One Hundred Loess People: The Loess

Biobibliographical project, with some emphasis on

Polish investigators
In memory of Jerzy Cegla 1935-1984

Ian Smalley(1); Greta Smalley(1); Ken OHara-Dhand(1);

Zdzislaw Jary(2)

1. Giotto Loess Research Group, Geography Department,

Leicester University, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
(ijs4@le.ac.uk)
2. Department of Geography & Regional Development,
University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland
(zdzislaw.jary@uni.wroc.pl)

Abstract
The loess biobibliographical project requires the identification
and listing of 100 investigators. The aim is to provide a
history of the study of loess via a consideration of the
participants in the enterprise. The people are studied in
groups of 12: the Original, More, Additional, Further, Last,
Extra, Disjunct and Bonus groups. The remaining four slots
are to be filled by the reader. In making the Polish connection
14 significant investigators are identified: Dylik, Tokarski,
Mojski, Butrym, Maruszczak, Jersak, Jahn, Cegla, Malicki,
Sawicki, Rozycki, Ruhle, Manecki, Malinowski; major
1

contributors to Polish loess studies. There are others; we offer

a subjective(Europe-based) selection. A programme of
constant revision will be required.
Keywords: Loess, loess history, loess biobibliography, Polish
loess investigators, 100 loess people.
1. Introduction
The loess biobibliographical project is an attempt to study and
record the investigation of loess by means of a listing and an
appreciation of the scholars and students who studied loess,
in all its aspects. Every subject needs a history, so this is a
contribution to the study of the history of loess investigation.
As Walt Whitman said Perhaps the best is always
cumulative and of course all science is cumulative; we build
on what has been built before, and bits of loess history slowly
accumulate. The aim and purpose of history is to identify
critical points, turning points when new visions became
revealed. We have had perhaps three great turning points in
the history of loess: the identification and naming of the
material(associated with Leonhard), the realisation, at the
end of the nineteenth century, that it is an aeolian deposit
(associated with Richthofen) and the appreciation, in the
middle of the twentieth century, that the loess contained a
detailed record of the Quaternary era (associated with Liu
Tung-sheng). So three great events but a lot of other
progress in various directions, and in various places, and
recorded in many languages, which the loess
biobibliographical project needs to identify and record.
This is essentially an impossible project, and will always have
to be seen as a work in progress, and as a structure always
in need of reconstruction. All sorts of apologies and
explanations are required before a new chapter can be
revealed. Is it really possible to provide a genuine world-wide
view of loess that does justice to all topics and all
2

contributors?- probably no. Is it worthwhile to attempt such a

project, while deploying all the requirements of scholarly
integrity and academic thoroughness?- probably yes. The
view of loess from Leicester is doubtless different to the view
from, say, Lviv. Leicester and Lviv are not that far apart
geographically but there are historical and linguistic factors
which separate them. These however can be recognised and
in the 21st century a Leicester/Lviv view should be possible.
The view from Lublin can be incorporated, and perhaps the
view from Lincoln(Nebraska) and maybe the view from Lower
Hutt(New Zealand). Actually the view from Lower Hutt has
been put (Smalley & Davin 1980) so there is progress on that
front. The view from Lanzhou is very important (extremely
important). And so is that from [Le..] St Petersburg.
The Loess Biobibliographical project begins with the
Benchmark collection of important loess writings(Smalley
1975). This project, in retrospect, can be seen to encapsulate
some of the problems hinted at above. The market required it
to be in English which probably skewed the selection of
material. There were translations from German and Russian
and Romanian, but the translation budget to some extent
affected the choices.
The Partial Bibliography (Smalley 1980) attempted to cast a
net over all of the loess literature. It was a wide mesh net
and many items escaped; it was well named a partial
bibliography. Actually partial was meant to express partiality
rather than incompleteness, but the double meaning has
proved useful.
One more item of literature needs to be included in the
introduction. At the LoessFest in Heidelberg and Bonn in
1999(to celebrate the naming of loess by Karl Caesar von
Leonhard in Heidelberg in 1824) an attempt was made to list
the 12 most significant loess people (Smalley et al 2001).
This launched the current phase of the loess biobibliographical
project, and set the template for the future study of groups of
12 loess investigators; the Original 12 were followed by More,
then Additional, then Further, Last, Extra, Disjunct and Bonus
3

lists. The More group was studied in some detail in Smalley

(2008) but this paper is the first to offer an almost complete
list, and modest details of some people in all groups. Within
the default list important Polish investigators are identified,
because this paper is part of a largely Polish loess collection.
(Jary et al 2012).
2. Factors, aspects, controls, choices
An aim is to identify 100 significant loess people. Inevitably
the first people chosen will be the most significant and
significance will decrease. An immediate problem is revealed,
in particular as the list grows. Local aspects become very
important as universal significance decreases.
In no particular order here is a list of factors affecting choices,
with identifying symbols:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

who published a lot of material PU (e.g. Kriger, Shimek)

a single important or breakthrough paper VI
(Hardcastle, Russell )
who introduced the loess concept to a new region/country
NR (Haast, Pewe)
opened a new door; pointed in a new direction; new
concepts CO (Cegla, Liu Tung-sheng)
wrote a useful book UB (Soergel, Scheidig)
organiser(of loess activity)
OR (Fink, Derbyshire)
spreader of the word
SP (Lyell, Merzbacher)
engineer EN (Denisov)
a region RE (Mavlyanov, Lomonovich)
pieces published in Benchmark 26 BM

The symbols can be used in the lists to define areas of

interest/significance. There are certain classic individuals who
might be identified/mentioned here. PU includes Kriger and
Obruchev(and Bohumil Shimek)- writers of loess papers par
excellence. VI includes Russell and John Hardcastle, a long
way from PU world. NR could be represented by John Catt,
bringing loess to Britain. CO is dominated by Liu Tung-sheng;
4

UB by Scheidig; OR by Julius Fink. Charles Lyell goes into SP

and Denisov is the key person in EN. RE is perhaps the place
for Julius von Haast and Ferdinand von Richthofen and Bruce
Butler. BM is the Benchmark collection (Smalley 1975); it
contains contributions by 55 authors, judged significant in
1975.
We can attempt, in a similarly reckless manner, to identify
scholarly boxes into which the loessic contributions can be
placed. These are topics generating literature, and the usual
incompleteness statement is required to be understood.
T1.
T2.
T3.
T4.
T5.
T6.

formation of loess deposits (e.g. Richthofen)

climatic indicators (Liu Tung-sheng)
distribution of loess deposits (Grahmann)
formation of loess material (Sun Jimin)
palaeosol/loess sequences (Pecsi)
collapse mechanisms, hydroconsolidation & subsidence
(Minervin)
T7. relation to ancient societies (Ho Ping-ti)
T8. ways of dating (McCoy, Wintle)
T9. agricultural problems/soil erosion (Catt)
T10. container for snails & mammoths & sand martins
(Lozek, F.C.Baker).
We also attempt, in the usual haphazard manner, to give
each contributor a forename or initials, and a rough location.
The precision of the location will vary, some people stayed
put all their working lives and can be identified with an
institution, a location, a country. Others are less easy to pin
down.
3. Original (O 1-12)
This is the original list; from Smalley et al(2001). When
compiled it was supposed to represent the most significant
studies in loess science; the top twelve in loess achievement.
Obviously this is disputeable, but the list remains reasonably
acceptable.
5

Leonhard, K.C.von
Lyell, Charles
Richthofen, F.von
Hardcastle, John
Tutkovskii, Pavel
Obruchev, V.A.
Berg, L.S.
Grahmann, Rudolf
Russell, R.J.
Fink, Julius
Liu Tung-sheng
Kukla, George

Germany, Heidelberg CO, VI

UK SP BM
Germany CO, BM, T1
New Zealand, Timaru CO, T2
Ukraine CO
USSR, Tomsk CO, PU, BM
Moravia, USSR Leningrad UB, VI, BM
Germany, Leipzig VI, RE, T3
USA, Mississippi, UM VI, BM
Austria, Vienna, UW
OR, BM
China, Beijing CAS CO, UB, T5
Czech/USA, New York CO

The list is roughly chronological, starting with Karl Caesar von

Leonhard who named the loess. Obviously loess was known
about and exploited in China for hundreds(thousands?) of
years but Leonhard was the person who named it and
recognised it as a scientific entity. Charles Lyell spread the
word by including a mention of loess in The Principles of
Geology (see Smalley et al 2010b). All the names on this list
are well known loess people except perhaps Hardcastle, who
made the pioneering observations in loess stratigraphy and
palaeoclimatology in New Zealand in 1889 (see Smalley
1983).
Fink is there as the great organiser, the founder and onlie
begetter of the INQUA Loess Commission (see Smalley et al
2001, 2010a).
Grahmann mapped the European loess (see Haase et al
2007).
Berg was a great Russian geographer and supporter of the
idea of loessification; we remember him partly as a
bibliographer. The excellent picture we have of early Russian
loess studies is largely down to him (Berg 1964) and Kriger
(1965). For Berg details see Smalley et al (2010c). Tutkovskii
is perhaps somewhat obscure; he gave loess a glacial
dimension, and should certainly be better known as a major
Ukrainian scholar (see Smalley 1978b).
6

