166 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 
absurd, as Mr. Maskell, in his usual light and airy manner, 
wishes to do. 
If these rock-paintings were made by Buddhist missionaries 
or not is quite immaterial, but that Mr. Cameron’s statement of 
similar characters and paintings having been found in other 
countries is correct has been amply confirmed by several of the 
speakers at the above-mentioned meeting of the Anthropological 
Institute of London. 
Mr Moggridge observed “ That one of the figures, No. 17, 
was the same as one which had been seen on rocks 6900 feet 
above the sea level, in the North-west corner of Italy. It is 
probable that if we knew how to read them they might convey 
important information, since the same signs occur in different 
combinations, just as the letters of our alphabet recur in different 
combinations to form words.”* 
After reading the discussion on my paper as printed in that 
journal, any unbiassed observer might be still more convinced 
that the attempted explanation of these rock paintings by Mr. 
Cameron and others opens up quite a new field for research into 
the early history of these Islands. 
Mr. Maskell thinks that I have fallen into a slight error in 
not having copied more of the black figures, as he considers them 
less rude designs than the red ones. I can only repeat my for- 
mer statement that we (Mr. Cousins and myself) selected the 
most remarkable of these black designs, one of each kind, which 
to any unbiassed mind will show their more rude characters. In 
fact they are more like the work of children or child-like savages, 
and can certainly not be compared with the figures and cha- 
racters in red. When visiting the locality at the end of May of 
this year, I found to my great sorrow that vandalism had been 
hard at work, not only to deface many of the red paintings, but 
actually to add some black ones, and some of the red ones had 
been obliterated with black paint. It is terrible to think that, at 
the end of the nineteenth century, men who can write their own 
names should consider it a great deed to scratch the proof of 
their imbecility upon the rock-shelter, and thus destroy the 
paintings which for ages had been respected by a so-called in- 
ferior savage race. I do not intend to go into Mr. Maskell’s 
criticism of my views as to the meaning of the different drawings, 
but will only show how very little his own descriptions can be 
depended upon. He says :—“ No. 17 in the plate is incomplete, 
at least as compared with Mr. Cousins’ original drawing (in the 
Canterbury Museum), where a stream of smoke is made to issue 
from the cup-shaped top. Has there not been here also a little 
stretching of fancy, considering that the smoke may be due to 
the scaling of the rock?’ Now for the facts. In the first 
instance, everybody who honestly has compared Mr. Cousins’ 
drawings with the originals must testify to his conscientious 
accuracy (Ae certainly had no theories or fancies). When Mr. 
* Journal of the Anthropological Institute, August, 1878, page 16. 
