Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 24, 2021 Contributions to the history of geomorphology and Quaternary geology: an introduction DAVID R. OLDROYD1 & RODNEY H. GRAPES2 1School of History and Philosophy, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia (e-mail: [email protected]) 2Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Korea University, Seoul, 136-701, Korea (e-mail: [email protected]) This Special Publication deals with various aspects the Baltic States in 2006, where a great deal of of the histories of geomorphology and Quaternary what the geologist sees consists of Quaternary geology in different parts of the world. Geomor- sediments. However, much of the Earth’s surface phology is the study of landforms and the processes is not formed of these sediments but of older that shape them, past and present. Quaternary rocks exposed at the surface by erosion and struc- geology studies the sediments and associated tural displacement. Here, geomorphology can seek materials that have come to mantle much of answers to questions regarding the past histories of Earth’s surface during the relatively recent Pleisto- these rocks, their subsequent erosion, and present cene and Holocene epochs. Geomorphology, with location and form. Geomorphology also raises its concern for Earth’s surface features and pro- questions, and may provide answers, regarding tec- cesses, deals with information that is much more tonic issues, for example from deformed marine amenable to observation and measurement than is terraces and offset fault systems. In all these the case for most geological work. Quaternary instances, the history of geological and geomor- geology focuses mostly, but not exclusively, on phological investigations can serve to illustrate the Earth’s surficial sedimentary cover, which is both the progress and pitfalls involved in the scien- usually more accessible than the harder rocks of tific understanding of the Earth’s surface and the deeper past. recent geological history. Institutionally, geomorphology is usually There are relatively few books but a growing situated alongside, or within, academic departments number of research papers on the history of geo- of geology or geography. In most English-speaking morphology. For readers of English, there is a countries, its links are more likely to be with short book by Tinkler (1985) and a collection geography; but in the United States these connec- edited by the same writer (Tinkler 1989), an ele- tions are usually shared between geography and gantly written volume on British geomorphology geology, although rarely in the same institution. In from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century by leading institutions everywhere, strong links exist Davies (1969), and a series of essays by Kennedy between geomorphology and such cognate disci- (2006). But towering over all other writings are plines as soil science, hydrology, oceanography three volumes: those by Chorley et al. (1964) on and civil engineering. Although nominally part of geomorphology up to the time of the American, geology, Quaternary geology also has strong links William Morris Davis (1850–1934); by Chorley with geography and with those disciplines, such as et al. (1973) dealing exclusively with Davis; and climatology, botany, zoology and archaeology, by Beckinsale & Chorley (1991) on some aspects concerned with environmental change through the of work after Davis. As envisaged by Chorley relatively recent past. and Beckinsale, who died in 2002 and 1999, Given that geomorphology concerns the study respectively, a fourth volume by other authors is of the Earth’s surface (i.e. landforms, and their soon to emerge (Burt et al. 2008). A series of origin, evolution and the processes that shape essays edited by Stoddart (1997) on Process and them) and that the uppermost strata are in many Form in Geomorphology (1997) also contains cases of Pleistocene and Holocene age, it is unsur- valuable historical material, while papers edited prising that this Special Publication should deal by Walker & Grabau (1993) discuss the develop- ‘promiscuously’ with topics in both geomorphol- ment of geomorphology in different countries, of ogy and Quaternary studies. This particular selec- which Australia, China, Estonia, Iceland, Japan, tion has been developed from a nucleus of papers Lithuania, New Zealand, The Netherlands, the presented at a conference on the histories of USA and the USSR are specifically mentioned in geomorphology and Quaternary geology held in the present volume. From:GRAPES, R. H., OLDROYD,D.&GRIGELIS, A. (eds) History of Geomorphology and Quaternary Geology. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 301, 1–17. DOI: 10.1144/SP301.1 0305-8719/08/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2008. Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 24, 2021 2 D. R. OLDROYD & R. H. GRAPES A framework for geomorphology uplift, landforms shaped by rivers pass through different stages of development, which he dubbed Connections between geomorphology and geology ‘youth’, ‘maturity’ and ‘old age’, until they are go back to the early days of Earth science, but it reduced to a nearly level surface or ‘peneplain’. is to developments in the later eighteenth century The peneplain, for which he found evidence in the that we often attribute the foundations of modern Appalachians, could later be ‘rejuvenated’ by links between the disciplines, notably to scholars uplift, thereby initiating a new cycle of erosion. such as Giovanni Targioni-Tarzetti (1712–1783) This model led to studies of ‘denudation chronol- in Italy, Jean-Etienne Guettard (1715–1786) in ogy’, or the reconstruction of landscape histories France, Mikhail Lomonosov (1711–1765) in based of the recognition of erosion cycles and pene- Russia and James Hutton (1726–1797) in Scotland. plains in various stages of development. Without a Hutton gave much thought to extended Earth time, clear understanding of the processes and time and to the processes whereby soil and rock are involved, however, ‘reading a landscape’ through eroded from the land to the sea. In 1802, Hutton’s the lens of Davisian doctrine, or elucidating its friend and biographer, John Playfair (1748–1810), ‘denudation chronology’, became an art form, not only rescued Hutton’s ideas from relative rather than a rigorous science. Davis’s geomorphic obscurity but contributed original ideas on the model was essentially qualitative and difficult to nature and behaviour of river systems. However, test but, as Charles Darwin famously wrote the intellectual climate of the time worked against regarding his notion of natural selection, ‘here the ready acceptance of their views. then I had at last a theory by which to work’ Following the leads provided by Hutton and (Darwin 1887, p. 83). Playfair, Charles Lyell (1797–1875) also addressed Davis’s ideas were challenged in his own time, questions of extended Earth time and of erosion in particularly by German geomorphologists such as his well-known and influential three-volume trea- Albrecht Penck (1858–1945), Professor of Physical tise Principles of Geology (Lyell 1830–1833). He Geography at the University of Vienna and later of emphasized the differential erosive powers that Geography at Berlin, and more particularly his son rivers or the sea could have on strata of different Walther Penck (1888–1923). Before the World hardness, and discussed cases where river systems War I, the Pencks and Davis were on good terms, did not divide simply, like the branches of a tree, but they subsequently drifted apart, partly owing but cut through higher ground or occupied the to world politics and partly owing to Walther’s eroded axes of anticlines. The latter phenomenon rejection of the idealized character of Davis’s could be explained by supposing that folding had theory along with disagreements as to the relation- fractured the rocks at an anticlinal crest so that ship between Earth movements and erosion. The they became more prone to erosion, with the Pencks objected to the notion of discrete upward result that ‘reversal’ of drainage might occur. But Earth movements as the cause of topographic reju- Lyell realized that most of the rivers draining the venation and also argued that erosion wears back a Weald of SE England did not follow the main surface just as much as down. However, Walther axis of the Wealden anticline but often cut Penck’s proposed model of slope retreat would through the North or South Downs that formed eventually yield a gently sloping surface resembling the flanks of the fold. He attributed such anomalous a Davisian peneplain (Penck 1924, 1953). Penck configurations to fractures that cut across the also envisaged an empirical relationship between Wealden axis and to the interaction of Earth move- tectonic activity and slope development, owing to ments and fluvial erosion. Thus, Lyell invoked geo- the changing rates of river incision as the land morphological and tectonic considerations in order itself was raised at varying rates. This idea was to develop a geological history of a region. rejected vigorously by some in the English- A name that often emerges in the present collec- speaking community, with Douglas Johnson tion of papers is that of W.M. Davis, with his theory (1878–1944), for example, describing it as ‘one of a cycle of erosion that was constructed in part on of the most fantastic ideas ever introduced into the work of his compatriots John Wesley Powell geomorphology’! (Johnson 1940, p. 231). (1834–1902), Clarence Edward Dutton (1841– Ultimately, the differences between Davis and 1912) and Grove Karl Gilbert (1843–1918) Penck lay in their different objectives and scientific (Davis 1889, 1899, 1912). And one may reiterate approaches. Davis regarded geomorphology as a that Davis’s work was considered by Chorley branch of geography, with geomorphic processes et al. (1973) to be so influential as to warrant an furnishing the topography upon which geography entire volume of their comprehensive historical ‘resided’. He, together with a number of like- study of geomorphology.