Browsing by Author "Smalley, Ian"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item
    A man from Bendery: L.S. Berg as geographer and loess scholar
    (Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2010-06) Smalley, Ian; Markovic, Slobodan; O’Hara-Dhand, Ken; Wynn, Peter
    Lev Semenovich Berg was born in Bendery, in Moldova. He had great success as an ichthyologist and geographer; he also proposed, in 1916, an interesting theory of loess formation. As a biologist he was persecuted by Lysenko and the Soviet state in the time of pseudo-science in the 1930s and 1940s. Despite his being persecuted, the loess theory became, in effect, the official Soviet theory of loess formation. This theory had to be compatible with his ‘landscape’ theory which did not find favour in Marxist-Leninist geography. Berg’s loess theory was very much a geographical theory, as opposed to the geological theory of aeolian deposition, which was accepted outside the Soviet Union. Berg was hugely successful in many fields, but his contributions to loess science tend to be neglected. His ‘soil’ theory of loess formation has been widely disparaged but still has some influence in Russia. The concept of loessification may still be relevant to the later stages of deposit formation; the slow transition from metastable to collapsible may be best described as loessification.
  • Item
    Desert loess: a selection of relevant topics
    (Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, 2019-04) Smalley, Ian; Marshall, John; Fitzsimmons, Kathryn; Whalley, W. Brian; Ngambi, Samson
    In discussions on loess, two types are often demarcated: glacial loess and desert loess. The origin of the idea of desert loess appears to lie with V.A. Obruchev who observed wind-carried silt on the Potanin expedition to Central Asia in 1895. It might be considered that desert loess would be defined as loess associated with deserts but it came to be thought of as loess produced in deserts. This led to some controversy as no mechanism for producing silt particles in deserts was readily available. Bruce Butler in Australia in particular cast doubt on the existence of desert-made loess. Butler indicated loess-like deposits in Australia which he called Parna; these are very like loess but the silt sized parti- cles are actually clay mineral agglomerates of silt size- formed in dry lake regions. At the heart of the desert loess discussion is the problem of producing loess material in deserts. It has been suggested that there are no realistic mechanisms for forming large amounts of loess dust but there is a possibility that sand grain impact may produce particle shattering and lead to the formation of quartz silt. This would appear to be a reasonable mechanism for the African deposits of desert loess, but possibly inadequate for the huge deposits in China and Central Asia. The desert loess in China and Central Asia is loess associated with a desert. The material is formed in cold, high country and carried by rivers to the vicinity of deserts. It progresses then from deserts to loess deposit. Adobe ground may be defined as desert loess. Adobe occurs on the fringe of deserts, notably in the Sahelian region of Africa, and in SW USA. The use of adobe in construction represents the major utilization of desert loess in a social con- text. More understanding of adobe is required, in particular with respect to the adobe reaction, the low order chemical reaction which provides modest cementitious properties, and can be likened to the pozzolanic reactions in hydrating cement systems. The location of loess and loess-like ground on the peripheries of deserts is aided by the observation of the nesting sites of bee-eater birds. These birds have a determined preference for loess ground to dig their nesting tunnels; the presence of nest tunnels suggests the occurrence of desert loess, in desert fringe regions. We seek amalgamation and contrast: ten main topics are considered: words and terms, particles, parna, geotechnical, adobe, people, birds, Africa, Central Asia, Mars. The aim is some large generalizations which will benefit all aspects of desert loess investigation.
  • Item
    Leonard Horner in Bonn 1831–1833, finding loess and being incorporated into Lyell’s Loess Legion
    (Instytut Geologii UAM, 2020-08) Smalley, Ian
    Leonard Horner (1785–1864) was a pioneer in the study of loess. His 1836 paper on the geology of Bonn contained detailed descriptions of loess in the Rhine valley. He identified and presented loess as an interesting material for geological study. He investigated loess in the crater of the Rodderberg with Charles Lyell in 1833. He presented the first significant paper on loess in Britain in 1833, but it was not published until 1836. With the assistance of G.A. Goldfuss and J.J. Noegerath he conducted early studies of the Siebengebirge and published the first geological map of the region, and the first picture of loess, at Rhondorf by the Drachenfels. He became the eleventh person to be included in the list of loess scholars which Charles Lyell published in volume 3 of the Principles of Geology. These were Leonhard, Bronn, Boue, Voltz, Steininger, Merian, Rozet, Hibbert in 1833, Noeggerath, von Meyer in 1835, Horner in 1837. Horner arrived after the publication of his studies on the loess at Bonn in 1836.
