Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.351
J. Vanhorn
Landforms of the United States (1939) by Erwin Raisz is one of the best examples of cartographic excellence depicting the landscape based on underpinning geological structure. With the block diagram as the foundation for landform mapping, this paper details the development of the landform map comparing works and lives of two of the most prominent physiographic landform cartographers, Erwin Raisz and Armin K. Lobeck, who each had Dr. Douglas Johnson as a PhD advisor at Columbia University. Comparing the 1921 Physiographic Diagram of the United States by Lobeck with the 1939 Raisz map, this paper argues that Raisz far exceeded Lobeck in the articulation of the landscape by way of the map.
欧文·莱兹(Erwin Raisz)的《美国地貌》(1939)是杰出制图的典范之一，它描绘了基于基础地质结构的景观。本文以方框图作为地形制图的基础，详细介绍了地形地图的发展，比较了两位最杰出的地理地形制图师Erwin Raisz和Armin K. Lobeck的作品和生活，他们都有道格拉斯·约翰逊博士作为哥伦比亚大学的博士导师。本文将洛贝克1921年绘制的《美国地理图》与1939年的雷兹地图进行比较，认为雷兹在通过地图表达景观方面远远超过了洛贝克。
{"title":"PHYSIOGRAPHIC LANDFORM CARTOGRAPHY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY ARMIN K. LOBECK (1921) AND ERWIN RAISZ (1939)","authors":"J. Vanhorn","doi":"10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.351","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Landforms of the United States (1939) by Erwin Raisz is one of the best examples of cartographic excellence depicting the landscape based on underpinning geological structure. With the block diagram as the foundation for landform mapping, this paper details the development of the landform map comparing works and lives of two of the most prominent physiographic landform cartographers, Erwin Raisz and Armin K. Lobeck, who each had Dr. Douglas Johnson as a PhD advisor at Columbia University. Comparing the 1921 Physiographic Diagram of the United States by Lobeck with the 1939 Raisz map, this paper argues that Raisz far exceeded Lobeck in the articulation of the landscape by way of the map.","PeriodicalId":50560,"journal":{"name":"Earth Sciences History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47597118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.229
Michael S. Smith, A. Witt
The first state-sponsored geological maps for North Carolina were produced by Denison Olmsted and Elisha Mitchell and reflect the development of geologic thought, as well as the practical applications to which geology was being applied, at the beginning of the 19th century in the eastern United States. Despite Merrill’s (1964) dismissal of their mapping and descriptions as too general and of a reconnaissance approach, all studies of nature must have a starting point. Prior to the underfunded geological survey of North Carolina, the evaluation and location of natural resources in the eastern United States was spotty and often never reported. Although only the Mitchell (1829a) county-scale geological map of the gold regions of the North Carolina Piedmont garnered widespread dissemination as a result of the publicity surrounding the gold ‘boom’ in the region, the publication of the Olmsted (1825a, 1827) and Mitchell (1828a, 1829b) geological survey reports provided publicly available details and descriptions. Mitchell continued as a behind-the-scenes advocate for geological investigations in North Carolina even after the closing of the North Carolina geological survey in 1827. His travels, investigations, and observations culminated in his 1842 textbook and its accompanying geological map. Although this geological map still continued to use modified Wernerian stratigraphic terminology, the descriptive text on the units and their interrelationships indicated a continuing evolution of thought on the geological history of the state. The 1842 map continued to be used until at least 1877, when W. C. Kerr (1827–1885) and the 3rd North Carolina Geological Survey undertook a more detailed and comprehensive investigation (and mapping) of the geological framework of North Carolina (Holmes 1887). Thus, two men from very different backgrounds (both Yale, AB, 1813) and interests, and mainly self-taught in the geological sciences, provided the first steps in the description and mapping of North Carolina’s natural resources. Compared to the accomplishments of the later geological surveys, their work was limited in scope and detail. But, for North Carolina geology, and that of the southeastern United States, they were the forerunners in the field.
