See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322508871

Theories of Inselberg formation: can their differences be explained by

equifinality?

Article · September 1993

CITATION READS

1 7,574

3 authors, including:

Charles Musarurwa
Midlands State University
20 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Charles Musarurwa on 15 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

7
Theories of Inselberg formation: can their differences be explained by equifinality?

By
Charles Musarurwa
Charter Estate Secondary School, Chivhu

And

Lawrence Mandaza
Seke 1 High School Chitungwiza

Introduction

Although inselbergs are typical of the savanna and granite areas, they are found in many
different environments throughout the world. Because they are found in different environments,
theories concerning their formation have remained controversial and hence many explanations
have been advanced. In this paper only two schools of thought will be reviewed and these are:
the one represented by Lester King and that by C.R. Twidale and colleagues. The last part of
the paper assesses whether it is appropriate to have a variety of theories to explain the same
phenomenon, that is; is equifinality applicable to inselberg development? This paper confines
the comparison of the work done by King and Twidale to the tropical regions since both worked
in tropical environments.

What are inselbergs?

The term iselberg is not specific but rather a general term that is used to refer to a wide range of
related landforms. The term was first used by Bornhardt, a German explorer to refer to steep
sided residual hills which he saw in East Africa, and hence they are also referred to as
Bornhardts. In its original form the term inselberg meant „an island mountain‟. An inselberg can
be a range or hill that stands isolated rising like an island from the flat plains. Although they vary
in names as they vary in forms, they are all bald domically shaped and steep sided and hence
the term „inselberg‟

Inselbergs may be categorized as follows

Domed Inselbergs (Bornhardts)

These are usually of bare rock and have steep sides. They do not only come in a domed
shape but also in the form of elongated whale-backs or ridges. Domed inselbergs vary in
size and can occur in isolation or in groups

8
 “Borhardts vary in shape… some are high and narrow along at least one
horizontal axis,… some are symmetrical domes and as high as their radius… while
others are comparatively low with one horizontal axis” Twidale (1980, p195)

Castellated Inselbergs (Castle Koppies)

Castle koppies (or Kopjes) are heaps of crystalline boulders with a castle appearance.
The term koppie is an Afrikaans alternative for the word hill. Castel koppies are typical of
savanna regions though they are similar to tors found in temperate regions.

Ruwares (Dwalas)
These are low lying bare rock outcrops which are thought to be peaks of emerging
domes or remnants of a bornhadt (Buckle, 1978, p149)

Although inselbergs occur more frequently in the savanna regions, they are also found
throughout the world formed under different climatic conditions, from humid to semi-arid regions.
In humid regions they are exemplified by sugar-loaf Mountains in Brazil. They are also found in
southern Georgia in the USA. In semi-arid regions and arid regions, they are found throughout
southern Africa especially in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia as well as in Australia.

Formation of Inselbergs
King’s theory of Parallel Slope Retreat
The work of Professor Lester King represents traditional views of the development of landforms
in general and inselbergs in particular

King (1948, p83)n proposed that landforms like inselbergs are a result of pediplanation, a
process which involves parallel scarp retreat. Pediplanation is sometimes referred to as circum-
denudation. Pediplanation involves sequential erosional periods which date back from the
Jurassic period as shown in fig 1. King (1966) put forward a pediplanation cycle with many
phases which, through the process of scarp retreat results in the formation of inselbergs. As
shown in figure 1, the first phase involves initial stream incision and valley widening process.
The second phase is entered as the scarps retreat leaving a pediment on either side. The
existence of inselbergs then, is the last stage. Thus according to King (1963, p.46), “inselbergs
are neither more nor less than hill cores residual upon encroaching pediments.”

9
It appears that King works on two assumptions
That inselbergs develop in areas with homogenous rocks. The existence of inselbergs
does not show the existence of different types of rock since scarp retreat would not have
been uniform and possible if the rocks were not uniform; and
That there is always an efficient removal of debris from the slopes for scarp retreat to
continue taking place.

