Chapter 11

[BE]For interglacial beds of north Germany see Helland:Zeitschr. d. deutsch. geol.Ges., xxxi., 879; Penck:Ibid., xxxi., 157;Länderkunde von Europa(Das deutsche Reich), 1887, 512; Dames:Samml. gemeinverständl. wissensch. Vorträge, von Virchow u. Holtzendorff:xx. Ser., 479 Heft; Schröder:Jahrb. d. k. geol. Landensanst. f.1885, p. 219. For further references see Wahnschaffe,op. cit.I have not thought it worth while in this paper to refer to the interglacial deposits of our own islands. A general account of them will be found in myGreat Ice Age, andPrehistoric Europe. The interglacial phenomena of the Continent seem to be less known here than they ought to be.

[BF]Zeitschrift d. deutsch. geolog. Gesellschaft, Bd. xxxvii, p. 197.

[BG]Anzeichen einer interglaziären Epoche in Central-Russland, Moskau, 1891.

No mere temporary retreat and re-advance of the ice-front can account for these phenomena. The occurrence of remains of the great pachyderms at Rixdorf, near Berlin, and the character of the flora met with in the interglacial beds of north Germany and Russia are incompatible with glacial conditions in the low-grounds of northern Europe. The interglacial beds, described by Dr. C. Weber[BH]as occurring near Grünenthal, in Holstein, are among the more recent discoveries of this kind. These deposits rest upon boulder-clay, and are overlaid by another sheet of the same character, and belong, according to Weber, to “that great interglacial period which preceded the last ice-sheet of northern Europe.” The section shows 8 feet of peat resting on freshwater clay, 2 feet thick, which is underlaid by some 10 feet of “coral sand,” with bryozoa. The flora and fauna have a distinctly temperate facies. It is no wonder, then, that Continental geologists are generally inclined to admit that north Germany and the contiguous countries have been invaded at least twice by the ice-sheets of two separate and distinct glacial epochs. This is not all, however. While every observer acknowledges that the Diluvium is properly divided into an upper and a lower series, there are some geologists who have described the occurrence of three, and even more boulder-clays—the one clearly differentiated from the other, and traceable over wide areas. Is each of these to be considered the product of an independent ice-sheet, or do they only indicate more or less extensive oscillations of the ice-front? The boulder-clays are parted from each other by thick beds of sand and clay, in some of which fossils have occasionally been detected. It is quite possible that such stratified beds were deposited during a temporary retreat of the ice-front, which when it re-advanced covered them up with its bottom-moraine. On the other hand, the phenomena areequally explicable on the assumption that each boulder-clay represents a separate epoch of glaciation. Until the stratified beds have yielded more abundant traces of the life of the period, our judgment as to the conditions implied by them must be suspended. It is worthy of note in this connection, however, that in North America the existence of one prolonged interglacial epoch has been well established, while distinct evidence is forthcoming of what Chamberlin discriminates as “stages of deglaciation and re-advancing ice.”[BI]

[BH]Neues Jahrbuch f. Mineralogie, Geologie, u. Palæontologie, 1891, Bd. ii., pp. 62, 228; 1892, Bd. i., p. 114.

[BI]Sixth Annual Report, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1884-5, P. 315.

When we turn to the Alpine Lands, we find that there also the occurrence of former interglacial conditions has been recognised. The interglacial deposits, as described by Heer and others, are well known. These form as definite a geological horizon as the similar fossiliferous zone in the Diluvium of northern Germany. The lignites, as Heer pointed out, represent a long period of time, and this is still further illustrated by the fact that considerable fluviatile erosion supervened between the close of the first and the advent of the later glacial epoch. No mere temporary retreat and re-advance of the ice will account for the phenomena. Let us for a moment consider the conditions under which the accumulations in question were laid down. The glacial deposits underlying the lignite beds contain, amongst other erratics, boulders which have come from the upper valley of the Rhine. This means, of course, that the ancient glacier of the Rhine succeeded in reaching the Lake of Zurich; and it is well known that it extended at the same time to Lake Constance. That glacier, therefore exceeded sixty miles in length. One cannot doubt that the climatic conditions implied by this great extension were excessive, and quite incompatible with the appearance in the low-grounds of Switzerland of such a flora as that of the lignites. The organic remains of the lignite beds indicate a climate certainly not less temperate than that which at present characterises the district round the Lake of Zurich. We may safely infer, therefore, that during interglacialtimes the glaciers of the Alps were not more extensively developed than at present. Again, as the lignites are overlaid by glacial deposits, it is obvious that the Rhine glacier once more reached Lake Zurich—in other words, there was a return of the excessive climate that induced the first great advance of that and other Swiss glaciers. That these advances were really due to extreme climatic conditions is shown by the fact that it was only under such conditions that the Scandinavian flora could have invaded the low-grounds of Europe, and entered Switzerland. It is impossible, therefore, that the interglacial flora could have flourished in Switzerland while the immigration of these northern plants was taking place.

Lignites of the same age as those of Dürnten and Utznach occur in many places both on the north and south sides of the Alpine chain. At Imberg, near Sonthofen, in Bavaria, for example, they are described by Penck[BJ]as being underlaid and overlaid by thick glacial accumulations. The deposits in question form a terrace along the flanks of the hills, at a height of 700 feet above the Iller. The flora of the lignite has not yet been fully studied, but it is composed chiefly of conifers, which must have grown near where their remains now occur—that is at 3000 feet, or thereabout, above the sea. It is incredible that coniferous forests could have flourished at that elevation during a glacial epoch. A lowering of the mean annual temperature by 3° C. only would render the growth of trees at that height almost impossible, and certainly would be insufficient to cause the glaciers of Algau to descend to the foot of the mountains, as we know they did—a distance of at least twenty-four miles. The Imberg lignites, therefore, are evidence of a climate not less temperate than the present. More than this, there is clear proof that the interglacial stage was long continued, for during that epoch the Iller had time to effect very considerable erosion. The succession of changes shown by the sections near Sonthofen are as follows.

1. The Iller Valley is filled with glacier-ice which flows out upon the low-grounds at the base of the Alps.

2. The glacier retreats, and great sheets of shingle and gravel are spread over the valley.

3. Coniferous forests now grow over the surface of the gravels; and as the lignite formed of their remains attains a thickness of ten feet in all, it obviously points to the lapse of some considerable time.