  • Item
    Loess encounters of three kinds: Charles Lyell talks about, reads about, and looks at loess
    (Instytut Geologii UAM, 2016-04) Smalley, Ian; Kels, Holger; Gaudenyi, Tivadar; Jovanovic, Mladjen
    Charles Lyell (1797–1875) was an important loess pioneer. His major contribution was to distribute information on the nature and existence of loess via his influential book ‘The Principles of Geology’. He was obviously impressed by loess when he encountered it; the initial encounter can be split into three phases: conversations about loess; confronting the actual material in the field; and reading about loess in the literature. Detail can be added to an important phase in the scientific development of the study of loess. Significant events include conversations with Hibbert in 1831, conversations and explorations with von Leonhard and Bronn in 1832, the opportunity to include a section on loess in vol. 3 of ‘Principles’ for publication in 1833, a substantial Rhineland excursion in 1833, the reporting of the results of this excursion in 1834, discussions at the German Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Bonn in 1835. Of all the people encountered perhaps H.G. Bronn was the most significant. Lyell eventually listed eleven people as relevant to the loess writings: Bronn, von Leonhard, Boue, Voltz, Steininger, Merian, Rozet, Hibbert, Noeggerath, von Meyer, Horner – of these Bronn, von Leonhard, Hibbert and Horner appear to have been the most significant, viewed from 2015.
  • Item
    Six days in July: Charles Lyell in the Eifel in 1831 (possibly looking at loess)
    (Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, 2017-08) Smalley, Ian
    Charles Lyell made a geological excursion to the Eifel region in Germany in July 1831. He went to examine volcanic rocks and volcanic landscapes. He discussed this outing with Mary Somerville and Samuel & Charlotte Hibbert. It is possible that he observed loess in the Eifel. It is hoped that his Eifel notebook is with the Lyell papers at Kinnordy and that it may be transcribed and published. Lyell spread the word on loess; Von Leonard invented it and Horner enthused about it but Lyell disseminated the essential idea of loess. There is (so far) no clear evidence that Lyell saw and appreciated loess in the Eifel region in 1831. This suggests that his first real encounter with the loess (ground or concept) was in the discussions with the Hibberts in September 1831. He certainly had substantial (reported) encounters in 1832, and was definitely interested by the time of the publication of the Principles of Geology vol. 3 in 1833.
  • Item
    The formation of loess ground by the process of loessification: a history of the concept
    (Instytut Geologii UAM, 2018-08) Obreht, Igor; Smalley, Ian
    Loessification is a process by which a body of non-loess ground is transformed into a body of loess ground. The history of loessification is one of controversy and confrontation, largely because of mutual misunderstandings between geologists and pedologists. Lev S. Berg is the ‘only begetter’ of the theory, first proposed in 1916, and propagated throughout his life. R.J. Russell proposed the same approach to the loess in the Lower Mississippi valley in his famous 1944 paper, which contributed enormously to the study of loess in North America. As understanding of the various processes involved in the formation of loess deposits has developed, a compromise position on loess formation has become possible. The major intrinsic features of loess deposits are the open structure and the collapsibility. It appears that the open structure is caused by aeolian depositional processes and the collapsibility is caused by loessification processes. The compromise was initiated by Marton Pécsi in 1990, He endeavoured to retain a loessification aspect in the study of loess deposits, as the subject appeared to be overwhelmed by the aeolian idea system promoted by geologists; it has been mostly a Central European endeavour. The history of the concept of loessification largely involves (1) its development in Russia, (2) its dissemination and discussion – and attempts at refutation and modification – in the wider world.