102 Transactio iis. — Miscellaneous. 



any investigations carried on in native encampments of the Moa-liunting 

 period ; at least not until it is clearly established how they are related to each 

 other in time, and as yet the first step has to be taken in the fixing a chrono- 

 logical succession to these accumulations. No doubt such an attempt will 

 have its difficulties, and not the least will be the want of a starting point at 

 either end of the scale. The want of such a positive stand-point whereby we 

 might compare the relative age of encampments that must vary very much in 

 point of time must necessarily constitute the first difficulty to be got rid of. 

 As for example, who without such a test shall judge whether the encampment 

 at the mouth of the Rakaia is older than that at Moa-bone Point, Sumner, or 

 in what relation to these former stands the encampment at Shag Point ? 



Briefly summed up, the evidence is contradictory ; that is if we admit the 

 evidence by which we support the claims of the different encamj^ments to be 

 of equal value. Thus we should say that the Sumner encampment is younger 

 than that at the Rakaia, because in the latter no traces of polished implements 

 have been found directly in contact with Moa remains, or in the accumulations 

 proper to the period when the Moa served as food for the inhabitants. It is 

 very generally admitted that in such an encampment the absence of polished 

 tools and other works of art of high finish indicates surely a time prior to the 

 attainment of the art of so polishing, and that accumulations containing 

 polished tools must of necessity be the younger. In a paper read to the 

 Wellington Philosophical Society, Dr. Hector has shown that in association 

 with Moa remains such polished implements would necessarily be rare, and 

 that by their absence it need not necessarily be inferred that they were not 

 held in possession. Thus, on these grounds, I cannot hold that the Rakaia 

 encampment proves by that test to be either older or younger than the Sumner. 

 But for the presence of Moa-bones it might have been a Maori encampment of 

 yesterday. The Sumner encampment does certainly contain polished tools in 

 connection with Moa-bones, and were such a test to be depended on, it would 

 go to prove that it is the younger of the two. But if, as is reasonable to 

 suppose, a stone hatchet, or a polished mere, was an implement less serviceable 

 in the dismemberment of a fallen Moa than a sharp flake of flint with an edge 

 far superior for the purpose in view, then we can readily understand why 

 polished implements should be so scarce. 



But to apply another test of the relative age of these beds. The excava- 

 tions at the liakaia have not hitherto disclosed the remains of any of the 

 larger species of the Moa, and it may be fairly argued that the more gigantic 

 forms would be the first to disappear, whether in the ordinary process of 

 extinction or by the hands of man. In the Sumner encampment are found 

 the remains of the species rohustus, which seems to have been extinct when 