4. More (M 13-24)
Twelve more loess people have been discussed (Smalley
2008), including pictures of Haast and Soergel.
This a slightly unusual list in that 12 countries are
represented; this was not a contrivance- it serves to show the
international nature of loess research.
Haast, Julius von
Soergel, Wolfgang
J.S.Lee
Krokos, V.I.
Tokarski, Julian
Butler, Bruce
Frye, John
Mavlyanov, G.A.
Minkov, Minko
Kriger, N.I.
Lozek, Vojen
Pecsi, Marton

New Zealand NR, RE

Germany [Wroclaw] UB
China RE
Ukraine CO, T5
Poland RE, BM
Australia, CSIRO VI, NR, RE, T1
USA, Illinois, ISGS OR, RE, BM
Uzbekistan, UAS UB T1, RE
Bulgaria, Sofia, BAS UB, RE, EN
USSR, Moscow PNIIIS PU UB EN SP
Czech, Prague, T10 RE T2 T8 BM
Hungary, Budapest UB OR BM

This list contains some notable figures; Soergel (1919)

published one of the most significant books on loess, and so
did Mavlyanov(for Central Asia), and Minkov (for Bulgaria).
Soergel worked at Breslau, before it became Wroclaw and
thus almost makes the Polish sub-section. Mavlyanov was a
central figure in the study of loess in Central Asia (see
Smalley et al 2006). Butler more or less invented the study of
loess(parna) in Australia. Pecsi was the 2nd president of the
INQUA Loess Commission and a very influential figure in loess
research. Major figures, but we select Kriger for our particular
admiration; bibliographical/historical studies revolve around
Kriger. No count has ever been made but he probably
published more papers on loess than any other scholar;
Obruchev wrote a lot but Kriger wrote more. 70 books on
loess have been listed (Smalley 1991b) and in this list Kriger
(1965) is the key volume. Kriger(1965) is the great resource
7

for literature in Russian and the choice parameters within his

list need to be discussed. There are two obvious choice
mechanisms (a) bulk of publication, i.e. who published the
most; top of the list are Obruchev, Kriger, Moskvitin,
Sedletskii, Gerasimov, Mavlyanov and Lysenko; (b) perhaps
smaller publication volume but a significant observation or
discovery; these include Berg, Denisov, Krokos, Pyaskovskii,
Dokuchaev, Ilin, Tutkovskii, Yu.M.Abelev. There is the
Soviet/Russian problem wrapped within the Kriger list. When
the list was published in 1965 all the writers in Russian were
probably Soviet scholars, but it might be
convenient/acceptable/desirable to separate them out into
relevant nationalities. Should the Ukrainian writers be
Ukrainian or Soviet? It seems more informative to assign
Mavlyanov to Uzbekistan rather than the Soviet Union, and it
seems proper that Krokos and Tutkovskii be Ukrainian. So the
USSR will be partially divided, but the UK and USA will remain
undivided. History may require further adjustments here.
5. Additional (A 25-36)
Virlet dAoust, Pierre
A.P.Pavlov
Keilhack, Konrad
Zeuner, F.E.
Denisov, N.Ya
Shimek, Bohumil
Bondarchuk, V.G.
Vekhlich, M.F.
Pewe, Troy
Brunnacker, Karl
Cegla, Jerzy
Rozycki, S.Z.

France CO, T1
USSR CO, T1
Germany BM, CO
UK BM
USSR EN, T6
USA, Iowa PU
Ukraine RE
Ukraine RE
USA, Arizona ASU RE, BM
Germany, Kiel PU
Poland, Wroclaw BM CO
Poland UB

There are some notable investigators on the Additional list.

