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

net/publication/265804498

Carl Sauer, Field Exploration, and the Development of

American Geographic Thought

Article in Southeastern Geographer · November 1996

DOI: 10.1353/sgo.1996.0000

CITATIONS READS

0 293

1 author:

Dawn S. Bowen
University of Mary Washington
25 PUBLICATIONS 73 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dawn S. Bowen on 11 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Southeastern Geographer
Vol. XXXVI, No. 2, November 1996, pp. 176-191

CARL SAUER, FIELD EXPLORATION, AND THE DEVELOPMENT

OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHIC THOUGHT

Dawn S. Bowen

Carl Sauer has received a great deal of attention by those geographers who respect and
admire him as one of the great contributors to modern American geography, and by a
younger generation who believe that too much emphasis on Sauer and his form of cultural
geography has restricted the growth and development of this particular subfield. Rather
than focusing on this dichotomy, or debating the relative merits of each side, it is more
important to explore the ways in which Sauer developed as a geographer. From such an
analysis perhaps meaningful lessons can be derived about where we have been as a discipline
and how we may proceed in the future.

Carl Ortwin Sauer (1889-1975) is recognized as one of the most influential

figures in American geography. He is probably best known for his contributions
to our knowledge of the Middle West, for his work in Latin America (primarily
Mexico), and for his disdain for methodological debate and the restrictions he
believed it imposed on geographic inquiry. Sauer' s career coincided with a period
in American academic geography when new ideas, definitions, and approaches to
the study of geography were being introduced and debated. During his lifetime,
the Association of American Geographers was founded, Ellsworth Huntington
and Ellen Churchill Semple emerged as the principal proponents ofenvironmental
determinism, the military demands of World War II led to the creation of new
techniques in applied geography, and, much later, the discipline experienced a
"quantitative revolution." Scholars concerned with the evolution of geographic
thought have paid a great deal of attention to Sauer's philosophies and approaches
to the discipline (Williams, 1983; Entrikin, 1984; Kenzer, 1987). In 1987, Marvin
Mikesell (1987, p. 149), a former student of Sauer, challenged prevailing thought
by arguing that "too much attention is being paid to Sauer's 'speeches' and
'editorials' and not enough to his substantive works," and further that "the
persistent attempt to find derivative qualities in his students is inhibiting appre-
ciation of their accomplishments." Mikesell concluded that more emphasis must
be given to the "energy and vision displayed" in his earlier works.
This paper analyzes Sauer's substantive contributions, his writings on meth-
odology, as well as his correspondence, the latter drawn from secondary sources.
Together, these writings provide a more well-rounded portrait of the man and his
thought than is available in much of the literature about him. The paper argues
that focusing on a particular methodological statement or the content of certain

Ms. Bowen is Lecturer in Geography at Mary Washington College,

Fredricksburg, VA 22401-5358.
Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 177

substantive works fails to illuminate the process of Sauer's development as a

geographer. It is more meaningful to examine the many ways in which Sauer
worked as a geographer and to explore the reasons for his rejection of several
commonly held geographic principles and his proposal of alternative viewpoints.
In this day when a great deal of attention is being given to post-modernism, and
devotion to one or another social theory is widespread, there is much to be learned
from Carl Sauer. His rejection of fads and trends, and his commitment to field-
and archival-based research, are important factors that seem to have been over-
looked as geographers in the 1990s increasingly direct their research to theoretical
constructs.

A GRADUAL AWAKENING. Sauer had become interested in the earth sciences

during his undergraduate studies at Central Wesleyan College, and in 1908 he left
Missouri to pursue graduate studies in geology at Northwestern University (Kenzer,
1985, pp. 1-2). He quickly became disillusioned with his courses in geology
because they lacked a human dimension, and, after a year at Northwestern, he
transferred to the University of Chicago, the only university with a geography
department then offering the Ph.D. The department at Chicago had been estab-
lished by Rollin Salisbury, a physiographer, and was therefore firmly rooted in
both geography and geology. Sauer's courses included both physiography and
historical geology, and at least one seminar in human geography (Leighly, 1 976,
pp. 337-338). The field of geography in the United States then was in its infancy,
and Sauer later commented on this early period:

We went out to learn what we could with a fair background of

landforms and a liking of the landscape. We were expected to gain
understanding by observing the relation of man to physical environ-
ment. We knew nothing of Ratzel's travels in United States during
which he became a geographer and returned home to write its
Kulturgeographie .... Cultural geography was an unknown concept,
but to some extent we did what he did, stop wherever we found
something to engage our attention as significant by being there. By
such reconnaissance we tried to describe the geographic pattern of
human activity and interpret its meaningful assemblage, and
began to ask how the things seen came to be together. (Sauer, 1974,
p. 190).

