Geomorphic Landscapes

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
GEOMORPHIC landscapes* John E. Kesseli University of California, Berkeley In his presidential address delivered before the Association of American Geographers at the Madison meeting in December, 1948, our foremost physical geographer, Richard Joel Russell, chose to discuss the relationship of geomorphology to geography. Noticing the steady decline in interest in geomorphology among geographers during the last halfcentury , as expressed by the constantly decreasing number of papers on morphologic subjects presented before that Association, Russell finds that it is partly owing to a healthy widening of the field of geographic inquiry , but partly also to a growing dissatisfaction with géomorphologie studies. For this reaction among geographers Russell believes that the geomorphologists themselves are to blame because they continue to cling to the physiography of the classical period, persist in perpetuating its misconceptions, close their eyes to later discoveries, and still stress the geologic and particularly the diastrophic interpretation of landforms . What Russell calls the classical geomorphology thus contributes little to an understanding of the relation between landforms and cultural geography . In its place Russell advocates the development of a geographical geomorphology, that is, "a factual study of landforms that cuts away from classical pattern. . . , tells us what is present in a landscape and. . . where each form is to be found. "' As an outstanding example of such geographical geomorphology Russell mentions the Edelman-Tavernier survey of the Benelux countries, essentially a soil survey, which is now being undertaken as a cooperative venture of "agriculturalists, pedologists , sedimentologists, geologists, archeologists, paleobotanists, and other specialists. " The last named group includes also an historical geographer in the Dutch half of the survey. His assignment consists in providing the history of land use since Gallo- Roman time, the study of which often throws light on the causes of significant changes of the level of the land which cannot be explained by physical laws alone. It is certainly refreshing to find a geomorphologist willing to admit that the field he serves is in great need of improvement. Most geographers will welcome the suggested change from classical geomorphology to geographical geomorphology, that is, to a geomorphology a geographer can really use. However, the role alloted to the geographer in establishing that desired geographical geomorphology is extremely small. In the enumeration of contributing scholars given above he appears at the tail end, preceded by a series of exact scientists, wielders of the microscope and the pipette. It appears that they are to do the yeoman work while the geographer is to enjoy the fruit of their efforts. It seems to me that such cooperation for the benefit of the geographer, with or without his assistance, will not materialize very frequently. In this plan the geographer is again relegated to the task of waiting for other people to do the groundwork upon which he can erect his own structure . Areas for which such detailed surveys are not available would become forbidden territory for the cultural geographer. Obviously the ?Presidential address of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 22, 1950. 4 Yearbook of the AssociationVOL. 12 geographer cannot accept this postulate, and must therefore be willing to provide his own groundwork, including his own geomorphology. Reading between the lines of Russell's address one gains the impression that geographers are ill prepared for that task. Geologists will readily agree with Russell and, I am afraid, also will the majority of geographers. The latter's reaction is obviously caused by the awe inspired at the ease with which geomorphologists are able to elucidate the evolution of a landscape from the very beginning of time. But Russell states correctly that such geomorphology is poorly fitted to provide the fundament for an anthropogeographic study and should be replaced by a geomorphology giving adequate answers to the questions of "what, where, and how much" in relation to landforms. It is my contention that the geographers can provide this kind of geomorphology themselves if they refrain from focusing their attention on the "why, how, and when" of landforms, that is, if they concentrate upon the lay of the land and leave the tracing of its complicated evolution since pre- Cambrian time to othe r s . As a means to this end...

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: