reason I must insist upon separating it very clearly from the two others, in order to prevent, as much as I can, a confusion which has evidently been produced in a great many minds.

EXAMINATION OF THE JAW-BONE OF MOULIN-QUIGNON FROM AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW. BY M. PRUNER-BEY.

Considering the discordant views held by geologists in all that appertains to the deposit in which the jaw-bone was found, it will be desirable to inquire whether anthropological science will furnish us with the means of classifying it.

On a cursory examination, this object indicates by its proportions, and by the absorption of some dental alveoli, that it belonged to an individual of small size and of middle age; and I will add that this individual was most probably brachycephalic. The following is the series of facts which argues in favour of that opinion. M. Merlot (vide Etudes Géologico-Archéologiques, etc., 1860) showed in the section of the cone of la Tinière, near Villeneuve, three successive ages represented by stages. The lowest bed, representing the stone age, has yielded a brachycephalic cranium, as also have the beds belonging to the bronze age in the vicinity. Lastly, I have established the presence of this type in the iron age, and even among living individuals in the same localities, and I have traced elsewhere the detailed portrait of this type by which the history of man in our countries, according to our present knowledge, commences, without the type being extinct.

In the second place, the palæontological researches and discoveries made in France, though the number of data respecting man be very limited, in no way invalidate what I have just alleged. Thus the human chin-bone found by M. de Vibraye shows by the roundness of its contour that it does not belong to the Celtic race, and by its dimensions that the cranium of which it formed a part, was small, and consequently brachycephalic. The same may be said of the specimen the knowledge of which I owe to the kindness of M. Lartet. This celebrated palæontologist found this outer half-ramus of the lower human jaw in the cavern of Aurignac, associated with antediluvian animals, etc. This bone again strikes us by its smallness, which extends even to the three molar teeth which were implanted in it.

Our last fact appears to me to serve as a touchstone in this question as difficult as it is important. I have in my possession a small series of bones of the lower jaw, belonging to the brachycephalic type of Switzerland. These bones, which have been referred to the iron age, were extracted from an immense gravel tumulus, containing numerous kistvaens, in which were found skeletons and their remains for the most part Celtic, and by their side a few with brachycephalic crania, and of small size. Now, one of these last jaws, apart from the prolongation of its coronoid apophysis, corresponds in all its other details with the Abbeville jaw-bone. This applies not only to its form but also to its dimensions. Now if we consider the small amount of stability in the characteristics generally presented by this bone in individuals of the same race, and if we add to that the immense interval of time which separates them, I think I shall remain greatly within the limits of probability, if I presume to enunciate this:

First. That the jaw-bone of Moulin-Quignon belonged to a brachycephalic individual of small size, belonging to the stone age.

Secondly. That we can follow the presence of this race through several successive ages; and

Thirdly. That it has left recognizable descendants among the living inhabitants of the extreme north of Europe, following the western border of our continent as far as Sicily.

Miscellanea Anthropologica.

Egyptian Skulls found at Cologne on the Rhine.—In the year 1847, on laying the foundations of a house near the Orphan Asylum at Cologne, there were found above sixty skulls, eighteen of which had on the right side large iron nails driven in. With them were found Roman vessels and coins of the pre-Constantine period. Professor Braun of Bonn, delivered an elaborate lecture on this subject in 1855, on the occasion of the celebration of Winkelmann's birthday, in which the Professor endeavoured to prove that the skulls belonged to the Martyrs of the Theban Legion, whose name was derived from Thebaïs in Egypt, and who were executed in 286 under Diocletian, the persecutor of Christians, because they would not fight against that sect. Dr. Mayer of Bonn expressed his opinion that these skulls presented all the characteristics of Egyptian skulls.

Within the last few days, there were found almost on the same spot near Weyer's Gallery, a number of similar skulls, some of which also had a large nail driven in on the right side. The Rev. Mr. Schaffrath