{"title":"THE FIRST NORTH CAROLINA GEOLOGICAL MAPS: DENISON OLMSTED AND ELISHA MITCHELL, 1821–1842","authors":"Michael S. Smith, A. Witt","doi":"10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.229","url":null,"abstract":"The first state-sponsored geological maps for North Carolina were produced by Denison Olmsted and Elisha Mitchell and reflect the development of geologic thought, as well as the practical applications to which geology was being applied, at the beginning of the 19th century in the eastern United States. Despite Merrill’s (1964) dismissal of their mapping and descriptions as too general and of a reconnaissance approach, all studies of nature must have a starting point.\u0000 Prior to the underfunded geological survey of North Carolina, the evaluation and location of natural resources in the eastern United States was spotty and often never reported. Although only the Mitchell (1829a) county-scale geological map of the gold regions of the North Carolina Piedmont garnered widespread dissemination as a result of the publicity surrounding the gold ‘boom’ in the region, the publication of the Olmsted (1825a, 1827) and Mitchell (1828a, 1829b) geological survey reports provided publicly available details and descriptions.\u0000 Mitchell continued as a behind-the-scenes advocate for geological investigations in North Carolina even after the closing of the North Carolina geological survey in 1827. His travels, investigations, and observations culminated in his 1842 textbook and its accompanying geological map. Although this geological map still continued to use modified Wernerian stratigraphic terminology, the descriptive text on the units and their interrelationships indicated a continuing evolution of thought on the geological history of the state. The 1842 map continued to be used until at least 1877, when W. C. Kerr (1827–1885) and the 3rd North Carolina Geological Survey undertook a more detailed and comprehensive investigation (and mapping) of the geological framework of North Carolina (Holmes 1887).\u0000 Thus, two men from very different backgrounds (both Yale, AB, 1813) and interests, and mainly self-taught in the geological sciences, provided the first steps in the description and mapping of North Carolina’s natural resources. Compared to the accomplishments of the later geological surveys, their work was limited in scope and detail. But, for North Carolina geology, and that of the southeastern United States, they were the forerunners in the field.","PeriodicalId":50560,"journal":{"name":"Earth Sciences History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43077677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.410
R. McMillan
Albert Koch was one of those fascinating characters who burst upon the American scene in the early nineteenth century. He was a fossil collector who has been lauded and ridiculed by both scientists and laymen alike. After collecting natural history specimens in Pennsylvania and Michigan, he opened a museum in St. Louis, an amalgam of natural history objects, curiosities, and theatrical performances. He is best known for his famous Missourium, a grossly misassembled American mastodon skeleton that ended up in the British Museum. Because of the hokum he peddled, many scientists considered his exaggerated and misassembled skeleton a hoax. Albert Koch created additional controversy when he observed that he had uncovered evidence that the extinct megafauna and early man were contemporaneous, a debate that remained unsettled for several decades. This essay critically examines Koch’s fossil collecting pursuits, his claims of human-megafauna associations, as well as his contributions to science and natural history. This is the first of a two-part paper, the second focusing on Koch’s discovery and exhibition of an early archaeocete whale that he called Hydrarchos, an exaggerated skeleton that created significantly more controversy than his Missourium.
{"title":"ALBERT C. KOCH’S MISSOURIUM AND THE DEBATE OVER THE CONTEMPORANEITY OF HUMANS AND THE PLEISTOCENE MEGAFAUNA OF NORTH AMERICA","authors":"R. McMillan","doi":"10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.410","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.410","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Albert Koch was one of those fascinating characters who burst upon the American scene in the early nineteenth century. He was a fossil collector who has been lauded and ridiculed by both scientists and laymen alike. After collecting natural history specimens in Pennsylvania and Michigan, he opened a museum in St. Louis, an amalgam of natural history objects, curiosities, and theatrical performances. He is best known for his famous Missourium, a grossly misassembled American mastodon skeleton that ended up in the British Museum. Because of the hokum he peddled, many scientists considered his exaggerated and misassembled skeleton a hoax. Albert Koch created additional controversy when he observed that he had uncovered evidence that the extinct megafauna and early man were contemporaneous, a debate that remained unsettled for several decades. This essay critically examines Koch’s fossil collecting pursuits, his claims of human-megafauna associations, as well as his contributions to science and natural history.\u0000 This is the first of a two-part paper, the second focusing on Koch’s discovery and exhibition of an early archaeocete whale that he called Hydrarchos, an exaggerated skeleton that created significantly more controversy than his Missourium.","PeriodicalId":50560,"journal":{"name":"Earth Sciences History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46070913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.363
