30. Avoidance of the Broad Top basin by the Juniata headwaters.—Another highly characteristic change that the Juniata has suffered is revealed by examining the adjustments that would have taken place in the general topography of the Broad Top district during the Perm-Triassic cycle of erosion. When the basin, BT, fig. 22, was first outlined, centripetal streams descended its slopes from all sides and their waters accumulated as a lake in the center, overflowing to the east into the subordinate basin, A, in the Juniata syncline along side of the larger basin, and thence escaping northeast. In due time, the breaching of the slopes opened the softer Devonian rocks beneath and peripheral lowlands were opened on them. The process by which the Juniata departed from its original axial location, J, fig. 22, to a parallel course on the southeastern side of the syncline, J, fig. 23, has been described ([fig. 18]). The subsequent changes are manifest. Some lateral branch of the Juniata, like N, fig. 23, would work its way around the northern end of the Broad Top canoe on the soft underlying rocks and capture the axial stream, C, that came from the depression between Nittany and Kishicoquillas highlands; thus reënforced, capture would be made of a radial stream from the west, Tn, the existing Tyrone branch of the Juniata; in a later stage the other streams of the western side of the basin would be acquired, their divertor constituting the Little Juniata of to-day; and the end would be when the original Juniata, A, fig. 22, that once issued from the subordinate synclinal as a large stream, had lost all its western tributaries, and was but a shrunken beheaded remnant of a river, now seen in Aughwick creek, A, fig. 24. In the meantime, the former lake basin was fast becoming a synclinal mountain of diminishing perimeter. The only really mysterious courses of the present streams are where the Little Juniata runs in and out of the western border of the Broad Top synclinal, and where the Frankstown (FT) branch of the Juniata maintains its independent gap across Tussey's mountain (Medina), although diverted to the Tyrone or main Juniata (Tn) by Warrior's ridge (Oriskany) just below. At the time of the early predatory growth of the initial divertor, N, its course lay by the very conditions of its growth on only the weakest rocks; but after this little stream had grown to a good-sized river, further rising of the land, probably in the time of the Jurassic elevation, allowed the river to sink its channel to a greater depth, and in doing so, it encountered the hard Medina anticline of Jack's mountain; here it has since persisted, because, as we may suppose, there has been no stream able to divert the course of so large a river from its crossing of a single hard anticlinal.
The doubt that one must feel as to the possibility of the processes just outlined arises, if I may gauge it by my own feeling, rather from incredulity than from direct objections. It seems incredible that the waste of the valley slopes should allow the backward growth of N at such a rate as to enable it to capture the heads of C, Tn, F, and so on, before they had cut their beds down close enough to the baselevel of the time to be safe from capture. But it is difficult to urge explicit objections against the process or to show its quantitative insufficiency. It must be remembered that when these adjustments were going on, the region was one of great altitude, its rocks then had the same strong contrasts of strength and weakness that are so apparent in the present relief of the surface and the streams concerned were of moderate size; less than now, for at the time, the Tyrone, Frankstown and Bedford head branches of the Juniata had not acquired drainage west of the great Nittany-Bedford anticlinal axis, but were supplied only by the rainfall on its eastern slope (see [section 39])—and all these conditions conspired to favor the adjustment. Finally, while apparently extraordinary and difficult of demonstration, the explanation if applicable at all certainly gives rational correlation to a number of peculiar and special stream courses in the upper Juniata district that are meaningless under any other theory that has come to my notice. It is chiefly for this reason that I am inclined to accept the explanation.
31. Reversal of larger rivers to southeast courses.—Our large rivers at present flow to the southeast, not to the northwest. It is difficult to find any precise date for this reversal of flow from the initial hypothetical direction, but it may be suggested that it occurred about the time of the Triassic depression of the Newark belt. We have been persuaded that much time elapsed between the Permian folding and the Newark deposition, even under the most liberal allowance for pre-Permian erosion in the Newark belt; hence when the depression began, the rivers must have had but moderate northwestward declivity. The depression and submergence of the broad Newark belt may at this time have broken the continuity of the streams that once flowed across it. The headwater streams from the ancient Archean country maintained their courses to the depression; the lower portions of the rivers may also have gone on as before; but the middle courses were perhaps turned from the central part of the state back of the Newark belt. No change of attitude gives so fitting a cause of the southeastward flow of our rivers as this. The only test that I have been able to devise for the suggestion is one that is derived from the relation that exists between the location of the Newark belt along the Atlantic slope and the course of the neighboring transverse rivers. In Pennsylvania, where the belt reaches somewhat beyond the northwestern margin of the crystalline rocks in South mountain, the streams are reversed, as above stated; but in the Carolinas where the Newark belt lies far to the east of the boundary between the Cambrian and crystalline rocks, the Tennessee streams persevere in what we suppose to have been their original direction of flow. This may be interpreted as meaning that in the latter region, the Newark depression was not felt distinctly enough, if at all, within the Alleghany belt to reverse the flow of the streams; while in the former region, it was nearer to these streams and determined a change in their courses. The original Anthracite river ran to the northwest, but its middle course was afterwards turned to the southeast.