This statement was written more than 50 years after Sauer's graduate studies, and
may reflect the benefit of hindsight. It does demonstrate, however, a concern that
people be given a place in the landscape. His particular modes of inquiry were
perhaps not yet well developed, but his desire to ask questions about the geo-
graphic implications of human activities already was evident.
178Southeastern Geographer

In 1910, Salisbury sent Sauer into the field to prepare a regional study of the
upper Illinois Valley. This work, subsequently published in 1916 by the Illinois
State Geological Survey, places a strong emphasis on geology and physiography.
This approach is confirmed in the introduction, where Sauer wrote that the report
was intended for those " who may wish to read the story that is written in the rocks
and soils of their home" (Sauer, 1916, p. 1 1). Although the book certainly had a
physical focus, Sauer did include a final chapter on settlement and development,
which provided a superficial and rather crude treatment of the region's inhabi-
tants. In contrast to views he came to hold in later years, Sauer declared the Indian
to be a " savage" who did little to develop the region, but he conceded that the
Indian was "worthy of attention because of the interest that was attached to him
in local legends and in pioneer history" (Sauer, 1916, p. 144). The emphasis in
this chapter was clearly on economic development, with transportation, particu-
larly the building of canals and railroads, receiving the bulk of Sauer's attention
concerning the human imprint on the landscape.
At the time of Sauer's investigation, environmental determinism had consid-
erable hold on the minds of American intellectuals, and certain deterministic
elements appear in Sauer's early work. Ellen Churchill Semple lectured at Chicago
during Sauer's years as a student. Sauer remembered her lectures, in which she
argued that history was shaped by "environmental advantage or denial," as
"eloquent and evocative" (Sauer, 1974, p. 190). The young scholar was not
entirely convinced of the validity of her approach, but he did agree that in the
upper Illinois River Valley "physical processes . . . also affect man at every turn
and are bound up in many ways with his welfare. They are recognized most readily
and are of most immediate importance in the geographic environment which they
have created for him" (Sauer, 1916, p. 144). Such statements may not only reflect
the influence of Semple, but also of Harlan Barrows (another environmental
determinist at Chicago), who recommended that Sauer's final "human" chapter
be included and who advised Sauer on much of that chapter's content (Sauer,
1916).
In the fall of 1914, and again in the summer of 1915, Sauer engaged in
fieldwork for his doctoral dissertation on the Ozarks of his native Missouri. This
dissertation on regional geography was directed by Salisbury, and not surprisingly
a concern for the physical environment is evident; however, human processes, to
which Sauer was now clearly drawn, were the focal point. Nearly one-third of the
book that evolved from this research was devoted to physical features, but " only
those things which are pertinent to an understanding ofthe conditions under which
people live" were examined (Sauer, 1920, p. viii). Once again, Sauer followed an
approach that clearly reflected the influence of Barrows, who in later years argued
that only those physical aspects that had an impact on "man" were important to
geography (Dickinson, 1976, p. 317). The rest of the dissertation presented a
moderate version of determinism, in which Sauer inquired " into the manner and
Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 179

extent of geographic influences in the past development and present utilization of

the region by man" (Sauer, 1920, p. 7).
Upon completion of his doctorate in 1915, Sauer accepted a position with the
University of Michigan. During the eight years he spent at Michigan, Sauer
became involved with two projects that would have a lasting impact on his
geographic thinking. The first was his establishment of a field camp in southern
Kentucky, where students were given opportunities to survey and map in a
physical environment decidedly different from that of Michigan. Because publish-
ed maps of the area were not available, Sauer and his students devoted much of
their time to constructing maps of physical features. They also collected oral
histories from local residents and prepared reports on economic conditions in
sample areas. These field seasons in Kentucky helped Sauer refine the observa-
tional skills he had begun to develop at Chicago, and exposed him to the human
dimension of landscape that would play a prominent role in his later writings.
The second project took Sauer to northern Michigan as part of the state's Land
Economic Survey. Here, in cutover country near the Straits of Mackinac, he saw
the destructive effects of logging and concluded that the land was unsuited to
farming, despite claims to the contrary. Detailed land-use maps prepared under his
supervision revealed the extent of human impact on this fragile environment, and
convinced Sauer that destructive land use was an important issue that needed to
be addressed more fully. This survey was one of the first steps toward a scientific
system of land classification which Sauer outlined in an article in the Annals
(Sauer, 1921). He recognized that before an area could be developed, it was
essential to know its potential usage. Too much energy had been wasted on the
unintelligent exploitation of low-quality lands, and it was necessary to avoid the
mistakes of the past. The survey led to an increased emphasis on land management
planning, and recognition that geographers could make significant contributions
in this area (Leighly, 1976, pp. 338-339).