S. Master
Basutoland is a former British Protectorate (now the Kingdom of Lesotho) nestled in the Maluti and Drakensberg mountains, surrounded by South Africa. Geological knowledge about Basutoland started with the activities of French missionaries in the 1830s and continued to accumulate throughout the nineteenth century. Systematic geological mapping began in 1902–1904 with the work of Ernest Schwarz and Alexander du Toit, who, while working for the Geological Commission of the Cape of Good Hope, extended their mapping activities into Basutoland. In 1905 Samuel Dornan from Morija started studying the geology of that region of Basutoland. In the 1930s rumours about the finds of diamonds prompted the British Government to map the country geologically. Gordon Stockley, a geologist experienced in mapping for the Geological Survey of Tanganyika, was seconded to Basutoland in late 1938. Stockley mapped the whole country in 11 months in 1939, and then returned to Tanganyika. His geological map, at a scale of 1:380,160 was published in 1946, and the report appeared in 1947. At the start of his mapping, Stockley wrote to du Toit asking his advice on various matters related to the geology, geomorphology and palaeontology of Basutoland. Their correspondence lasted until 1946. Stockley’s map and report on Basutoland geology laid the foundation for all future exploration and led to the discovery of several diamondiferous kimberlite pipes in the 1960s, and to the establishment of several diamond mines that contribute significantly to the economy of modern Lesotho.
{"title":"MAPPING BASUTOLAND: CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GEOLOGISTS GORDON MURRAY STOCKLEY AND ALEXANDER LOGIE DU TOIT (1938–1946)","authors":"S. Master","doi":"10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.363","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.363","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Basutoland is a former British Protectorate (now the Kingdom of Lesotho) nestled in the Maluti and Drakensberg mountains, surrounded by South Africa. Geological knowledge about Basutoland started with the activities of French missionaries in the 1830s and continued to accumulate throughout the nineteenth century. Systematic geological mapping began in 1902–1904 with the work of Ernest Schwarz and Alexander du Toit, who, while working for the Geological Commission of the Cape of Good Hope, extended their mapping activities into Basutoland. In 1905 Samuel Dornan from Morija started studying the geology of that region of Basutoland. In the 1930s rumours about the finds of diamonds prompted the British Government to map the country geologically. Gordon Stockley, a geologist experienced in mapping for the Geological Survey of Tanganyika, was seconded to Basutoland in late 1938. Stockley mapped the whole country in 11 months in 1939, and then returned to Tanganyika. His geological map, at a scale of 1:380,160 was published in 1946, and the report appeared in 1947. At the start of his mapping, Stockley wrote to du Toit asking his advice on various matters related to the geology, geomorphology and palaeontology of Basutoland. Their correspondence lasted until 1946. Stockley’s map and report on Basutoland geology laid the foundation for all future exploration and led to the discovery of several diamondiferous kimberlite pipes in the 1960s, and to the establishment of several diamond mines that contribute significantly to the economy of modern Lesotho.","PeriodicalId":50560,"journal":{"name":"Earth Sciences History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49222387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.264
J. Diemer
In 1845, Roderick Murchison, Edouard de Verneuil and Alexander von Keyserling published The Geology of Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains, reporting on the results of two field seasons in Russia (1840 and 1841) as well as additional fieldwork in Poland (1843) and Scandinavia (1844 and 1845). The book contains 7 plates comprising 5 cross-sections and 2 geologic maps. Plate 6 is a geologic map titled “Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains . . .” and it is the subject of this paper. Murchison had 600 copies of the large format (quarto) book printed by John Murray in the laborious hand-press manner. He also had the 68 × 84 cm map produced as a copper engraving with water color washes. Plate 6 has been described as “the finest hand coloured map ever produced”. The map was drawn and engraved by John Arrowsmith from a sketch map begun in 1840, expanded after the 1841 field season, and further modified by incorporating work of other geologists, including Keilhau, Hisinger, Zejszner, Boué, Dubois de Montpereux, Hamilton, Ainsworth, and Helmersen. All of these geologists were meticulously acknowledged by Murchison in The Geology of Russia. In addition to the map, Plate 6 contains a stratigraphic column with key locations and characteristic fossils, and a crosssection extending from St. Petersburg to the Sea of Azof. Thus, Plate 6 represents a synthesis of much of what was known in 1845 of the geology of Russia and surrounding territories, clearly demonstrating Murchison’s ‘genius of combination’. Murchison revised the map several times, resulting in 4 ‘states’ of the map.
