The Fennoscandian uplift and glacial isostasy

249

Tecronophysics, 105 (1984) 249-262 Elsevier Science Publishers

B.V., Amsterdam

THE FENNOSCANDIAN

P. VALLABH

- Printed

in The Netherlands

UPLIFT AND GLACIAL

ISOSTASY

SHARMA

Instrtuleof Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Haraldsgade 6, 2200 Copenhagen (Denmark) (Received

by Publisher

October

30, 1983)

ABSTRACT

Sharma,

P.V., 1984. The Fennoscandian

Structure,

Dynamics

Various

hypotheses

documented

rebound

correlate secular

uplift

and geodetic

well with the central gravity

association

with a gravity

minimum

area of uplift and predict

measurements

are inconclusive.

with the area of maximum

the Fennoscandian

Most modern

data and land survey measurements

is associated

Lithosphere:

uplift. Different

a mass

rheological

with a low-viscosity

to ascertain

deficit. does

models proposed

the present

on the gravity whether

the

Free air anomalies

uplift of about

of Fennoscandia

which is well

attribute

information

is examined and

a remaining

Seismicity

authors

Recent

shield are reviewed and it is shown that the available

last 9000 years are more compatible

(Editor).

to the land uplift of Fennoscandia,

observations.

of the earth after the last deglaciation.

field, both from the satellite Fennoscandian

In: H.K. Gupta

Tecronophysics. 105: 249-262.

have been put forth in relation

both by geological

uplift to an isostatic

uplift and glacial isostasy.

and Evolution.

100 m. Results not

show

of

a close

for the mantle below

data on the rates of uplift for the

(10 2o P) asthenosphere

of 100-200

km thickness,

INTRODUCTION

The uplift of former glaciated earth to glacial loading classical intensively

area

and unloading.

for studies

discussed

areas is generally

of glacial

by many authors

assumed

to be the response

Fennoscandia

(Scandinavia

isostasy

the observed

and

in attempting

to explain

of the

and Finland) uplift

is a

has been

the possible

mecha-

nisms at work. Most authors (e.g., Daly, 1934; Haskell, 1937; Vening-Meinesz, 1937; Gutenberg, 1941; Niskanen, 1943; McConnell, 1968; Lliboutry, 1971; Walcott, 1973; Cathles, 1975; Peltier, 1976; Miirner, 1977; Bjerhammar, 1980) have accepted the hypothesis of an isostatic origin for the major part of the present uplift and have put forth different rheological models of the earth’s response to the Pleistocene iceload redistributions. Reviews incorporating recent data and developments can be found in a special volume edited by Morner (1980). It should, however, process of continuous 0040-1951/84/$03.00

be cautioned that despite various strings of evidence for the uplift in Fennoscandia, the isostatic origin of the present 0 1984 Elsevier Science Publishers

B.V.

From an objective point \lt’ view.. the iscrsfatic origin of the present uplift can hardly ho accepted. if IX> proof IS given for ;t vvell-defined correlation between the gravity field anomaly and the present rate of uplift in the arca. Thts can he put as :I straight-forward

question:

1s the Fennoscandian

uplift

associated

with a gravitv

minimum and a mass deficit? If the major part of the land uplift is ;I consequence of glacial unload;ng. then the other question is of the magnitude of the remaining uplift for

which

KZu%iinen.

estimates

vary

1953: f.;ihoutrF.

rather 1971)

wideI\, to

;I

few

from ICYIS

ahout

2C)O m (Niskanen.

of metrcs (Haskcll,

1943:

1937: t’athles.

1975). In this paper

we shall first examine

recent

information

on the F~‘ennoscandian

gravity field available from two separate quarters. namely the satellite data and the land survey data. It will he shown that the geopotential solutions obtained from satellite data exhibit a tentrc of mass deficit that correlates well with the arca showing the maximum rate of uplift. We shall next review the various rheological models that have been proposed for the Fennoscandian mantle. and show that the presently available data favour ;I channel flow model of low-viscosity athenosphere.