THE BERKELEY YEARS. A significant shift in Sauer's thought can be traced to

1923, when he accepted an offer from the University of California and moved to
Berkeley. The reasons behind the move are important because they suggest his
frame of mind at this time. Sauer explained that he wanted " to get away from what
geographers were mainly doing in the East, which interested me less and less as
narrowing professionalism" (Sauer, 1974, p. 191). A second motivation may have
been his dissatisfaction with the Land Economic Survey. Fred Kniffen recalled
that Sauer wanted to avoid being tied to the survey for a lengthy period of time.
Sauer's interests, Kniffen asserted, were far too wide-ranging for this sort of
drudgery, and were "perhaps less utilitarian than the land economic surveys"
demanded (Kniffen, 1979, p. 63).
The first reason is particularly illuminating because it demonstrates Sauer's
general attitude toward the discipline. He had become disillusioned with American
180Southeastern Geographer

academic geography and felt that squabbling about its future directions was
unproductive. In a letter written in the 1940s, Sauer recalled "those dreadful
seminars ... in which there was no curiosity about what a man found, only
discussion of relevance to a particular definition of geography" (Leighly, 1 976,
p. 338). He saw that in California he could make a fresh start and give fuller
attention to the ideas he had begun to formulate while in the Midwest. It was
imperative that geographers get out in the field and observe the real world. At
Berkeley, he would be far removed from meaningless debates about the definition
of geography and could venture in new directions, pursuing questions that oc-
curred to him as he observed the landscape.
In 1924, Sauer published "The Survey Method in Geography," a study based
largely on his previous experiences in Kentucky and Michigan. After more than a
decade of field research, Sauer believed that he was in a position to reject
environmental determinism:

A well-founded objection to much geographic study is based on the

fact that the geographer has taken the affirmative side in a debate on
environment and has therefore failed to maintain the objective
quality of a scientist .... A science can hardly be committed in
advance to a particular theory, but must rest rather on a distinctive
field of inquiry that is independent of the affirmation or negation of
theories. The bias of environmentalism has resulted for numerous
workers in geography in premature generalizations which have been
wrongly considered to represent the content of the subject . . .
(Sauer, 1924, p. 18).

Sauer's objection to environmental determinism appears to be twofold. First, he

asserted that the search for geographic influences in support of this notion was not
scientific. There was no objectivity because the geographer was committed in
advance to a particular principle. Second, and more important, Sauer believed that
geographic knowledge should be obtained from careful observations, and then
inferences could be drawn from the accumulated data. Systematic surveys had to
be conducted to gain a full appreciation of the human impact on the landscape;
only then could generalizations and suppositions be made.
This article, in addition to an earlier piece written with Wellington Jones (Jones
and Sauer, 1915), laid a foundation for systematic fieldwork. In "Survey Method,"
Sauer declared that the objective of field study should be to represent the "natural
or original condition of the area" and to demonstrate its "utilization and modifi-
cation" by humans (Sauer, 1924, p. 21). Physical characteristics of the region that
play a role in determining its human occupation must be recorded. Human
occupation, however, was the most important concern for geographers. An area
could be characterized by its physical qualities, the people who live there, and the
Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 181

time frame in which it was occupied. Careful field surveys, in which precise maps
of physical features, land use, and populations were drawn and detailed notes
taken, would provide the data necessary to describe and differentiate regions.
Sauer was able to suggest refutation of determinist precepts as a result of his
field experiences. He saw that humans could take control of and modify their
environment to suit their needs. Even his early studies in Illinois and Missouri,
which contain some determinist language, are moderate when compared to those
of other geographers of the time. His use of deterministic arguments is rarely
overt, and it is apparent that he never fully embraced the teachings of his profes-
sors at Chicago. Although Sauer did not immediately offer an alternative in these
writings, Robert Piatt (1959, pp. 140-141) has suggested that by 1930 Sauer had
developed " an ample and suitable replacement" for determinism with an " anthro-
pological concept of cultural process" that he introduced (Sauer and Brand, 1930)
in "Pueblo Sites of Southeastern Arizona." This concept implied that local
invention and persistence, and the transmission of cultural traits, were causal
processes through which societies adapted to particular environments. It was an
idea that sought to replace the direct cause-and-effect relationship between people
and the environment which other geographers had been promoting.
Shortly after his arrival in Berkeley, Sauer began a search for topics to
investigate. In 1 926, in the company of three graduate students, he took his first
trip into Mexico. The group drove south into Baja California, where they exam-
ined geologic and physiographic features, but also observed human impacts on the
landscape. Although Sauer would write a few more articles in geomorphology
after this trip, he was now inclined to give people a preeminent role in the
development of landscape. This initial trip was largely a reconnaissance of the
area, but the site of a Jesuit mission at San Fernando in the northern Baja caught
Sauer's interest, and the group spent a great deal of time at this location. A paper
prepared by Sauer and Peveril Meigs, one of his students, focused on the San
Fernando mission, which they argued was a " link in the major cultural succes-
sion" evident in the region (Sauer and Meigs, 1927). They examined the role of
the mission in this process and emphasized how the region was affected by the
presence of the mission. The study, Sauer's first in the historical geography of
Latin America, utilized field surveys, some oral histories, and archival documen-
tation to show how the intrusion of Spanish missionaries had altered the physical
and cultural landscape.
Sauer's interest in Spanish missions took him into the field again in the
summer of 1928. This time he spent seven weeks traveling through the state of
Sonora in northern Mexico. Robert West, another one of Sauer's students and
author of a book detailing Sauer's fieldwork in Latin America, postulated that a
reading of mission history would naturally have led Sauer to this area, where
missions had been located in the 17th and 18th centuries (West, 1979). Sauer thus
set out in search of mission sites, but what he actually found intrigued him more.
182Southeastern Geographer

