WEKA PASS ROCK-PAINTINGS. ye) 
There are a few of Dr. von Haast’s statements which, I think, 
require some correction. First, on p. 45, referring to the dl/ack 
paintings which, he says, “pass indiscriminately over” the red 
ones, hecallsthem “ofa more primitive nature.’ Howa work over- 
lying another can be more “ primitive ” than it, is scarcely intelli- 
gible, if the word refers to the age of the two. And if “ primi- 
tive” is used in reference to the style of art, meaning “rude” or 
“inferior,” then an opinion is expressed which probably few 
persons viewing the originals will agree with. In point of fact, 
the best (so to speak) resemblances to natural objects which can 
be discovered in the paintings are found in the black ones. And 
I think that Dr. von Haast has fallen into a slight error in ne- 
electing, as he seems to have done, these black figures, which are 
in immense numbers all over the rocks, but which he passes by 
with scarcely acomment. The four sitting quadrupeds, of which 
he gives in his plate only an obscure figure of one pair, without 
a reference number and hardly noticeable, are really almost the 
most conspicuous of all, and are very much less “ primitive” in 
design than the red nondescripts on which he lays stress. And 
the figures of which he gives a few examples at the top of his 
plate, also unnumbered and scarcely referred to in his paper, are 
in hundreds on the rock, perfectly recognisable, clearly represen- 
tations of men intermingled with tridents and other implements, 
and are by no means, as compared with the red ones, such rude 
designs as he considers them. 
mean, On p. 47, he says, “it is clear that there is some 
method in the arrangement which at once strikes the eye as 
remarkable.” I fancy that in this phrase he refers only to the 
red paintings; but, in any case, probably the first impression 
upon the beholder is exactly the reverse, namely that there is no 
“arrangement” whatever, the black and the red figures being 
daubed on anyhow and anywhere. 
On the same page, “Only two representations of man can be 
recognised.” On the contrary, human figures are, as I said just 
now, in hundreds. 
So much for a few of the general statements in Dr. von 
Haast’s paper. Coming to particular objects, I find one difficulty 
in dealing with these, from the fact that at the time of our visit 
to the rock the paintings were by no means clear in outline. 
Whether they were very much better in 1876, when Mr. Cousins 
appears to have copied them, I do not know ; anyhow, his draw- 
ings show somewhat distinct outlines which, in the case of the 
red paintings, are scarcely to be found now. Assuming, however, 
that greater clearness was at that time available, and that the 
copies are sufficiently accurate in a general way, there are some 
parts of Dr. von Haast’s interpretation which appear to be some- 
what far-fetched. My references are to the figures of his plate in 
Vol. X. Nos. 1and 3 may fairly be considered as figures of 
whales, though it is not quite clear why the first should be said 
to be “ diving,” or the second as differing from the first in having . 
two heads. Why No. 4 should be considered a “snake” it is not 