4. Eventually the forests decay, and their débris is buried under new accumulations of shingle and gravel.

5. The Iller cuts its way down through all the deposits to depths of 680 to 720 feet.

6. A glacier again descends and fills the valley, but does not flow so far as that of the earlier glacial stage.

[BJ]Die Vergletscherung der deutschen Alpen, 1882, p. 256.

In this section, as in those at Dürnten and Utznach, we have conclusive evidence of two glacial epochs, sharply marked off the one from the other. Nor does that evidence stand alone, for at various points between Lake Geneva and the lower valley of the Inn similar interglacial deposits occur. Sometimes these appear at the foot of the mountains, as at Mörschweil on Lake Constance; sometimes just within the mountain area, as at Imberg; sometimes far in the heart of the Alpine Lands, as at Innsbruck. Professor Penck has further shown, and his observations have been confirmed by Brückner, Blaas, and Böhm, that massive sheets of fluviatile gravel are frequently met with throughout the valleys of the Alps, occupying interglacial positions. These gravels are exactly comparable to the interglacial gravels of the Sonthofen sections. And it has been demonstrated that they occur on two horizons, separated the one from the other by characteristic ground-moraine, or boulder-clay. The lower gravels rest on ground-moraine, and the upper gravels are overlaid by sheets of the same kind of glacial detritus. In short, three separate and distinct ground-moraines are recognised. The gravels, one cannot doubt, are simply the torrential and fluviatile deposits laid down before advancing and retreating glaciers; and it is especially to be notedthat each sheet of gravel, after its accumulation, was much denuded and cut through by river-action. In a word, as Penck and others have shown, the valleys of Upper Bavaria have been occupied by glaciers at three successive epochs—each separated from the other by a period during which much river-gravel was deposited and great erosion of the valley-bottoms was effected.

On the Italian side of the Alps, similar evidence of climatic changes is forthcoming. The lignites and lacustrine strata of Val Gandino, and of Val Borlezza, as I have elsewhere shown,[BK]are clearly of interglacial age. From these deposits many organic remains have been obtained—amongst the animals beingRhinoceros hemitœchusandR. leptorhinus. According to Sordelli, the plants indicate a climate as genial as that of the plains of Lombardy and Venetia, and warmer therefore than that of the upland valleys in which the interglacial beds occur. Professor Penck informs me that some time ago he detected evidence in the district of Lake Garda of three successive glacial epochs—the evidence being of the same character as that recognised in the valleys of the Bavarian Alps.

[BK]Prehistoric Europe, p. 303.

In the glaciated districts of France similar phenomena are met with. Thus in Cantal, according to M. Rames,[BL]the glacial deposits belong to two separate epochs. The older morainic accumulations are scattered over the surface of the plateau of Archæan schistose rocks, and extend up the slopes of the great volcanic cone of that region to heights of 2300 to 3300 feet. One of the features of these accumulations are the innumerable gigantic erratics, known to the country folk ascimetière des enragés. Sheets of fluvio-glacial gravel are also associated with the moraines, and it is worthy of note that both have the aspect of considerable age—they have evidently been subjected to much denudation. In the valleys of the same region occurs a younger series of glacial deposits, consisting of conspicuous lateral and terminal moraines, which, unlikethe older accumulations, have a very fresh and well-preserved appearance. With them, as with the older moraines, fluvio-glacial gravels are associated. M. Rames shows that the interval that supervened between the formation of the two series of glacial deposits must have been prolonged, for the valleys during that interval were in some places eroded to a depth of 900 feet. Not only was the volcanicmassifdeeply incised, but even the old plateau of crystalline rocks on which the volcanic cone reposes suffered extensive denudation in interglacial times. M. Rames further recognises that the second glacial epoch was marked by two advances of the valley-glaciers, separated by a marked episode of fusion, the evidence for which is conspicuous in the valley of the Cère.

[BL]Bull. Soc. Géol. de France, 1884.

The glacial and interglacial phenomena of Auvergne are quite analogous to those of Cantal. Dr. Julien has described the morainic accumulations of a large glacier that flowed from Mont Dore. After that glacier had retreated a prolonged period of erosion followed, when the morainic deposits were deeply trenched, and the underlying rocks cut into. In the valleys and hollows thus excavated freshwater beds occur, containing the relics of an abundant flora, together with the remains of elephant (E. meridionalis), rhinoceros (R. leptorhinus), hippopotamus, horse, cave-bear, hyæna, etc.—a fauna comparable to that of the Italian interglacial deposits. After the deposition of the freshwater beds, glaciers again descended the Auvergne valleys and covered the beds in question with their moraines.[BM]

[BM]Des Phénomènes glaciaires dans le Plateau central de France, etc.

According to the researches of Martins, Collomb, Garrigou, Piette, and Penck, there is clear evidence in the Pyrenees of two periods of glaciation, separated by an interval of much erosion and valley-excavation. Penck, indeed, has shown that the valleys of the Pyrenees have been occupied at three successive epochs by glaciers—each epoch being represented by its series of moraines and by terraces of fluvio-glacial detritus, which occur at successively lower levels.

I have referred in some detail to these discoveries of interglacial phenomena because they so strongly corroborate the conclusions arrived at a number of years ago by glacialists in our own country. Many additional examples might be cited from other parts of Europe, but those already given may serve to show that at least one epoch of interglacial conditions supervened during the Pleistocene period. Before leaving this part of my subject, however, I may point out the significant circumstance that long before much was known of glaciation, and certainly before the periodicity of ice-epochs had been recognised, Collomb had detected in the Vosges conspicuous evidence of two successive glaciations.[BN]

[BN]Preuves de l’existence d’anciens glaciers dans les vallées des Vosges, 1847, p. 141.

Having shown that alike in the regions formerly occupied by the great northern ice-sheet, and in the Alpine Lands of central and southern Europe, alternations of cold and genial conditions characterised the so-called Glacial period, we may now glance at the evidence supplied by those Pleistocene deposits that lie outside of the glaciated areas. Of these we have a typical example in the river-accumulations of the Rhine Valley between Bâle and Bingen. Here and there these deposits have yielded remains of extinct and no longer indigenous mammals and relics of Palæolithic man—one of the most interesting deposits from which mammalian remains have been obtained being the Sands of Mosbach, between Wiesbaden and Mayence. The fauna in question is characteristically Pleistocene, nor can it be doubted that the Mosbach Sands belong to the same geological horizon as the similar fluviatile deposits of the Seine, the Thames, and other river-valleys in western Europe. Dr. Kinkelin has shown,[BO]and with him Dr. Schumacher agrees,[BP]that the Mosbach deposits are of interglacial age; while Dr. Pohlig has no hesitation inassigning them to the same horizon.[BQ]It is true there are no glacial accumulations in the region where they occur, but they rest upon a series of unfossiliferous gravels which are recognised as the equivalents of the fluvio-glacial and glacial deposits of the Vosges, the Black Forest, the Alps, etc. These gravels are traced at intervals up to considerable heights above the Rhine, and contain numerous erratics, some of which are several feet in diameter, while a large proportion are not at all water-worn, but roughly and sharply angular. The blocks have unquestionably been transported by river-ice, and imply therefore cold climatic conditions. The overlying Mosbach Sands have yielded not onlyElephas antiquusandHippopotamus major, but the reindeer, the mammoth, and the marmot—two strongly contrasted faunas, betokening climatic changes similar to those that marked the accumulation of the river-deposits of the Thames, the Seine, etc. Of younger date than the Mosbach Sands is another series of unfossiliferous gravels, which, like the older series, are charged with ice-floated erratics. The beds at Mosbach are thus shown to be of interglacial age: they occupy the same geological horizon as the interglacial beds of Switzerland and other glaciated tracts in central and northern Europe.

[BO]Kinkelin:Bericht über die Senckenberg. naturf. Ges. in Frankfurt a. M., 1889.

[BP]Schumacher:Mittheilungen d. Commission für d. geolog. Landes-Untersuch. v. Elsass-Lothringen, Bd. ii., 1890, p. 184.

[BQ]Zeitschr. d. deutsch. geolog. Ges., 1887, p. 806.

To this position must likewise be assigned the Pleistocene river-alluvia of other districts. There is no other horizon, indeed, on which these can be placed. That they are not of post-glacial age is shown by the fact that in many places the angular gravels and flood-loams of the Glacial period overlie them. And that they cannot all belong to pre-glacial times is proved by the frequent occurrence underneath them of glacial or fluvio-glacial accumulations. It is quite possible, of course, that here and there in the valleys of western and southern Europe some of the Pleistocene alluvia may be of pre-glacial age. But in the main these alluvia must be regarded as the equivalents of the glacial and interglacial deposits of northern and Alpine districts. This will appear a reasonable conclusionwhen we bear in mind that long before the Pliocene period came to a close the climate of Europe had begun to deteriorate. In England, as we know, glacial conditions supervened almost at the advent of the Pleistocene period. And the same was the case in the Alpine Lands of the south. Again, in the glaciated areas of north and south alike, the closing stage of the Pleistocene was characterised by cold climatic conditions. And thus in those regions the glacial and interglacial epochs were co-extensive with that period. It follows, therefore, that the Pleistocene deposits of extra-glacial areas must be the equivalents of the glacial and interglacial accumulations elsewhere. If we refused to admit this we should be puzzled indeed to tell what the rivers of western and southern Europe were doing throughout the long-continued Glacial period. There is no escape from the conclusion that the Pleistocene river-alluvia and cave-accumulations must be assigned to the same general horizon as the glacial and interglacial deposits. This is now admitted by Continental palæontologists who find in the character of Pleistocene organic remains abundant proof that the old river-alluvia and cave-accumulations were laid down under changing climatic conditions. Did neither glacial nor interglacial deposits exist, the relics of the Pleistocene flora and fauna met with in extra-glacial regions would yet lead us to the conclusion that after the close of the Pliocene period, extremely cold and very genial climates alternated up to the dawn of the present. Thus during one stage of the Pleistocene "clement winters and cool summers permitted the wide diffusion and intimate association of plants which have now a very different range. Temperate and southern species like the ash, the poplar, the sycamore, the fig-tree, the judas-tree, etc., overspread all the low-grounds of France as far north at least as Paris. It was under such conditions that the elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, and the vast herds of temperate cervine and bovine species ranged over Europe, from the shores of the Mediterranean up to the latitude of Yorkshire, and probably even further north still,and from the borders of Asia to the western ocean. Despite the presence of numerous fierce carnivora—lions, hyænas, tigers, and others—Europe at that time, with its shady forests, its laurel-margined streams, its broad and deep-flowing rivers—a country in every way suited to the needs of a race of hunters and fishers—must have been no unpleasant habitation for Palæolithic man." But during another stage of the Pleistocene period, the climate of our continent presented the strongest contrast to those genial conditions. At that time “the dwarf birch of the Scottish Highlands, and the Arctic willow, with their northern congeners, grew upon the low-grounds of middle Europe. Arctic animals, such as the musk-sheep and the reindeer, lived then, all the year round, in the south of France; the mammoth ranged into Spain and Italy; the glutton descended to the shores of the Mediterranean; the marmot came down to the low-grounds at the foot of the Apennines; and the lagomys inhabitated the low-lying maritime districts of Corsica and Sardinia. The land and freshwater molluscs of many Pleistocene deposits tell a similar tale: high alpine, boreal, and hyperborean forms are characteristic of those deposits in central Europe; even in the southern regions of our continent the shells testify to a former colder and wetter climate. It was during the climax of these conditions that the caves of Aquitaine were occupied by those artistic men who appear to have delighted in carving and engraving.”[BR]Such, in brief, is the testimony of the Pleistocene flora and fauna of extra-glacial regions. It is from the deposits in these regions, therefore, that we derive our fullest knowledge of the life of the period. But a comparison of their organic remains with those that occur in the glacial and interglacial deposits of alpine and northern lands shows us that the Pleistocene accumulations of glacial and extra-glacial countries are contemporaneous—for there is not a single life-form obtained from interglacial beds which does not also occur in the deposits of extra-glacial regions. The converse isnot true—nor is that to be wondered at, for interglacial deposits have only been sparingly preserved. In regions liable to glaciation such superficial accumulations must frequently have been ploughed up and incorporated with ground-moraine. It was only in the extra-glacial tracts that alluvia of interglacial age were at all likely to be preserved in any abundance. To appreciate fully the climatic conditions of the Pleistocene period, therefore, it is necessary to combine the evidence derived from the glaciated areas with that obtained from the lands that lay beyond the reach of the ice-plough. The one is the complement of the other, and this being so, it is obvious that any attempted explanation of the origin of the Glacial period which does not fully realise the importance of the interglacial phase of that period cannot be accepted.