It is likely that this field season, when he encountered a number of archeological

sites, further sparked his enthusiasm for prehistory. He wrote: "Pueblo ruins and
artifacts were encountered so frequently that we had to reckon with an occupation
of that country prior, and perhaps unrelated, to the historic Indian cultures of the
area" (Sauer and Brand, 1930, p. 415).
Sauer received a sabbatical in the spring of 1930 and spent the time in
northwestern Mexico (West, 1979). One of the main objectives of his field work
was to explore the possibility of a "prehistoric corridor between the Mexican
highland and the Pueblo country of the American Southwest," a passage that he
and Brand had postulated in the Pueblo study (Sauer and Brand, 1932, p. 1).
Despite the absence of any physical barriers between the two culture regions,
Sauer was unable to confirm this connection. The investigation did, however,
reveal "vestiges of a high native culture" that had previously been unknown. The
resulting study was termed a "reconnaissance," because the material encountered
was new and archeological classification was needed before any spatial implica-
tions could be hypothesized. Yet the work had three-fold significance: (1) it
described in some detail this newly discovered Indian culture; (2) it provided
Sauer with evidence to oppose "the prevailing view of how American agriculture
started"; and (3) it established Sauer as a leading authority on Latin America
(Sauer and Brand, 1932; West, 1979).
An important concept that emerged from Sauer's early work in Mexico and the
American Southwest was archeogeography, a term coined by Sauer himself
(West, 1979, p. 16). The evidence found at archeological sites provided clues to
"some of the earliest and most significant scenes of human occupation . . .
involving an important cultural succession, a careful selection of site, and its
skilful [sic] and intensive utilization" (Sauer and Brand, 1930, p. 415). It was
clear to Sauer that these prehistoric peoples were worthy of study, and the
principal means by which this could be accomplished was through investigation
of archeological sites. Unlike archeologists who tended to explore only one site at
a time, Sauer endeavored to compare the findings at each site and to understand
the spatial implications. The archeologist A. V. Kidder wrote to Sauer in 1 932 that
he wished "more of our archeologists and geographers held the point of view
which it implies" (West, 1979, p. 16).
The methodology that Sauer developed in his Mexican studies offered a new
approach to the enumeration ofprehistoric Indian populations. In particular, these
works cast considerable doubt on the population figures then accepted by anthro-
pologists. Evidence of Sauer's interest in historical demography is found in the
San Fernando study, and later in " Aztatlan," when Sauer examined documentary
evidence to produce estimates of aboriginal populations. Sauer's most significant
contribution was the " Aboriginal Population of Northwestern Mexico," a study
in which he made important methodological advances. Recognizing that his
population estimates disagreed with those of anthropologists, Sauer provided a
Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 183

detailed description of sources and how they were utilized. He claimed that early
documentary evidence from missionary records and Spanish administrators had
been viewed with skepticism by many scholars, but that he himself had no reason
to suspect that the figures were exaggerated (Sauer, 1935, p. 1). From these
figures, he was able to extrapolate total population numbers. Sauer recognized the
potential hazards of" filling in the blank spaces," but believed that it was a greater
fallacy to regard the fragmentary figures as totals, as many scholars had pre-
viously done. Finally, Sauer claimed that his own familiarity with the region, and
its current economic and social conditions, provided further support for his
population estimates because the region had changed so little since the time of
contact (Sauer, 1935, pp. 3-4).
Sauer's reflections on early human society were based on his many years of
observation in Latin America, and, to a large degree, on the research of anthro-
pologists and archeologists. His essays on the use of fire, the seashore as the early
home of man, and woman as the keeper of the hearth are regarded as speculative
by some scholars, but are nonetheless insightful explorations into cultural origins
(Beals, 1965, p. 205). Many of these articles were poorly referenced, and thus it
is difficult to determine which interpretations were his own and which he had
borrowed, but it is clear that his ideas on the origins of mankind were firmly
rooted in physical geography and that he gave considerable attention to physiog-
raphy, climate, and geology as the parameters within which early societies devel-
oped. Sauer was particularly intrigued by the role of women and argued against
the idea that human societies began as a group controlled by a dominant male.
Instead, he supported the view that the "mother founded the family and directed
it" (Sauer, 1981, p. 108). This line of thinking was expanded upon in an article
entitled "Sedentary and Mobile Bents in Early Societies," which became "an
important essay for feminist scholars" (Callahan, 1981, p. xiii). Although there
was little physical evidence to support this hypothesis, it is an articulate and
logically argued rebuttal to the dominant male thesis. Such logic and insight are
hallmarks of many of Sauer's writings on cultural origins.

