Читать книгу Fragments of Earth Lore: Sketches & Addresses Geological and Geographical - Geikie James - Страница 2

The teaching of Geography naturally occupies a prominent place in every school curriculum. It is rightly considered essential that we should from an early age begin to know something of our own and other countries. I am not sure, however, that Geography is always taught in the most interesting and effective manner. Indeed, according to some geographers, who are well qualified to express an opinion, the manner in which their subject is presented in many of our schools leaves much to be desired. But a decided advance has been made in recent years, and with the multiplication of excellent text-books, maps, and other appliances, I have no doubt that this improvement will continue. When I attended school the text-books used by my teachers were about as repellent as they could be. Our most important lesson was to commit to memory a multitude of place-names, and the maps which were supposed to illustrate the text-books were, if possible, less interesting and instructive. Nowadays, however, teachers have a number of more or less excellent manuals at their service, and the educational maps issued by our cartographers show in many cases a very great advance on the bald and misleading caricatures which did duty in my young days as pictures of the earth’s surface.

During the progress of some war we often remark that the task of following the military operations compels us to brush up our Geography. I am uncharitable enough to suspect that it would frequently be truer to say that, before these campaigns commenced, we had no such knowledge to brush up. The countries involved in the commotion were probably mere names to many of us. We had no immediate interest in them or their inhabitants, and had we been asked, before the outbreak of hostilities, to indicate the precise positions of the places upon a map, some of us perhaps might have been sorely puzzled to do so. Nor is such ignorance always discreditable. One cannot know everything; the land-surface of the globe contains upwards of 50 millions of square miles, and one may surely be excused for not having a detailed knowledge of this vast area. I have referred to the subject simply because I think it gives us a hint as to how the teaching of Political Geography might be made most instructive and interesting. Historical narrative might often be interwoven with the subject in such a way as to fix geographical features indelibly on the memory. Striking and picturesque incidents, eventful wars, the rise and progress of particular trades, the routes followed by commerce, the immigration and emigration of races, the gradual development of the existing political divisions of the Old World, the story of Columbus and the early voyagers, the geographical discoveries of later times – all these, and such as these, might be introduced into our lessons in Political Geography. The wanderings of a Mungo Park, a Bruce, a Livingstone, a Stanley, traced on a good map, could not fail to arrest the attention of the youthful student of African geography. In like manner, the campaigns of the great Napoleon might be made to do good service in illustrating the geographical features of large portions of our own continent. Then, as regards Britain, what a world of poetry and romantic story clings to every portion of its surface – why, the very place-names themselves might suggest to any intelligent teacher themes and incidents, the deft treatment of which would make the acquisition of Geography a delightful task to the dullest boy or girl.

The intimate relation that obtains between Political Geography and History has indeed long been recognised, and is in fact self-evident. And we are all well aware that in our school manuals of Geography it has been usual for very many years to note the scenes of remarkable events. Such notes, however, are of necessity extremely brief; and it need hardly be said that to fully incorporate history in a text-book of general Geography would be quite impracticable. It might be done to a certain extent for our own and a few of the more important countries; but similar detail need not be attempted in regard to regions which are of less consequence from the political point of view. Indeed, I should be inclined to leave the proper application of historical knowledge in the teaching of Geography very much to the teacher himself, who would naturally select such themes and incidents as seemed best adapted to attract the attention of his pupils. Be that, however, as it may, it is enough for my present purpose if I insist upon the fact that the proper study of Political Geography involves the acquisition of some historical knowledge. One can hardly conceive the possibility of an intelligent student taking pains to become acquainted with the political geography of a country without at the same time endeavouring to learn something of its history – otherwise, his geographical attainments would hardly surpass those of a commercial traveller, whose geographical studies have been confined to the maps and tables of his Bradshaw.

