1903-4.] Date of Upheaval of Raised Beaches in Scotland. 245 
advanced in support of these views, it is desirable to start with a 
clear idea of what is meant by a ‘raised beach.’ In reality, the 
elevated portion includes not only the former sea-margin, or 
beach proper, but also wide patches of sea-bottom which, in course 
of the terrestrial process of upheaval, came to the surface, and 
have remained dry land since. As an authoritative description of 
the composition and general appearance of these beaches, I know 
nothing better than that which Sir Archibald has himself put on 
record — for in geological matters he is to be implicitly trusted. 
It is only when weighing archaeological facts in the balance of 
probability that he becomes vulnerable. In the following extract 
he brings both parties in perfect agreement to the very core of 
the controversy, and admirably places before us the materials 
on which our keenest deductive faculties are henceforth to be 
exercised : — 
“The Firths of Clyde, Forth, and Tay are each bordered with a strip 
of flat land, varying in breadth from a few yards to several miles, and 
having a pretty uniform height of 20 or 25 feet above high-water mark. 
This level terrace is the latest and, on the whole, the most marked of the 
raised beaches. It must have been formed when the land was from 20 to 
30 feet lower than at present, and evinces an upheaval which was nearly 
uniform over the whole of the central valley of Scotland. What, then, 
was the date of this upheaval 1 The discovery of human remains in the 
sands and clays of the raised beach affords the only ground for an 
answer to this question. From these strata canoes, stone hatchets, boat- 
hooks, anchors, pottery, and other works of art have been exhumed on 
both sides of the island.” 
Sir Archibald first deals with the Clyde Canoes, and, at the 
outset, makes some judicious observations on the nature of the 
evidence to be derived from their study. “ It must be borne in 
mind,” he writes, “ that the occurrence of these canoes in the 
same upraised silt by no means proves them to be synchronous, 
nor even to have belonged to the same geological period.” After 
discussing the various degrees of technical skill displayed in their 
construction, he concludes that “ the only evidence that remains 
is that which may be afforded by the character of the antiquities.” 
But yet, in face of this well-selected and, indeed, unassailable 
position, he deliberately pens the following remarks as his final 
opinion on the evidential value of the Clyde canoes on the 
upheaval problem — 