METHODOLOGICAL DEBATES. Sauer's development of archeogeography, his

reflections on historical demography, and his interests in plant domestication and
paleogeography represented radically different approaches to geography and were
only tangentially related to the concerns of other American geographers. In fact,
Anne Macpherson in her discussion of Sauer's early years at Berkeley has argued
that " his work was out of the mainstream, indeed out of favor with most estab-
lished geographers . . ." (Macpherson, 1987, p. 83). John Leighly (1979, p. 9), a
long-time colleague of Sauer's, has maintained, however, that Sauer actually had
so little respect for American geographers that he paid scant attention to their
opinions. The seemingly endless disciplinary debate that was taking place among
geographers was of no interest to Sauer, who was far too busy searching for
184Southeastern Geographer

answers to his many questions. Nevertheless, his position on the periphery did not
prevent him from trying to inform fellow geographers about his work and his
views of the discipline. Despite an aversion for philosophical discourse, Sauer
was drawn into the debate.
Scholars have written at length about Sauer's philosophy and methodology
based in large part on his methodological pronouncements; but, in truth, he had
little interest in such endeavors and clearly did not regard them as substantive
contributions. In 1946, he remarked that his methodological papers were only

progress reports of my interests as a scholar concerned with inves-

tigation. I neither read such papers myself, nor do I refer my students
to them after the bloom is off them. They are best considered as
successive orientations and have had utility as such; they belong to
the history of geography, and if they are any good, they represent
change and growth (Sauer, quoted in Williams, 1983, p. 2).

The last sentence is particularly important because these writings are indeed useful
for providing insights into the public man and his thoughts about geography.
Sauer made three forays into methodological debate. The first, " Morphology
of Landscape," written in 1925, was an attempt to define geography by employing
the concepts of landscape and morphology. Landscape, he proposed, was the "unit
concept of geography," and was thus synonymous with the terms " region" and
"area." Morphology implied that landscapes could be characterized by form or
type. Students eager to draw conclusions from their studies would be disappointed
because the morphologic method did not seek to prove hypotheses. Rather, Sauer
argued, since the method was "objective and value-free," it could lead to signifi-
cant new discoveries (Sauer, 1963, p. 327).
"Morphology" was clearly written in response to the approaches Sauer had
encountered at Chicago, and reflected his desire to introduce American geogra-
phers to the ideas of their colleagues in Europe. The essay was Sauer's attempt to
outline the objectives of the discipline in light of his rejection of environmental
determinism. Geography, he suggested, was concerned with the study of areas; the
purpose was not to describe them as unique entities, but rather was to identify
commonalties that could lead to generalizations. The focus of Sauer's interest was
the cultural landscape, which, he declared, was " fashioned from a natural land-
scape" through human action. Cultural landscapes were not static conceptions, he
said, but actually experienced change, just as the societies which created them had
changed. Sauer pointed out that the physical environment was of fundamental
importance because it provided the material from which the cultural landscape
was formed, although humans ultimately determined how these resources would
be utilized. Once again, Sauer rejected environmental determinism, and declared
instead that the environment offered a wide range of possibilities from which
Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 185

people could choose. This article and the " Survey Method," published one year
before, were clear signals to geographers that deterministic approaches should no
longer be tolerated.
The response from geographers was perhaps predictable. The younger genera-
tion praised the work; older scholars had little use for it. Robert Dickinson wrote
that the essay served as his " springboard" into the discipline, and Preston James
declared that it provided the " coherence" to guide geography in the future (Martin,
1987, p. xii). In contrast, Charles R. Dryer (1926, p. 349), in a review, challenged the
methodology of going into the field without a working hypothesis and remarked,
" If [the geographer] does, the result is likely to be a catalogue half rubbish . . .
and wholly unscientific." Sauer was bewildered by the attention "Morphology"
received and felt that geographers spent far too much time on it—more, in fact,
than he had spent writing it. In later years, he declared that he had

no interest at all in writing on nature and objectives of the field of

geography as such. Once upon a time I had to do that sort of thing,
principally to think my way through to something by which I could
work. God helping, I shall never write anything more in methodol-
ogy; it's a habit-forming drug (Sauer, quoted in Williams, 1983,
p. 7).

