WILLIAM D. THORNBURY Principles of Geomorphology JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC, New York + London + SydneyTENTH PRINTING, NOVEMBER, 1966 Copyright, 1954, by John Wiley & Sons, Ine. All rights reserved. This book or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 54-7553 Printed in the United States of America To the memory of CLYDE A. MALOTT My former teacher, colleague and friend To whom the writer is chiefly indebted for his interest in geomorphologyPreface In writing a textbook on Principles of Geomorphology, I have been guided by two firm convictions. The first of these is that world landscapes cannot be properly interpreted unless the many complex factors which have influ- enced their evolution are fully appreciated. With this in mind, I have in- cluded early in the book a chapter on fundamental concepts, despite the fact that some of the principles discussed in this chapter cannot be fully appre- ciated until much of the book has been read. Secondly, I believe that the practical aspects of geomorphology have not been given the attention which they merit, and with this in mind 1 have included a chapter on applied geo- morphology, which J trust will have some appeal to the “practical geologists.” Certain other innovations will be found in the book which f hope will add to its value, The ever-present problem of publication costs has made it impractical to treat all aspects of the subject as fully as might be desired. References at the ends of chapters will enable students to pursue more fully particular phases of the subject which may appeal to them. To a large degree the book is patterned upon a course in Principles of Geomorphology which I have taught for several years at Indiana University. Students in this course presumably have had, in addition to beginning geology, courses in mineralogy and petrology. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the many individuals and organiza- tions who so willingly supplied illustrative materials. Without their assistance adequate illustration of the book would have been difficult, if not impossible. An effort was made to avoid photographs which have become stereotyped through repeated use, but I was unable to resist a few particularly striking ones. My thanks also go to Warren C. Heisterkamp, John Minton, John Peace, and William J. Wayne for their help in the preparation of illustrations. Much of my philosophy of what geomorphology should be came from the Tate C. A. Malott, and many of his ideas appear in the book. To Professor A. O. Woodford of Pomona College, where the first draft was written, I am deeply grateful for a congenial environment in which to work as well as for viiviii PREFACE, innumerable suggestions as to how to improve the manuscript, over half of which he read and constructively criticized. Professor George W. White contributed many helpful ideas as to what should be included in the first two and last two chapters. I am particularly indebted to Professor Leland Hor- berg, who read the entire manuscript and gave invaluable advice as to how to improve many sections. Finally, to my wife, Doris, 1 express my deep gratitude. Without her encouragement, I would never have undertaken the writing of the book, She also aided greatly in typing and proofreading. To each of these persons, I extend my deepest thanks with the hope that they will find some slight reward for their efforts in the final results without feeling in any way responsible for shortcomings of the book attributable to the author’s failure to make the most of their suggestions. WILLIAM D. THORNBURY Bloomington, Indiana February, 1954 + Backgrounds of Geomorphology + Some Fundamental Concepts - An Analysis of the Geomorphic Processes - Weathering, Soil Processes, and Mass-Wasting + The Fluvial, Geomorphic Cycle + Complications of tlie Fluvial Cycle + Stream Deposition : The Peneplain Concept : Topography on Domal and Folded Structures - Topography upon Faulted Structures + The Arid Cycle + Eolian Land Forms + Karst Topography + Types and Characteristics of Glaciers + Mountain Glaciation + Ice Caps and Their Topographic Effects - Geomorphology of Coasts + Topography of the Ocean Floors + Land Forms Resulting from Volcanism + Pseudovolcanic Features - Tools of the Geomorphologist : Applied Geomorphology Author Index Subject Index Contents 16 34 68 99 142 164 177 208 243 276 299 316 354 367 384 427 459 488 SIS 523 553 591 S97I - Backgrounds of Geomorphology THE SCOPE OF GEOMORPHOLOGY Definitions. If we defined geomorphology in terms of the three Greek roots from which the word was derived, it would mean “a discourse on earth forms.” Generally, it is thought of as “the science of land forms” and it will be so used, although we shall extend it to include submarine forms. As Worcester (1939) defined geomorphology, it is a description and interpreta- tion of the earth’s relief features. So defined, it is considerably more com- prehensive than the science of land forms, for we may include within its scope a discussion of the origin of major earth forms such as the ocean basins and continental platforms, as well as lesser structural forms such as mountains, plains, and plateaus. Ocean basins and continental platforms are relief fea- tures, but it seems that their interpretation belongs to dynamic and structural geology. We shal] concern ourselves primarily with the lesser forms devel- oped upon these major relief features. Designation of the study of land forms as geomorphology has come about as a result of dissatisfaction with the term physiography, which was formerly applied to this subject. Physiography, particularly as used in Europe, in- cludes considerable climatology, meteorology, oceanography, and mathe- matical geography. Rather than continue the practice, previously common in this country, of restricting physiography to the discussion of land forms, it seemed preferable to have a name for this branch of geology which at least reduces confusion as to its scope. Geomorphology is primarily gedlogy, despite