54 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 
called) of aboriginal races. And probably the Maori tradition 
of the existence of “ Nga-puhi” and similar bygone people em- 
bodies many germs of truth over-laid with fiction. All I mean 
to say is that the ascription of such works as the “ paintings ” to 
“ Nga-puhi,” or to any mythical personages, should be placed on 
the same footing as the ascription of rings on the grass to the 
fairies—that is, taken simply as confession of ignorance, and set 
aside accordingly. 
Coming, then, to the two theories’ above-mentioned, I shall 
take first that of Mr. Cameron. I find that Dr. von Haast 
(Trans. Vol. XI. p. 157) calls it an “important ” communication, 
which “opens up quite a new field for research into the early 
history of these islands, and goes far to prove the great antiquity 
of the paintings in question.” And the Rev. Mr. Stack, in Vol. 
XII., calls it extremely interesting, and expresses great reluct- 
ance at having to differ from it. If these encomia were directed 
merely to the aspect of Mr. Cameron’s paper as a specimen of 
intellectual ingenuity, of the faculty of elaborating strings of 
words from nothing, one could only smile and pass on. _Unfor- 
tunately, they probably mean more than this. And in the 
interests of true science in this Colony, in the desire for truth 
and calm enquiry, in the desire also that our annual transactions 
should be a credit to New Zealand, I feel bound to express regret 
that so feeble, ill-considered a production should have been per- 
mitted to appear in print in the eleventh volume. I donot know 
Mr. Cameron ; I have never heard of him (perhaps to my shame) 
before the publication of his paper. What may be his claims to 
be considered an authority on archeology I cannot say. But if 
they are to be measured, as probably they are, by the paper in 
question, it becomes very doubtful how far they are of any value; 
for, ingenious as they may be, if it is put forth with a semblance 
of great learning and an affectation of recondite knowledge, and 
yet turns out upon examination to be founded upon a basis of 
patent and easily avoided error, respect for the author’s in- 
genuity can scarcely make up for wonder (if nothing more) at 
his want of care and industry. 
I do not propose to enter into any discussion as to Mr. 
Cameron’s ideas of the missionary proclivities of the Buddhists, 
their travels to the extreme west of Europe, their amalgamation 
with the Phoenicians, their carvings on stone at Aberdeen and 
Dingwall, and so on. On such questions as these, controversy 
would be endless, tiresome, and useless; and, of course, one 
would have to consider a little previously a question which Mr. 
Cameron quietly begs, the antiquity of Buddhism. I am aware 
that, by even suggesting that the great Gautama himself was not 
as ancient by several centuries as is popularly supposed, I should 
open up a controversial field of illimitable extent, into which 
there is not the least need to enter now; nor need I comment 
upon Mr. Cameron’s statement that Ezekiel means by “The Isles 
of the Sea” the chain which begins with Sumatra and ends with 
New Zealand. Whether the sea has any other isles, whether 