As President of the Association of American Geographers, Sauer nonetheless

chose to return to reflections on methodology for his 1 940 address. He would have
preferred to present data and conclusions from his Mexican work, but instead
opted to discuss the "confession of the faith that has stood behind [his] work"
(Sauer, 1941, p. 1). In truth, as he confided to a correspondent, he realized that his
work in Mexico would leave many people wondering why " a geographer did that
sort ofthing" (Sauer, quoted in Williams, 1983, p. 10). The essay, "Foreword to
Historical Geography," is one of the most articulate statements Sauer made about
his own geographical agenda. The discipline, he argued, was curiously uninter-
ested in historical processes and sequences; as a result, it failed to foster insights
into the current geographical scene. Those who ignored history, he wrote, failed
to recognize that human geography and history were not really different subjects
but simply " different approaches to the same problem, the problem of cultural
growth and change" (Sauer, 1941, p. 5).
A final major published statement of his views about the discipline came in the
spring of 1956 when, as honorary president of the Association of American
Geographers, Sauer gave an address entitled "The Education of a Geographer."
Like "Foreword to Historical Geography,"" it is largely an autobiographical
account. He admonished his listeners to recognize that the field of geography was
of "necessity wider than what we, the professors of geography, work at." In a
186Southeastern Geographer

section appropriately entitled " On Being Unspecialized," he warned that narrow

definitions of the field would only serve to limit geographers' awareness of the
world around them. The individual geographer must "gain whatever he can of
special insights and skills in whatever most absorbs his attention" (Sauer, 1956,
p. 293). In the address, Sauer also declared that field exploration was fundamental
to the geographer's development:

The principal training of the geographer should come, whenever

possible, by doing field work .... The class of forms, be they of
land, vegetation, or culture, is optional; the important thing is to
get this awareness of form started up, to recognize kind and vari-
ation, position and extent, presence and absence, function and deri-
vation . . . (Sauer, 1956, p. 296).

The view expressed here is similar to that enunciated in "Morphology of

Landscape" 30 years earlier. It reflects his belief that a geographer must not go
looking for evidence to support theory, but rather that observation in the field
should provide the facts from which theories might be developed. Thus theory
might evolve from field investigations, but a geographer should not be constrained
by theory nor consider its advancement as the goal of field work. This statement
undoubtedly epitomized Sauer's attitude toward field study. He was comfortable
in the field and always uncovered new problems that required further investiga-
tion. Sauer first conducted field research in the summer of 1910. Reminiscing
about this early experience years later, he recalled that he alone was left to
" determine manner and range of what [he] did in the field," and that his " first
untutored field season opened inquiries that have continued ever after" (Sauer,
1974, p. 190). The particular questions posed were not significant, he said; it was
simply enough that a geographer was inspired to raise a variety of questions.
Sauer often expressed concern about those geographers who wished to estab-
lish tight parameters for the discipline. He was not limited by any particular
definition of geography or by what others thought geographers should do. As
early as 1932, his disillusionment with academic geography was evident:

I am at a loss to understand this pernicious anemia that has seized

upon some geographers, expressed in a weary shaking of the head
at the sight of a fellow student happily productive and in the
monotonous, sepulchral query: "But is it geography?" Imagine
geologists saying about their work: "The work is good but is it
geology?" or of economists forever saying to themselves: "We
must not look into this matter, for it might turn out to be history or
political science!" Barbed wire fences may be necessary in elemen-
tary curricula, but the pursuit of knowledge cannot afford to frustrate
Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 187

itself by building fences about narrow plots of learning (Sauer,

1932, pp. 527-528).

In his attempt to understand evolution—of humanity, agriculture, or landscape—

he would use whatever methods that would provide insight, including archeologi-
cal, anthropological, and biological concepts. For Sauer, there was simply too
much knowledge to be gained, and being restricted to a narrow view of one's own
discipline would not help scholars—geographers in particular, find answers to their
questions.
An exchange of letters between Sauer and Richard Hartshorne, author of The
Nature of Geography, provides an excellent illustration of Sauer's attitudes
toward geography and the futility of methodological debate (quoted in Williams,
1983, pp. 15-17). Sauer regarded Hartshorne's treatise on the development of
geographic thought as "pedantry," and had little use for it. Hartshorne, on the
other hand, did not take kindly to Sauer's opinions and at a geographers' meeting
declared that "it was time for them to question this great god west of the Sierras"
(Martin, 1994, p. 484). He then took Sauer to task for his role in the discipline's
methodological debate, which, Hartshorne argued, began with Sauer's definition
of geography outlined in "Morphology." Although Sauer himself may have
attached little importance to his own methodological pronouncements, Hartshorne
warned that other geographers were perhaps not so open minded. In a letter to
Sauer, he wrote:

I fear that those of us who publish methodological studies are

somewhat naive in supposing that other students will not take them
as pronouncements .... I am sure you have no idea of the extent to
which your earlier papers ... were used as the foundation of attack
on papers as not being geography .... [Pjublishing methodological
papers is a dangerous business; one may start a chain of thought and
action over which one no longer has any control, but in which his
writings form a responsible factor (Hartshorne, quoted in Williams,
1983, pp. 15-16).

Sauer was appalled that his statements were regarded in this manner. In a
hastily written reply, Sauer wrote:

Is it my fault that geographers east of the Sierras apparently read

only "methodological" papers, and read apparently only the meth-
odological framework in those?. . .

