WEKA PASS ROCK-PAINTINGS. 167 
Cousins drew the vessel or instrument, No. 17, it had clearly and 
visibly smoke rising therefrom, as seen by every visitor for some 
time after the discovery of the paintings; but. as it appears Mr. 
Maskell did not see it, and therefore boldly suggests that the 
surface of the rock must have scaled off. Before visiting the 
place a few weeks ago, I really believed that such a thing could 
have taken place in the meantime, although it appeared to me 
most improbable. However, I was not a little astonished to 
find that some visitor had actually painted some black over the 
red, but that, nevertheless, the red smoke could still be seen 
through the recent vandalism. And that is the loose way in 
which my reviewer ventures statements! Mr. Maskell’s explana- 
tions of geological points are just as unfortunate. He says “that 
the paintings are scarcely anywhere laid on the surface of the 
rock itself; they rest on a coating of stalagmite covering the 
rock, and it is this stalagmite which has scaled off.” This is 
simply nonsense. In the first place, the rock is perfectly dry, 
and no stalagmite has ever been found here, but the weathering 
of the rock has caused this peculiar scaling of the surface so well 
known to geologists. So Mr. Maskell must have totally mis- 
understood “some of our party conversant with geological 
evidence.” Moreover, in his first page (15) he speaks “of the 
scaling of the rock itself,” so that since that was written he must 
have changed his mind. However, Mr. Maskell’s observation on 
page 63 is quite correct, that some of the red paintings have been 
executed after some scaling of the rock had already taken place. 
This, of course, is not to be wondered at, if we look at the age of 
the rock-shelter from a geological point of view. A long time 
must certainly have elapsed since the creek or brook, to the 
former existence of which the rock-shelter owes its origin, ceased 
to flow there, and consequently a great deal of weathering or 
rock scaling has taken place before the spot was visited by 
human beings. Another point in Mr Maskell’s reasoning could 
not fail to strike me as utterly fallacious. In speaking of the 
red oxide of iron with which the oldest and principal paintings 
are executed, I used the Maori designation, Kokowai, as best 
known in the Colony. So Mr. Maskell concludes therefrom that 
the paintings must be made by Maoris of the present day. Had 
I used the English expression, “reddle,” he might just as well have 
taken this as a proof that they were made by Englishmen. In 
order not to be misunderstood, I wish once more to state (although 
I have done so again and again in various publications) that I 
have never denied that the Maoris of the present day are the suc- 
cessors of a former race or of former races inhabiting New Zealand. 
I only maintain (basing my views on geological evidence) that, 
long before the so-called Hawaiki immigration, New Zealand 
had been inhabited by a race having some Melanesian affinities, 
as proved by craniological researches. There are many more 
inaccuracies of a similar character to which I might draw the 
attention of the readers of this journal, but a few only will be 
sufficient to show that Mr. Maskell has either not read with any 