The Fennoscandian late Pleistocene.

During

shield has many

times been covered

the last ice age (Weichsel)

by ice caps during

three major glaciation

about 90,000, 60,000 and 20.000 yrs B.P.) are recognized.

maxima

the (at

The 20,000 yrs B.P. ice cap

is believed to have had a thickness of 2500 m (Flint, 1957) and covered an area of about 2500 X 1400 km’ with the centre near the Gulf of Bothnia. It began to mett swiftly at about 10,000 years B.P. and four centuries later ii had almost entirely vanished. The Fennoscandian uphft has been well documented by the following means: (1) strandline displacement curves, documenting the vertical uplift at a certain point (Liden, 193X: Saura~~~~, 1958: Ghickert. 1976); (2) repeated levelling, tide gauges and old water marks. recording the present uplift (RAK, 1974: KSuiainen, 1966: Andersen et al.. 1974). The most recent evidence of the present uplift is provided by the repeated high

.64'

Fig. 1. Present rate of land uplift (mm/y) in Fennoscandia. Broken curves indicate isoline interpolations in areas with no precise levelling and/or insufficient tide gauge data. (Compiled from various sources mentioned in the text; redrawn from Bjerhammar, 1980.)

precision levellings inducted in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Based mainly on these results, a map giving the rate of vertical crustal movements has been prepared (Fig. 1). The highest value of 9 mm/yr is observed in the northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia. The isobase lines show an approximately elliptical uplift structure where most of Fennoscandia is emerging. The shape of the isolines of relative uplift is in close agreement with the geological records of palaeoshorelines. A submerging peripheral zone is apparent and the position of the zero isobase is well defined in Denmark and South Sweden, both by precise levelhngs and by the tide gauge observations.

An interesting feature of the zero isohase observed by Mhrner ( 1974) is that it has remained fixed for the last 9000 vrs. From the studies ctf uplift curvc~ for the last ~~00 yrs Miirner exponential

(1980) claims to have established

factor tvpical of a glacial isostatic

yrn ago, and a linear responsible about

nature”

for the present

uplift.

as “tectonic factor”) of uncertain origin that ix Mbrner estimates the total uplift of the land to be

revision

of earlier

estimates

195X). Well-d(~cun~entcd

1943: Sauramo.

of about

500 600 m

uplift rates are, however, availa-

ble onty for the last 9000 yrs which show an uplift of about FREE AIR ANOMALIES

of the uplift. an

factor (named

X30 m. This is a drastic

(Niskanen.

“double

uplift that died out some 2~~~)~~~3000

3011 m.

AND GEOP0TENTlAI.S

The gravity field distribution has often been used to estimate density anomalies in the interior of the earth. it is well known that this “inverse problem” has no unique solution

and therefore

density

distributions

direct correlations are difficult

of gravity

to find.

anomalies

In order

with the subsurface

to evaluate

between the Fennoscandian uplift and the gravity field distribution. have been made, some of which are briefly reviewed here. Niskanen Finland,

(1939) observed

and he estimated

a gravity

minimum

the total remaining

anomalies

and the present

many

of -30 mGal in his gravity

uplift of land near the Bothnian

to be about 200 m. Honkasalo (1964) compiled scandia and he concluded: ‘._. there is apparently gravity

the relationship studies map of Gulf

a gravity map for all of Fennono kind of correlation between the

land rise as computed

on the basis of geological.

mareograph and precise levelling investigations. On the contrary, the correlation between the geologic map of rocks on the one hand and the gravity anomalies on the other is indisputable”. Cathtes (1975) averaged

the free-air

anomalies

(from

Honkasato’s

map) over an

area large enough to remove those anomalies that could be supported by the elastic rigidity of the lithosphere and found an anomaly of about - 3.5 mGa1 in the area of maximum uplift. The predicted remaining isostatic uplift was about 25 m. CathlCs averaged relatively

in view of the value of - 3.5 mGal has to be treated with reservation. large standard deviations associated with the 4O X 6” mean gravity.