What geographers need is, I think, more curiosity, not sharper logic.
Is a person contributing something new and significant? Geography
 Southeastern Geographer

is what geographers have worked at successfully in the enlargement

of knowledge. Our students [at Berkeley] are not made to wade
through your volume, though they know it, nor through any meth-
odological papers .... We have not time and less inclination to
reconcile the letters of the apostles with each other. I am not writing
this in smugness but in heaviness of heart that geographers should
use so much energy in beating methodology around the epistemo-
logica! stump instead of tilling whatever fields they have for pro-
duction. I'd like to see youngsters get their teeth into real problems
and not waste the years finding their way as I had to do . . . (Sauer,
quoted in Williams, 1983, pp. 16-17).

This message is as timely today as it was 50 years ago when it was written.
Methodology, the way in which a study was conducted, was important to Sauer, but
debates about which methodology was the best were trivial. Sauer did not regard
his own statements in this manner, nor did he intend for other geographers to use
them as such. They were instead personal attempts to establish frameworks for
solving particular problems; these were Sauer's suggestions, not rigid definitions.
THE LEGACY. In 1943, Sauer wrote that he "did try to contribute something to
the growth of knowledge and [met] with virtually nothing but lack of interest and
disdain on the part of American geographers" (Sauer, quoted in Martin, 1987,
p. xiv). The situation today is dramatically reversed. Scholars have expended
considerable energy analyzing Sauer's work, and "Sauerology" (to borrow
Marvin Mikesell's term) has attracted a great many followers. As long as restraint
is exercised, and efforts are not made to attribute more philosophy to Sauer than
he actually intended, valuable insights can be gained from an examination of his
published writings. There are lessons here for geographers, both young and old,
and they are lessons which should be heeded if the discipline is to survive.
One of Sauer's most important contribution to geography was the importance
he attached to fieldwork. All geographers, he wrote, were "travelers, vicarious
when they must be, actual when they may .... When vacation-bound they may ...
seek out byways and unnoted places where they gain the feeling of personal
discovery. They enjoy striking out on foot, away from roads . . . ." This was a trait
shared by all geographers, even, Sauer added, by urban geographers who "may
have in [them] the need to climb unpopulated mountains" (Sauer, 1956, p. 289).
He was willing to go out, muddy his boots as it were, and learn whatever he could
from the landscape. He wanted to see for himself how physical and human actions
shaped patterns on the land. These explorations led him to raise questions about
how these processes evolved, and to seek explanations for what he saw. As
geography has become more preoccupied with quantification, there is a need to
refocus attention on fieldwork. Like " armchair" geographers, model-builders too
Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 189

often fail to see the real world that exists beyond their numbers. Sauer recognized
that systematic field study was an essential component of all geographic inquiry;
it is a realization that geographers today must not ignore.
At a time when a great deal of thought is being devoted to questions about
social theory and its applicability to geography, Sauer's opinions on methodologi-
cal debate provide considerable insight. Although Sauer did occasionally offer his
views on the subject, he was far more interested in doing geography than debating
what geography was or how it should be approached. While the debates continue,
it is refreshing to read these words of Sauer: "I'm scared of people who make
methodology the principal means by which they express their thinking .... I am
not pleased by any geographers who try to introduce—to impose—a particular
way of working" (Parsons, 1987, p. 154). This statement is contradictory because
there is clearly a difference between introducing and imposing. Sauer recognized
that all geographers needed to develop a particular method, or in some cases,
various methods, but no geographer had the right to tell others which approach
was best. This belief is reflected in Sauer's own work, for which he developed his
own approaches, borrowed some from others, and was not adverse to rejecting
those which offered no insights.
John Leighly (1976, p. 344) has written that Sauer was able to "transcend the
narrow teaching he received at Chicago and the equally narrow practices of his
contemporaries in American academic geography." By 1924 his field experiences
had taught him that human beings clearly determined their own relationship with
the environment, and thus he was able to reject the doctrine of environmental
determinism. After his arrival at Berkeley, Sauer's interest in the human dimen-
sions of landscape intensified and his explorations in the field led him to investi-
gate the "farthest reaches of human time." This interest, which led him into
archeogeography, paleogeography, historical demography, and plant domestica-
tion, placed him at odds with mainstream geographers, but he was not concerned
about this (although he was perhaps hurt that they did not understand). He never
stopped to ask himself if what he was doing was geography, nor did it matter to
him if others thought it was not. This point is of fundamental importance. Sauer
did not allow himself to be hemmed in by the narrow perceptions of his fellow
geographers. He was intelligent, independent, and, above all, inquisitive. He
wanted to discover the truth, or at least raise questions that would lead in that
direction, whether it required using the techniques of the geographer, historian,
anthropologist, or botanist. Is it unreasonable to expect geographers today to
adopt a similar philosophy?
NOTE

'The author wishes to thank Anne Godlewska and George Loveil (Queen's University) for
their insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and three anonymous
reviewers for their clarifications and suggestions.
190Southeastern Geographer

LITERATURE CITED

Beals, R. L. 1965. "Review ?? Land And Life: A Selection from the Writings of Carl
Ortwin Sauer, edited by John Leighly," in American Anthropologist N. S., Vol. 67,
pp. 205-206.
Callahan, B. 1981. "Introduction," in Selected Essays 1963 - 1975, by Carl O. Sauer
(Berkeley, CA: Turtle Island Foundation).
Dickinson, R. E. 197'6. Regional Concept: The Anglo-American Leaders (London: Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul).
Dryer, C. R. 1926. "Review of 'The Morphology of Landscape,' by Carl O. Sauer,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 16, pp. 348-350.
Entrikin, J. N. 1984. "Carl O. Sauer, Philosopher in Spite of Himself," Geographical
Review, Vol. 74, pp. 387-408.
Jones, W. D., and Sauer, C. O. 1915. "Outline for Field Work in Geography," Bulletin of
the American Geographical Society, Vol. 47, pp. 520-525.
Kenzer, M. S. 1985. "Carl O. Sauer: Nascent Human Geographer at Northwestern,"
California Geographer, Vol. 25, pp. 1-11.
Kenzer, M. S., ed. 1987. Carl O. Sauer: A Tribute (Corvallis: Oregon State University
Press).
Kniffen, F. B. 1979. "Why Folk Housing?" Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, Vol. 69, pp. 59-63.
Leighly, J. 1976. "Carl Ortwin Sauer, 1889-1975," Annals ofthe Association ofAmerican
Geographers, Vol. 66, pp. 337-348.
Leighly, J. 1979. "Drifting into Geography in the Twenties," Annals ofthe Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 69, pp. 4-15.
Macpherson, A. 1987. "Preparing for the National Stage: Carl Sauer's First Ten Years at
Berkeley," in Martin S. Kenzer ed., Carl O. Sauer: A Tribute (Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University Press).
Martin, G. J. 1987. "Foreword," in Martin S. Kenzer, ed., Carl O. Sauer: A Tribute
(Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press).
Martin, G. J. 1994. "Richard Hartshorne, 1899-1992," Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 84, pp. 480-492.
Mikesell, M. W. 1987. "Sauer and 'Sauerology': A Student's Perspective," in Martin
S. Kenzer, ed., Carl O. Sauer: A Tribute (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University
Press).
Parsons, J. J. 1987. " 'Now This Matter of Cultural Geography': Notes from Carl Sauer's
Last Seminar at Berkeley," in Martin S. Kenzer, ed., Carl O. Sauer: A Tribute (Corval-
lis, OR: Oregon State University Press).
Piatt, R. S. 1959. Field Study in American Geography. Department of Geography, Univer-
sity of Chicago, Chicago: Research Paper No. 61.
Sauer, CO. 1916. Geography ofthe Upper Illinois Valley (Urbana, IL: State Geological
Survey).
Sauer, C. O. 1920. The Geography ofthe Ozark Highland ofMissouri (Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press).
Sauer, C. O. 1921. "The Problem of Land Classification," Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 1 1, pp. 3-16.
Sauer, C. O. 1924. "The Survey Method in Geography and Its Objectives," Annals of the
Association ofAmerican Geographers, Vol. 14, pp. 17-33.
Sauer, C. O. 1932. "Letter to the Editor," Geographical Review, Vol. 22, pp. 527-528.
Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 191

Sauer, C. O. 1935. "Aboriginal Population of Northwestern Mexico," Ibero-Americana,

Vol. 10, pp. 1-33.
Sauer, C. O. 1941. "Foreword to Historical Geography," Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 31, pp. 1-24.
Sauer, C. O. 1956. "The Education of a Geographer," Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 46, pp. 287-299.
Sauer, C. O. 1963. "The Morphology of Landscape," in John Leighly, ca., Land and Life:
A Selection from the Writings of Carl Ortwin Sauer (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press).
Sauer, C. O. 1974. "The Fourth Dimension of Geography," Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 64, pp. 189-192.
Sauer, C. O. 1981. Selected Essays 1963 - 1975, Bob Callahan, ed. (Berkeley, CA: Turtle
Island Foundation).
Sauer, C. O., and Brand, D. 1930. "Pueblo Sites in Southeastern Arizona," University of
California Publications in Geography, Vol. 3, pp. 415-458.
Sauer, C. O., and Brand, D. 1932. "Aztatlan: Prehistoric Mexican Frontier on the Pacific
Coast," Ibero-Americana, VOl. l,pp. 1-93.
Sauer, C. O., and Meigs, P. 1927. "Site and Culture at San Fernando de Velicata,"
University of California Publications in Geography, Vol. 2, pp. 271-302.
West, R. C. 1979. Carl Sauer's Fieldwork in Latin America (Ann Arbor, MI: University
Microfilms International).
Williams, M. 1983. "'The Apple of My Eye': Carl Sauer and Historical Geography,"
Journal ofHistorical Geography, Vol. 9, pp. 1-28.

View publication stats