212 Journal of the Asiatic Soc. of Bengal. [N.S., XVII, 1921.] 
of the Khasi hill stone implements,!' leaves no room to doubt 
that this is his specimen B of which a figure has also been 
published by him. Mr. Cockburn had no definite idea about its 
lace of occurrence beyond the fact that it was found on the 
Shillong plateau evidently not buried in any natural deposit. 
Accordingly it is quite clear from what has been said above, 
that there is nothing to show definitely that the marks on 
the implement were inscribed during the neolithic time. 
In the figure of the implement published by Mr. Cockburn the 
marks referred to by Prof. Mitra are also shown very clearly, 
but there are two rows of marks and not one, the upper 
row being rather indistinct. It is extremely difficult to 
pass any remark on the third specimen referred to by Prof. 
Mitra. It bears the catalogue number 866, but a reference 
to Dr. Brown’s catalogue? shows that there are two speci- 
mens bearing the number 866, the locality of one being 
unknown and unfortunately Prof. Mitra has not indicated 
which one of the two he has in view. ' 
f the five neoliths mentioned by Prof. Mitra, I have 
e Thi 
Thus it appears that judging the question from the point 
of view of the occurrence of the implements the existence 
: Journ. Asia. a5 Beng. Vol. 58, pt. ii, pp. 133-137, 1879. 
: Catalogue raisonné of the prehistoric antiquities in the 
Indian Museum, p. 131. a i 
’ Foote: Indian prehistoric and protohistoric antiquities. Notes 
on their ages and distribution, pp 78 et seq. 
ONE a se ie ee nan al i ae 
