1877.] W. Theobald — Himalayan Glaciation, 139 



bell's words are, " Close to the bridge I found a section of the ^ big stone 

 formation' and got to the solid rock surface under it, newly exposed in a 

 gravel pit. The stuff is sorted in layers of varying coarseness from fine 

 angular sand to the big stones. The bed is not glaciated. The thickness 

 of the deposit may be 80 to 90 feet." 



Now if Mr. Campbell had studied my paper carefully, he would have 

 seen that I place the level along which the old glaciers descended, at approxi- 

 mately 150 feet ahove the present stream beds ; and as the thickness of the 

 whole mass at Dhada is placed by him at 90 feet,^the great bulk of this 

 moraine has at ihis spot suffered rearrangment by water and subsidence, 

 the original bed along which it descended, and where alone glaciation might 

 be looked for, having been much above, the existing surface level of the 

 country ; this rather important element in my view of the case Mr. Camp- 

 bell entirely overlooks, and actually confounds together the present V gorge 

 with the long-vanished slopes, over which the glaciers descended, at a level 

 roughly estimated by me at 150 feet above the present river beds. 



This last estimate is of course conjectural and open to modification^ 

 but it represents the amount of vertical erosion since the retrocession of the 

 glaciers and must be very considerable. 



Lastly, I would say that I neither underrate or question the power of 

 water confined in a gorge to move very large blocks. Mr. Campbell uses 

 the term rather vaguely, though he specifics blocks of 14 and 15 feet 

 diameter, or say roundly 50 feet in girth. These and much larger ones 

 may, I repeat, be moved doivn a gorge by the action of water, but when one 

 finds blocks ranging from 100 to 140 feet in girth standing in open ground, 

 I frankly confess I can recognise no vehicle of transport equal to the 

 occasion save ice. 



Without going into details, there is one important correction which I 

 may here make as regards the relative age of the glacial period in Kangra and 

 the Sivalik group. In my paper I incline to the post-glacial age of the 

 group, on confessedly inadequate evidence. Since then, the occurrence of 

 what I hold to be glacial debris, strewed over the denuded edges of Sivalik 

 strata, has led me to accept the view, so ably urged by Mr. Medlicott in 

 his note to my paper, which identified the glacial period in Kangra with 

 that of European Geology, and if this be so, I see no grounds for question- 

 ing the former extension of glaciers in India, on as grand or even far 

 grander scale than they attained in the compara-tively dwarfish ranges of 

 Europe — though my largest estimate dwindles to insignificance before the 

 vision of the great ice- cap 10,000 feet thick, stretched from the equator 

 to the pole, which Mr. Campbell has (somewhat unnecessarily in my opi- 

 nion) laboured to efface. The correlation too, of the Kangra glacial period 

 with the European does away with the necessity of supposing a former 



