1883.1 J. Cockburn — On the recent existence 0/ Rhinoceros indicus. 63 



Both these Tribes have not long passed out of a stone age and the 

 persistence of the custom points to the fact of their having used many 

 barbed spears in other material at no distant period. 



A multibarbed form of copper harpoon or spear-head appears to have 

 been used in India during what here corresponds to the Bronze Age. 

 Three such harpoon-heads were ploughed up in a field in the Mainpuri 

 District of the Gangetic Duab, associated with flat copper celts and copper 

 bangles. [See P. A. S. B. 1868, pp. 251-262.] 



The celts were of exactly the same type as one found in a Buddhist 

 mound at Muttra by General Cunningham (Arch. Surv. of India, Vol. II, 

 p. 16). One of these copper spear-heads is now in the collection of the 

 Indian Museum, and two other similar specimens were in the Allahabad 

 Museum when I was Curator of that Institution. 



The specimen in the Indian Museum is well worn on the first barb by 

 grinding and has two eyelets at the base. The short thick truncated 

 rounded tang in all three specimens favours the idea that they were fixed in 

 a shifting socket as the Andamanese pig arrow is at the present day. They 

 were not therefore necessarily harpoons for spearing aquatic creatures. 



A larger and different form of copper spear-head, said to be from 

 Bithur ? near Cawnpore) is also in the collection of the Indian Museum. 

 It has three pairs of blunt rounded supplementary barbs below the 

 blade. I am not disposed to think that the broadly triangular head and 

 fine sloping lines of the barbs of the cave-spears were intended to repre- 

 sent either of these forms in copper. The great number of barbs on the 

 cave-spear adds much to the probability of these barbs having been of 

 stone. 



A peculiar class of angular flakes [PI. VIII, H] very common in 

 these caves were I would suppose let into grooves in wood as shown in the 

 restoration of a stone spear [PL VIII, I.] 



I cannot here refrain from stating that this discovery is entirely due to 



the liberality of H. Eivett-Carnac, Esq., C. S., C. I. E., F. S. A. without 



whose constant aid I should neither have been able to find the caves nor write 



this paper. 



IS'ote to the above. 



Two important objections might fairly occur to a critic after reading the above. 

 First, that Baber's identification of the rhinoceros at Chunar in 1529 is at the best 

 doubtful. Secondly, that the occurrence of the rhinoceros in the vicinity of Chunar 

 ■would imply the presence of forests there, whereas the district now is semi-arid. 



With regard to IYlq first objection I would point out that Baber was j!?rmo«<5/3/ 

 acquainted with the rhinoceros. His description of the rhinoceros hunted by his son 

 on the banks of the Indus is most accurate, and leaves no room for doubt as to the 

 genus of the animal he described. He compares the folds of its skin to housings and 

 its internal anatomy to that of the horse, a fact which subsequently required the 