Recently Balling (1980) made a free-air gravity map (accuracy ri: 10 mGal) for Fennoscandia, which is derived from the Bouguer gravity map (2” X 4'). His map shows a distinct negative anomaly along the Baltic Sea, but a clear correlation with the observed land uplift rates (Fig. 1) is not apparent. Balling extended gravity data, by preparing “residual” gravity maps based on observed

analysis of correlation

between gravity anomalies and surface elevations in the area. The mean gravity 3’ x 4” and 4” x 8") so derived, show better resolution of gravity residual maps (& trends. The longer wavelength gravity residuals (4O X 8" mean values) show an elliptic minimum (Fig. 2) which correlates fairly well with the central area showing maximum uplift (compare Fig. 1). Balling obtained a least squares solution for

253

residual

gravity

m. Walcott

results indicate probably

8’

value of - 18 mGai which predicts that the Fennoscandian

occurred

during

’

Fig. 2. 4” X 8” mean comparison

uplift is associated

residuat

gravity

29

---L_

15-20

130

with a mass deficit which

anomaly

(mGa1)

mGa1.

2,6”

L

map of Fennoscandia

of this map with the map in Fig. 1 shows that the central

low of about

uplift of about

area of uplift. These

the last glacial period.

’

gravity

a remaining

(1973) found a value of - 16 mGa1 for the central

after

I Balling

(1980).

uplift area is associated

A

with a

Jeffreys postglacial annmalv

(1940, 1970. 1975) has been a steadfast opptment of the hypothesis ot land uplift in Scandinavia. His analyh of gravity data pave free-air (upto

3rd degree)

of about

-5 IO mGa1. which is 31~0 shown 111Kaula‘~ (degree 2 to 16). Following the hypothesis of Jeffrevs argues, Scandinavia should be sinking instead of rising.

( 1972) map of free air anomalies viscous

flow,

B.jerhammar

(1980)

has adopted

a more

objective

approach

tn analysing

the

geopotential and gravity field data. The method chosen by him anticipates that if the uplift process has an isostatic origin, then the geopotential field should include significant “harmonics” which can be traced hack to the lust glaciation. Following his reasoning.

an isostatic

subsidence

in the Scandinavian

geoid will have a very

limited effect on high harmonics (30 degrees and over) which only reflect density anomalies originating from the upper crust. ??\lso very low harmonics. which have a rather global nature,

should be avoided.

Making

use of the satellite

data (GRIM

2).

he selected a “harmonic window“ in such ;I way that all available harmonics from degrees 10 through 30 were included to compute the geoidal heights in Scandinavia. The results of this new analysis are rather exciting. Computed values of the total geopotential field (degree 2 30) show that the geoid is highly elevated over thr central part of Fennoscandia and thus indicates a negative correlation with the former

glacio-&static

objections window,

subsidence.

This

reverse

put forth hy Jeffreys (1975). However. the situation

is entirely

changed.

correlation

was one of the main

with the use of selected

A local subsidence

harmonic

of the geoid of about 9

m is indicated showing a positive correlation with the rate of uptift in the central area. From an analysis of 52 records of the geoid heights and uplift rates in the area between 56O-68”N and 12’ high as 0.96, when harmonics close correlation. the general

24”E

sistent

of isostatic

with

the

hypothesis

B.jerhammar

2 9 are excluded uplift mechanism

found

a correlation

coefficient

as

from geopotentials. in view of this in Fennoscandia seems to be con-

compensation

(rebound)

after

the

last

&c&ion. Bjerhammar’s method, although versatile in its approach, has to hc used with care. The choice of harmonic window with respect to the lower limit is very influential. The upper limit of harmonic window is not critical. since the contribution from higher harmonics

(degree 3U and over) at the satellite altitude

is very small.