But if it be impossible to ignore History in the teaching of Political Geography, it is just as impossible to exclude from our attention great physical features and characteristics. Surface-configuration, climate, and natural products all claim our attention. It is obvious, in fact, that the proper study of Political Geography must give us at least a general notion of the configuration, the river-systems, and climatic conditions of many different lands. For has not the political development of races depended most largely on the physical conditions and natural resources of the countries occupied by them? So far, then, as these have sensibly influenced the progress of peoples, they come naturally under the consideration of Political Geography. Thus, if Political Geography be closely connected and interwoven, as it were, with History, not less intimate are its relations to Physical Geography. It does not embrace all Physical Geography, but it introduces us to many facts and phenomena, the causes and mutual relations of which we cannot understand without first mastering the teachings of Physical Geography. In the study of this latter science we come more closely into contact with Nature; we cease to think of the surface of the earth as parcelled out into so many lots by its human occupants – we no longer contemplate that surface from the limited point of view of the political geographer – we are now not merely members of one particular community, but have become true citizens of the world. To us north and south, east and west are of equal interest and importance. Our desire now is to understand, if haply we may, the complex system of which we ourselves form a part. The distribution of land and water – the configuration of continental areas and oceanic basins – the circulation of oceanic and terrestrial waters – earth-movements and volcanoes – ice-formations – the atmosphere – climatology – the geographical distribution of plants and animals – in a word, the world as one organic whole now forms the subject of our contemplation. Such being the scope of Physical Geography, it is satisfactory to know that its importance as a subject of study in our schools has been fully recognised. This being admitted, I shall now proceed to show that Physical Geography, although, like Political Geography, it is a separate and distinct subject, yet, just as the study of the latter involves some knowledge of History, so the prosecution of Physical Geography compels us to make a certain acquaintance with Geology. We cannot, in fact, learn much about the atmosphere, about rain and rivers, glaciers and icebergs, earthquakes and volcanoes, and the causes of climate, without at the same time becoming more or less familiar with the groundwork on which geological investigations are based. And just as a knowledge of history enables us better to understand the facts of Political Geography, so some acquaintance with the results of geological inquiry are necessary before we can hope to comprehend many of the phenomena of which Physical Geography treats. Let me try to make this plain. The physical geographer, we shall suppose, is considering the subject of terrestrial waters. He tells us what is meant by the drainage-system of a country, points out how the various minor water-courses or brooks and streams unite to form a river, describes for us the shape of the valley through which a typical river makes its way – how the valley-slope diminishes from the mountains onwards to the sea-coast – how, at first, in its upper or mountain-track, the flow of the river is torrential – how, as the slope of the valley decreases, the river begins to wind about more freely, until it reaches the head of its plain-track or delta, when, no longer receiving affluents, it begins to divide, and enters the sea at last by many mouths. He tells us further what proportion of the rainfall of the country passes seawards in our river, and he can measure for us the quantity of water which is actually discharged. All this is purely Physical Geography; but when we come to ask why some rivers flow in deep ca¤ons, like those of the Colorado – why valleys should widen out in one part and contract, as it were, elsewhere – why the courses of some rivers are interrupted by waterfalls and rapids, and many other similar questions, the physical geographer must know something of Geology before he can give an answer. He can describe the actual existing conditions; without the aid of Geology, he can tell us nothing of their origin and cause. So the political geographer can map out for us the present limits of the various countries of Europe, but History must be invoked if we would know how those boundaries came to be determined. The moment, therefore, the physical geographer begins to inquire into the origin of any particular physical feature, he enters upon the domains of the geologist. And as he cannot possibly avoid doing so, it is quite common now to find a good deal of the subject-matter of Geology treated of in text-books of Physical Geography. I state this merely to show how very closely the two sciences are interlocked. Take, for example, the configuration of river valleys just referred to. The physical geographer recognises the fact that a river performs work; by