156 Transactions,—Miscellaneous, 
tau) is probably intended in figs. 5 and 12, though the execution is very 
degenerate. (The same may be said of all the other symbols). The very 
remarkable figure 23 probably represents the early Pheenician and Hindoo 
Fish-god. I have certainly seen it before somewhere in India. This 
establishes the early age of the drawings, the race of workmen, and the 
sacred character of the drawings. (See also the philological notes lower 
down.) You will perceive that I have not noticed the theory of figs. 2, 6, 
18, 21, 21a, representing any oriental characters, ancient or modern, for 
this reason; that amid the numerous and complicated alphabetical forms 
of various Eastern languages some resemblance is sure to be found. In 
this view I might recognise fig. 2 as Arabic, figs. 18 and 21 as Sanscrit, 
and fig. 24 actually as the Hebrew aleph. Fig. 2, to me, is conclusively a 
Buddhist symbol. Fortunately, however, your communication encloses 
several notes furnished by Mr. Stack, and I find there abundant philological 
proof that New Zealand had early intercourse with India. 
** Te kahui tipua—Ahe definite particle (Greek to, English the, Malay itu, 
ete., etc.), limiting, indicating ; kahui tipua, the deceitful, wicked dog-race 
(Malay tipu, deceitful, and kuh, the dog-race), remnants of whom are still 
to be found in the north-west of Burmah. Of course I may be mistaken in 
this interpretátion, and I should wish to know which is the adjective. 
* Again: Ngapuhi—nga puhi, the serpent-race. This race is to be found 
in parts of India, and plays an important part in early Indian history. 
My Hindoo mythology is rather dull at present, but, if remembranee serves 
me, I believe the Aryan race had a long and desperate contest with the 
earlier serpent-race, and, succeeding, drove these last into hills and moun- 
tains, and beyond the seas. Sanscrit naga, great serpent; and puh, race, 
descendants. 
“I may be tempted on to great length with these and other words 
furnished in Mr. Stack’s letters, and therefore shall conclude here, only 
adding that should any portion of the observations I have made require 
further explanations I shall be happy to give them to you.—I remain, &c., 
* A, Mackenzie CAMERON.” 
“ P.5.—With reference to some of your own remarks, made in your last 
annual speech, I should state that figure 15 resembles an Indian bow and 
arrow; figure 18, a war conch; and figure 14, a broad-brimmed hat, nearly 
similar in shape to those used in Malayan countries. Notwithstanding all 
these resemblances, I still adhere to the opinion that they represent Buddhist 
symbols. The P.S. of your own speech would appear to dash my theory to 
the ground, but what is the meaning of your own words, “they are of a 
more primitive nature’? and of Mr. Stack’s assigning them to “the oldest 
inhabitants of this island—somewhat mythical people—of whom there are any 