Flowever, statistical noise due to higher harmonics could be significant. The main advantage of using sateliitc data is that local anomalies from the topography and upper crustal inhom~)genciti~s could be effectively filtered. SECIJLAR

GRAVITY

VARIATIONS

IN FENNOSC’ANDIA

The relationship between the land uplift and gravity in Fennoscandia has been investigated with another method in the last decade on a trial basis by Kiviniemi (1974) and coworkers. If it is assumed that the land uplift is because of the viscous flow of the mantle material ( p,,, = 3350 kg m “) under the unchanged crustal layer,

255

T

6 (A$

Pm1

/ /I

:

+20-

1

.‘..T'...,,

j,_/'

-B

,E II +lO-1 5 :,' I Iy.:.' I$ -I :. ?3j I_.' o+.

, -.A_.3

,

-.

/

',..

;

'..,

I

3 9

I3 200 __

I

-.i_

9

I.

--.-._

I -30.’

-20-

Fig. 3. ‘The variation

of gravity on the 63”N Fennoscandian

5-yr period between

1967 and 1973. Dotted curve after measurements

measurements

of A. Kiviniemi.

along the line on the assumption

The broken

for the secular variation uplift,

the gravity

gravity

difference

curve after

variation

in the gravity

difference

uplift.

by 1.4 yGal/cm between

measurements

for the

continuous

uplift. When the stations

in gravity are placed at locations

differences

in the gravity

of Petterson;

curve shows the expected

of an isostatic

the free air gravity will increase

line for secular variation

the stations

it is possible

showing

of the line

different

rates of

have to vary. By repeating

to follow

its variation

and

the draw

conclusions about the mechanism of the uplift. After a period of lo-20 years the secular variations will surpass the observation error of gravity differences (at present a few PGal). If the above-mentioned stations are also tied in with a precise levelling network, knowledge of the variation in gravity makes it possible to investigate the difference in the absolute crustal movement. Preliminary results of this collaborative project between the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark) are shown in Fig. 3 for the 63”N line starting from Joensuu (East Finland) and ending in Vagstranda (West Norway). Although the results showed a variation in gravity, rather different from that expected, no conclusions can be drawn since the time interval of 5 years is too short. Significant results are not expected until one or two decades have passed. SEISMICITY

OF FENNOSCANDIA

The

discovery

recent

of several

neotectonic

structures

in Fennoscandia

has

changed the concept of the Fennoscandian shield as a stable area. Geological studies in this area have been useful in indicating several structural provinces, as well as zones of weakness where deformation is preferentially absorbed. The question whether tectonic features in this area are seismically active or not can only be answered by seismological measurements. A review of seismicity of Fennoscandia has been recently given in a paper by Husebye et al. (1978). The macroseismic material for the period 1497-1950, and to a small extent the instrumentally recorded data, are shown in Fig. 4. The classical

Fig. 4. Macroseismically al.. 1978). Classical

located earthquakes

catalogue

of Markus

in Fennoscandia

Bath is included

for the period 1497-1950

(after Husebye

et

in the data.

earthquake catalogue of Markus B&h is included in the macroseismic material. The locations of the macroseismic observations are estimated to be better than 30 km for most events, and 55-80% of the shocks were probably at depths of less than 20 km. The most significant activity is localized in three areas. namely along the west coast of Norway, around the Oslo graben system, and in the area adjoining Gulf of Bothnia.

251

Kvale (1960) attributed fault

lines

Norway.

especially

the Norwegian

in the border

epicentre

zones

Bath (1953, 1972) has attempted

stress patterns

produced

patterns

of Oslo graben to correlate

by the differential

uplift

released

in earthquakes.

Husebye

and

seismicity

or inferred

the west coast

of

of Fennoscandia

to

of the shield after glaciation.

He

was able to show that the strain energy accumulated to the energy

to known

by the land uplift is comparable et al. (1978) have examined

the

seismicity pattern from intraplate-tectonics point of view. The association of seismic events with zones of weakness rather than with fault lines is a characteristic of intraplate

seismicity

in most shield

Fennoscandian

shield

zones of crustal

weakness.