means of the sediment which it carries in suspension and rolls along its course, it erodes its bed in many places, and undermines its banks, and thus its channel is deepened and widened. He can measure the amount of sediment which it carries down to the sea, and the quantity of saline matters which its waters hold in solution: and knowing that all these substances have been abstracted from the land, he is able to estimate approximately the amount of material which is annually transferred from the surface of the drainage-area involved. He discovers this to be so relatively enormous that he has no difficulty in believing that the valleys in which rivers flow might have been hollowed out by the rivers themselves. But, without trespassing further into the geologist’s domains, he cannot go beyond this: and you will at once perceive that something more is required to prove that any particular valley owes its origin to the erosive action of running water. Suppose someone were to suggest to him that his river-valley might be a minor wrinkle in the earth’s crust caused by earth-movements, or that it might indicate the line of a fissure or dislocation, due to some comparatively recent convulsion – how could his computation of the amount of material at present carried seawards by the river prove such suggestions to be erroneous? And what light could it throw upon the origin of the varied configuration of the river-valley – how would it explain the presence or absence of cascades and rapids, of narrow gorges and open expanses? None of these phenomena can be interpreted and accounted for without the aid of the geologist: without some knowledge of rocks and rock-structures, the origin of the earth’s surface-features is quite inexplicable. To give an adequate explanation of all the surface-features of a country in detail would of course require a profound study of Geology; but a general acquaintance only with its elementary facts is quite sufficient to enable us to form a reasonable and intelligent view of the cause and origin of the main features of the land as a whole. Thus a few lessons in elementary Geology would make clear to any child how rivers have excavated valleys, why cataracts and gorges occur here, and open valleys with gently-flowing waters elsewhere.

Let me select yet another example to show how dependent Physical Geography is upon Geology. The physical geographer, in describing the features of the land, tells us how the great continental areas are traversed in various directions by what he calls mountain-chains. Thus, in speaking of America, he tells us that it may be taken as a type of the continental structure – namely a vast expanse of land, low or basin-like in the interior, and flanked along the maritime regions by elevated mountain borders – the highest border facing the deepest ocean. He points out further that the great continental areas are crossed from west to east by well-marked depressions, to a large extent occupied by water. Thus Europe is separated from Africa by the Mediterranean, a depression which is continued eastward through the Black Sea into the Aralo-Caspian area. South America is all but cut away from North America, while Australia is separated from Asia by the East India Seas. We find, in fact, all over the world that well-marked natural features are constantly being repeated. Not only do the great land-masses of the globe bear certain resemblances to each other, but even in their detailed structure similar parallelisms recur. The physical geographer notes all these remarkable phenomena, but he can give us no clue to their meaning. He may describe with admirable skill the characteristic features of plains and plateaux, of volcanic mountains and mountain-chains, but he cannot tell us why plains should occur here and mountains there; nor can he explain why some mountains, such as those of Scotland or Norway, differ so much in configuration from the Alps and the Pyrenees. The answer to all these questions can only be given by Geology. It is from this science we learn how continental areas and oceanic basins have been evolved. The patient study of the rocks has revealed the origin of the present configuration of the land. There is not a hill or valley, not a plateau or mountain-region, which does not reveal its own history. The geologist can tell you why continents are bordered by coast-ranges, and why their interiors are generally comparatively low and basin-shaped. The oceanic basins and continental areas, we learn, are primeval wrinkles in the earth’s crust, caused by its irregular subsidence upon the gradually cooling and contracting nucleus. The continents are immense plateau-like areas rising more or less abruptly above those stupendous depressions of the earth’s crust which are occupied by the ocean. While those depressions are in progress the maritime borders of the land-areas are subjected to enormous squeezing and crushing, and coast-ranges are the result – the elevation of those ranges necessarily holding some relation to the depth of the contiguous ocean. For, the deeper the ocean the greater has been the depression under the sea, and, consequently, the more intense the upheaval along the continental borders. It is for the same reason that destructive earthquakes