Rit (Vísindafélag Íslendinga) - 01.07.1962, Qupperneq 174

172
due consideration of more local tectonic disturbances, especial-
ly those due to isostatic movements in formerly glaciated
areas. It appears quite safe to use the high shorelines in the
latter type of areas because the downwarped lands recovered
rapidly after each glaciation, Iceland for instance in a few
thousand years (cf. Einarsson 1961). But we especially con-
sider the strandflat of Norway and Iceland as a proof that
Lower Pleistocene shorelines have basically survived all the
vicissitudes of later glaciations.
The glaciations have eroded these lands and a correspond-
ing rise of the old shorelines would be expected. But the
Mediterranean lands have at the same time also been wom
down and the difference is at any rate not significant in
the present context.
The level of the strandplane in Iceland and its position
within the Pleistocene is so close to the Sicilian shore line
(80—90 m) in the Mediterranean that we shall consider the
two as corresponding to each other.
Against this background we can further assume that the
50 m interglacial level in Eyjafjörður (T. Einarsson 1959 b)
corresponds to the Milazzian level of the Giinz-Mindel inter-
glacial.
As to lower levels they are more difficult to identify be-
cause the post-glacial terraces are mostly higher than 40 m
and will obliterate lower interglacial terraces. Nevertheless
we know the interglacial levels of Fossvogur and Örfirisey
which are close to present sea-level and also in other ways
are seen to belong to the Uppermost Pleistocene.
Thus there are good reasons to believe that a satisfactory
correspondance exists between the Mediterranean and the
Icelandic Pleistocene shorelines.
We have then also a good reason to believe that the 300 m
base level in Iceland corresponds to shorelines of a similar
height in the area from the Mediterranean to Southem Eng-
land. It is the concensus of all workers that these are of Ter-
tiary, i. e. Pliocene age. On this basis we shall conclude that