Despite scattered

varying

indicates

opinions,

uplift

The lack of active

any energy

the present

zones can be attributed,

the differential

areas.

that

consensus

only to a limited

of the shield

release

after

is that extent,

seismicity

the last glaciation.

MODELS FOR THE ~ENNOSCANDIAN

faults

to occur

in the along

of widely

to stresses produced The tectonic

proposed by Morner (1980) to be responsible for the present by the observed seismicity pattern in Fennoscandia. RHEOLOGICAL

major

will tend

by

factor

uplift is not supported

MANTLE

From the distinct evidence of geoid subsidence and supporting evidence of free air anomalies presented earlier, the hypothesis of postglacial uplift of Fennoscandia can be reasonably

accepted.

which is consistent

with the rate of recovery of the subsidence

Two different

rheological

The next problem

rebound

viscous

of 1022P and the other

102’P sandwitched

basically

different

are still relevant

between

static rebound predicted gravity anomalies, and

a viscous observed

models of the earth first put forward

glacio-isostatic mantle

is of deducing

today. a loo-km

rigid lithosphere

One model

flow model for the area.

in 1935 to explain

supposes

thick fluid channel

and mesosphere.

a uniform of viscosity

Differences

in iso-

by the two models occur in the shape of uplift curves, in the the relaxation time. The behaviour of the two models is

in relation

to the shape

of the uplift

curves

in the centre

of

rebound. The velocity of uplift u is linearly proportional to the remaining uplift h in the linear model of uniform mantle viscosity, whereas the assumption of thin channel

(asthenosphere)

Several

attempts

model leads to u a: h”.

have been

curves of Fennoscandia.

made

Most analyses

to identify (Niskanen,

the valid

model

1943; Lliboutry,

from

the uplift

1971; Post and

Griggs, 1973) show that Liden’s (1938) data of palaeoshorelines conform best to the cubic rather than the linear relationship, if the remaining uplift is about 100-200 m. Cathles (1980) has recently reviewed various uplift curves (Fig. 5) based on Lidens data by showing a plot of log h versus log u, assuming various mounts of (isostatic) remaining uplift in central Fennoscandia. It is immediately apparent that the mantle rheology model deduced by such an analysis depends entirely on the amount of uplift h assumed to remain at present. Cathles (1975), from his earlier analysis of

300

200 t E iu. ? a 3 z

100

z

90

$

60

2

0

70 60

50 Data from 40

A

Uplilt

I

30

2.0

1

,

3.0

4.0

RATE

OF UPLIFT

Fig. 5. Rate of uplift values for the mouth of the Angerman are plotted restricted

against

assumed

to a channel

values of remaining

that is thin with resr;ct

the linear model of deep flow in a uniform

Liden’s data, advocates

I

,

5.0

/

6.0

(cm/v)

Lliboutry

of mouth

7.0

i1I

mantle (after Cathles.

20.0

*

River. Sweden, computed

to load dimensions,

River

8.0 9.0 10.0

uplift. The upper curves conform

that the uplift in central

11971)

of &yerman

by Lliboutry

(1971)

best to a mantle

while the bottom

curve conforms

flow to

1980).

Fennoscandia

can be well fitted to

an exponential curve with a decay constant (relaxation time) of 4400 yrs on the assumption of a remaining uplift of 30 m. However, the remaining uplift is not an observable quantity and the only independent information available, that may be related, is the free air gravity anomalies and the geoidal depressions. This brings us back to the point where we started. As discussed previously, the geoidal subsidence of about 9 m obtained by the “harmonic window” analysis of the satellite data. is a piece of distinct evidence which indicates that the glacio-isostatic uplift has not ceased in Scandinavia and is the main cause of the vertical movements in this area. Both the evidence of geoidal subsidence as well as the analysis of free air anomalies (discussed in earlier section) give estimates of the remaining isostatic uplift to be of the order of 100 m, rather than of 30 m postulated by Cathles (1975).