are most likely to occur in the vicinity of coast-ranges which are of comparatively recent geological age. These, and indeed all, mountains of elevation are lines of weakness along which earth-movements may continue from time to time to take place. But all mountains are not mountains of elevation; many elevated regions owe their mountainous character simply to the erosive action of sub-aërial agents, such as rain, frost, ice, and running water, the forms assumed by the mountains being due to their petrological character and geological structure. There are, for example, no true mountains of elevation in Scotland; hence to write of the chain of the Grampians or the range of the Lowthers is incorrect and actually misleading. Without the aid of Geology the geographer cannot, in fact, discriminate between mountains of elevation and mountains of denudation; hence geographical terms so constantly in use as mountain-range and mountain-chain are very often applied by writers, ignorant of geological structure, to elevated regions which have no claim to be described either as chains or ranges. Some knowledge of Geology, therefore, is essential to us if we would have correct views of many of the grandest features of the globe. But it will be said that, after all, the physical geographer deals with the earth as we now find it; he does not need to trouble himself with the origin of the phenomena he describes. Well, as I have just shown, he cannot, even if he would, escape trenching on Geology; and if he could, his subject would be shorn of much of its interest. He recognises that the world he studies has in it the elements of change – the forces of Nature are everywhere modifying the earth’s surface – considerable changes are sometimes brought about even in one’s lifetime, while within the course of historical ages still greater mutations have taken place – he becomes conscious, in short, that the existing state of things is but the latest phase of an interminable series of changes stretching back into the illimitable past, and destined to be prolonged into the indefinite future. Thus he gladly welcomes the labours of the geologist, whose researches into the past have thrown such a flood of light upon the present. In fact, he can no more divorce his attention from the results of geological inquiry than the political geographer can shut his eyes to the facts of History.

Let me, in conclusion, give one further illustration of the close inter-dependence of the two sciences of which I am speaking. One of the subjects treated of by Physical Geography is the present geographical distribution of plants and animals. The land-surface of the globe has been mapped out into so many biological regions, each of which is characterised by its special fauna and flora. The greatest changes in the flora and fauna of a continent are met with as we pass from south to north, or vice versa. Proceeding in the direction of the latitude, the changes encountered are much less striking. Now, these facts are readily explained by the physical geographer, who points out that the distribution is due chiefly to climatic conditions – a conclusion which is obvious enough. But when we go into details we find that mere latitude will not account for all the phenomena. Take, for example, the case of the Scandinavian flora of our own Continent. It is true that this flora is largely confined to northern latitudes; but isolated colonies occur in our own mountains and in the mountains of middle and southern Europe. How are these to be accounted for? The physical geographer says that the plants grow there simply because they obtain at high levels in low latitudes the favourable climatic conditions underneath which they flourish at low levels in high latitudes. He therefore concludes that the distribution of life-forms is due to varying climatic and physical conditions. But if we ask him how those curious colonies of foreigners come to be planted on our mountains, he cannot tell. To get our answer we must come to the geologist; and he will explain that they are, as it were, living fossils – monuments of former great physical and climatic changes. He will prove to us that the climate of Europe was at a recent geological period so cold that the Scandinavian flora spread south into middle Europe, where it occupied the low grounds. When the climate became milder, then the northern invaders gradually retired – the main body migrating back to the north – while some stragglers, retreating before the stronger Germanic flora, took shelter in the mountains, whither the latter could not or would not follow, and so there our Scandinavians remain, the silent witnesses of a stupendous climatic revolution. Now, all the world over, plants and animals have similar wonderful tales to tell of former geographical changes. The flora and fauna of our country, for example, prove that the British Islands formed part of the Continent at a very recent geological period; and so, from similar evidence, we know that not long ago Europe was joined on to Africa. On the other hand, the facts connected with the present distribution of life demonstrate that some areas, such as Australia, have been separated from the nearest continental land for vastly prolonged periods of time.