Criticisms of King’s Scarp Retreat Theory

Major criticisms came from Twidale (1980) whose theory will be assessed later in the paper.
Actually it was these criticisms which led Twidale (1980. p.197) to seek an alternative
explanation for the development of inselbergs. The shortcomings include the following
Granite rock is usually resistant when dry and weathers rapidly in the presence of water.
Thus as water gravitates towards lower slopes, then these lower slopes should have
been weathered more rapidly than the upper slopes and hence this should have resulted
in escarpments receding towards each other , and not inselbergs
If scarp retreat were a major mechanism of landscape molding, especially in granite
areas, then inselbergs should have been confined to the central watershed and higher
areas since scarp retreat would have ensued from lower areas and rivers respectively.
However Hugo (1970) and Brook (1978) found no correlation between the drainage
pattern and development of inselbergs. Actually as Twidale (1980, p.200) points out
some bornhardts are located in ancient river valleys, for example, the Shashe inselberg
in Zimbabwe which is very close to the Shashe river. This raises a fundamental question
concerning the whole concept of pure scarp retreat
Hanging palaeo-surface markings on an inselberg cannot be explained by scarp retreat.
Palaeosurfaces markings are marks of a previous surface level which are left on the
sides of an inselberg. Palaeosurface marks in fact support the idea of exhumation which
occurs in episodes rather than scarp retreat since scarp retreat would eliminate any
remaining evidence of an ancient erosional surface

10
Thus in short, the mechanics of weathering in the presence of water do not support scarp
retreat. As Twidale (1980, p.199) points out, King‟s theory is theoretically feasible but does not
practically explain the development of granite landforms, of which the granite landform is the
main feature. Although King‟s pure scarp retreat can be ruled out, small scale back wearing is
still possible.

Twidale’s Two Stage Model

Twidale contributed a great deal to modern geomorphology particularly in the field of granitic
landforms. In Twidale‟s works (1962, 1980 and 1982) he attempted to make a detailed analysis
of granitic landforms and always used the two stage model as an alternative explanation to
King‟s model of scarp retreat. He popularized the two stage concept in reaction to King‟s efforts
and thus one of his papers (Twidale and Bourne: 1977) appears to have been addressed to
King.

The two stage concept

It is worth noting that the two stage model did not originate with Twidale. Twidale only
popularized it. The concept originated as early as 1911 with people such as Falconer.
Falconer (1911, p.246) summarizes the two stage concept as follows

11
 If a plane surface of granite and gneiss is subjected to long continued
weathering at base level, the rocks would eventually be decomposed to unequal
depths depending on the type and texture of rocks. When elevation and erosion
ensues, the weathered crust would be removed … in this way, would arise
characteristic domes and turtlebacks which suffer further denudation only
through insolation and exfoliation.

In short, landforms develop in two stages. Twidale (1982, p.149) bases the development of
inselbergs on an assumption that granite is fractured and that there is differential fracturing from
one area to another. Thus those granite masses which are well fractured are weathered more
deeply and more rapidly than the resistant portions. The whole idea is based on the proposition
that granite is not really homogenous and hence differentially fractured. Thus as a result,
inselbergs are seen as a function of three processes namely;
Fracturing,
Deep chemical weathering, and
Erosion
Therefore, after fracturing has taken place, inselbergs are seen as a result of two phases, that
is, deep chemical weathering followed by erosion. Hence Twidale and Bourne (1975, p.1473)
state that
These residuals may have developed in several successive stages, each
involving differential subsurface weathering of joint delineated compartments
followed by differential erosion and the exposure of inselbergs of intrinsically
fresh rock

Figure 2 shows the whole process. Figure 2A shows the original base –level in which the depth
of weathering varies according to the amount of jointing. In Figure 2B, the weathered rock is
stripped away leaving the fresh un-weathered exposed as inselbergs. A new surface level is
then created. However as deep weathering continues, the bornhardts are exposed to insolation
and exfoliation and this may result in the formation of castle koppies (Figure 2C)