the fact that some geomor- phology is taught both in Europe and in this country as a part of physical geography, In most geography courses land forms are treated rather inci- dentally as a part of the discussion of the physical environment of man, but emphasis usually is placed upon man’s adjustments to and uses of Jand forms rather than upon land forms per se. HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF GEOMORPHIC IDEAS Desirability of an historical background. Serious students should be interested in the growth of scientific thought and in the men who have con~ 1. BACKGROUNDS OF GEOMORPHOLOGY tributed to its advancement. To consider this ancient history which in no way contributes to an appreciation of present thought is actually a short- sighted viewpoint. The historical approach is unequaled in giving the student an insight into the scientific method (inductive logic). At least three distinct benefits result from familiarity with the growth of geomorphic thought, The student gains a better perspective from which to view present-day thinking. He is impressed with the fact that the subject is not static and will more likely keep his mind open to new ideas, Furthermore, he realizes that most ideas which we today accept as self-evident met with resistance when first pro- posed and were slowly and reluctantly accepted as correct and that perhaps some of the new ideas which we scorn today may ultimately stand the test of ime. Views of the Ancients As land forms are the most widespread geologic phenomena, speculation as to their origin has gone on since the days of the ancient philosophers, It was not until “the present became the key to the past,” however, that the study of geomorphic processes came to have great significance. This was not until near the beginning of the nineteenth century, and it was not until the later decades of that century that the systematic evolution of land forms was comprehended. Although separation of geomorphology as a distinct sub- sconce came late many of its basic ideas had an early-origin, | liscussion of the development of geomorphic thought mai it with the Greek and Roman philosophers. Space will ma permit Meee discussion of their ideas, but we shall get a fairly good picture of them if we briefly consider the views of four men: Herodotus, Aristotle, Strabo, id Seneca, ; oes Herodotus (4852-425 .c.), who is known as the “father of history,” is also remembered for some of his geological observations. He recognized the importance of the yearly increments of silt and clay deposited by the Nile and to hir is attributed the statement that “Egypt is the gift of the river.” He thought it more likely that earthquakes were responsible for the rendin; asunder of mountains than that they were the expression of the wrath of the Gods. He noted shells in the hills of Egypt and concluded from their ‘presence there that the sea at some time must have extended over lower Egypt, thus anticipating to some d i i matte of great geomorphie significances = Shans sea levels, a Aristotle (384-322 n.c.) in his writings reflected the’ thinking of his day His views on the origin of springs are of interest. He believed that the waters which flowed out of springs consisted of: (a) some rainwater which had percolated downward; (b) water that had formed within the earth by condensation from air which had entered the earth; and (c) water that VIEWS OF THE ANCIENTS 3 had condensed within the earth from vapors of uncertain origin. All these waters were held by the mountains as if they were great sponges. The term river was then applied only to running waters fed by springs. Aristotle thought that rainfall might produce a temporary torrent, but doubted that it could maintain the flow of a river. Incidentally, the true explanation of spring waters and the discharge of streams long after periods of rainfall was not understood until Bernard Palissy deduced in 1563 and 1580 and Pierre Perrault in 1674 demonstrated the sufficiency of rainfall to maintain them. Aristotle believed that earthquakes and volcanoes were closely related in origin, and he attributed earthquakes to the effects of the mingling of moist and dry air within the earth. Along with others, Aristotle recognized that the sea covered tracts that were formerly dry land and also the probability that land would reappear where now the sea exists. He alluded to the disappear- ance of rivers underground. (We would call them sinking creeks today. Greece is a country with much limestone and marble in which features produced by solution by groundwater are common.) He recognized that streams removed material from the land and deposited it as alluvium and cited examples from the Black Sea region where river alluvium had accumu- lated so rapidly in a matter of 60 years as to necessitate the use of smaller boats. Strabo (54 n.c.-a.n, 25), who traveled widely and observed carefully, noted examples of local sinking and rise of the land. He considered the Vale of Tempe a result of earthquakes which, along with volcanic activity, were still attributed to the force of winds within the earth’s interior, He rightly inferred from the nature of its summit that Mt. Vesuvius was of vol- canic origin, although it was never active during his lifetime. He, too, recog- nized the importance of river alluvium and thought that the delta of a river varied in size according to the nature of the region drained by the river and that the largest deltas are found where the regions drained are extensive and the surface rocks are weak. He observed that some deltas are retarded in their seaward growth by the ebb and flow of the tides. Seneca (? B.C.