1845年，Roderick Murchison、Edouard de Verneuil和Alexander von Keyserling出版了《俄罗斯在欧洲和乌拉尔山脉的地质》，报告了俄罗斯两个野外季节（1840年和1841年）的结果，以及波兰（1843年）和斯堪的纳维亚（1844年和1845年）的额外野外调查结果。该书包含7个板块，包括5个横截面和2张地质图。图版6是一幅题为“俄罗斯在欧洲和乌拉尔山脉…”的地质图，也是本文的主题。默奇森有600本约翰·默里用手工印刷的大幅面（四开本）书。他还制作了一幅68×84厘米的地图，用水洗铜版画。图版6被描述为“有史以来制作的最好的手绘地图”。该地图由约翰·阿罗史密斯根据1840年开始的草图绘制和雕刻，在1841年野外考察季节后进行了扩展，并通过结合其他地质学家的工作进行了进一步修改，包括凯豪、希辛格、泽兹纳、布埃、杜波依·德·蒙佩雷斯、汉密尔顿、安斯沃思和赫尔默森。Murchison在《俄罗斯地质学》一书中对所有这些地质学家都给予了细致的肯定。除地图外，板块6还包含一个地层柱，其中包含关键位置和特征化石，以及从圣彼得堡延伸至亚速海的横截面。因此，板块6代表了1845年已知的俄罗斯及其周边地区地质的大部分综合，清楚地证明了Murchison的“组合天才”。默奇森对地图进行了几次修改，形成了地图的4个“状态”。
{"title":"PLATE 6 OF THE GEOLOGY OF RUSSIA: PRODUCT OF A ‘GENIUS OF COMBINATION’","authors":"J. Diemer","doi":"10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6187-41.2.264","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 1845, Roderick Murchison, Edouard de Verneuil and Alexander von Keyserling published The Geology of Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains, reporting on the results of two field seasons in Russia (1840 and 1841) as well as additional fieldwork in Poland (1843) and Scandinavia (1844 and 1845). The book contains 7 plates comprising 5 cross-sections and 2 geologic maps. Plate 6 is a geologic map titled “Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains . . .” and it is the subject of this paper. Murchison had 600 copies of the large format (quarto) book printed by John Murray in the laborious hand-press manner. He also had the 68 × 84 cm map produced as a copper engraving with water color washes. Plate 6 has been described as “the finest hand coloured map ever produced”. The map was drawn and engraved by John Arrowsmith from a sketch map begun in 1840, expanded after the 1841 field season, and further modified by incorporating work of other geologists, including Keilhau, Hisinger, Zejszner, Boué, Dubois de Montpereux, Hamilton, Ainsworth, and Helmersen. All of these geologists were meticulously acknowledged by Murchison in The Geology of Russia. In addition to the map, Plate 6 contains a stratigraphic column with key locations and characteristic fossils, and a crosssection extending from St. Petersburg to the Sea of Azof. Thus, Plate 6 represents a synthesis of much of what was known in 1845 of the geology of Russia and surrounding territories, clearly demonstrating Murchison’s ‘genius of combination’. Murchison revised the map several times, resulting in 4 ‘states’ of the map.","PeriodicalId":50560,"journal":{"name":"Earth Sciences History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44233207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.11648/j.earth.20221103.18
Ahmed Tarshan
{"title":"Detection of Uranium Anomalies and Alteration Zones Using Airborne Gamma-Ray Spectrometry at Gabal Attala and Its Surrounding Area, Eastern Desert, Egypt","authors":"Ahmed Tarshan","doi":"10.11648/j.earth.20221103.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20221103.18","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50560,"journal":{"name":"Earth Sciences History","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87801235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.186
E. Rose
During the Second World War, the central Mediterranean island of Malta was famously besieged by the Italian navy and intensively bombed by Italian and later German air forces, from June 1940 until Allied victory in North Africa in May 1943 brought an end to the siege. It was then scheduled as a staging post to support the Allied invasion of Sicily from North Africa in July 1943 and of mainland Italy from Sicily in September. From 1941 until 1945, two Tunnelling Companies Royal Engineers, overlapping in succession, excavated underground facilities safe from aerial or naval bombardment. In 1943 and then 1944–1945, two Boring Sections Royal Engineers in succession drilled wells to enhance water supplies, initially for increased troop concentrations. Borehole site selection was guided in 1943 by the Director of the Geological Survey of Great Britain (Edward Battersby Bailey: 1881–1965) and by geologists Captain Frederick William Shotton (1906–1990) and Major Gordon Lyall Paver (1913–1988). In 1944, it was guided by geologist Captain Howard Digby Roberts (1913–1971), leading a detachment from 42nd Geological Section of the South African Engineer Corps that pioneered earth resistivity surveys on the island. Overall, these military studies generated a new but unpublished geological map of the island at 1:31,680-scale and refined knowledge of its geological structure: a much faulted but otherwise near-horizontal Oligo-Miocene sedimentary sequence. Further refinement was achieved as a consequence of the 1944–1945 drilling programme, led principally by geologist Captain Thomas Owen Morris (1904–1989) of the Royal Engineers. By 1945, this had helped to develop an improved water supply system for the island, and plans to develop groundwater abstracted from a perched upper aquifer (in the Upper Coralline Limestone and underlying Greensand formations, above a ‘Blue Clay’) as well as from the main lower aquifer, near sea level (in the Globigerina Limestone and/or underlying Lower Coralline Limestone formations).