As shown in Figure 2, the implication appears to be that inselbergs are features that are buried
beneath weathered rock. Thus inselbergs are exhumed or exposed episodically. This would
mean that Pomona near Harare, Zimbabwe can be seen as an inselberg being exposed rather

12
than as a remnant of a bornhardt that has been eroded (Twidale and Bourne, 1976). It is difficult
to accept that it is a bornhardt that has been levelled.
However it should be noted that the two stages are not distinct at any given time, but in every
case they are evidently present. Thus “bornhardts characteristically occur in multicycle phases”
(Twidale and Bourne, 1975, p.1473)

Strengths of the two stage model

The existence of inselbergs near river courses or in valleys is not seen as a result of
pure scarp retreat but as massive resistant components that have resulted from valley
erosion. This makes sense since deep weathering in areas where there is a lot of
moisture. This repeatedly takes place in valley floors. Such would be the case with the
Shashe inselberg.
Evidence of the two stage model is also brought out by the existence of old surface
marks (on the sides of Inselbergs) which are also known as „palaeo-surface marks.
These palaeo-surfaces positions are clearly visible something that cannot be explained
by King‟s scarp retreat theory. If scarp retreat were applied survival of palaeo-surface
marks would be impossible since the inselberg would have undergone many cycles of
slope retreat.
Though castle koppies can be explained as decayed bornhardts as in figure 2, they
probably originate in the same way as tors – their temperate regions equivalent. The
tor‟s development can also be explained in terms of the two stage model as shown in
figure 3.

King and Twidale; – Who is correct?

Before an opinion can be formed it is worth noting how each of these geomorphologists defends
his ideas. Probably it is King who needed most to defend his ideas since Twidale‟s theory was a
reaction to that of King. King (1975) defended his ideas by citing the example of the1940 Nagle
dam aqueduct project in which he was a consultant. In this project, undertaken in the Valley of a
Thousand Hills in Natal, South Africa, King indicated that the tunnels that were being drilled
were inspected at the time of drilling and also fifteen years after the scheme had been
completed and no deep weathering was found at all. He used this evidence to disprove
Twidale‟s propositions. However, fifteen years may have been too short a time for deep
weathering to have taken place in the water tunnels cutting across the hills.

The complimentary nature of the theories

The complimentary nature of King‟s and Twidale‟s work is clearly brought out by Fairbridge
(1977) in his paper titled „The King – Twidale exchange”. He notes the following

13
King‟s work in the drilling project of the Valley of a Thousand Hills, rightly reveals that
granite is not easily attacked by chemical weathering as the bornhardts drilled were
found to be still fresh
On the other hand, Twidale focuses our attention on the importance of chemical
weathering which King had overlooked
Twidale‟s work also clearly shows that erosion is mainly directed downwards rather than
headwards. The weathering front is of a progressive nature as it works around each
bornhardt; and
Though Twidale and King give two different perspectives on the development of
inselbergs, a third is needed and involves accepting both theories and amalgamating
them.

14
Figure 3

Source: Small, 1970, p133

Equifinality as an Explanation to King’s and Twidale’s Differences

What is Equifinality?
In physical geography, the concept of equifinality was first used by Chorley (1962) among
others. In short equifinality revolves around the following ideas
Similar landforms (like inselbergs) may have resulted from different rock types and from
altogether different processes
Since our understanding of various processes is limited, processes and mechanisms
which appear to be quite different may, in fact, be one and the same thing
Landforms which appear very similar, may in reality be very different and reflect diverse
origins
Thus similar landforms may have been formed by different processes due to locational
differences. It is true that the history of the formation of features is often unrecorded and so not
understood. Equifinality shows how difficult it is to study the origin of landforms

15
Because of the ideas, there should be an exhaustive testing of every possibility. However,
equifinality is generally against the adoption of a single universal theory in geomorphology.
Therefore in building up theories for geomorphology, during research, there should be an
encouragement for using multiple working hypotheses.