I am free to allow that this has the appearance of heaping hypothesis on hypothesis; but in no other way does the analysis of the history of our streams seem possible, and the success of the experiment can be judged only after making it. At the same time, I am constrained to admit that this is to my own view the least satisfactory of the suggestions here presented. It may be correct, but there seems to be no sufficient exclusion of other possibilities. For example, it must not be overlooked that, if the Anthracite river ran southeast during Newark deposition, the formation of the Newark northwestward monocline by the Jurassic tilting would have had a tendency to turn the river back again to its northwest flow. But as the drainage of the region is still southeastward, I am tempted to think that the Jurassic tilting was not here strong enough to reverse the flow of so strong and mature a river as the Anthracite had by that time come to be; and that the elevation that accompanied the tilting was not so powerful in reversing the river to a northwest course as the previous depression of the Newark basin had been in turning it to the southeast. If the Anthracite did continue to flow to the southeast, it may be added that the down-cutting of its upper branches was greatly retarded by the decrease of slope in its lower course when the monocline was formed.
The only other method of reversing the original northwestward flow of the streams that I have imagined is by capture of their headwaters by Atlantic rivers. This seems to me less effective than the method just considered; but they are not mutually exclusive and the actual result may be the sum of the two processes. The outline of the idea is as follows. The long continued supply of sedimentary material from the Archean land on the southeast implies that it was as continually elevated. But there came a time when there is no record of further supply of material, and when we may therefore suppose the elevation was no longer maintained. From that time onward, the Archean range must have dwindled away, what with the encroachment of the Atlantic on its eastern shore and the general action of denuding forces on its surface. The Newark depression was an effective aid to the same end, as has been stated above, and for a moderate distance westward of the depressed belt, the former direction of the streams must certainly have been reversed; but the question remains whether this reversal extended as far as the Wyoming basin, and whether the subsequent formation of the Newark monocline did not undo the effect of the Newark depression. It is manifest that as far as our limited knowledge goes, it is impossible to estimate these matters quantitatively, and hence the importance of looking for additional processes that may supplement the effect of the Newark depression and counteract the effect of the Newark uplift in changing the course of the rivers. Let it be supposed for the moment that at the end of the Jurassic uplift by which the Newark monocline was formed, the divide between the Ohio and the Atlantic drainage lay about the middle of the Newark belt. There was a long gentle descent westward from this watershed and a shorter and hence steeper descent eastward. Under such conditions, the divide must have been pushed westward, and as long as the rocks were so exposed as to open areas of weak sediments on which capture by the Atlantic streams could go on with relative rapidity, the westward migration of the divide would be important. For this reason, it might be carried from the Newark belt as far as the present Alleghany front, beyond which further pushing would be slow, on account of the broad stretch of country there covered by hard horizontal beds.
The end of this is that, under any of the circumstances here detailed, there would be early in the Jurassic-Cretaceous cycle a distinct tendency to a westward migration of the Atlantic-Ohio divide; it is the consequences of this that have now to be examined.
32. Capture of the Anthracite headwaters by the growing Susquehanna.—Throughout the Perm-Triassic period of denudation, a great work was done in wearing down the original Alleghanies. Anticlines of hard sandstone were breached, and broad lowlands were opened on the softer rocks beneath. Little semblance of the early constructional topography remained when the period of Newark depression was brought to a close; and all the while the headwater streams of the region were gnawing at the divides, seeking to develop the most perfect arrangement of waterways. Several adjustments have taken place, and the larger streams have been reversed in the direction of their flow; but a more serious problem is found in the disappearance of the original master stream, the great Anthracite river, which must have at first led away the water from all the lateral synclinal streams. Being a large river, it could not have been easily diverted from its course, unless it was greatly retarded in cutting down its channel by the presence of many beds of hard rocks on its way. The following considerations may perhaps throw some light on this obscure point.