[BR]Prehistoric Europe, p. 67.

But if the climatic changes of Pleistocene times are the most important phenomena which the geologist who essays to trace the history of that period is called upon to consider, he cannot ignore the evidence of contemporaneous geographical mutations. These are so generally admitted, however, that it is only necessary here to state the well-known fact that everywhere throughout the maritime tracts of the glaciated lands of Europe and North America frequent changes in the relative level of land and sea took place during Pleistocene and post-glacial times.

I must now very briefly review the evidence bearing on the climatic conditions of post-glacial times. And first, let it be noted that the closing stage of the Pleistocene period was one of cold conditions, accompanied in north-western Europe by partial depression of the land below its present level. This is shown by the late-glacial marine deposits of central Scotland and the coast-lands of Scandinavia. The historical records of the succeeding post-glacial period are furnished chiefly by raised beaches, river- and lake-alluvia, calcareous tufas, and peat-bogs. An examination of these has shown that the climate, at first cold, gradually became less ungenial, so that the Arctic-alpine flora and northern fauna were eventually supplanted inour latitude by those temperate forms which, as a group, still occupy this region. The amelioration of the climate was accompanied by striking geographical changes, the British Islands becoming united with themselves and the opposite coasts of the continent. The genial character of the climate at this time is shown by the great development of forests, the remains of which occur under our oldest peat-bogs. Not only did trees then grow at greater altitudes in these regions than is at present the case, but forests ranged much further north, and flourished in lands where they cannot now exist. In Orkney and Shetland, in the far north of Norway, and even in the Faröe Islands and in Iceland relics of this old forest-epoch are met with. In connection with these facts reference may be made to the evidence obtained from certain raised beaches on both sides of the N. Atlantic, and from recent dredgings in the intervening sea. The occurrence of isolated colonies of southern molluscs in our northern seas, and the appearance in raised beaches of many forms which are now confined to the waters of more southern latitudes, seem to show that in early post-glacial times the seas of these northern latitudes were warmer than now. And it is quite certain that the southern forms referred to are not the relics of any pre-glacial or interglacial immigration. They could only have entered our northern seas after the close of the Glacial period, and their evidence taken in connection with that furnished by the buried trees of our peat-bogs, leads to the conclusion that a genial climate supervened after the cold of the last glacial epoch and of earliest post-glacial times had passed away.

To this genial stage succeeded an epoch of cold humid conditions, accompanied by geographical changes which resulted in the insulation of Britain and Ireland—the sea encroaching to some extent on what are now our maritime regions. The climate was less favourable to the growth of forests, which began to decay and to become buried under widespread accumulations of growing peat. At this time glaciers reappeared in the glens of the ScottishHighlands, and here and there descended to the sea. The evidence for these is quite conspicuous, for the moraines are found resting on the surface of post-glacial beaches. Thus my friend Mr. L. Hinxman, of the Geological Survey, tells us that at the foot of Glen Thraill well-formed moraines are seen in section reposing on beach-deposits at the distance of about three-quarters of a mile above the head of Loch Torridon.[BS]The evidence of this recrudescence of glacial conditions in post-glacial times is not confined to Scotland. I believe it will yet be recognised in many other mountain-regions; but already Prof. Penck has detected it in the valleys of the Pyrenees.[BT]Dr. Kerner von Marilaun has also described similar phenomena in the higher valleys of Tyrol, while Professor Brückner has obtained like evidence in the Salzach region.[BU]

[BS]For Scottish post-glacial glaciers see J. Geikie:Scottish Naturalist, Jan., 1880;Prehistoric Europe, pp. 386,407; Penck:Deutsche geographische Blätter, Bd. vi., p. 323;Verhand. d. Ges. f. Erdkunde, Berlin, 1884, Heft 1; Hinxman:Trans. Edin. Geol. Soc., vol. vi., p. 249.

[BT]“Die Eiszeit in den Pyrenäen”:Mitth. d. Vereins. f. Erdkunde, Leipzig, 1883.

[BU]Kerner:Mitth. k. k. geograph. Ges. Wien, 1890, p. 307;Sitzungsb. d. kais. Akad. d. Wissensch. in Wien, Bd. c., Abth. i., 1891; Brückner:X. Jahresbericht d. geograph. Ges. v. Bern, 1891.

I have elsewhere traced the history of the succeeding stages of the post-glacial period, and brought forward evidence of similar but less strongly-marked climatic changes having followed upon those just referred to, and my conclusions, I may add, have been supported by the independent researches of Professor Blytt in Norway. But these later changes need not be considered here, and I shall leave them out of account in the discussion that follows. It is sufficient for my present purpose to confine attention to the well-proved conclusion that in early post-glacial times genial climatic conditions obtained, and that these were followed by cold and humid conditions, during the prevalence of which considerable local glaciers reappeared in certain mountain-valleys.[BV]

[BV]For a full statement of the evidence seePrehistoric Europe, chaps. xvi., xvii.

We speak of Pleistocene or Glacial and of Post-glacialperiods as if the one were more or less sharply marked off from the other. Of course, that is not the case, and in point of fact it would be for many reasons preferable to include them under some general term. Taken together they form one tolerably well-defined cycle of time, characterised above all by its remarkable climatic changes—by alternations of cold and genial conditions, which were most strongly contrasted in the earlier stages of the period. It is further worthy of note that various oscillations of the sea-level appear to have taken place again and again both in the earlier and later stages of the cycle.