Equfinality and multiple working hypotheses

Multiple working hypotheses involve the formulation of several hypotheses in an attempt to seek
explanation of the same phenomena. However, according to Cooke and Reeves (1976), the
multiple working hypotheses concept calls for crude testing of each theory and the elimination of
weaker models or theories. The aim of employing this methodology is to counter the natural
scientist‟s (in this case the geomorphologist‟s) bias to propagate and protect well known
preferred and established theories, without subjecting them to critical evaluation.

Though equifinality employs a methodology of multiple working hypotheses, the relationship is a

paradox. It is a paradox in the sense that in geomorphology, equifinality aims to explain the
existence of the same landforms through various theories and yet the aim of the methodology it
employs is to ultimately eliminate all the other theories and remain with one general universal
theory. Thus equifinality would call for the co-existence of Twidale‟s and King‟s theories and yet
the multiple working hypotheses would call for the elimination of one of them

Equifinality on Inselberg Development Theories

Probably the fact that both Twidale and King fail to understand that there are different
explanations for the formation of inselbergs and other related granite features is a result of the
following:
Their failure to recognize that different processes may have been responsible for the
formation of inselbergs; and
That probably what they term the same feature, „inselberg‟ maybe two different
landforms. In fact each inselberg is unique in its own form and composition and there is
no standard example of an inselberg. Thus the formation of this feature is an open
argument.
Equifinality allows the co –existence of different theories

16
 Conclusion
The formation of inselbergs is a theoretical issue without a final solution. One can accept ether
parallel slope retreat or the two stage model or both. The theories offer alternative explanations
to the same set of landforms – inselbergs. The two theories should be seen as complimentary.

References

BROOK, G. A. 1978. A new approach to the development of inselberg landscapes. Zeitschrift

fur Geomorphologie, 31, 130 - 160
BUCKLE, C. 1978. Landforms in Africa, Essex UK, Longman.
CHORLEY, R. J. 1978. Geomorphology and general systems theory. Geology Survey.
COOK, R. J. & REEVES, R. W. 1976. Arroys and Environmental Change in the American South
West, London, Oxford.
FAIRBRIDGE, R. W. 1977. Note on borhardt formation - the King -Twidale exchange. Zeitschrift
fur Geomorphologie, 23, 368.
FALCONER, J. D. 1911. The Geology and Geography of Northern Nigeria, London, Macmillan.
HUGO, M. L. 1970. Inselbergs. Tydskrif vir Aardryskunde, 3, 715 - 725.
KING, L. C. 1948. A theory of bornhardts. Geographical Journal, 112, 83 - 87.
KING, L. C. 1963. South African Scenery, Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd.
KING, L. C. 1966. The origin of Bornhardts. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie, 10, 97 - 98.
KING, L. C. 1975. Bornhardt landforms and what they teach. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie, 19,
299 - 318.
SMALL, R. J. 1970. The study of Landforms, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
TWIDALE, C. R. 1962. Steepened margins of inselbergs from North Westen Eyre Penisula,
Australia. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie, 6, 51 - 69.
TWIDALE, C. R. 1980. The origin of bornhardts. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia,
27, 195 - 208.
TWIDALE, C. R. 1982. Granite Landforms, Amsterdam, Elsevier.
TWIDALE, C. R. & BOURNE, J. A. 1975. Episodic exposure and inselbergs. Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America, 86, 1473 - 1481.
TWIDALE, C. R. & BOURNE, J. A. 1976. origins and significance of pitting on granite rocks.
Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie, 20, 405 - 416.
TWIDALE, C. R. & BOURNE, J. A. 1977. Bornhardts - an alternative view. Zeitschrift fur
Geomorphologie, 21, 363 - 365.

17

View publication stats