Virlet dAoust was a pioneer developer of the idea that loess is
an aeolian deposit. Richthofen is associated with the aeolian
idea but Virlet dAoust was experimenting with the concept
8

before him. Keilhack was the first person to produce a worldwide map of loess distribution (see Smalley 1975 p.47,
Smalley & Perry 1969). Shimek was a chronicler of the loess
of the Mid-West. The writings of Shimek and his
contemporaries turned the Proceedings of the Iowa Academy
of Sciences into an important loess journal (see Harding &
Smalley 1970, Davidson et al 1951, Cable 1916, Bettis &
Baker 1992). Pewe was a pioneer in the study of Alaskan
loess, and Denisov was the pioneer engineer. When irrigation
canals were constructed in Uzbekistan large scale subsidence
was observed; Denisov reported this and initiated the
continuing study of hydroconsolidation and subsidence in
loess (see Smalley et al.2006).
6. Further (F37-48)
Yu.M. Abelev
Barbour, G.B.
Jahn, Alfred
Davidson, D.T.
Lysenko, Mikhail Pavlovich
Jersak, Josef
Maruszczak, Henryck
Ruhe, Robert
Velichko, Andrei A
Yaalon, Dan
An Zhi-sheng

USSR EN, T6
USA RE
Poland, Wroclaw T1
USA, Iowa, ISU OR
USSR UB BM
Poland, Lodz
RE
Poland, Lublin, UMCS BM
USA, Iowa, Indiana BM
USSR, Moscow, AS OR, RE
Israel, Jerusalem, BM, RE
China, CAS OR

Davidson was involved in one of the earlier loess

bibliographies (Davidson et al 1951); this bibliography has
284 entries, and is very much a view from Iowa; 16 entries
for J.E.Todd and 19 for Shimek. Cable (1916), in Iowa,
produced a bibliography of the loess; this had 62 entries- 14
for Shimek, and one for Obruchev.
7. Last (L49-60)

Hobbs, W.H.
USA BM
Scheidig, Alfred
Germany, Freiberg, Bergakad. UB, EN
Minervin, A.V.
USSR, Moscow, MGU T6
Baker, F.C.
USA T10
Trofimov, V.T.
Russia, Moscow, MGU UB, EN
Gerasimov, I.P.
USSR, Moscow, AS BM
Markovic-Marjanovic, J Yugoslavia, Serbia RE
Lomonovich, M.I.
USSR RE
Lautridou, J-P
France, CNRS RE
Bronger, Arnt
Germany, Kiel T5
Catt, John
UK, Rothamsted NR T9
Raeside, J.D.
NZ, Christchurch, DSIR RE, T5
Scheidig wrote the book (Scheidig 1934). For a long time it
was the only reasonably accessible book on loess, and is
rightly famous. Trofimov (2001) produced what is essentially
the same book- but many years later. Both books give a
general account of loess and then go on to discuss
geotechnical problems. Markovic-Marjanovic was a pioneer of
loess studies in Serbia, and Catt was a pioneer of loess
studies in Britain.
8. Extra (E61-72)
E. Derbyshire
UK, Leicester, RHUL OR, RE, UB, T6
Pyaskovskii, B.V.
USSR, Moscow VI
Armashevskii, P.Ya Russia, Leningrad T1
Dylik, Jan
Poland, Lodz CO, RE, T2, BM
Malicki, A.
Poland RE
Handy, R.L.
USA, Iowa ISU EN, T1
Moskvitin, A.I.
USSR, Ukraine RE
Sedletskii, I.D.
USSR T1
Penck, Albrecht
Germany T1
Lukashev, K.I.
USSR, Belarus, Minsk RE
Ho Ping-ti
China, USA T7, RE
Wintle, Ann
UK, Aberystwyth CO

10

Pyaskovskii(1946) is a very important paper; one of the few

accessible papers to really discuss the Berg in-situ approach
to loess formation. Dylik emerges as the leading Polish
scholar; Kriger (1965) had more Dylik references than any
other non-Cyrillic writer on his great list. For Kriger Dylik was
the major scholar not writing in Russian.
9. Disjunct (D73-84)
Ilin, R.S.
Ambroz, V
Bowler, James
Todd, J.E.
Chernyakovskii, A.G.
Frenzel, B.
Sawicki, L.
Merzbacher, G.
Yeliseyev,V.I.
Rathjens, C.
Kes, A.S.
Butrym, Jerzy

USSR CO
Czech VI
Australia, Canberra, ANU
USA PU, RE
USSR T1
Germany
Poland RE
Germany SP
USSR RE
Germany NR
USSR RE
Poland CO

OR

Bowler is on this list primarily as an organiser. In 1978 he

formed the Western Pacific Working Group of the INQUA
Loess Commission and the three field trips which formed the
core activity of this working group had a very important
impact on loess history (see Smalley & OHara-Dhand 2010).
The China meeting represented the emergence, on to the
world-stage, of China- after the cultural revolution.
Merzbacher(1913) had a remarkable role to play; his main
role is now seen as the herald for Obruchev (1911). The
Obruchev paper is seen as a major contribution, in particular
in relation to desert loess, but it was published in Tomsk, in
an obscure journal and needed secondary activity to make it
famous. The major publicizing role was played by Merzbacher,
and he deserves recognition for this.

