Dr. Nansen’s speculations on the origin of the “drumlins” and “kames” of formerly glaciated areas will interest geologists, but are not so novel as he supposes. His description of what are known as “drumlins” is not quite correct. These long lenticular banks cannot be said to lie upon boulder-clay, but are merely a structural form of that accumulation. And it is hardly the case that geologists have “performed the most acrobatic feats” in trying to explain the origin of the banks in question. The usual explanation is that they have been formed underneath the ice as ground-moraine—the upper surface of which varies in configuration—being sometimes approximately even, as in broad mountain-valleys; at other times ridged and corrugated, as in open lowlands. And these modifications of surface are supposed to have resulted from the varying movement and pressure of the overlying ice-sheet. The drumlins, in fact, would appear to be analogous to the banks that accumulate in the beds of rivers. Many drumlins, indeed, are composed partly of solid rock and partly of boulder-clay, which would seem to have accumulated in the lee of the projecting rock, much in the same way as gravel and sand gather behind any large boulder in a stream-course. Dr. Nansen, apparently, to some extent confounds drumlins with “kames” and “åsar,” of which certainly many strange and conflicting explanations have been hazarded. These, however, differ essentially from drumlins, for they consist exclusively, or almost exclusively, of water-worn and more or less water-assorted materials. And one widely-accepted view of their origin is that they have accumulated in tunnels underneath an ice-sheet. This is practically the same view as Dr. Nansen’s. He thinks that when an ice-sheet has its under-surface furrowed by running water, the ground-moraine will tend to be pressed up into the river-channels. The water will, in this way, be compelled to hollow out the roof of its tunnel to a greater degree, and as the stream continues to work upwards the moraine will follow it, so as to partially fill the tunnel and form a ridge along the back of which the sub-glacial stream will run. The material forming the upper portion of the ridge will thus come to be composed mainly of water-worn and stratified detritus, derived from the erosion of the ground-moraine. This is an ingenious suggestion which may be of good service in some cases, but it is certainly inapplicable to most kames and åsar. If it were a complete explanation we ought to find these ridges consisting of an upper water-assorted portion and a lower unmodified morainic portion (boulder-clay). But this is not the case, for most kames consist entirely, from top to bottom, of water-assorted materials. They are found running across an even or gently-undulating surface of boulder-clay, and sometimes they rest not on boulder-clay but solid rock.
Dr. Nansen considers another geological question which has given rise to much controversy, and is still far from being settled—namely, whether the oscillations of level which have left such conspicuous traces in northern regions are in any way connected with the appearance and disappearance of great ice-sheets. Can a big ice-sheet push down the earth’s crust by its weight? and does the crust rise again as the ice melts away? Could a thick ice-sheet exercise sufficient attraction upon the sea to cause it to rise upon the land, and thus explain the origin of some of the so-called raised beaches of this and other formerly glaciated lands? Can the weight of a great ice-sheet shift the earth’s centre of gravity, and, if so, to what extent? Each of these questions has been answered in the affirmative and the negative by controversialists, and, until the geological evidence has been completely sifted, each, doubtless, will continue to be alternately affirmed and denied. All that need be pointed out here is that some of the movements which occurred during the Pleistocene period were on much too large a scale to be explicable by any of the hypotheses referred to.
The Geographical Development of Coast-lines.[DO]
[DO] Presidential Address to the Geographical Section of the British Association, Edinburgh, 1892.
Amongst the many questions upon which of late years light has been thrown by deep-sea exploration and geological research, not the least interesting is that of the geographical development of coast-lines. How is the existing distribution of land and water to be accounted for? Are the revolutions in the relative position of land and sea, to which the geological record bears witness, due to movements of the earth’s crust or of the hydrosphere? Why are coast-lines in some regions extremely regular, while elsewhere they are much indented? About 150 years ago the prevalent belief was that ancient sea-margins indicated a formerly higher ocean-level. Such was the view held by Celsius, who, from an examination of the coast-lands of Sweden, attributed the retreat of the sea to a gradual drying up of the latter. But this desiccation hypothesis was not accepted by Playfair, who thought it much more likely that the land had risen. It was not, however, until after Von Buch had visited Sweden (1806-1808), and published the results of his observations, that Playfair’s suggestion received much consideration. Von Buch concluded that the apparent retreat of the sea was not due to a general depression of the ocean-level, but to elevation of the land—a conclusion which subsequently obtained the strong support of Lyell. The authority of these celebrated men gained for the elevation theory more or less complete assent, and for many years it has been the orthodox belief of geologists that the ancient sea-margins of Sweden and other lands have resulted from vertical movements of the crust. It has long been admitted, however, that highly-flexed and disturbed strata require some other explanation. Obviously such structures are the result of lateral compression and crumpling. Hence geologists have maintained that the mysterious subterranean forces have affected the crust in different ways. Mountain-ranges, they conceive, are ridged up by tangential thrusts and compression, while vast continental areas slowly rise and fall, with little or no disturbance of the strata. From this point of view it is the lithosphere that is unstable, all changes in the relative level of land and sea being due to crustal movements. Of late years, however, Trautschold and others have begun to doubt whether this theory is wholly true, and to maintain that the sea-level may have changed without reference to movements of the lithosphere. Thus Hilber has suggested that sinking of the sea-level may be due, in part at least, to absorption, while Schmick believes that the apparent elevation and depression of continental areas are really the results of grand secular movements of the ocean. The sea, according to him, periodically attains a high level in each hemisphere alternately, the waters being at present heaped up in the southern hemisphere. Professor Suess, again, believing that in equatorial regions the sea is, on the whole, gaining on the land, while in other latitudes the reverse would appear to be the case, points out this is in harmony with his view of a periodical flux and reflux of the ocean between the equator and the poles. He thinks we have no evidence of any vertical elevation affecting wide areas, and that the only movements of elevation that take place are those by which mountains are upheaved. The broad invasions and transgressions of the continental areas by the sea, which we know have occurred again and again, are attributed by him to secular movements of the hydrosphere itself.
Apart from all hypothesis and theory, we learn that the surface of the sea is not exactly spheroidal. It reaches a higher level on the borders of the continents than in mid-ocean, and it varies likewise in height at different places on the same coast. The attraction of the Himalaya, for example, suffices to cause a difference of 300 feet between the level of the sea at the delta of the Indus and on the coast of Ceylon. The recognition of such facts has led Penck to suggest that the submergence of the maritime regions of north-west Europe and the opposite coasts of North America, which took place at a recent geological date, and from which the lands in question have only partially recovered, may have been brought about by the attraction exerted by the vast ice-sheets of the Glacial period. But, as Drygalski, Woodward, and others have shown, the heights at which recent marine deposits occur in the regions referred to are much too great to be accounted for by any possible distortion of the hydrosphere. The late James Croll had previously endeavoured to show that the accumulation of ice over northern lands during glacial times would suffice to displace the earth’s centre of gravity, and thus cause the sea to rise upon the glaciated tracts. More recently other views have been advanced to explain the apparently causal connection between glaciation and submergence, but these need not be considered here.