224 H. W.Pearson — Oscillations of Sea-leveL 



be depended on, can have occurred since Strabo's epoch ; this 

 observation is therefore strongly antagonistic to our conclusions. 



On investigation, however, we learn that Strabo's statement was 

 borrowed from Artemidorus, who in his turn had borrowed his 

 description from Agatharchides, 146 b.c. or thereabouts. We find, 

 when we thas trace the observation to its true date, that all 

 antagonism disappears. Agatharchides flourished during a high- 

 water period, consequently the observed recession could have been 

 foretold from inspection of our curve. (For discussion of true date 

 see Hamilton & Falconer's Translation, vol. iii, p. 192.) 



On theoretical grounds, the high sea-level culminating about 

 250 B.C. may, it seems to me, need moving back perhaps 50 years 

 or thereabouts. This idea is derived from the following 

 considerations : — 



Our curve was drawn centrally through the preponderating 

 masses of dots. Now it is well known that information such as 

 used in this work becomes more and more scanty as we go 

 backwards in time. "While much evidence exists between the era 

 of Augustus and the fall of the Western Eoman Empire, 476 a.d., it 

 rapidly decreases as we pass to the period before Ceesar ; therefore 

 we must anticipate that our observed points will be relatively 

 greater in number for the same high sea-level as we approach from 

 250 B.C. to the time of Christ. The greater accumulation of points at 

 the later dates consequently has probably brought the apex of our 

 curve somewhat too near the time of the Christian era. How 

 much distortion there may be found properly due to this cause 

 further research may determine. 



If later investigation shall allow this shifting of the curve at the 

 epoch 250 b.c. as suggested, it would result in removing one more 

 of our conflicting points, viz., that Eeclus tells us at the time of the 

 Battle of Thermopylae (480 b.c.) the sea extended much farther into 

 the land than now. The curve as now drawn would show the sea- 

 level at the date of battle but slightly above the present level ; this 

 shifting would increase considerably its altitude at that time, and 

 would better satisfy the requirements of Eeclus' remark. 



A few points I am at present unable to explain : for instance, 

 Eear-Admiral Smyth calls attention to certain ruins near the town 

 of Nettuno, It&Xj, "among which is Astura, so long the residence 

 of Cicero .... now submerged in the sea." During 

 the later years of Cicero (106-43 b.c.) our curve calls for a sea- 

 level differing but little from the present ; a sea-level, in fact, 

 slightly above that of to-day. No building, therefore, then above 

 the sea should be now submerged. I feel confident that some 

 mistake will eventually be found in this statement. It may be that 

 the residence of Cicero has not been identified with certaintj^ or it 

 may be that near Nettuno, as in the Bay of Baie, foundations of 

 buildings were erected in the sea. At present however, this item 

 remains a conflicting point, antagonistic to our curve. I have no 

 item more unyielding than this. 



The above analysis illustrates the character of the examination 

 bestowed on the testimonj^ found conflicting with our curve. Lack 



