8 F. Chambers — Reply to Criticisms. [Jan. 



sent on the Grecian or semi- Grecian ones. Thus the " fillet " or " noose " 

 he considers to be " of ambiguous import, and that it represents indif- 

 ferently the ' noose ' of Siva, when borne by a goddess, whom we have 

 reasons for regarding as his Sakti ; or when it is borne by a goddess 

 presumably identified with Lakshmi, it is then a feminine symbol analo- 

 gous to the ' Sistrum ' of Isis ; and that it is by collateral indications 

 only that it can be decided in which sense, in each case, this symbol is 

 to be construed." Regarding the " cornucopise," the author thinks that 

 it differs considerably from the types of that symbol on the Indo- Scythian 

 coins, the main difference being a number of equidistant dots set on a 

 convex line, by which the cornucopiae is closed above ; and that this 

 difference is too constant and circumstantial to be the result either of 

 accident or inferior execution. Hence, he considers it to represent the 

 well-known object of Hindu symbolical worship, the Snake or polyce- 

 phalic Nag, the heads of which are indicated by the dots. The so-called 

 "footstool " Mr. Theobald considers to be but another representation of 

 the Nag, a fold of which is represented as encircling the solid earth. 

 The only point which puzzles him is how this obvious interpretation 

 of the three symbols has hitherto escaped the notice of the far abler 

 antiquaries than himself, who have studied these coins. 



This paper will be published in full in Journal, Part I. 



The following note from Mr. F. Chambers, in reply to the criticism by 

 Mr. H. F. Blanford on his paper read at the November meeting, was read. 



The greater part of my paper is devoted to proving that barometric 

 depressions travel from the western frontier of India across Sind to 

 Rajputana, and I purposely avoided dealing with their motion from 

 Rajputana eastward, because that is the point about which there is no 

 dispute. If it be admitted that I have proved my case, the contention 

 that these disturbances originated in western Rajputana must be 

 abandoned. Both propositions cannot be correct, for a disturbance cannot 

 originate in Rajputana and also travel thither from the western frontier 

 of India. Thus far with respect to the facts brought forward by me ! 

 I now turn to the evidence adduced in Mr. Blanford's paper (page 7, 

 Part II, No. I of the Journal for 1884) in support of his conclusion 

 *' that in most cases, if not in all, these disturbances originate in India." 

 With regard to those which are supposed to have originated in western 

 Rajputana, I find the date is given of but one case, that of the 25th 

 January 1878. This instance is now claimed as an exception to the 

 general rule of eastward motion, but I find that a minimum of pressure 

 occurred at Kurrachee on the 25th, at Deesa on the 26th, and at Indore 

 on the 27th, clearly indicating the usual eastward movement from some 



