T42 



KKIDTIOI' NANSFN. N.-X. Kl. 



hv fduiul il sli^lilly liij^Iicr lliaii ,-50 metres above the sea, anrl he thinks that 

 it may be j)ut aijproximately at 40 metres above sea-level. Froin occasionnai 

 ol)servati(jns durin^^ short visits to the coast further north (Anrloi, 

 Bjarkoi, (Sjc. in (i</'X.Lat.) as Avell as further s<*uth (in the Ivr>nis'lal 

 region, Karnioi, I laugesinif!, l->omlo Island, &.c.) \ ogt draws the con- 

 clusion that the ui)i)er limit of the straiulflat is fairly exactly at the same 

 level alon«,'- the whole of tiie Nor\ve<;ian coast. He adds, however, that 

 it is impossible to determine the height of tlie upper limit of the strandflat 

 within an accuracy of some metres, anfl that the estimate will to a certain 

 degree dej^iend on the observer. But he thinks "that greater errors than 

 15 to 20 metres are excluded". As he docs not say that his estimate of 

 the heights of the stranclflat is based on accurate measurements by level- 

 ling, we may conclude that his figures are not meant to be very accurate. 

 and with possible errors of 15 to 20 metres they give us a broad margin. 



Though the emerged strandflat of Helgeland may possibly to some 

 extent, like the strandflat of southern Norway, have two levels, a widely 

 extended lower one, like that rlescribed l)y Sahlstrom, and a much less 

 extended higher one, still I think we ought to receive these statements of 

 the higher levels of between 30 and 40 metres with some caution as long 

 as they are not based on actual measurements by levelling on the spot. 



There has obviously been a tendency towards establishing general 

 rules for the heights of the strandflat along the entire coast of Norway, 

 and the limits of these heights have been put at 30 to 40 metres above 

 the sea, and 30 to 40 metres below sea-level. We have seen that along 

 the coast of Helgeland as well as in the region of Smolen. Hitteren, and 

 Frøia, where there are well-developed submerged plateaus, this estimate 

 of the lower limit is not correct, the outer edge of the submerged strand- 

 flat being there rather less than to metres below sea-level. We have not 

 yet obtained sufficiently accurate measurement to establish the height of 

 the inner edge, or the upper limit, of the emerged strandflat of Helgeland. 

 It seems at any rate to be somewhat lower there than along the west coast 

 of soutlicrn Norway. 



In Fig. 118 from northern Helgeland the demarkation-line between 

 the low flat strandflat and the very steep mountain-sides is seen. The 

 inner part of the strandflat is to a great extent covered by the scree or 

 talus heaps, formed in postglacial time by stones tumbling down from 

 the mountain-sides, but it is obvious that the plane of the strandflat. 

 hardly 15 metres above the sea, continues under the scree to the foot of 

 the rocky walls at about the same height. J. H. L. \'ogt's description 

 [1907, p. 14] of the strandflat, as a plain sloping gently seawards from 

 its inner higher parts 30 to 40 metres above sea-level to its outer sub- 

 merged edge 30 to 40 metres below sea-level, is also in my opinion some- 

 what misleading. The strandflat is not really one sloping plane, but con- 

 sists rather of several more or less horizontal planes. As we have seen, 