-A.D, 65) recognized the local nature of earthquakes, but he still believed that they were an effect of the internal struggle of subterranean winds. He likewise held the idea that rainfall was insufficient to account for rivers, although he recognized the power of streams to abrade their valleys. Thus, though the concept that streams make their valleys was in a sense born, the manifold implications of this fact were not sensed until many cen- turies later. The ancients seem to have realized that there is a genetic rela- tionship between earthquakes and deformation of the earth’s crust, although they confused cause and effect and thought that earthquakes caused the deformation.4 BACKGROUNDS OF GEOMORPHOLOGY The Dawn of Modern Geomorphic Ideas During the many centuries which followed the decline of the Roman Empire there was little or no scientific thinking in Europe. Such knowledge as survived was largely in monasteries, but it was not natural science. Some survival of learning persisted in Arabia, and we find certain ideas expressed there that have a modern flavor. Avicenna (Ibn-Sina, 980-1037) held views upon the origin of mountains which divided them into two classes, those produced by “uplifting of the ground, such as takes place in earth. quakes,” and those which result “irom the effects of running water and wind in hollowing out valleys in soft rocks.” Thus the concept of mountains resulting from differential erosion was expressed. The idea of slow erosion over long periods of time was also.held by him. Such views have a decidedly modern stamp, but they made no imprint on the thinking in western Europe if they were even known there. As Fenneman (1939) has pointed out, so little progress was made in Europe from the days of the first century A.D. until the opening of the sixteenth century that little need be said about it. Indeed it may be questioned whether the slight progress made by the ancients in the explanation of the surface features of the earth had any influence upon the eventual emergence of a science of land forms. What the ancients had thought was largely lost and geologic ideas had to evolve anew. During the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries land forms were largely explained in terms of the then-prevailing philosophy of catastrophism, according to which the features of the earth were either specially created or were the result of violent cataclysms which produced sudden and marked changes in the surface of the earth. As long as the earth’s age was measured in a few thousand years there was not much chance for importance to be attached to geologic processes so slow that little change could be noted in a lifetime. | Predecessors of Hutton. The concept of a wasting land, in contrast to the idea of permanence of the landscape as envisaged by early thinkers, is funda- mental in modern geomorphic thought, We have seen that some of the ancient philosophers had the idea of land destruction by erosional processes but the time was not ripe for carrying the idea to its logical conclusion. Space will not permit a detailed discussion of the long and slow development of geologic thinking which finally laid the groundwork for the father of modern geomorphic thought, James Hutton, but a few of the men who blazed the trail may be mentioned. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) can be taken as one of the first repre- sentatives of the formative period in modern geologic thinking. He recog- nized that valleys were cut by streams and that streams carried materials THE DAWN OF MODERN GEOMORPHIC IDEAS 5 from one part of the earth and deposited them elsewhere. Nicolaus Steno (1638-1687), a Dane who spent much of his life in Italy, also recognized that running water was probably the chief agent in the sculpturing of the earth’s. surface. ‘The Frenchman Buffon (1707-1788) recognized the powerful erosive ability of streams to destroy the land and thought that the land would eventu- ally be reduced to sea level. He was one of the first to suggest that the age of the earth was not to be measured in terms of a few thousand years and he suggested that 6 days of creation in the Biblical narrative were not days in the ordinary sense of the word. He was forced, however, to recant these heretical views. ‘The Italian Targioni-Tozetti (1712-1784) was another who recognized the evidence of stream erosion. He also had the idea that the irregular courses of streams were related to the difference in the rocks in which they were being cut and thus recognized the principle of differential erosion as related to varying geologic materials and structures. The Frenchman Guetthard (1715-1786) was a geologist in the fullest sense of the word, although the terms geology and geologist were as yet unused. He discussed the degradation of mountains by streams and recog- nized that not all of the material removed by streams was immediately car- ried to the sea but that a considerable part of it went into the building of floodplains. He believed the sea to be an even more powerful destroyer of the land than streams and cited the rapid destruction by the sea of the chalk cliffs of northern France in support of his contention. He grasped the funda- mental principles of denudation, but unfortunately his ideas were largely buried in many volumes of cumbrous writing. Guetthard is most remem- bered for his recognition of the volcanic origin of the numerous hills or puys in the Auvergne district of central France. Desmarest (1725-1815), another Frenchman, merits more recognition than is generally given him. By sound reasoning and citation of specific examples, he propounded the idea that the valleys of central France were the products of the streams occupying them. He was apparently the first to at- tempt to trace the development of a landscape through successive stages of evolution. The Swiss De Saussure (1740-1799), the first to use the terms geology and geologist in their present sense, was the first great student of the Alps. He was much impressed with the power of streams to sculpture mountains and contended that valleys were produced by the streams which flow in them. He also recognized the ability of glaciers to carry on erosional work. Al- though he did not always interpret correctly the things. that he saw, he amassed a great stock of information, upon which Hutton later drew heavily in developing the doctrine of