It would be a very easy matter to adduce many further illustrations to show how close is the connection between the studies of the physical geographer and the geologist. I do not indeed exaggerate when I say that no one can hope to become a geologist who is not well versed in Physical Geography; nor, on the other hand, can the physical geographer possibly dispense with the aid of Geology. The two subjects are as closely related and interwoven, the one with the other, as History is with Political Geography. I do not see therefore how educationists who have admitted the great importance of Physical Geography as a branch of general education, can logically exclude Geology as a subject of instruction in schools. Already, indeed, it has been introduced by many teachers, and I am confident that ere long it will be as generally taught as Physical Geography. I would not, however, present the subject to young people as a lesson to be learned from books. A good teacher should be able to dispense with these helps, or rather hindrances – for such they really are to a young beginner. His pupils ought to have previously studied the subject of Physical Geography, and if they have been well taught they ought to have already acquired no mean store of geological knowledge. They ought, in fact, to have learned a good deal about the great forces which are continually modifying the surface of the globe, and what they have now to do is to study more particularly the results which have followed from the constant operation of those forces. We shall suppose, for example, that the teacher has described how rivers erode their channels, and waves tend to cut back a coast-line, and how the products of erosion, consisting of gravel, sand, and mud, are distributed along river-valleys and accumulated in lakes and seas. He now exhibits to his class good-sized fragments of conglomerate, sandstone, and shale, and points out how each of these rocks is of essentially the same character, and must therefore have had the same origin, as modern sedimentary accumulations. His pupils should be encouraged to examine the rocks of their own neighbourhood, whether exhibited in natural sections or artificial exposures, and to compare these with the products of modern geological action. One hour’s instruction in the field is, in fact, worth twenty hours of reading or listening to lectures. Knowledge at first hand is what is wanted. There are many excellent popular or elementary treatises dealing with Historical Geology, and these have their uses, and may be read with profit as well as pleasure. But the mere reading of such books, it is needless to say, will never make us geologists. They help no doubt to store the mind with interesting and entertaining knowledge, but they do not cultivate the faculties of observation and reasoning. And unless geology is so taught as to accomplish this result, I do not see why it should enter into any school curriculum. Further, I would remark that, however interesting a geological treatise may be, it cannot possibly stimulate the imagination as the practical study of the science is bound to do. One may put into the hands of a youth a clear and well-written description of some particular fossiliferous limestone, and he may by dint of slavish toil be able to repeat verbatim all that he has read. That is how a good deal of book-knowledge of science is acquired. Only think, however, of the drudgery it involves – the absolute waste of time and energy. But let us illustrate our lesson by means of a lump of the limestone itself; let us show him the character of the rock and the nature of its fossil contents, and his difficulties disappear. Better still – let us take him, if we can, into a limestone quarry, and he will be a dull boy indeed if he fails fully to understand what limestone is, or to realise the fact that the rock he is looking at accumulated slowly, like existing oceanic formations, at the bottom of a sea that teemed with animal life. It is unnecessary, however, that I should illustrate this subject further. I would only repeat that the beginner should be taught from the very first to use his own eyes, and to draw logical conclusions from the facts which he observes. Trained after this manner, he would acquire, not only a precise and definite knowledge of what geological data really are, but he would learn also how to interpret those data. He would become familiar, in fact, with the guiding principles of geological inquiry.

How much or how little of Historical Geology should be given in schools will depend upon circumstances. Great care, however, should be taken to avoid wearying the youthful student with strings of mere names. What good is gained by learning to repeat the names of fifty or a hundred fossils, if you cannot recognise any one of these when it is put into your hand? With young beginners I should not attempt anything of that kind. If the neighbourhood chanced to be rich in fossils, I should take my pupils out on Saturday to the sections where they were found, and let them ply their hammers and collect specimens for themselves. I should describe no fossils which they had not seen and handled. Of the more remarkable forms of extinct animals and plants, which are often represented by only fragmentary remains, I should exhibit drawings showing the creatures as they have been restored by the labours of comparative anatomists. Such restorations and ideal views of geological scenes like those given by Heer, Dana, Saporta, and others, convey far more vivid impressions of the life of a geological period than the most elaborate description. In fine, the story of our earth should be told much in the same manner as Scott wrote the history of Scotland for his grandson. There is no more reason for requiring the juvenile student to drudge through minute geological data before introducing him to the grand results of geological investigation, than there is for compelling him to study the manuscripts in our Record Offices before allowing him to read the history which has been drawn from these and similar sources of information. It is enough if at the beginning of his studies he has already learned the general nature of geological evidence and the method of its interpretation. Provided with such a stock of geological knowledge as I have indicated, our youth would leave school with some intelligent appreciation of existing physical conditions, and a not inadequate conception of world-history.