We may now proceed to inquire whether the phenomena we have been considering can be accounted for by movements of the earth’s crust—a view which has recently received considerable support, more especially in America. I need hardly say that the view in question is no novelty. Many years ago, while our knowledge of the Pleistocene phenomena was somewhat rudimentary, it was usual to infer that glaciation had been induced by elevation of the land. This did not seem an unreasonable conclusion, for above our heads, at a less or greater elevation, according to latitude, an Arctic climate prevails. One could not doubt, therefore, that if a land-surface were only sufficiently uplifted it would reach the snow-line, and become more or less extensively glaciated. But with the increase of our knowledge of Pleistocene and post-glacial conditions, such a ready interpretation failed to satisfy, although not a few geologists have continued to defend the “earth-movement hypothesis,” as accounting fairly well for the phenomena of the Glacial period. By these staunch believers in the adequacy of that view, it has been pointed out that elevation might not only lift lands into the region of eternal snow, but, by converting large areas of the sea-bed into land, would greatly modify the direction of ocean-currents, and thus influence the climate. What might not be expected to happen were the Gulf Stream to be excluded from northern regions? What would be the fate of the temperate latitudes of North America and Europe werethat genial ocean-river to be deflected into the Pacific across a submerged Isthmus of Panama? The possibility of such changes having supervened in Pleistocene times has often been present to my mind, but I long ago came to the conclusion that they could not account for the facts. Moreover, I have never been able to meet with any evidence in favour of the postulated “earth-movements.” Having carefully studied all that has been advanced of late years in support of the hypothesis in question I find myself more than ever constrained to oppose it, not only because it is grounded on no basis of fact, but because it altogether fails to explain the conditions that obtained in Pleistocene and post-glacial times.

There are various forms in which the hypothesis has appeared, and these I shall now consider seriatim, and with such brevity as may be. It has been maintained, for example, that at the advent of the Glacial period vast areas of northern and north-western Europe, together with enormous regions in the corresponding latitudes of North America, stood several thousand feet higher than at present. But when we ask what evidence can be adduced to prove this we get no satisfactory reply. We are simply informed that a glacial climate must have resulted from great elevation, and that the latter, therefore, must have taken place at the beginning of the Glacial period. Some writers, however, have ventured to give reasons for their faith. Thus Mr. W. Upham, pointing to the evidence of the fiords of North America, and to the fact that drowned river-valleys have been traced outwards across the 100-fathoms line of the marginal plateau to depths of over 3500 feet, maintains that the whole continent north of the Gulf of Mexico stood at the commencement of the Glacial period some 3000 feet at least higher than now. Of course he cites the fiords of Europe as evidence of a similar great upheaval for the northern and north-western regions of our Continent. Mr. Upham even favours the notion that during glacial times a land-connection probably existed between North America and Europe, by way of the BritishIslands, Iceland, and Greenland. When “this uplifting attained its maximum, and brought on the Glacial period,” he says, “North America and north-western Europe stood 2500 to 3000 feet above their present height.”[BW]

[BW]American Geologist, vi., p. 327.

That fiords are simply submerged land-valleys has long been recognised: that they have been formed mainly by the action of running water—just in the same way as the mountain-valleys of Norway and Scotland—has been the belief for many years of most students of physical geology. But it is hard to understand why they should have been cited by Mr. Upham in support of his contention, seeing that their evidence seems to militate strongly against the very hypothesis he strives to maintain. No one acquainted with the physical features and geological structure of Scotland and Norway can doubt that the valleys which terminate in fiords are of great geological antiquity. Their excavation by fluviatile action certainly dates back to a period long anterior to the advent of the Ice Age. And a like tale is told by the fiords and drowned valley-troughs of North America, which cannot be referred to so recent a period as post-Tertiary times. Those who are convinced that our continental areas have persisted throughout long æons of geological time, and that rivers frequently have survived great geological revolutions—cutting their way across mountain-elevations as fast as these were uplifted—will readily believe that some of the submarine river-troughs of North America, such as that of the Hudson, may belong even to Secondary times.[BX]It would be hard to say at what particular date the excavation of the Scottish Highland valleys commenced—but it was probably during the later part of the Palæozoic era. The process has doubtless been retarded and accelerated frequently enough, during successive movements of depression and elevation, but it was practically completed before the beginning of Pleistocene times, and that is all that we may trouble about here.Precisely the same conclusion holds good for Norway: and such being the case it is obvious that the question of the origin and age of the fiords has no bearing on the problem of the glacial climate and its cause. In point of fact the evidence, as already remarked, tells against the “earth-movement hypothesis,” for it shows us that, during a period when Europe and North America stood several thousand feet higher, and extended much further seawards, rivers, and not glaciers, were the occupants of our mountain-valleys. It was not until all those valleys had come to assume much the appearance they now present that general glaciation supervened.

[BX]Professor Dana inclines to date the erosion of the Hudson trough so far back as the Jura-Trias period.—American Journ. Science, xl., p. 435.

We are not without direct evidence, however, as to the geographical conditions that obtained in the ages that immediately preceded the Pleistocene period. The distribution of the Pliocene marine beds of Britain entitles us to assume that at the time of their accumulation our lands did not extend quite so far to the south and east as now. The absence of similar deposits from the coast-lands of North America is supposed to support the view of great continental elevation in pre-glacial times. All it seems to prove, however, is that in Pliocene times the North American continent was not less extensive than it is at present. It is even quite possible that in glacial times pre-existing Pliocene beds may have been ploughed out by the ice, just as seems to have been the case in the north-east of Scotland. But without going so far back as Pliocene times, we meet with evidence almost everywhere throughout the maritime regions of the glaciated areas of Europe and North America, to show that immediately before those tracts became swathed in ice the geographical conditions were much the same as at present. The shelly boulder-clays in various parts of our islands, and the similar occurrence of marine and brackish-water shells in and underneath the Diluvium of north Germany, etc., prove clearly enough that just before the coming-on of glacial conditions neither Britain nor the present maritime lands of the Continent were far removed from the sea. It is truethat the buried river-channels of Scotland indicate a pre-glacial elevation of some 200 or 300 feet above the existing sea-level, but it is quite certain that the Minch, St. George’s Channel, the Irish Sea, the North Sea, and the Baltic were all in existence at the commencement of the Glacial period. And we are led to similar conclusions with regard to the geographical conditions of North America at that time, from the occurrence of marine shells in the boulder-clays of Canada and New England. We note indeed that there is abundant evidence of land-submergence during glacial times. Indeed, we may say that the Pleistocene marine deposits of northern latitudes are almost invariably indicative of colder conditions than now obtain.

If it be true that cold climatic conditions were contemporaneous in our latitude with submergence, it is equally true that an extensive land-surface in north-west Europe has, sometimes at least, co-existed with markedly genial conditions. In Tertiary times, for example, as the Oligocene deposits of Scotland, the Faröe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland testify, a land-connection existed between Europe and the North American continent. Again, it has been shown that during the interglacial phase of the Pleistocene period Britain was continental, and enjoyed at the time a peculiarly genial climate. And somewhat similar geographical and climatic conditions again supervened in post-glacial times. In other words, when the land was more elevated and extensive than now, it enjoyed a warmer climate. Nor can we escape the conclusion that the excavation of the fiord-valleys of northern latitudes, which is a very old story (far older than the Pleistocene), was the work not of glaciers but of running water, at a time when north-western Europe and the corresponding regions of America were much more elevated than they are now.

Thus there appears to be no evidence either direct or indirect in favour of the view that glacial conditions were superinduced by great continental elevation. But it may be argued that even although no evidence can be cited inproof of such elevation, still, if the glacial phenomena can be well explained by its means, we may be justified in admitting it as a working hypothesis. Movements of elevation and depression have frequently taken place—the Pleistocene marine deposits themselves testify to oscillations of the sea-level—and there can be no objection, therefore, to such postulations as are made by the hypothesis under review. All this is readily granted, but I deny that the conditions that obtained in Pleistocene times can be accounted for by elevation and depression. Let us see how the desiderated elevation of northern lands would work. Were north-western Europe and the corresponding latitudes of North America to be upheaved for 3000 feet, and a land-passage to obtain between the two continents by way of the Faröe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland, how would the climate be affected? It is obvious that under such changed conditions the elevated lands in higher latitudes might well be subjected to more or less extensive glaciation. Norway would become uninhabitable and glaciers might well appear in the mountain-valleys of Scotland. But it may be doubted whether the climate of France and Spain, or the corresponding latitudes of North America, would be much affected. For were a land-passage to appear between Britain and Greenland no Arctic current would flow into the North Atlantic, while no portion of the Gulf Stream would be lost in Arctic seas. The North Atlantic would then form a great gulf round which a warm ocean-current would circulate. The temperature of that sea, therefore, would be raised and the prevailing westerly and south-westerly winds of Europe would be warmer than now. However much such warm moist winds might increase the snow-fall in North Britain and Scandinavia, we cannot suppose they could have much influence in central and southern Europe, and in North Africa; and still less could they affect the climate of Asia Minor and the mountainous regions of the far east, in most of which evidence of extensive glaciation occurs. And how, we may ask, could the postulated geographical changes bring aboutthe glaciation of the mountainous tracts on the Pacific sea-board? In fine, we may conclude that however much the geographical changes referred to might affect north-western Europe and north-eastern America, they are wholly insufficient to account for the glacial phenomena of other regions. The continuous research of recent years has shown that the lowering of temperature of glacial times was not limited to the lands which would be affected by any such elevation as that we are considering. A marked and general displacement of climatic zones took place over the whole continent of Europe; and similar changes supervened in North America and Asia. Are we then to suppose that all the lands within the Northern Hemisphere were extensively and contemporaneously upheaved?

We may now consider another form of the “earth-movement hypothesis.” It has frequently been suggested that our glacial phenomena may have been caused by the submergence of the Isthmus of Panama, and the deflection of the Equatorial Current into the Pacific. But it may be doubted whether a submergence of that isthmus, unless very extensive indeed, would result in more than a partial escape of Atlantic water into the Pacific basin. The Counter Current of the Pacific which now strikes against the isthmus might even sweep into the Caribbean Sea, and join the Equatorial on its way to the Gulf of Mexico. But putting that consideration aside, what evidence have we that the Isthmus of Panama was submerged during the glacial epoch? None whatsoever, it may be replied. It is only a pious opinion. Considerable movements of elevation and depression of the islands in the Caribbean Sea would seem to have taken place at a comparatively recent date, but those movements may quite well belong to Pliocene times. Whether they be of Pliocene or Pleistocene age, however, no one has yet proved that the Isthmus of Panama was sufficiently submerged, either at the one time or the other, to permit the escape of the Atlantic Equatorial into the Pacific basin. But let it be supposed that the isthmus has become so deeply submerged that theEquatorial Current is wholly deflected, and that no Gulf Stream issues through the Straits of Florida to temper the climate of higher latitudes. What would result from such an unhappy change? Can any one conversant with the geographical distribution of the glacial phenomena imagine that the conditions of the Glacial period could be thus reproduced? Norway might indeed become a second south Greenland, and perennial snow and ice might appear in the mountainous tracts of the British Islands. The climate of Hudson’s Bay and the surrounding lands might be experienced in the Baltic and its neighbourhood, and what are now the temperate latitudes of Europe, north of the 50th parallel, would possibly approach Siberia in character. But surely these changes are not comparable to the conditions of the Glacial period. The absence of a Gulf Stream would not sensibly affect the climate of south-eastern Europe and Asia, and could not have the smallest influence on that of the Pacific coast-lands of North America.

