50 DAVID MILNE HOME ON THE SUPPOSED UPHEAVAL OF SCOTLAND. 
I have assumed, that the upheaval in this part of Scotland was, as Professor 
GEIKIE says, only twenty-five feet ; but in the upper part of the estuarythe 
upheaval must have been more than twenty-five feet, because the old sea cliff, 
from an examination of which, at Leith, Professor Gerke drew his belief, rises 
towards the head of the estuary, up to a height of above thirty feet, so that the 
extent to which these roads and fords across the Forth were submerged (accord- 
ing to Professor Geikie) would be six or seven feet more than I have stated. 
If these facts have been correctly stated, it follows that an erroneous view 
must have been taken of the Roman remains at Cramond and Camelon, when they 
were supposed to indicate that the sea at these places, in Roman times, stood 
twenty-five feet higher than now. The sea could not be at one level at Bridgeness 
and Stirling, and at a very different level between these places on the same coast. 
The appearances at Cramond and Camelon, and others which have been founded 
on, can, I think, be well enough explained by the deposition of sediment 
brought down by the rivers to the sea-coast during a period of 1800 years. 
It is true that the surface of the land in these quarters is higher than formerly, 
That is due, not to any rise of land, but to the combined operation of river 
floods and sea waves. For example, the reason why the tide does not flow, as 
formerly, up to the old bridge across the Esk at Musselburgh, and up to the 
site of the old supposed Roman town, near Camelon, on the River Carron, is, 
that the sea is obstructed and dammed back, by enormous accumulations of 
mud, sand, and gravel brought down by these rivers. 
From the facts brought forward in this paper, it appears clear, that the last 
change in the relative levels of sea and land, as indicated by the line of old sea 
cliff which fringes our coasts, not only in the central parts of Scotland, but all 
round our island, must be referred back to a much earlier period than the time 
of the Romans. That, indeed, had been the opinion of all geologists who had 
studied the question, until Professor GEIkigE brought forward his views on the 
subject in the year 1862. As his views have been adopted by such high 
authorities as Sir CHARLES LyELL and Professor Ramsay, not to speak of other 
geologists of less eminence, I have thought it right, in a matter of considerable 
geological interest, to show that these views proceeded on mistake; and I have 
no doubt that, when Professor GEIKIE becomes acquainted with the new facts 
which I have brought forward in this paper, he will, in the interests of scientific 
truth, frankly admit that he had been misled by inaccurate information. 