11

Ambroz is a classic entry into the VI category; Ambroz(1947)

gains entry by virtue of repeated and widespread citation. Ilin
is in place thanks to his revolutionary ideas; his promise was
not fulfilled, he was killed by Stalin in the Great Terror.
10. Bonus (B85-96)
Haase, Gunter
Sun Jimin
Teruggi, Mario
Ruhle,E.
Mojski, J.E.
Semmel, Arno
Schonhals, E.
Heller, F.
McCoy, W.
Manecki, A.
Dokuchaev, V.V.
Malinowski, Jan

Germany, Leipzig/Potsdam, OR
China, Beijing, CAS T1, T4, RE
Argentina RE, BM
Poland, Cracow RE
Poland, Warsaw RE, T2, T5
Germany RE
Germany RE
Switzerland, Zurich, ETH T8
USA, Amherst, UM T8, CO
Poland BM
Russia CO
Poland EN UB

Dokuchaev is not generally seen as a writer on loess but he

has had a vast affect on the world of loess scholarship. He
invented soil science and the principles and ideas of soil
science were very influential in Russia/Soviet Union and
certainly underpinned the approach to loess by Berg and
many of his contemporaries. Berg was powerfully influential
and the concepts of loessification are still being discussed.
Loessification is essentially a soil science idea and comes
directly from Dokuchaev.
The Haase on the Bonus list is Gunter Haase of the Academy
of Sciences in Leipzig. He was charged, by Julius Fink, with
responsibility for organising the INQUA Loess Map of Europe.
This was an enormous task, fraught with technical, political
and cartographic problems. A conclusion was reached in 2007
with another Haase in charge (Haase et al 2007); this was an
evolution of the work of Grahmann,(the work which placed
him on the Original list.)

12

11. Personal (P97-100)

The list so far contains 96 names, some doubtless rather
disputable. The last four slots are left vacant so that the
reader can add names that he/she feels have been omitted.
Many current loess investigators will make it on to the list;
the young and active should not despair; places are reserved
for them. Selection criteria will change and evolve and thus
the lists must change; they depend on time and location and
can never be fixed; we offer a European vision for 2012;
other views are needed.
12. Polish Scholars and Investigators
In the 1911 bibliography of Stuntz & Free(see Smalley 1991a)
there appear to be only two entries which relate to loess in
Poland (Zeuschner 1851, 1855). These two papers are also
listed by Scheidig (1934), and one of them (Zeuschner 1851)
by Kriger (1965).
The selection of Polish scholars and investigators considered
in this paper has been underpinned by the bibliography
supplied by Kriger(1965).They are emphasized in the lists.
The Kriger listing offers a ranking: Dylik achieved 9 entries
and easily leads the field, although some of these entries are
periglacial rather than loessic. Jahn and Mojski are next with
4 entries each; Malicki and Sawacki get 3 entries; Tokarski
and Ruhle get 2. And there is a considerable collection of
people with one mention: Dylikova, Grabowska, Haliki,
Malinowski, Nakonieczny, Pachucki, Piasecki, Pierzchalko,
Proszynski, Raczkowski, Rockicki, Rozycki, Rutkowski,
Stupnicka, Walczak. Rozycki appears in the Additional list,
largely on the basis of his book (Rozycki 1991) which was
published in Polish but then also published in English which
(we are forced to acknowledge) enormously increased its
visibility.