uniformitarianism.BACKGROUNDS OF GEOMORPHOLOGY These three men, Guetthard, Desmarest, and De Saussure, sometimes al- luded to as the French school, more, perhaps, than any others paved the way for Hutton, who gratefully acknowledged their help. In America, these men have failed to get the recognition that they deserve, largely because we have not bothered to read French geologic literature. Hutton and Playfair. James Hutton (1726-1797) was born in Ee burgh, Scotland, and was educated as a physician, but his interests were in science, especially chemistry and geology. He is most famous, perhaps, for the role he played as a leader of a group known as the Plutonists, which maintained that granite was of igneous origin in opposition to the Wernerian school, known as the Neptunists, which contended that granite was a chemi- cal precipitate. He also recognized the evidence for metamorphism of rocks, but his greatest contribution came in expounding the concept that “the pres- ént is the key to the past,” thus establishing the doctrine of uniformitarianism in opposition to that of catastrophism. Hlutton’s views were first presented in a paper, read by him before the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785, which three years later appeared in print in Volume 1 of the Transactions of that society under the title, “Theory of the Earth; or an Investigation of the Laws Observable in the Composition, Dissolution and Restoration of Land upon the Globe.” In 1795, his views appeared in an expanded form in a two- volume book entitled Theory of the Earth, with Proofs and Mustrations. This edition was limited in number and was expensive. It is likely that Hutton’s ideas might have been lost or much delayed in acceptance had it not been that his friend, John Playfair (1748-1819), a professor of mathematics and philosophy at Edinburgh, after the death of Hutton, published in 1802 his Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth, which elaborated and ex- panded Hutton’s principles in a form of scientific prose which has rarely been equaled for clarity and beauty of expression. This book was also smaller and cheaper than Hutton’s and hence was more widely read. In it Playfair presented Hutton’s ideas and conclusions so clearly that their im- Pact was enormous, particularly upon Sir Charles Lyell, who was later to become the great exponent of uniformitarianism. Hutton projected the results of the processes, which he observed in opera- tion, both into the past and future. He was impressed with the evidence of land wastage by both mechanical and chemical processes. Others, before Hutton, had observed this, but they failed, with the possible exception of Desmarest, to see the implications that were envisioned by Hutton, The concept of a river system and its geomorphic significance has never been more beautifully expressed than by Playfair,* when he stated: * Every student of land forms ought to read parts of Playfait's book. Ii is available in most large geology libraries, and, if not, microfilm copies can be procured at reason- AFTER HUTTON 7 Every river appears to consist of a main trunk, fed from a variety of branches, each ranning in a valley proportioned to its size, and all of them together forming a system of valleys, communicating with one another, and having such a nice adjustment of their declivities, that none of them join the principal valley, either on too high or too low a level, a circumstance which would be infinitely improb- able if each of these valleys were not the work of the stream which flows in it. If, indeed, a river consisted ofa single stream without branches, running in a straight valley, it might be supposed that some great concussion, or some powerful torrent, had opened at once the channel by which its waters are conducted to the ocean; but, when the usual form of a river is considered, the trunk divided into many branches, which rise at great distance from one another, and these again subdivided into an infinity of smaller ramifications, it becomes strongly impressed upon the mind that all these channels have been cut by the waters themselves; that they hhave been slowly dug out by the washing and erosion of the land; and that it is by the repeated touches of the same instrument that this curious assemblage of lines has been engraved so deeply on the surface of the globe. The basic concepts of our modern ideas on earth sculpture are to be found in Hutton’s theory, Hutton recognized marine as well as fluvial ero- sion, but he gave most attention to the development of valleys by streams. Like most great prophets, Hutton was ahead of his times. Three-quarters of a century elapsed before a group of American geologists working in west- ern United States provided the clinching arguments for it. Playfair, from his familiarity with De Saussure’s writings, proclaimed the ability of glaciers to erode their valleys deeply, and he seems to have been the first to have sug- gested a former, much greater extension of the Alpine glaciers in Switzer land, although he did not recognize the effects of glaciation in Scotland. After Hutton Developments in Europe. Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875) became the great exponent of uniformitarianism, and through his series of textbooks he probably did more to advance this principle and geologic knowledge in gen- eral than any other man. Even he could not accept the full implication of stream erosion as conceived by Hutton, for, in the eleventh edition of his Principles of Geology (1872), we find the following statement: “It is probable that few great valleys have been excavated in any part of the world by rain and running water alone. During some part of their formation, subterranean movements have lent their aid in accelerating the process of erosion.” One of the most significant developments of the nineteenth century, in Europe, was the recognition of the evidence for an ice age during which ice able costs. Hutton’s book is exceedingly rare, but microfilm copies of it are available to libraries,