Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Diastrophic Background to Twentieth-Century Geomorphological Thought

1963; Geological Society of America; Volume: 74; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1130/0016-7606(1963)74[953

1943-2674

Richard J. Chorley,

Landslides and related hazards

Research Article| August 01, 1963 Diastrophic Background to Twentieth-Century Geomorphological Thought RICHARD J CHORLEY RICHARD J CHORLEY Dept. Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar GSA Bulletin (1963) 74 (8): 953–970. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1963)74[953:DBTTGT]2.0.CO;2 Article history received: 21 Oct 1962 first online: 02 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share MailTo Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation RICHARD J CHORLEY; Diastrophic Background to Twentieth-Century Geomorphological Thought. GSA Bulletin 1963;; 74 (8): 953–970. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1963)74[953:DBTTGT]2.0.CO;2 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGSA Bulletin Search Advanced Search Abstract The eustatic theory of Edward Suess provided the major diastrophic influence which conditioned geomorphological thought for the first 3–4 decades of the twentieth century. Assisted by the translation of De Margerie, the work of A. Penck, the results of the Challenger expedition, and the concept of “borderlands,” this theory had become a basic article of geological faith by the time Chamberlin's (1909) influential statement on diastrophism and correlation appeared. During the following quarter of a century the theory was consolidated as the result of intensification of interest in North American stratigraphy, studies of glacial eustatism, and the investigation of submarine canyons. The high point of the geomorphological influence of the eustatic theory was marked by the publications of Baulig (1928; 1935), who was partly responsible for its subsequent importance in British geomorphological thought.By the late 1930's the increasing awareness of continental instability, largely resulting from ideas bearing on the epeirogenic and isostatic theories, had begun to cast serious doubt on the geomorphological value of Suess' “great unifying generalization.” Of the variety of patterns of crustal movement which had been proposed, that of W. M. Davis came to be largely accepted both by tectonic geologists and geomorphologists alike, although problems of instability of baselevel and insufficiency of time for peneplanation are proving increasing impediments to its retention. It is ironical, too, that many of the geological advances which first appeared to strengthen the eustatic theory have helped more lately to discredit it—at least in the extreme form proposed by Suess. This content is PDF only. Please click on the PDF icon to access. First Page Preview Close Modal You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.