{"title":"BRITISH MILITARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GEOLOGY OF MALTA, PART 2: THE SECOND WORLD WAR, 1939–1945","authors":"E. Rose","doi":"10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.186","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 During the Second World War, the central Mediterranean island of Malta was famously besieged by the Italian navy and intensively bombed by Italian and later German air forces, from June 1940 until Allied victory in North Africa in May 1943 brought an end to the siege. It was then scheduled as a staging post to support the Allied invasion of Sicily from North Africa in July 1943 and of mainland Italy from Sicily in September. From 1941 until 1945, two Tunnelling Companies Royal Engineers, overlapping in succession, excavated underground facilities safe from aerial or naval bombardment. In 1943 and then 1944–1945, two Boring Sections Royal Engineers in succession drilled wells to enhance water supplies, initially for increased troop concentrations. Borehole site selection was guided in 1943 by the Director of the Geological Survey of Great Britain (Edward Battersby Bailey: 1881–1965) and by geologists Captain Frederick William Shotton (1906–1990) and Major Gordon Lyall Paver (1913–1988). In 1944, it was guided by geologist Captain Howard Digby Roberts (1913–1971), leading a detachment from 42nd Geological Section of the South African Engineer Corps that pioneered earth resistivity surveys on the island. Overall, these military studies generated a new but unpublished geological map of the island at 1:31,680-scale and refined knowledge of its geological structure: a much faulted but otherwise near-horizontal Oligo-Miocene sedimentary sequence. Further refinement was achieved as a consequence of the 1944–1945 drilling programme, led principally by geologist Captain Thomas Owen Morris (1904–1989) of the Royal Engineers. By 1945, this had helped to develop an improved water supply system for the island, and plans to develop groundwater abstracted from a perched upper aquifer (in the Upper Coralline Limestone and underlying Greensand formations, above a ‘Blue Clay’) as well as from the main lower aquifer, near sea level (in the Globigerina Limestone and/or underlying Lower Coralline Limestone formations).","PeriodicalId":50560,"journal":{"name":"Earth Sciences History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43205066","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.1
Isabel F. Barton
This paper analyzes how the Western concept of minerals evolved over time. Greco-Roman philosophers saw minerals as a form of plant that yielded useful metals or medicines. Most of their data came from mines and focused on ore minerals, but medicinal uses were more highly regarded and were the principal intentional focus of early mineral literature. As mining waned in the early medieval period, the focus of mineral literature shifted to emphasize gemstones rather than ores and mysticism rather than metallurgy, while medicine continued to be prominent. Descriptions from firsthand observation became rare. Starting in the 9th century AD, an inorganic concept of minerals as chemicals began to arise from alchemical experiments in the Middle East. The alchemical mineral literature demonstrated that minerals differed from plants in being separable into constituent ingredients by chemical processes, focusing on ores. The sulfur-mercury model of mineral origin also reflects a strong emphasis on metal ores at the expense of other minerals. As mining rates increased again in Europe after the 10th century, this alchemical concept of minerals caught on. However, the alchemical model acquired a spiritual gloss, leading to a divide in the 16th century between a spiritualized organic model of minerals and an inorganic or mechanical alternative, both focused mainly on ores. Eventually the concept of spiritual or living minerals diverged from the mineral to the alchemical literature in the 16th century, as the mechanical model evolved into the modern chemical identification of minerals.