13

In the listing which comprises the Partial bibliography

(Smalley 1980) Jersak, with 8 entries, heads the Polish list,
followed by Cegla 7 and Maruszczak 7; Mojski 6, Dylik 5, Jahn
5 and Tokarski 4. Polish material is quite well represented in
the Benchmark collection (Smalley 1975). Five papers (or
parts of papers) were reprinted; they were Dylik (1954),
Tokarski et al (1961), Maruszczak (1976), Cegla (1969,
1972). In some ways Cegla (1972) is the most significant of
these papers; it is a review and had a large bibliography
attached. The bibliography was reprinted and gives a good
view of work on loess sedimentology in Poland.
As part of the Benchmark project Cegla wrote: From
between other Polish papers I propose:
1. Jan Dylik- Zagadnienie genezy lessu w Polsce, Biuletyn
Peryglacjalny 1, pp. 19-30. 1954.
It is a very good work in Polish, the author discussed
problems of the genesis of Polish loesses in the early period of
development of periglacial studies, when attention was drawn
to the dynamics of the genetical processes; I think it should
be translated.
2. Josef Jersak- Glowne kierunki wiatrow osadzajacych less
W czasie ostatniego peitra zimnego; res. Les directions de
vents predominants accumulant les loess au cour du
dernier etage froid. Acta Geographica Lodziendzia 24,
1970, pp.225-236.
3. Stefan Nakonieczny- Profil czwartorzedowy w Debowce a
Zagadnienie poziomow hunussowych w lessach; Zsfg.
Profil des Quartars in Debowka und das Problem der
Genesis von Humusschichten in Loess. Annales UMCS,
Sectio B, vol.XII, 1959, pp. 155-162.
It is a very good paper, worth translating, showing the
inappropriateness of stratigraphic interpretation in cases
when lithological and sedimentological features are omitted.
14

(letter from Jerzy Cegla to Ian Smalley Dec.1972).

The English summary of Dylik (1954) was published in the
Benchmark collection, thus meeting part of Ceglas
suggestion. It was proper to focus some attention on Dylik
because, via his work with the development of the journal
Biuletyn Peryglacjany, he did much to encourage studies on
periglacial terrains, which in Poland,of course, includes the
loess zones in the south of the country.
Pecsi & Richter(1996) in their loess review (HerkunftGliederung-Landschaften) list some Polish loess researchers.
They particularly favour Maruszczak, with 7 references. They
do cite Cegla, and in particular recognize his pioneering work
in carrying out the first SEM studies on European loess (Cegla
et al 1971). We still judge Cegla (1972) to be a critical work,
giving a good overview of Polish loess research, and Pecsi &
Richter seem to be of a similar opinion.

13. Commentary
The ordering of the list is not haphazard, but it is impossible
to impose any rigorous universal order. It could be arranged
in order of importance and to a certain extent this has
occurred. The names on the Original list will be widely
accepted as major loess investigators, and obviously major
figures appear on the More list but a randomness begins to
appear in the Additional list, and onwards. Personal
inclinations and regional factors have an effect, and
categorization has to be dealt with. The engineer EN category
can illustrate some of the problems; Denisov appears in the
More list and he is probably the pre-eminent engineer,
pioneer of the study of hydroconsolidation and subsidence.
But how does he compare to say Grahmann, the pioneer
mapper of European loess who is firmly placed in the Original
15

list? Engineer and mapper do not directly compare. It will

have to be admitted that the loess activity which has been
most influential in the placing of names on lists has been the
investigation of loess formation and loess stratigraphy.
Another skewing is apparent when the eight lists are
examined in that there may be more emphasis than is strictly
proper on Russian workers (or perhaps we should say workers
publishing in Russian, since several major contributors were
Ukrainian). This is due to the large influence of Kriger (1965)
and Berg (1964), as well as the fact that there was probably
more literature published in Russian than in any other
language. It is ironic that this discussion should be appearing
in English, but in 2012, impact tends to be measured by
appearance in English; publication in English now carries
more weight than publication in other languages, and listmakers have to take this into account.
The list could be arranged in chronological order, as
Rozycki(1990) attempted in his complex bibliographical
system; this was tried in the original list but comes into
conflict with the importance listing.
14. Conclusions
Many people studied loess, and almost as many wrote papers
and books about it. We can select 100 important loess people
and we can attempt to select perhaps the leading 25 or so,
and we can indicate why they were chosen, and their specific
areas of relevance and specialisation. Within this array of
investigators we choose 14 Polish investigators. This 14%
suggests that Poland has made a considerable contribution to
loess investigation and scholarship; particularly in the region
of the study of loess in a periglacial environment. The chosen
14 are Dylik, Cegla, Tokarski, Jersak, Butrym, Jahn,
Maruszczak, Malicki, Sawicki, Rozycki, Ruhle, Mojski, Manecki,
Malinowski.