259

TABLE

I

Viscosity

estimates

made from the Fennoscandian

uplift curves and the models used

Model

Authors

Assumed

Viscosity

remaining

(0

uplift Van Bemmelen

100 km thick asthenosphere

and

210 m

1.3 ,lO”” 9.5 .lO”

Berlage (1935) HaskeIl(1937)

Viscous half-space

20 m

Vening-Meinesz(1937)

Viscous half-space

1x0 m

Niskanen

Viscous half-space

210 m

3 3.6

Not given

5.7 .lO?’

(1943)

McConnell

(1968)

Viscous half-space

McConnell

(I 968)

Layered earth model 62-2

(model 62-l)

I()‘” lo”2 111

100 km viscous layer

-

3.8 .lO’Y

M&one11 (1968)

200 km viscous layer (62-3)

-

2.9 -10””

Lliboutry

100 km thick asthenosphere

185 m

(1971)

Cathles (1975)

Deep flow and channel

0.97~10~” h

flow

models Flexural

rigidity of litho-

sphere D = 50.10*’ Thickness channel

30 m

deep flow mantle

200 km thick asthenosphere

a Niskanen’s

solution

was based

4

.]O20”

1

.102’

75 km

Underlying This paper

N-m

of low viscosity

on an equation

which

6.4 .lO”

100 m is appropriate

for flow in a thin channel. but

applied to viscous half-space. ’ Corrected

value.

’ There is a trade-off

This would 0.8.10zo

between

suggest

to 6.10”

the flexural rigidity of the lithosphere

a non-linear

mantle

P for an asthenosphere

rheology model

and the thickness

and a viscosity of thickness

model appears to be consistent with the recent findings velocity layer (LV,L) and an electrical asthenosphere

of the low viscosity

in the range

100-200

of

km. This

of the existence of both low beginning at about 150 km

depth (Given and Helmberger, 1980; Jones, 1982). Table I summarizes the viscosity estimates made by the different authors and the models chosen. In contrast to the uniform mantle model (viscous halfspace) the asthenosphere model (thickness 100-200 km) gives values that are smaller by two orders of magnitude: about lOzaP instead of 1022P. DISCUSSION

AND CONCLUSIONS

It is worth reminding ourselves of the complexities of glacial isostacy where persuasive arguments have been made for some particular model and, later many

arguments

inverted

illustrated

to favour

by interpretation

schools of thought. the mantle

the opposing

This contrast

rheology.

model.

of free air anomalies

the central area of uplift is accepted,

case

for the viscous

flow model

by opposing

models proposed

and geoidal

of free air anomaly

with

this is well

heights

in the various

is also apparent

If the correlation

In Fennoscrrndia

and geoidal

for

>uubsidence

then there is a strong (I think more strong)

of 1006200

km thick

asthenosphere

under

the

Fennoscandian lithosphere. Suggestive indications of the presence of a seismic IOU velocity zone and an electrical asthenosphere together with observations of higher heat flow. all tend to support the existence of a low viscosity asthenosphere under the Fennoscandian shield. However. in a wider perspective there are certain long term trends which need to be considered: sea-flow spreading in the North Atlantic, subsidence of the North Sea Basin, the general northwest -which

appear

asthenospheric

direction

to be compatible material

of maximum

horizontal

compressive

stress

with the frame work of a large mass transport

(by convection)

towards

the Fennoscandian

shield.

of

These

would be more consistent with the model of deep flow in a uniform viscosity mantle. which traditionally finds more favour among proponents of mantle-wide convection. It is quite probable that the asthenosphere viscosity might strongly vary laterally in the shield area, which would alter the basic assumption for the viscosity models. Unfortunately,

the thickness

yet unknown. It seismic soundings. various types of material to resolve to remember

of the asthenosphere

under the Fennoscandian

shield is

is hoped that the European Geo-Traverse programme’ of deep heat flow and magnetotellurics. which includes a tentative plan of investigations in the Fennoscandian shield, would provide new some of the uncertainties in the near future. Nevertheless, one has

the basic philosophy

behind

rheology-no

change

has a bimple cause

or effect.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank

Dr.

contribute

Harsh

K. Gupta

of N.G.R.I.,

a paper to the commemoration

Hyderabad

for the invitation

to

volume.