{"title":"MINING, ALCHEMY, AND THE CHANGING CONCEPT OF MINERALS FROM ANTIQUITY TO EARLY MODERNITY","authors":"Isabel F. Barton","doi":"10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper analyzes how the Western concept of minerals evolved over time. Greco-Roman philosophers saw minerals as a form of plant that yielded useful metals or medicines. Most of their data came from mines and focused on ore minerals, but medicinal uses were more highly regarded and were the principal intentional focus of early mineral literature. As mining waned in the early medieval period, the focus of mineral literature shifted to emphasize gemstones rather than ores and mysticism rather than metallurgy, while medicine continued to be prominent. Descriptions from firsthand observation became rare.\u0000 Starting in the 9th century AD, an inorganic concept of minerals as chemicals began to arise from alchemical experiments in the Middle East. The alchemical mineral literature demonstrated that minerals differed from plants in being separable into constituent ingredients by chemical processes, focusing on ores. The sulfur-mercury model of mineral origin also reflects a strong emphasis on metal ores at the expense of other minerals. As mining rates increased again in Europe after the 10th century, this alchemical concept of minerals caught on. However, the alchemical model acquired a spiritual gloss, leading to a divide in the 16th century between a spiritualized organic model of minerals and an inorganic or mechanical alternative, both focused mainly on ores. Eventually the concept of spiritual or living minerals diverged from the mineral to the alchemical literature in the 16th century, as the mechanical model evolved into the modern chemical identification of minerals.","PeriodicalId":50560,"journal":{"name":"Earth Sciences History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42110535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.77
J. Hannibal
In 1869 a bitter feud broke out between two preeminent Ohio geologists, John Strong Newberry (1822–1892), and Colonel Charles Whittlesey (1806–1886), beginning with the naming of Newberry as State Geologist for Ohio, a position that both had lobbied for. The two protagonists had much in common, including their interests in Ohio geology, but they also had different geological and class backgrounds, interests, and talents. Whittlesey waged an unremitting campaign against the organization and emphasis of the Newberry Survey for more than a decade. This long battle played out on the political and public stage, with an exchange of acrimonious letters in newspapers across Ohio. Some of Whittlesey’s charges, such as absenteeism, were valid, and Newberry’s replies were overly strident. Newberry had supporters, including James Hall, but Whittlesey gained the support of Leo Lesquereux and Ebenezer B. Andrews, as well as many legislators and at least one influential newspaper. Whittlesey and Newberry made many contributions to geology and both have important geological features named for them. Both are buried in Cleveland’s Lake View Cemetery.
{"title":"THE NEWBERRY-WHITTLESEY CONTROVERSY AND ITS PROTAGONISTS: BACKGROUND, ARGUMENTS, AND OUTCOME OF A BITTER FEUD","authors":"J. Hannibal","doi":"10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.77","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.77","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 1869 a bitter feud broke out between two preeminent Ohio geologists, John Strong Newberry (1822–1892), and Colonel Charles Whittlesey (1806–1886), beginning with the naming of Newberry as State Geologist for Ohio, a position that both had lobbied for. The two protagonists had much in common, including their interests in Ohio geology, but they also had different geological and class backgrounds, interests, and talents. Whittlesey waged an unremitting campaign against the organization and emphasis of the Newberry Survey for more than a decade. This long battle played out on the political and public stage, with an exchange of acrimonious letters in newspapers across Ohio. Some of Whittlesey’s charges, such as absenteeism, were valid, and Newberry’s replies were overly strident. Newberry had supporters, including James Hall, but Whittlesey gained the support of Leo Lesquereux and Ebenezer B. Andrews, as well as many legislators and at least one influential newspaper. Whittlesey and Newberry made many contributions to geology and both have important geological features named for them. Both are buried in Cleveland’s Lake View Cemetery.","PeriodicalId":50560,"journal":{"name":"Earth Sciences History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42821987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：