16

15. Acknowledgements
First and foremost the most profound thanks and
acknowledgements must go to the late Alexander Alexiev of
the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences who travelled all the way
from Sofia to Leeds to deliver a copy of Kriger(1965)- the
totally central work for any study of loess biobibliography. ZJ
acknowledges receipt of the JC copy; only 1350 were printed,
this is the golden fleece of loess books. Similar thanks to Eric
Robinson of University College London who delivered a copy
of Rozycki(1991) and the Vernon Hobson fund of the
Institution of Mining & Metallurgy who provided Berg(1964)
and Michael C.Roberts of Simon Fraser University who offered
Davidson et al.(1951). Thanks to Professor Edward
Derbyshire for making things possible; he is on the Extra list,
with his well deserved OR appellation. Thanks to Rhodes
Fairbridge for setting up the Benchmark loess operation and
thus initiating the whole biobibliography project. The word
biobibliography is taken from the journal Geographers:
Biobibliographical Studies; the word loess was bequeathed
to us by Karl Caesar von Leonhard(1824, p.722).
References
Ambroz, V. 1947. Sprase pahorkatin (The loess of the hill
countries). Sbornik Statniho geologickeho ustava CSR, Prague
14 , 225-280. (in Czech).
Berg, L.S. 1964. Loess as a product of weathering and soil
formation. Israel Program for Scientific Translations,
Jerusalem 207p.
Bettis, E.A., Baker, D.Z. 1992. The legacy of Bohumil
Shimek. Iowa Geology 17, 6-7.
Cable, E.J. 1916. Bibliography of the loess. Proceedings of
the Iowa Academy of Science 23, 159-162.

17

Cegla, J. 1969. Influence of capillary ground moisture on

eolian accumulation of loess.
Bull.Acad.Pol.Sci.Geol.Geog.Ser. 17, 25-27.(reprinted in
Smalley 1975 pp.392-394).
Cegla, J. 1972. Loess sedimentation in Poland.
Acta.Wratislav Stud.Geogr. 17, 53-71. (summary &
bibliography reprinted in Smalley 1975 pp.373-391)
Cegla, J., Buckley, T., Smalley, I.J. 1971. Microtextures of
particles from some European loess deposits. Sedimentology
17, 129-134.
Davidson,D.T., Chu, T.Y., Sheeler, J.B. 1951. A bibliography
of the loess. Iowa Engineering Experiment Station; Iowa
State College; Engineering Report 8, 15p.
Dylik, J. 1954. The problem of the origin of loess in Poland.
Biuletyn Peryglacjalny 1, 19-30, 125-131 (main text in
Polish; English summary reprinted in Smalley 1975 pp.162171.)
Haase, D., Fink, J., Haase, G., Ruske, R., Pecsi, M., Richter,
H., Altermann, M., Jaeger, K-D. 2007. Loess in Europe- its
spatial distribution based on a European loess map; scale 1:
2,500,000. Quaternary Science Reviews 26, 1301-1312.
Harding, D.E., Smalley, I.J. 1988. Warnock revisited- a
bibliography of North American loess 1805-1955. Leicester
University Geography Department Occasional Paper 17, 66p.
Jary,Z., Markovic, S.B., Smalley, I.J., Zoeller, L.(eds.) 2012.
Closing the Gap- the Carpathian traverse in the Eurasian
loess (the Wroclaw volume). Quaternary International- in
preparation.
Kriger, N.I. 1965. Loess, its characteristics and relation to
the geographical environment. Nauka Moscow 296p. (in
18

Russian) Bibliography (pp.255-294) re-published as Loess

Letter Supplement no.13, July 1986.
Leonhard, K.C.von 1824. Charakteristik der Felsarten (part
4, section 89 Loess) Joseph Engelmann, Heidelberg 772p.
Maruszczak, H. 1967. Wind directions during the
accumulation of the younger loess in East-Central Europe.
Rocznik Polskiego towarzystwa geologicznego 37, 184-188.
(part reprinted in Smalley 1975 pp.280-284).
Merzbacher, G. 1913. Die Frage der Entstehung des Losses.
Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 59, 16-18, 69-74,
126-130.
Obruchev, V.A. 1911. The question of the origin of loess- in
defence of the aeolian hypothesis (in Russian). Izvestiya
Tomskogo Tekhnologicheskogo Instituta 1, 1-38.
Pecsi, M., Richter, G. 1996. Loss: Herkunft- GliederungLandschaften. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie, Neue Folge
Supplementband 98, 351p.
Pyaskovskii, B.V. 1946. Loess as a deep soil formation (in
Russian) Pochvovedenie, for 1946, no.11, 686-696. (English
translation in Loess Letter Supplement 3, July 1989).
Rozycki, Z.R. 1991. Loess and loess-like deposits.
Ossolineum, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wroclaw. 187p.
(published in Polish, Studia Geologica Polonica 1986).
Scheidig, A. 1934. Der Loss und seine geotechnischen
Eigenschaften. Verlag Theodor Steinkopff, Dresden u.Leipzig
233p.
Smalley, I.J.(ed.) 1975. Loess: Lithology & Genesis
(Benchmark Geology 26), Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross
Stroudsburg 470p. [BM]
19