REFERENCES

Andersen. repeated

O.B.. Kejlsra, E. and Remmer. precise levellings.

0.. 1974. Secular movements

Balling, N., 1980. The land uplift in Fennoscandia, (Editor),

Earth Rheology,

B&h, M., 1953. Seismicity Bjerhammar,

isostasy

Isostasy

uplifts

and Eustasy.

gravity

as determined

from

field anomalies

and isostasy.

In: N.A. Miirner

Wiley, New York, pp. 297-321.

and related problems.

der SeismizitPt

A., 1980. Postglacial

Earth Rheology,

and Eustasy.

of Fennoscandia

B5th, M., 1972. Zum Studium

within Jutland

Geod. Inst. Skr., 3 (40): 70 pp.

von Fennoscandia.

and geopotentials

Gerlands

Beitr. Geophys.,

63: 172-208.

Gerland

Beitr. Geophys.,

81: 213-226.

in Fennoscandia.

Wiley, New York, pp. 323-326.

In: N.A. M(imer (Editor).

261

Cathles,

L.M.. 1975. The Viscosity

PP. Cathles.

L.M., 1980. Interpretation

rheology.

In: N.A.

Momer

of The Earth’s Mantle. of postglacial

(Editor),

Earth

Princeton

isostatic

University

adjustment

Rheology,

lsostasy

Press. Princeton.

phenomena

and Eustasy.

N.J.. 386

in terms

of mantle

Wiley, New York.

pp.

11-43. Daly.

R.A., 1934. The Changing

PP. Flint, R.F., 1957. Glacial Given,

World of The Ice Age. Yale University

and Pleistocene

J.W. and Helmberger.

Geology.

D.V., 1980. Upper

Press. New Haven.

Conn..

271

Wiley. New York. mantle

structure

of northwestern

Europe,

J. Geophys.

Res., 85: 7183-7194. Gliickert,

B., 1976. Post-glacial

shore-level

displacement

of the Baltic in SW Finland.

Ann. Acad.

Sci.

interior.

Bull.

Fenn. Ser. A3, 118: l-92. Gutenberg,

B., 1941. Changes

in sea level, postglacial

uplift,

and mobility

of the earths

Geol. Sot. Am., 52: 721-722. Haskell.

N.A., 1937. The viscosity

Honkasalo,

of the asthenosphere.

T., 1964. On the use of gravity

Fennoscandia. Husebye,

Fennia,

H., Fyen,

J. and Gjoystdal,

1497 and 1975 and intraplate

Jeffreys,

H.. 1940. Isostatic

Jeffreys,

H., 1970. The Earth. Cambridge

Jeffreys,

H., 1975. The Fenno-Scandian

Jones,

A.G.,

1982.

asthenosphere Kaariainen,

On

movement

of the land

H., 1978. Earthquake

Norsk Geol. Tidsskr.. Geogr.

University

upheaval

in

crust-mantle

Geophys.

J. Astron. uplift

activity

in Fennoscandia

58: 51-68.

J.. 95: 384-385.

Press. Cambridge,

525 pp.

uplift. J. Geol. Sot. London,

the electrical

revealed?

tectonics.

in Finland.

E., 1953. On the recent

Helsinki,

for investigation

89: 21-23.

E.S., Bungum,

between

Am. J. Sci., 33: 22-28.

measurements

structure

131: 323-325.

in Fennoscandia:

No

Moho,

and

the

Sot., 68: 371-388.

of the earths

crust

in Finland.

Veroeff.

Finn.