Yes, but if we conceive the submergence of the Isthmus of Panama to coincide with great elevation of northern lands, would not such geographical conditions bring about a glacial epoch comparable to that of Pleistocene times? It is hard to see how they could. No doubt the climate of all those regions that would be affected by the withdrawal of the Gulf Stream alone would become still more deteriorated if they stood some 3000 feet higher than now. A vast area in the north-west of Europe would certainly be uninhabitable, but it is for the advocates of the “earth-movement hypothesis” to explain why those inhospitable regions should necessarily be covered with an ice-sheet. For the production of great snow-fields and continental ice-sheets, considerable precipitation, no less than a low temperature, is requisite. Under the conditions we have been imagining, however, precipitation would probably be much less than it is at present. But to whatever extent north-west Europe might be glaciated, it is obvious that the geographical revolutions referred to could have little influenceon the climate of south-eastern Europe, not to mention central and eastern Asia. Nor could they possibly influence the climate of the Pacific coast-lands of North America. And yet, as is well known, the climate of all those regions was more or less profoundly affected during the Glacial period. To account for the widespread evidences of glaciation by means of elevation it would therefore seem necessary to infer that all the affected areas were in Pleistocene times uplifteden masseinto the Arctic zone that stretches above our heads. Now it seems easier to believe that the snow-line was lowered by several thousand feet than that the continents were elevated to the same extent. Glaciation, as we have seen, was developed in the same directions and over the same areas as we should expect it to be were the snow-line to be generally depressed. To put it in another way, were the snow-line by some means or other to be lowered over Europe, Asia, and North America, then, with sufficient precipitation, great ice-fields and glaciers would reappear in the very regions which they visited during Pleistocene times. Neither elevation nor depression of the land would be required to bring about such a result. Certain advocates of the “earth-movement hypothesis,” however, do not maintain that all the glaciated areas were uplifted at one and the same time. The glaciation of the Alps, they think, may have taken place earlier or later than that of north-western Europe, while the ice-period of the Rocky Mountains may not have coincided with that of eastern North America. It is not impossible, they suppose, that the glaciation of the Himalayas may have been caused by an uplifting of that great chain, quite independent of similar earth-movements in other places. It can be demonstrated, however, that the glaciation of the Alps and of northern Europe were contemporaneous, and the facts go far to prove that the glaciers of the Rocky Mountains and the inland-ice of north-east America likewise co-existed. At all events all the old glacial accumulations of our hemisphere are of Pleistocene age, and it is for the advocates of the hypothesis under review to prove that they are notcontemporaneous. Their doubts on the subject probably arise from the simple fact that they are well aware how highly improbable or even impossible it is that all those glaciated lands could have been pushed up within the snow-line at one and the same time.

Let me, however, advance to another objection. We know that the Glacial period was interrupted by at least one interglacial epoch of temperate and even genial conditions. Two glacial epochs with one protracted interglacial epoch are now generally admitted. How do the supporters of the “earth-movement hypothesis” explain this remarkable succession of climatic changes? Their views as to the cause of glacial conditions we have considered. If we can believe that the glacial phenomena were due to elevation of the land, then we need have no difficulty in understanding how glacial conditions would disappear when the continents again subsided to a lower level. Not only did North America and Europe lose all their early glacial elevation, but by a lucky coincidence the Isthmus of Panama reappeared, and the Gulf Stream resumed its beneficent course into the North Atlantic. This we are to suppose was the cause of the interglacial epoch. But I would point out that the geographical conditions which are thus inferred to have brought about the disappearance of the glacial climate, and to have ushered in the interglacial epoch, are precisely those that now obtain—and, nevertheless, we are not yet in the enjoyment of a climate like that of interglacial times. The strangely equable conditions that permitted the development of the remarkable Pleistocene flora and fauna are not experienced in the Europe of our day. And what about the second glacial epoch? Are we to suppose that once more the lands were greatly uplifted, and that convenient Isthmus of Panama was again depressed? Did the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the plateau of central France—in all of which we have distinct evidence of at least two glacial epochs—did these heights, one may ask, rise up to bring about their earlier glaciation, sink down again to induce interglacial conditions, and once morebecome uplifted at the succeeding cold epoch, to subside eventually in order to cause a final retreat of their glaciers?

But the climatic changes to be accounted for were in all probability more numerous and complex than those just referred to. Competent observers have adduced unmistakable evidence of three epochs of glaciation in the Alpine Lands of Europe. And we are not without distinct hints that similar changes have taken place in northern and western Europe. Nor in this connection can we ignore the evidence of several interglacial episodes which Mr. Chamberlin and others have detected in the glaciated tracts of North America. Even this is not all, for the upholders of the “earth-movement hypothesis” have still further to account for the climatic oscillations of post-glacial times. If it be hard enough to allow the possibility of one great movement of elevation having affected so enormous an area of our hemisphere, if we find it extremely difficult to believe either that one such widespread movement, or that a multitude of local movements, each more or less independent of the other, could have lifted the glaciated regions successively within reach of the snow-line—we shall yet find it impossible to admit that such remarkable upheavals could be repeated again and again.

We seem driven to conclude, therefore, that the “earth-movement hypothesis” fails to explain the phenomena of Pleistocene times. One cannot deny, indeed, that glaciation might be induced locally by elevation of the land. It is quite conceivable that mountains now below the limits of perennial snow might come to be ridged up to such an extent as to be capable of sustaining snow-fields and glaciers. And such local movements may possibly have happened here and there during the long-continued Pleistocene period. But the glacial phenomena of that period are on much too grand a scale and far too widely distributed to be accounted for in that way. And if the occurrence of even one glacial epoch cannot be thus explained, we may leave the supporters of the “earth-movement hypothesis” to show us what light is thrown by theirurim and thummim on the origin of succeeding interglacial and glacial climates.

