Subsequently it became mooted that the jaw, along with other human bones, had been found in a prehistoric grave in the neighbourhood, and secretly deposited in the gravel-pit by a workman. There was, however, this difference between the jaw and the other bones, that the former was covered with the dark mud of the gravel-pit, while the latter had the appearance of having been long in contact with a reddish sandy matrix. But in sawing through a portion of the jaw its interior was found to contain a reddish material totally different from that on its external surface.
Another incident which raised some suspicion about the authenticity of the jaw was, that M. Boucher de Perthes had offered a reward of 200 francs to the first workman who would discover a human bone in situ. Eight days later, according to G. de Mortillet, he was informed of the discovery of the jaw at Moulin-Quignon.
That the Moulin-Quignon mandible was a fraud is the verdict which finds general acceptance among anthropologists of the present day. But at the time M. de Perthes unfortunately looked on the matter as a question of personal veracity. It was taken out in his presence, and, therefore, must be authentic. Lady Prestwich (loc. cit., p. 91) tells us that it was a bitter disappointment to him that his English friends, "in acknowledging the fact of the human jaw having been truly found as described, yet refused