Smalley,I.J. 1978a. Dokuchaev and the Russian approach to

the study of loess. Proceedings Leeds Philosophical & Literary
Society (Science section) 10, 231-243. (reprinted as Loess
Letter Supplement 9, May 1986).
Smalley, I.J. 1978b. P.A.Tutkovskiy and the glacial theory of
loess formation. Journal of Glaciology 20, 405-408. (reprinted
in Loess Letter Supplement 16, September 1986).
Smalley, I.J. 1980. Loess- A Partial Bibliography. GeoAbstracts Bibliography no.7. Geo-Abstracts/Elsevier, Norwich
103p.
Smalley, I.J. 1983. John Hardcastle on glacier motion and
glacial loess. Journal of Glaciology 29, 480-484.(reprinted in
Loess Letter Supplement 23, November 1988).
Smalley, I.J. 1991a. The first great loess bibliography:
Stuntz & Free republished 1911-1991. Leicester University
Geography Department Occasional Paper 19, 57p.
Smalley, I.J. 1991b. 70 books on loess. East Asian TertiaryQuaternary Newsletter 12, 68-73.
Smalley, I.J. 2008. Studies in the history of loess
investigation: twelve more loess people. Loess Letter 60, 2038.
Smalley, I.J., Perry, N.H. 1969. The Keilhack approach to
the problem of loess formation. Proceedings Leeds
Philosophical & Literary Society (Science section) 10, 31-43.
Smalley, I.J., Davin. J.E. 1980. The first hundred years- a
historical bibliography of New Zealand loess, 1878-1978.
New Zealand Soil Bureau Bibliographic Report 28, 166p.

20

Smalley, I.J., OHara-Dhand, K. 2010. The Western Pacific

Working Group of the INQUA Loess Commission: expansion
from Central Europe. Central European Journal of
Geosciences 2, 9-14.(reprinted in Loess Letter 63, 25-31,
April 2010).
Smalley, I.J., Jefferson, I.F., Dijkstra, T.A., Derbyshire, E.
2001. Some major events in the development of the
scientific study of loess. Earth Science Reviews 54, 5-18.
Smalley, I.J., Mavlyanova, N.G., Rahkmatullaev, Kh.L.,
Shermatov, M.Sh., Machalett, B., OHara-Dhand, K.,
Jefferson, I.F. 2006. The formation of loess deposits in the
Tashkent region and parts of Central Asia; and problems with
irrigation, hydrocollapse and soil erosion. Quaternary
International 152/153, 59-69.
Smalley, I.J., Markovic, S.B., OHara-Dhand, K. 2010a. The
INQUA Loess Commission as a Central European enterprise.
Central European Journal of Geosciences 2, 3-8. (reprinted in
Loess Letter 63, 9-14, April 2010).
Smalley, I.J., Markovic, S.B., OHara-Dhand, K. 2010b.
Charles Lyell from 1832 to 1835: marriage, Principles, 2 trips
to Heidelberg, snails and loess. Central European Journal of
Geosciences 2, 15-18. (reprinted in Loess Letter 63, 21-24).
Smalley, I.J., Markovic, S.B., OHara-Dhand, K., Wynn, P.
2010c. A man from Bendery; L.S.Berg as geographer and
loess scholar. GeoLogos 16, 111-117. (reprinted in Loess
Letter 64, 18-26.)
Soergel, W. 1919. Losse, Eiszeiten und palaolithische
Kulturen. Carl Fischer, Jena 177p.
Tokarski, J., Parachoniak, W., Kowalski, W., Manecki, A.,
Oszacka, B. 1961. Remarks on the loess. Rocznik Polskiego

21

towarzystwa geologicznego 31, 250-258. (part reprinted in

Smalley 1975 pp.172-180.)
Trofimov, V.T.(ed.) 2001. Loess mantle of the Earth and its
properties. Moscow University Press 464p. (in Russian).
Zeuschner, L. 1851. Uber den Loss in den Bieskiden und im
Tatragebirge. Jahrbuch der geologischen Riechsanstalt Wien
2, 76-79.
Zeuschner, L. 1855. Uber die Verbreitung des Loss in den
Karpathen zwischen Krakau und Rima-Szombat.
Sitzungsberichte der K. Akademie der Wissenschsften in Wien
17, 288-295.

22