There is yet another physical condition of the Pleistocene and post-glacial periods which any adequate explanation must embrace. I refer to the oscillation of sea-level, of which so many proofs are forthcoming. It is very remarkable that almost everywhere throughout the maritime regions of formerly glaciated areas we find evidence of submergence. So commonly is this the case, that geologists have long suspected that the connection between glaciation and submergence might be one of cause and effect. The possible influence of great ice-sheets in disturbing the relative level of land and sea is a question, therefore, of very great importance. It is one, however, which must be solved by physicists. Croll and others have advocated the view that the great accumulations of ice of the Glacial period may have displaced the earth’s centre of gravity, and thus caused the sea to rise upon the glaciated hemisphere. The various results arrived at by physicists are hardly comparable, because each has used different data, but it seems probable that we have in this view avera causaof oscillations of the sea-level. Another hypothesis would explain the rise of the sea as due to the attractive influence of the great ice-masses, but Dr. Drygalski’s and Mr. Woodward’s elaborate investigations would seem to have demonstrated that this notion does not account for the facts. Yet another speculation has been advanced. Mr. Jamieson has suggested that the mere weight of the ice-sheets would suffice to press down the earth’s crust into a supposed liquid substratum, and this explanation has met with much acceptance. Unfortunately our knowledge of the condition of the earth’s interior is so very limited that we cannot be certain as to how the crust would be affected by the weight of an ice-sheet. No doubt Mr. Jamieson’s hypothesis gives a specious explanation of certain geological phenomena, but if there be no liquid substratum underlying a thin crust it cannot be true. At present the prevalent view of physicists appears to be that the earthis substantially solid. Professor George Darwin has shown that the prominent inequalities of the earth’s surface could not be sustained unless the crust be as rigid as granite for a depth of 1000 miles. “If the earth be solid throughout,” he remarks, “then at 1000 miles from the surface the material must be as strong as granite. If it be fluid or gaseous inside, and the crust 1000 miles thick, that crust must be stronger than granite, and if only 200 or 300 miles in thickness, much stronger than granite.” This conclusion is obviously strongly confirmatory of Sir William Thomson’s view, that the earth is solid throughout. But many geologists find it hard to account for the convolutions of strata and other structural phenomena on the supposition that the earth is entirely solid, and they are inclined, therefore, to adopt the hypothesis of a sub-crust layer of liquid matter. Whether this be actually the condition or not physicists must be left to determine. All that we need note is, that if there be any force in Professor Darwin’s argument, it is obvious that the crust is possessed of great rigidity, and could not be readily deformed by the mere weight of an ice-sheet. According to Dr. Drygalski, however, the presence of an ice-sheet, by reducing the temperature of the underlying crust, would bring about contraction, and in this way cause the surface to sink. When the ice-sheet had disappeared, then free radiation of earth-heat would be resumed, the depressed isogeotherms would rise, and a general warming of the upper portion of the lithosphere would take place. But the space occupied by the depressed section, owing to the spheroidal form of the earth, would be smaller than that which it occupied before sinking had commenced, and consequently when the ice vanished expansion of the crust would follow, and the land-surface would then rise again. The whole question is one for physicists to decide upon, but I may point out that if Drygalski’s explanation be well founded, then it is obvious that it throws no light upon the origin and subsequent disappearance of an ice-sheet. Somehow or other this ice-sheet comes into existence, and the cooling andcontracting crust sinks below it; and that depressed condition of the glaciated area must continue so long as the ice-sheet remains unmelted. Re-elevation can only take place when, owing to some other cause or causes, the climate changes and the ice-sheet vanishes.

Those who advocate the “earth-movement hypothesis” as an explanation of the origin of extensive glaciation have welcomed Mr. Jamieson’s view as harmonising well with their conclusions. They contend, as we have seen, that glacial conditions were induced by an extensive upheaval of the crust in northern latitudes, accompanied by a depression of the Isthmus of Panama. They then proceed to point out that the ice-sheets brought about their own dissolution by pressing down the crust, and introducing with submergence a disappearance of glacial conditions. See now how much they take for granted. In the first place, they assume an amount of pre-glacial or early glacial elevation of northern regions for which not a scrap of evidence can be adduced, while they can give no proof of contemporaneous depression of the Isthmus of Panama. Next, relying on Mr. Jamieson’s hypothesis, they take for granted that the ice-sheets, called into existence by their postulated earth-movements, succeeded in depressing the earth’s surface even below its present level. That is to say, the land, which, according to them, was in glacial times some 3000 feet higher than now, sank down under the weight of its glacial covering for, say, 3600 feet in north-western Europe. In North America, in like manner, all the pre-glacial elevation was lost—the land sinking below its present level for some 200 feet in New England, for 520 feet at Montreal, for 1000 to 1500 feet in Labrador, and for 1000 to 2000 feet in the Arctic regions. Now, even if we concede the reasonableness of Mr. Jamieson’s hypothesis, and admit that a certain degree of deformation may take place under the mere weight of an ice-sheet, it is difficult to believe that the crust can be so readily deformed as the supporters of the “earth-movement hypothesis” seem to imply. If it could yield soreadily to pressure, one is at a loss to understand how a great ice-sheet could accumulate—the ice would simply float off as the land subsided. Take the case of north-western Europe. The ice-sheet that covered Scotland did not attain, on the average, 3000 feet in thickness, and yet we are to suppose that it was able to depress the land for some 600 feet below its present level—that is to say, for 3600 feet below its assumed pre-glacial elevation. Either the ice depressed the crust to that remarkable extent, or the land upon which the ice accumulated was not nearly so high as the advocates of the “earth-movement hypothesis” have supposed. But the average I have taken for the thickness of the Scottish ice-sheet is excessive, for it was only in the low-grounds that themer de glaceattained such a depth. A large part of our country, however, is mountainous, and the mountain-tops were, of course, not nearly so thickly mantled with ice as the valleys. And the same to even a larger extent holds good for the Scandinavian peninsula. If we take the thickness of the Scandinavian ice-sheet that coalesced with that of Scotland as 4000 feet, we shall be over the mark. Now, I ask, is it possible to believe that a sheet of ice of that thickness actually pressed down the crust of the earth for not less than 3600 feet? But if we accept the “earth-movement hypothesis,” as it has been recently advocated, that is what we must believe. If we cannot do so, then we cannot accept the assumption of great elevation of the land in pre-glacial and glacial times. Let me put the case shortly: if the glacial marine beds and raised beaches of the Atlantic borders of Europe and North America owe their origin to depression induced by the weight of an ice-sheet, then it is quite certain that at the advent of glacial conditions the land could not have been so highly elevated as the advocates of the “earth-movement hypothesis” suppose. But if we are to accept the notion of great elevation of the land, then we must conclude that the submergence to which the raised beaches testify cannot have been caused by the pressure of ice-sheets.

It is hardly necessary to pursue this particular subject further, but before leaving it, attention may be drawn for a moment to the curious conclusion that the ice-sheets were self-destructive. One is left to guess at what particular stage the sinking process began, but if the earth’s crust were as readily deformed as the extreme views I have been examining would compel one to imply, then depression must have commenced almost immediately with the accumulation of snow and ice. The several ice-sheets must soon have attained their maximum thickness, and their disappearance must have been correspondingly rapid. And yet all the evidence goes to show that a glacial epoch endured for a comparatively long time—for a time sufficient to account for a prodigious amount of rock-erosion, and for the accumulation of vast sheets of glacial débris and fluvio-glacial detritus.[BY]

Back to Index Next