Geod.

Inst.,

42: l-106.

Kaariainen,

E., 1966. Land uplift in Finland

computed

with the aid of precise levellings.

Ann, Acad. Sci.

Fenn.. Ser. A3, 90: 187-190. Kaula,

W.M., 1972. Global

Earth.

McGraw-Hill.

Kiviniemi,

gravity

and tectonics.

In: E.C. Robertson

(Editor).

The Nature

of the Solid

New York, pp. 385-405.

A., 1974. High precision

measurements

for studying

the secular variation

in gravity

in Finland.

Pub]. Finn. Geod. Inst., 78: 68 pp. Kvale, A., 1960. Norwegian I7 PP. Liden. R., 1938. Foren. Lliboutry,

earthquakes

Den Senkvart’tia

Stockholm

in relation

to tectonics.

Strandforskjutningens

Mat. Naturv.

Forlopp

och

Ser., Bergen University.

Kronolgi

i Angermand.

10: Geol.

Forh., 60: 3.

L.A.. 1971. Rheological

properties

of the asthenosphere

from Fennoscandian

data. J. Geophys.

Res., 76: 1433-1446. Lystikh,

E.N.,

“floating” McConnell,

The

calculation

of the rheological

properties

Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Geofiz..

Jr., R.K., 1968. Viscosity of the mantle from relaxation

Geophys. Morner,

1956.

of Fennoscandia.

of the asthenosphere

from

the

360.

time spectra of isostatic

adjustment.

J.

Res., 73 (22): 7089-7105.

N.A., 1975. Double

nature of the Fennoscandian

uplift. Abstr.

XVI General

Assembly

I.U.G.G.

and bedrock

influence.

in Grenoble. Morner,

N.A., 1977. Past and present uplift in Sweden: Glacial

Geol. F&en. Miirner.

Stockholm

Earth

isostasy,

tectonism

99: 48-54.

N.A., 1980. The Fennoscandian

N.A. MBrner (Editor),

Niskanen.

Farh.,

uplift: Geological

Rheology,

E., 1939. On the upheaval

Isostasy

data and their geodynamical

and Eustasy.

of land in Fennoscandia.

implication. In:

Wiley, New York, pp. 251-284. Ann. Acad.

Sci. Fenn..

Ser. A, 53: l-30.

Nakanen.

t-_. 194.1. On the deformation

r-&ted

phenomena.

Pelt~cr. W.R..

uf the earth’s cru\t

Ann. Acad. SCI. Fenn.. SC

1976. Glaci(>-lsostatic

Post. K.L. and Grigga. D.T..

lY7i.

adjustments.

under the weight of il glaci;ll t~~c-load band

A. 7: 1 5Y.

Cizophys. .I.. 46: 605

h4h. 6hY 7116.

The earth’s m;mtlc: iividcnce
fh)w. Sctrnce,

1x1.

1142-1244. RAK

(Riketa

.411mBnna Kartverk).

Rlkets Allm. Kartverk Sauramo.

Van

M.K..

Bemmelen.

tektonischcx

lY74.

195X. Die Gschichte R.W.

The second high preoslon

levelling of Sweden

1951 -1967.

Medd.. A. 40. 91 pp.

and

Bewegungen

Berlage.

der Ostsee. Acad. Sei. Fenn. Ann.. Ser. A, 5 1. H.P..

1935.

unter hcsonderer

Versrch

einer

Berticksxhtigung

drr

ni~th~matis~h~n Undationstheorie.

Beh~ndlun~

gee-

Gerlands

Beitr.

Geophys.. 43: 10-55. Vening-Memesz. Scandinavia: Walcott.

F.A..

1937. ~The dctrrmmation

isohtatic adjustment.

of the earth.5 plasticity

K. Akad. W~I. Amsterdam,

from the postglacial

uplift of

40 (8): 654-662.

R..i.. 1973. Structure of the earth from glacto-tsostat~c rebound. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. SC..

15~37.

I: