Content uploaded by P. Worsley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by P. Worsley on Nov 29, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
In south west Norway, some 25 km ESE of Stavanger,
a magnificent glacial end moraine marks the maximum
extent of a now-vanished valley glacier. This cuts
across and blocks the floor of a glacial trough eroded
into Precambrian gneiss. Locally it is known as
Vassryggen (the lake ridge) but internationally it is also
known as the Esmark Moraine, named after Jens
Esmark, who, in 1824, was the first geologist to
describe and interpret it as an ice-marginal
geomorphological feature (Fig. 1). The lake of
Haukalivatn lies at the foot of the proximal slope,
while on the distal side there is a sandur - a gently
sloping outwash plain. (Note: -et and -en are suffixes
that mean the in Norwegian, and context determines
whether they do or do not appear on the ends of place
names.) The feature dates from the final stadial
(Younger Dryas) of the Last Glacial (Weichselian)
stage. There are strong historical grounds for claiming
that this landform couplet, many kilometres from the
nearest modern glacier, was the first ever to be
recognised as having a genetic relationship to a former
active glacier margin (Fig. 2).
In 1824, Esmark promulgated the concept of an
extensive glaciation of mainland Europe, citing a range
of field evidence that he had observed whilst travelling
in the Alps, Denmark, the north German Plain and
Norway. Esmark’s paper is now universally regarded
as a classic of the glacial literature, but sadly is not as
well known as it deserves to be. The objectives here
are (a) to review the historical context of Esmark’s
pioneering glacial geological research, (b) to examine
its impact on the application of the glacial theory in
Britain and (c) to assess the end moraine in the context
of the last deglaciation and the modern landscape.
Background
In the eighteenth century, during the Age of
Enlightenment, many savants appreciated the ability of
modern glaciers to transport sediment, and some
realised that glacial debris found far beyond current
glacier limits indicated that glaciers had once been
Abstract. An end moraine (Vassryggen) and associated sandur, described by Jens Esmark as
early as 1824, was the first pre-Neoglacial glacigenic landform association to be recognised as
such. It forms the most important element of a range of evidence used by Esmark in support of
his continental-scale glaciation hypothesis. The career of Esmark, who became a foundation
professor of the Royal Frederick University in Christiania (Oslo) is outlined, and his influence on
the development of the glacial theory in Britain is appraised, as is the role of his associate Robert
Jameson in Edinburgh. A sketch of the glacial geology of the Forsand area of southwest Norway
examines Vassryggen and its allied landforms in the context of deglaciation and sea-level change
at the close of the Younger Dryas stadial.
Jens Esmark, Vassryggen
and early glacial theory in Britain
Peter Worsley
Figure 1. Location of Forsand and the Jøtunheimen area
within south-west Norway.
more extensive than at present (Rudwick, 2005). As
Charlesworth (1957: p623) was to observe, The glacial
theory, like many other scientific theories of note,
occurred to several people at roughly the same time if
not in quite identical form. Among these was the
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3) 161
alleged father of modern geology, James Hutton, who,
in his classic treatise of 1795, suggested that Alpine
glaciers had been considerably more extensive (to
account for the granite erratics scattered over the
limestone Juras), but omitted to apply this concept to
Britain (Davies, 1968). Although Menzies (2002)
claims that Hutton’s promoter, John Playfair (1802), in
his Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth,
proposed that Scotland had been glaciated, this is not
the case. Interestingly, Sissons (1967: p29), in his
splendid book on the evolution of Scotland’s scenery,
attributes to Esmark the role of catalyst in the
recognition of Scottish glaciation, although Price
(1983), in his detailed review of the last 30,000 years
in Scotland, makes no mention of him.
From a specifically British perspective, the key
event in the acceptance of the idea of glaciation in
these islands was undoubtedly Louis Agassiz’s journey
through Britain and Ireland in 1840. Six years earlier,
Agassiz had made the first of his several visits to
Britain while researching his initial specialism, the
study of fossil fish. During his stay he was chaperoned
by William Buckland, then Reader in Geology and
Mineralogy at the University of Oxford. Four years
later, Buckland, accompanied by his wife, made a
reciprocal visit to Agassiz in his home country of
Switzerland. By that time Agassiz was devoting all of
his spare time to developing a glacial theory in the
context of the Alps. It is therefore not surprising that he
demonstrated to Buckland the field evidence on which
his crystallising glacial theory depended.
Apparently Buckland expressed support for his
interpretation, but also went on to describe to Agassiz
some British geomorphological features that he
believed were analogous to the glacial landforms they
were examining in Switzerland. They resolved that
they would jointly investigate this topic further when
Agassiz next visited Britain (Agassiz, 1876).
In his presidential address to the Geological Society
of London on 21st February 1840, Buckland (1840:
p261) commented on Esmark’s 1824 paper as follows
- the most important portion of this paper …. show(s)
that the greater part of Norway has, at some period,
been covered with ice, and that the granite blocks, so
abundant in that country, have been brought to their
present place by glaciers. Just over half a year later, at
the annual meeting of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, which fortuitously was held
in Glasgow in the midst of a drumlin field, Agassiz
presented his hypothesis that the landscapes of Britain
and Ireland bore the imprint of past glacial processes
(Agassiz, 1840-1). During a joint field excursion
immediately after the Glasgow meeting, Buckland
declared that he had been fully won over by Agassiz’s
reasoning (Boylan, 1998). This led to a major
paradigm shift, for, as the palaeontologist Edward
Forbes commented in a letter of 1841 to Louis Agassiz,
you have made all the geologists glacier-mad here, and
they are turning Great Britain into an ice-house
(Agassiz, 1885). For instance, on October 16th 1841,
Buckland was to write the following note in the
visitor’s book at the Goat Hotel, Beddgelert, in
Gwynedd, north Wales - Notice to geologists – At
Pont-aber-glass-llyn, 100 yards below the bridge ...
see a good example of the furrows, flutings, and striae
on rounded and polished surfaces of the rock, which
Agassiz refers to the action of glaciers. See many
similar effects on the left, or south-west, side of the
pass of Llanberis. (Davies, 1969: p263). This entry
was subsequently framed and displayed at the hotel,
but, following a change in ownership, its present
whereabouts is unknown. Nevertheless, despite the
glacial euphoria, the general acceptance of the glacial
land ice theory was to be delayed by several decades
until officers of the British Geological Survey
commenced serious mapping of superficial sediments
and landforms.
Jens Esmark (1763-1839)
Summaries of Esmark’s life have been compiled by
Buckland (1840), Rózsa et al (2003), Rørdam (1890),
Schetelig (1926), Kettner (1964) and S.A. Andersen
(1980). He was born in the hamlet of Houlbjerg
(Hovlbjaerg), some 30 km west of Aarhus in Denmark,
the son of the local parson. Perhaps fittingly,
Houlbjerg is situated in the middle of the Danish
‘Younger Morainic’ landscape produced by the Last
Glaciation in eastern Jutland, and lies just south of a
major incised sub-glacial meltwater tunnel valley.
After attending the local high school in the town of
Figure 2. Map showing the morphology of the Vassryggen
end moraine (the Esmark Moraine). Contour interval: 5m.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3)162
Randers, his senior studies were undertaken at the
university in Copenhagen, and these included natural
history, theology and medicine. For a short period,
Esmark was employed at a hospital, but soon he
embarked upon an in-depth training in mineralogy and
geology. This involved him attending the mining
school at Kongsberg (founded in 1757) in southern
Norway, close to the important silver-mining area. At
that time Norway was a province of Denmark. He then
returned to Copenhagen University as a student in law
and geometry, after which he was awarded a six-year
travelling scholarship.
During 1791 and 1792 he attended the famous
Bergakademie in Freiberg, Saxony, close to the
Erzgebirge Mountains, where his contemporaries
included Leopold von Buch and Alexander Humboldt.
This academy was directed by the inspirational Saxon
geologist Abraham Gottlob Werner, and not
surprisingly, during his stay there he acquired the
strong Wernerian (Neptunian) sympathies which he
maintained for the rest of his life. Essentially, the
Neptunist view was that all rocks had been precipitated
from a primordial ocean. At that time a furious debate
was in progress over the origin of rocks, with the main
alternative being Hutton’s ideas of Vulcanism which
involved the internal heat of the Earth. Esmark then
moved to the German mining centre of Schemnitz
(Hungarian Selmec, and now Banska Stiavnica in
Slovakia) for training in mineral analysis, and in 1794
toured Hungary, western Romania and southern Poland
visiting mines, before spending some months in
Chemnitz (Rózsa et al 2003). On his return to Freiberg
he published an account of his journey with the title
‘Short description of a mineralogical tour through
Hungary, Transylvania and the Banat’ (Esmark 1798,
1799). This work established him as a geologist and
mineralogist of European repute (Fig. 3).
Late in 1797, Esmark settled permanently in
Norway, first returning to the Kongsberg Mining
School as a chief mining inspector and later (1802) as
a lecturer and supervisor in mineralogy, chemistry and
physics. While working at Kongsberg he travelled
extensively in southern Norway and indulged in
mountaineering; he made the first ascent of Snøhetta
on Dovrefjell in 1798. This activity brought him face-
to-face with modern glaciers and their immediate
environs, an experience which was to manifest itself
later in his benchmark paper of 1824. In Kongsberg, in
the same year, he married Vibeke Thrane Brünnich,
who hailed from Copenhagen. They had two sons, H.
Morten Esmark, later a vicar and well-known
mineralogist, and Lauritz M. Esmark who became
Professor of Zoology at the University in Christiania.
Following pressure from the Selskabet for Norges
Vel (Society for the good of Norway) in 1811, the
Danish king agreed to support the foundation of a new
Kongelige Frederiks Universitet (The Royal Frederick
University). Originally, the intention was to locate the
new institution in Kongsberg, but soon this was
changed in favour of Christiania. From the beginning
(1813), it was planned that the new university would
include applied subjects within its curriculum, and to
support this objective, the mining school was
transferred from Kongsberg (Popperwell, 1972). So,
when in 1814 a Chair of Bergverkvitenskap (Mining
Science) was created in the new Faculty of Philosophy,
Esmark was elected to occupy it. Despite the inclusion
of sciences, Latin remained the official language of the
university until 1845 (it was renamed University of
Oslo as late as 1939).
Internationally, 1814 was a critical and politically
complex year in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars
in Europe. At the Treaty of Kiel, Denmark, as an ally
of France, was obliged to cede its province of Norway
to Sweden, following 400 years of sovereignty
(ironically, the former Norwegian territories of Færoe
Islands, Greenland and Iceland were overlooked, and
these remained as part of Denmark). Latent Norwegian
nationalism was triggered by this change, and as a
consequence a new constitution was declared at
Eidsvoll, and a parliament (known as the Storting)
established. Effectively Norway was an independent
nation for a few months, until the will of the victorious
powers was able to assert itself. Following union, the
Swedish crown showed sensible pragmatism and
permitted effective Norwegian home rule, and then
in return, the Storting voted in favour of a combined
Figure 3. Portrait of Jens Esmark (from Schiffuer, 1935: p19)
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3) 163
kingdom. Ironically, the national language remained
Danish and it could be argued that technically Esmark
became a Swedish citizen (Norwegian misgivings
being acknowledged!).
Esmark remained in this post at the university until
he died early in 1839 after an illness which had lasted
several years. From 1816 to 1838 he was responsible
for maintaining a series of meteorological observations
which are the oldest pertaining to the capital
(Christiania became Kristiania in 1897, and finally
Oslo in 1925). He also published a book (in Danish and
German editions) concerning a geological circular
journey in 1827 (anticlockwise) from the capital up to
central Norway and into Værdal, during which he paid
special attention to establishing the heights and
plotting a relief profile (Esmark, 1829a, 1829b).
According to William Buckland, he was an excellent
chess player.
Esmark was probably one of the founding foreign
members of the Wernerian Natural History Society in
Edinburgh (he was a member at least by 1811). This
link was to become significant for British glacial
geological history. In the summer of 1815, he made a
scientific study visit to England, and read a short
mineralogical paper before the Geological Society of
London on June 18th, (Esmark, 1816). He was elected
as only the third Foreign Member of the society. A
good indication of his international eminence at that
time can be gauged from the fact that in the society’s
list of foreign members he was senior to such
distinguished geologists as Georges Cuvier, his mentor
Abraham Werner, and Alexander von Humboldt.
Esmark’s classic paper of 1824
It should first be emphasised that this paper by Esmark
dates from well before Agassiz became involved with
modern and ancient glaciation in his native
Switzerland, and sixteen years prior to his pivotal visit
to Britain. The paper appeared in the Christiania-
published journal Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne,
then in its second year (Fig. 4). This new journal’s
content resembled the Memoirs of the Wernerian
Natural History Society, and the issue containing
Esmark’s paper included another (in Danish) by the
English seafarer Captain Scoresby on the rediscovery
of parts of eastern Greenland, and a report on an
English scientific expedition to the polar seas. The
only extant copies in Britain are at the British Library
and in the library of the Royal Society of London.
Esmark’s paper (also written in Danish) is not
wholly devoted to his glacial hypothesis, and the first
half concerns a discourse on the formation of the Earth
with Wernerian undertones (Fig. 5). It is in the second
part where he argues that his adopted country, Norway,
had once been covered by immense masses of ice
which reached down to sea level.
The evidence from the Norwegian landscape,
which he considered gave support to his glacial
hypothesis, included:-
(a) Scattered boulder-sized blocks, often of a different
composition to the rock beneath, some even occurring
on mountain summits.
(b) A widespread sediment cover consisting of poorly-
sorted admixture of large-sized material in a finer
matrix, which was inconsistent with attribution to
fluvial action, i.e. boulder clay or till.
(c) Steep-sided flat bottomed valleys (U-shaped cross
profiles). He wrote - Ice or glaciers, by their immense
expanding powers must beyond doubt have produced
this change in their original form from this
circumstance, that they were continually sliding
downwards from the higher mountains to the lower
districts and by progressive motion carried with them
the masses of stone which they had torn from the
mountains.
(d) Fluted, smoothed and scoured bedrock surfaces,
including conglomerates which appeared to have been
cut across by a sharp knife.
(e) A ridge (Vassryggen), which completely crosses a
U-shaped valley from one side to the other. Here he
made his most dramatic landform insight since he
interpreted this as an end moraine produced by a
Figure 4. Title page of the second year issue of the Magazin
for Naturvidenskarberne (1824).
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3)
164
glacier which had subsequently vanished. In the
original he referred to this as a gletcher vold (glacial
rampart) and regarded it as his strongest proof that
glaciers had been much more extensive in the past.
(f) A plain distal to the ridge (i.e. an outwash plain or
sandur).
But he was not quite finished. Next he utilised
current geomorphological and sedimentological
methodologies to infer the nature of former geological
processes by making comparisons with modern
depositional environments, the so-called actualistic
approach. Esmark clearly realised that the depositional
environments of modern Norwegian glaciers displayed
striking parallels with the much older landform
assemblage that he had identified near Stavanger. He
drew independent support from Mr O. Tank, a young
mineralogist who accompanied him during the
examination of Vassryggen and later the modern ice
margins between Londfjord and Lomb. He reported
that when Tank encountered the modern glacier
environments for the first time he did not require any
prompting before immediately making a genetic
connection between the two. Sadly, progress in British
glacial geology during the first half of the twentieth
century was often retarded by an absence of such an
actualistic approach.
Esmark’s paper in English translation
Remarkably, within two years, a complete English
translation of Esmark’s paper was published in
Edinburgh (Esmark, 1826) (Fig. 6). However, the
unidentified translator indulged in some fanciful
language such that the original title Bidrag til vor
jordklodes historie, that translates as Contribution to
the history of our Earth, became Remarks tending to
explain the geological history of the Earth.
The rationale of undertaking the translation is of
special relevance to the historical development of the
glacial theory in Britain. It arose through the initiative
of Robert Jameson (1774-1854), who occupied the
chair of Regius Professor of Natural History in the
University of Edinburgh from 1804 to 1854 (Fig. 7).
Jameson, like Esmark, had attended classes given by
Abraham Werner at the Freiberg Mining Academy. In
his case it was from 1800 only to 1802, when the death
of his father forced his return to Scotland. During his
time at Freiberg he was converted into Neptunism’s
most devoted and ardent disciple (Davis, 1969: p147).
On March 3rd 1808 he formed the Wernerian Natural
History Society of Edinburgh, just two months after
Figure 5. First page of Esmark’s paper in the Magazine for
Naturvidenskarberne 1824.
Figure 6. First page of Esmark’s translated paper in the
Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal in 1826.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3) 165
the founding of the Geological Society of London, and
thereafter was re-elected annually as president for the
rest of his life! Geikie (1909: p5) described Edinburgh
as the headquarters of the Neptunists in this country
with a policy of active propaganda of Wernerian
doctrines. Esmark, as we have seen, was an early
member of the Society, and this almost certainly arose
through his friendship with Jameson and their shared
Neptunist views derived from their common Freiburg
heritage. The oral proceedings of the Wernerian
Natural History Society are recorded as an appendix
(History of the Society) in the last pages of each
memoir. These reveal that during the February and
March meetings of 1826, Jameson had read out
instalments of Esmark’s paper. It is reasonable to
assume that the second instalment, presented during
the March 11th session, featured Esmark’s glacial
geological hypothesis. Unfortunately, there is no report
of Jameson’s personal views at that time, although it is
highly likely that he favoured the hypothesis,
since otherwise he would have been unlikely to
promote its reading.
From 1819 to 1824, Jameson was the founder, and
initially co-editor with David Brewster, of the The
Edinburgh Philosophical Journal. Following a
disagreement with Brewster, he started, as sole editor,
The New Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, a post
which he held for the following 30 years, with a
specific policy of exhibiting a view of the progressive
improvements and discoveries in the sciences and the
arts. This publication is frequently referred to as
Jameson’s Journal such was his domination of it.
Jameson regarded himself as conductor rather than
editor of the journal, and during his tenure he
published a wide range of manuscripts. Some of these
related to cold environments; in the quarterly issue
(October-December 1826) which contained Esmark’s
paper, there was one on Arctic seas and allied ice. He
developed a policy of using his journal to keep British
geologists abreast of scientific developments by
instigating a Scientific Intelligence section that
consisted of summaries of new findings.
Jameson’s role in the concept of Scottish glaciation
Gordon Herries Davies has chronicled how Jameson
was probably the first person to publicly declare that
glacial processes had contributed to the character of
the British landscape (Davies, 1969). As a student at
Edinburgh University, the celebrated Scottish
glaciologist J. D. Forbes (1809-1868), attended a
natural history course given by Jameson in 1827-28.
This had a syllabus covering zoology, botany,
palaeontology, geology, mineralogy, the philosophy of
zoology and practical work both in the museum and
the field. Lectures were given five days a week for a
period of five months and the emphasis was on
mineralogy and geology. Secord (1991) describes the
course as one of the leading natural history courses in
the world. Crucially, Forbes’s lecture notes from
Jameson’s lecture 12 on 27th November 1827 survive,
and these state - Moraine is the name for stones,
fragments and deposits by the motion of the glacier on
its borders which have accumulated in great masses. In
Norway and in Scotland such appearances are
observed which are considered proofs of formerly
existent glaciers (Cunningham, 1990: p15).
In the previous session, 1826-27, among the over
200 attendees taking this course was a seventeen year
old second-year undergraduate called Charles Darwin,
who attended as an extracurricular activity. He records
that Jameson came across as an old brown dry stick and
further added with respect to the lectures (probably at
a particularly cynical moment) The sole effect they
produced on me was the determination never as long
as I lived to read a book on geology, or in way any to
study the science (Barlow, 1958: p52-3; Browne,
1995). Nevertheless, despite his unflattering
impression of Jameson, Darwin assiduously attended
the course and thereby gained a thorough grounding in
the basics of geology. He personally owned the course
text-book which, unsurprisingly, was Jameson’s latest
book (Jameson, 1821), and his copy survives in the
Darwin archive of Cambridge University Library. The
many hand-written annotations it contains reveal that
he must have studied it carefully (Herbert, 2005).
Jameson in 1826 was undoubtedly fired by the
implications of Esmark’s glacial theory, and his
teaching of the elements of glacial geology and their
significance with respect to Scotland reflected this. It is
very plausible that Darwin witnessed Jameson’s first
glacial exposition, but apparently its implications did
not register with him at the time, and it was not until
Figure 7. Portrait of Robert Jameson (from a miniature).
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3)166
1842 that he adopted much of the newly defined
glacial theory.
Four years after leaving Edinburgh, in 1831,
Darwin spent at least a week in North Wales with
Adam Sedgwick, in order to become better acquainted
in field geology. This venture had been arranged by his
Cambridge tutor J. S. Henslow who, although a
Professor of Botany, was originally a Professor of
Mineralogy at Cambridge. Years later Darwin recalled
that they totally missed seeing the abundant evidence
of glaciation - on this tour I had a striking instance
how easy it is to overlook phenomena, however
conspicuous, before they have been observed by
anyone …. neither of us saw a trace of the wonderful
glacial phenomena all around us, we did not notice the
plainly scored rocks, the perched boulders, the lateral
and terminal moraines.
Another astonishing paper included in the first part
of Jameson’s journal in 1827 was by G Bohr (1773-
1832) a teacher from Bergen. It is unknown whether
this had been specially translated into English but was
almost certainly derived from Bohr (1820). It records
actualistic observations made on a journey to
Jostedalen, on the eastern side of the Josterdalsbreen
ice cap (the largest in Europe) in southern Norway.
Among others, the now well-known glaciers of Berset,
Nigaard and Lodal are described. It is very clear from
the narrative that Bohr appreciated that these glaciers
were subject to size variations and referred to the
encroachments of the glaciers and of the mischief
occasioned by them (Bohr, 1827: p257). Further, he
notes that a peasant called Claus Elvekragen had
earlier recalled seeing the roof of a house buried in a
moraine. From today’s perspective, this observation
suggests that, during the culmination of the Late
Neoglacial Little Ice Age around 1750AD, an
advancing glacier must have almost completely
enveloped a building. The term moraine is noted as
being a Swiss word for masses of gravel, and sand and
stone. Bohr notes Esmark’s work on establishing the
heights of various Norwegian summits, and it is clear
that he must have visited Jostedal and was familiar
with its glaciers.
The delayed impact of Esmark’s hypothesis
Despite the availability of an English translation of
Esmark’s paper, and an extended French summary
(Esmark, 1827), it appears to have had little impact on
the British geological community. The reasons behind
the delayed acceptance of the glacial theory have
attracted the attention of science historians. Rudwick
(1969), in a review arising from the publication of an
English translation of Agassiz’s Studies on Glaciers
monograph of 1840, points out that the diluvial theory,
which invoked a universal deluge linked to the Mosaic
testimony, was very persuasive. He argued that this
was especially so when viewed in the context of a
clearly anomalous recent Earth history. Support was
strengthened by an awareness of the tsunami generated
by the 1755 Lisbon earthquake and its coastal impact.
Further, there was considerable conceptual difficulty in
reconciling the huge areas of northern and central
Europe (hypothetically affected by glaciation) with the
comparatively limited areas occupied by modern
glaciers. Even Professor B. M. Keilhau (1797-1858), a
younger geological colleague of Esmark at the
University of Christiania, advocated the flood
hypothesis until 1840, even though he had experience
of the Jotunheimen glaciated region, north Norway and
Svalbard (Keilhau, 1831; Andersen, 2000). Keilhau
joined the Wernerian Natural History Society in 1836,
and became the seventh member from Norway. In
opposing such deeply embedded conventional
wisdom, Esmark’s perception is truly remarkable.
Although Rudwick cites Esmark’s paper, he did not
convey the full nature of its content, and in particular
made no mention of what Esmark regarded as the
strongest proof - the end moraine of Vassryggen.
Unfortunately, Esmark’s paper has on occasion
escaped the attention of some major historians of
glacial geology and glaciology. Inexplicably, Esmark
is not mentioned at all in the authoritative two-part
Norwegian tome on glacial matters published by the
Norwegian Polar Institute (Hoel & Werenskiold, 1962;
and Hoel & Norvik, 1962). James Geikie, who was
long associated with Edinburgh and glacial geology,
appears never to have discussed or cited it in his
voluminous writings. Yet he was a friend of Helland,
who was the first Norwegian geologist to investigate
and publish on Vassryggen after Esmark (Helland,
1875), and cites this latter paper in his book Prehistoric
Europe (Geikie, 1881). Even more surprisingly, North
(1943) is silent in his very detailed review of the
glacial theory marking the centenary of Agassiz’s 1840
visit to Britain, despite the paper’s subtitle notes on
manuscripts and publications relating to its origin,
development and its introduction into Britain. Chorley
et al. (1964), in the first volume of their masterful
history of global geomorphology, appear to be unaware
of the contents of Esmark’s paper, and make no
specific reference to him in their chapter reviewing the
development of the glacial theory. Yet, in their
informative index, there is an entry for Esmarch
(Esmarck). This simply records that this worker is
noted to have expressed the view that the Norwegian
glaciers were once much more extensive.
Paradoxically, in their main text they include a
quotation from Sir Roderick Murchison’s paper of
1835-1836. This reveals that even though Murchison
remained unconvinced, he was clearly aware of
‘Esmarck’s’ interpretations and attendant implications
(p205). Probably this citation accounts for the index
entry. Hansen (1970) focussed on the role of Agassiz
and Lyell, apparently unaware of the existence of
Esmark’s paper and the activities of Jameson. Bill
Sarjeant (1980: v2, p968-9), in his massive multi-
volume history, has a brief entry on ‘Esmarch’ as a
mineralogist, but sadly omits any mention of his
landmark glacial paper.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3) 167
The reawakening
Following the founding of the British Glaciological
Society in 1946, the Journal of Glaciology was
launched, and it soon commenced a series of articles
on the theme of Early discoverers. The fourth of these,
Esmark on glaciation, was communicated by Kaare
Strøm, the distinguished Norwegian Professor of
Geography and Limnology in the University of Oslo.
This paper consisted of an extract from the Esmark
translation of 1826 of that part relating to the glaciation
of Norway. Apart from tinkering with the spelling of
some geographical names, he somewhat
disappointingly makes virtually no comment on the
significance of the text (Strøm, 1950). Changing
geographical names remains a continuing problem in
Norway, in part because of the existence of two official
languages, Riksmål and Nynorsk, with their range of
dialects and spelling reforms.
Finally Boreas, which is an international
Quaternary research journal, later initiated a series
called Boreas Pioneers with a similar objective to the
Early discoverers just mentioned. From a Norwegian
standpoint, Bjørn Andersen (1992) contributed a
comprehensive analysis and review of the significance
of Esmark’s paper. Both Andersen and Borns (1994) in
their attractive textbook and Andersen (2000) in his
popular book on The Ice Age in Norway briefly cover
the work of Esmark, and Vassryggen in particular.
Unfortunately, as of 2005, this latter book was not
available in any British library.
The glacial geology of the Forsand area
Vassryggen end moraine lies in Forsand Kommune
(district). In the earlier literature Forsand is spelt
Fossand. Forsand is an extended village stretching
from the coast inland along the featureless valley floor
towards the end moraine. It lies at the eastern margin
of the mouth of Lysefjorden, a magnificent classic
glacial trough flooded by the sea (Ahlmann, 1919;
Andersen, 2000). At one very accessible overlook
called Preikestolen (the priest’s pulpit), the fjord wall
drops vertically for 600m (Fig. 8). The bathymetry of
the fjord was investigated by Kaare Strøm, who
established that the maximum water depth is 457m
(Strøm, 1936). Towards the lower end of the main
Lysefjord trough, at a low elevation on the east shore,
a narrow valley diverges to run roughly parallel with
the master feature. Southwards this widens into a
valley occupied by the lake known as Haukalivatnet.
The north slope of the Vassryggen end moraine forms
the southern shore of this lake, which now drains out to
the north, against the direction of former ice flow.
Following Esmark, four Norwegian geologists have
contributed to a growing understanding of the area’s
glacial history. First, Helland (1875) discussed the
genesis of moraines and terraces bordering the lower
ends of lakes, since landform associations of this
character are widespread in southern Norway. He
highlighted Esmark’s description and added that the
moraine crest is 35m above the lake. He inferred a
local relative sea level some 35m above that of the
present at the time of formation.
Second, Reusch (1901), with the aid of a sketch
map, briefly commented on the occurrence of the
sandars extending between Vassryggen and the eastern
segment of the Lysefjorden end moraine at Forsand
(Fossan) and appreciated that they were contemporary.
Third, Hansen (1913) in a long paper on the theme
of the Ice Age in the Sørlandet region, recognised that
an end moraine and raised shoreline system that had
been named Ra (ra is an old Norwegian term for ridge)
was extensive; he incorporated the observations of
Esmark, Helland and Reusch in his discussion.
Finally, Andersen (1954), on the basis of
geomorphological mapping of ice-marginal morainic
features, was able to accurately reconstruct the
dimensions of the last (Younger Dryas) Lysefjord
glacier. He demonstrated that it was an outlet glacier
extending from an inland ice source for about 30 km to
the sea, with a maximum ice thickness of 1300m and a
surface slope towards its terminus of 75 m/km. Inland,
the gradient was reduced to 20 m/km. At the mouth of
Lysefjorden, beyond the confining valley walls, the
glacier terminus was seen to have expanded to form a
lobate foot extending into Høgsfjorden. Today, the
main frontal end moraine remains submerged below
sea level at a depth between 10 and 15 m, but its lateral
margins are emergent as two separate arcuate ridges on
each side of the fjord mouth.
Figure 8. The view south past Preiteskolen, the rock ledge
600m above Lysefjorden, with the first lake just visible in the
glaciated trough that continues to Haukalivatn.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3)168
Andersen’s model shows how a distributary of the
Lysefjord glacier entered the sub-trough now occupied
by Haukalivatnet lying at 53-54m above sea level, to
form Vassryggen at its southern terminus. Unlike the
main trunk glacier, this branch ended above the
contemporary sea level, and rather than forming a
calving ice margin, it produced a typical sub-aerial end
moraine with a sandur extending from the glacier
margin towards the sea which at that time was some
40m above that of present. Although partially covered
in forest today, the Vassryggen ridge is about 800m
long forming a prominent arcuate landform rising to
20-30m above its surroundings (Fig. 9). The proximal
slope is steep and descends below the lake level to a
maximum depth of 30m. In contrast, the distal slope is
shallower and abruptly terminates at the head of the
southward-sloping palaeosandur surface known locally
as Fossanmoen (Fig. 10). The sandur splits around the
till-plastered bedrock hill of Sadåsen (Figs. 2 and 9).
In composition, the moraine surface is typical of
glacial ridges in the Norwegian mountains, consisting
of a bimodal mixture of mainly sub-rounded large
cobble and boulder-sized clasts, set within a sandy
gravely matrix. Close to the eastern end of Vassryggen,
there is a breach in the ridge where a glacial meltwater
river discharged. Since this channel is incised a little
into the sandur surface extending across the valley
floor, it is likely that it was active for a short period
after the ice had withdrawn from the maximum limit.
Interestingly, Esmark was clearly aware of the
significance of this feature.
Recently in connection with a ground water study,
seismic data, ground penetrating radar and boreholes
have substantially augmented the Quaternary
geological data base of the area immediately around
Vassryggen (Eckholdt & Wahl, 2002). Two water
abstraction wells sunk close to the intake of the former
meltwater breach in the end moraine attained depths of
26m and 32m. These reveal a variable succession of
sand, sandy gravels, gravels and till. The geophysical
measurements suggest that the bedrock beneath the
sandur is overlain by 40-50m of sediment infill.
During the readvance maximum, the eastern side
of the lobate foot of the trunk Lysefjord glacier built
an end moraine that blocked the former exit of the
east-west trending Forsand valley, thereby obliging the
Figure 10. Vassryggen, from the distal side looking north
from the hill of Sadåsen, with part of the lake of Haukalivatn
visible beyond the moraine ridge.
Figure 9. Forsand area with Vassryggen and the Younger
Dryas ice limit after Andersen. (Base map from Statens
Kartverk M711 Series Sheet 1212 1 Høle. 1:50,000, 1991)
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3) 169
meltwater issuing from it to build a sandur sloping to
the south east. This meltwater merged with another
westward directed flow originating from Vassryggen,
and the combined river went around the southern side
of the bedrock hill of Åslund (136m). In the process, an
extending delta was created where it entered the sea
(Fig. 11). Post-glacially the modern Forsandåna
(Fossanåna) river system has incised into the delta-
sandar surface as it adjusted its bed in response to an
overall lowering of sea level due to isostatic uplift.
These sandur and allied deltaic sediments are
economically important sources of aggregate and sand. A
factory on the shore at Forsand processes the sand to
produce a dry ready-mix mortar that is transported by ship.
Where quarrying has occurred, sections reveal an
earlier lower valley infill consisting of till and outwash
sediments with giant erratics, which probably date
from the main Weichselian deglaciation. The upper fill
consists of the Younger Dryas sandur and delta
deposits above a paraconformity that separates the two
sequences. Typically they consist of sandy gravels, 3-
6m thick, dominated by near-horizontal stratification
(Fig. 12). On the coast just east of Forsand, huge
volumes of sediment have been quarried, exposing the
once-buried bedrock. A prominent horizontal line on
the hillside marks the former upper surface of the
aggradation, related to the marine limit in Høgsfjorden
at the time of deposition. Several abandoned quarries
line the east side of the road leading from Forsand
towards Vassryggen. In the second of these, the main
succession was seen to be characterised by large scale
cross-bedded sets, signifying the progressive extension
of a delta into the sea. On top of these, up to 5m of
horizontal strata represented the extension of the
sandur deposits across the former delta, the unusual
thickness possibly due to a rising sea level at the time
of aggradation (Andersen, pers. com. 2006; Rose et al,
1977: Lohne et al, 2004).
Regional context of Vassryggen
Andersen (1954) mapped the pattern of deglaciation in
the Ryfylke region of Rogaland County, southwest
Norway (including Forsand), and identified two
concentric end moraine systems produced by distinct
glacier readvances during the wastage of the main
Norwegian ice sheet. These systems he attributed to
what he termed the Lysefjord and the Trollgaren
Stadials. The outer of the glacial limits attributed to the
Lysefjord Stadial incorporated Vassryggen. Later,
Andersen was able to demonstrate that eastwards this
limit could be traced into the Younger Dryas Ra
moraines of Sørlandet and Oslo fjord. Ultimately,
landforms associated with the Younger Dryas ice
margins could be traced throughout Fennoscandia.
These landforms are interpreted as signifying a glacial
re-advance induced by the dramatic climatic
deterioration during the Younger Dryas (known as the
Loch Lomond Stadial in Britain) with an absolute age
of 12.8 - 11.6 ka BP. A Younger Dryas readvance of at
least 40 km to the Herdla moraine can be demonstrated
in the area north of Bergen (Mangerud, 2000).
It is important to appreciate that the Younger Dryas
glacial readvance was superimposed on an overall
pattern of ice retreat from the Last Glacial Maximum
ice border that lay off-shore in southwest Norway.
Hence, outside the Younger Dryas maximum limit, the
landscape contains abundant evidence of both
erosional and depositional glacial processes. It is often
difficult to differentiate these slightly older features
from the slightly younger landforms and deposits,
since they were formed by the same processes. Also it
has to be recognised that glacial erosional forms in
bedrock represent the end products of repeated
Quaternary glaciations.
Figure 11. Palaeogeographical reconstruction of the
Forsand area when the Vassrygg moraine was being formed
at the Younger Dryas maximum, 12,700 - 11,400 cal yr BP.
Figure 12. Section through the sandur deposits in Quarry A,
showing the characteristic horizontal stratification.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3)170
Conclusions
The glacial depositional landforms in the Forsand area
are of special significance in the development of ideas
concerning global climatic change. Jens Esmark was
clearly a scientist of exceptional merit, since he had the
perception to identify and interpret a range of evidence
occurring across much of northern Europe in terms of
a now-vanished phase of extensive glaciation.
Specifically at Vassryggen, some distance from
modern glaciers, he had the ability to see that this end
moraine landform was essentially identical to those
which had been produced by modern glaciers.
Unfortunately, his contemporaries were mostly unable
to comprehend the importance of his hypothesis,
although Robert Jameson did appreciate that it
provided an innovative explanation for features in
Scotland that had previously been attributed to a
deluge. Even though Jameson was not himself a
specialist worker in the field, he attempted to bring
Esmark’s hypothesis to a wider audience by having it
translated into English and by featuring it in his lecture
course. Of equal importance was his pioneering
attempt to apply the hypothesis to the interpretation of
Scotland’s scenery.
These days, the public at large is almost daily being
reminded by the media that much of the modern
world’s glacial ice is potentially unstable due to
feedback processes arising from anthropogenic
atmospheric pollution. Doomsday scenarios predict
imminent catastrophic glacier collapse and awful
effects on coastlines and their populations. It is
appropriate to recall the lessons from the investigation
of recent Earth history, particularly the Younger Dryas
climatic deterioration. This was both preceded and
followed by abrupt climate change, as is clearly
apparent in the isotope stratigraphy of the Greenland
ice-sheet (Fig. 13). Rapid global change is not a new
phenomenon, although the Younger Dryas shifts were
only experienced by small human populations unlike
those confronting any imminent future change.
From the perspective of both prehistoric rapid
climatic change and the conceptual development of the
glacial theory, it is suggested that the Forsand glacial
geology warrants listing as a candidate for World
Heritage Site status. This would have the merit of
bringing the pioneering work of Esmark and his key
site to the attention of a much greater lay and
professional audience than hitherto. It would also help
to ensure that any future quarry developments would
be in areas that would not jeopardise this largely
pristine landscape.
Acknowledgements
Grateful thanks are extended to Inger-Anita and Jonathan
Merkesdal-Hall of Forsand for hospitality, Bjørn Andersen,
Patrick Boylan, John Catt, Einar Eckholdt, Gordon Herries
Davies, Steve Gurney, Geir Hestmark, Paul Kerswill, Jan
Mangerud, Jim Rose, Péter Rózsa, Catherine Side, Hugh
Torrens and Tony Waltham for encouragement and help
during the preparation of this paper.
References
Agassiz, E.C. (ed), 1885. Louis Agassiz: his life and
correspondence, I, London: Macmillan. xiii+399pp.
Agassiz, L., 1840-1. Glaciers and the evidence of their having once
existed in Scotland, Ireland and England. Proceedings of the
Geological Society of London, 3, 327-332.
Agassiz, L., 1876. Geological sketches, Second Series. Boston:
James R. Osgood and Company, 229pp.
Ahlmann, H.W., 1919. Geomorphological studies in Norway.
Geografiska Annaler, 1, 11-148.
Andersen, B.G., 1954. Randmorener i Sørvest-Norge. Norsk
Geografisk Tidskrift, 14, 273-342.
Andersen, B.G., 1960. Sørlandet i sen- og postglacial tid. Norges
Geologiske Undersøkelse, 210, 142pp.
Andersen, B.G., 1992. Jens Esmark – a pioneer in glacial geology.
Boreas, 21, 97-102.
Andersen, B.G., 2000. Ice Age Norway. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
(Scandinavian University Press), 216pp.
Andersen, B.G. & Borns, H.W.Jr., 1994. The ice age world. Oslo:
Scandinavian University Press, 208pp.
Andersen, S.A., 1980. Esmark (Esmarch), Jens, 1763-1839. 262-3
in Beh, Sv.C. (ed), Dansk Biografisk Leksikon, 3rd edition, 2.
Barlow, N., (ed), 1958. The autobiography of Charles Darwin,
1809-1882, with original omissions restored. (Edited with
appendix and notes by his grand-daughter), London: Collins,
253pp.
Bohr, G., 1820. Om iisbræerne i Jostedalen og om Lodalskaabe.
Christiania, 29pp.
Bohr, G., 1827. Account of a visit to the glaciers of Justedal and the
mantle of Lodal. The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 2,
255-264.
Boylan, P.J., 1998. Lyell and the dilemma of Quaternary glaciation.
145-149 in Blundell, D.J. & Scott, A.C. (eds), Lyell: the past
is the key to the present. Geological Society Special
Publication, 143.
Figure 13. The signal of the Younger Dryas climatic
deterioration, as expressed by oxygen isotope variations in
a central Greenland ice core (after Grootes and Stuiver,
1997). The time scale is in thousands of years before present
(“present” is 1950AD); 11,600 years ago, the temperature
increased by about 8ºC within no more than a few decades.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3) 171
Browne, J., 1995. Charles Darwin Voyaging, Volume 1 of a
biography. London: Jonathan Cape, 605pp.
Buckland, W., 1840. Notice of deceased members: Jens Esmark.
Proceedings of Geological Society of London, 3(67), 260-261.
Buckland, W., 1840-1841. A memoir on the evidences of glaciers
in Scotland and the North of England. Proceedings of the
Geological Society of London, 3, 332-337 and 345-348.
Charlesworth, J.K., 1957. The Quaternary Era. London: Edward
Arnold, 1700pp.
Chorley, R.J., Dunn, A.J. & Beckinsale, R.P., 1964. The history of
the study of landforms, or the development of geomorphology.
London: Methuen, 1, 678pp.
Cunningham, F.F., 1990. James David Forbes, Pioneer Scottish
Glaciologist. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 329pp.
Davies, G.L., 1968. Another forgotten pioneer of the Glacial
Theory: James Hutton. Journal of Glaciology, 7, 115-116.
Davies, G.L., 1969. The Earth in decay. London: Macdonald
Technical and Scientific, 390pp.
Donner, J., 1995. The Quaternary history of Scandinavia.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200pp.
Eckholdt, E. & Wahl, S., 2002. Grunnvannsundersøkelser ved
Vassryggen, Forsand. Feltrapport med brønndimensjonering.
Moss: Miljøgeologi AS, unpublished report 17pp.
Esmark, J., 1798. Kurze Beschreibung einer mineralogischen Reise
durch Ungarn, Siebenbürgen und das Bannat. Freyberg: Im
Verlage der Crazischen Buchhandlung, 191pp.
Esmark, J., 1799. Extrait d’un voyage mineralogique en Hongrie,
Transylvanie, et dans le Bannat. Journal des Mines, Paris,
8(47), 805-830.
Esmark, [J.], 1816. Description of a new ore of Tellurium.
Transactions Geological Society of London, 1st Ser., 3, 413-
414.
Esmark, J., 1824. Bidrag til vor jordklodes historie. Magazin for
Naturvidenskaberne, 2(1), 29-54.
Esmark, [J.], 1826. Remarks tending to explain the geological
history of the Earth. The Edinburgh New Philosophical
Journal, 2, 107-121.
Esmark, J., 1827. Abstract. Bulletin des sciences naturalles et de
geologie, 11, 402-3.
Esmark, J., 1829a. Reise fra Christania til Trondhjem op igiennem
Østerdalen og tilbage over Dovre I samt en tour til Jamteland.
Christiania: Chr. Gröndahl, vi+81pp, map.
Esmark, J., 1829b. Reise von Christiania nach Drontheim durch
Oesterdalen und zurück über Dovre, nebst einem Abstrecher
nach Jemteland. Christiania: Chr. Gröndahl, 83pp, folded map.
Geikie, A., 1909. Charles Darwin as geologist: the Rede Lecture
given at the Darwin Centennial Commenoration on 24 June
1909. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91pp.
Geikie, J., 1882. Prehistoric Europe, a geological sketch. London:
Edward Stanford, 592pp.
Grootes, P.M. & Stuiver, M., 1997. Oxygen 18/16 variability in
Greenland snow and ice with 10-3 to 105year time resolution.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 102(C12), 26455-26470.
Hansen, A.M., 1913. Fra istiderne: Sørlandet. Videnskabernes
Selskabs i Kristiania. Skrifter I, Mathematiske-Natur-
vidensabelig, 2, 1-108.
Hansen, B., 1970. The early history of glacial theory in British
geology. Journal of Glaciology, 9, 135-141.
Helland, A., 1875. Om beliggenheden af moraener og terrasser
foran mange indsöer. Öfversigt af Kungliga Vetenskaps-
Akademiens Förhandlingar, 32(1), 53-82.
Herbert, S., 2005. Charles Darwin, geologist. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 485pp.
Hoel, A. & Norvik, J., 1962. Glaciological bibliography of Norway.
Norsk Polarinstitutt Skrifter, 126, 242pp.
Hoel, A. & Werenskiold, W., 1962. Glaciers and snowfields in
Norway. Norsk Polarinstitutt Skrifter, 114, 291pp.
Jameson, R., 1821. Manual of mineralogy: containing an account
of simple minerals and also a description and arrangement of
mountain rocks. Edinburgh: Constable, 501pp.
Keilhau, B.M., 1831. Reise i Öst og Vest-Finmarken samt til
Beeren-Eiland og Spitsbergen i aarene 1827-1828. Christiania:
Cappelen, 247pp.
Kettner, R., 1964. Jens Esmark (1763-1839). Casopis pro
Mineralogii a Geologii, 9, 126-7(in Czech).
Lohne, Ø., Bondevik, S., Mangerud, J. & Schrader, H., 2004.
Calendar year age estimates of Allerød – Younger Dryas sea-
level oscillations at Os, western Norway. Journal of
Quaternary Science, 18, 443-464.
Mangerud, J., 2000. Was Hardangerfjorden, western Norway,
glaciated during the Younger Dryas? Norsk Geologisk
Tidsskrift, 80, 229-234.
Menzies, J., 2002. Glacial environments – modern and past. 1-13
in Menzies, J. (ed), Modern and past glacial environments, a
revised student edition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Murchison, R. I., 1835-36. The gravels and alluvia of S. Wales and
Siluria as distinguished from a northern drift covering
Lancashire, Cheshire, N. Salop, and parts of Worcester and
Gloucester. Proceedings of the Geological Society of London,
2, 230-232, 333-336 [nb pp233-332 are missing].
North, F.J., 1943. Centenary of the glacial theory. Proceedings of
the Geologists’ Association, 54, 1-28.
Popperwell, R.G., 1972. Norway. London: Ernest Benn, 335pp.
Price, R.J., 1983. Scotland’s environment during the last 30,000
years. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 224pp.
Reusch, H., 1901. En notis om istidsgruset ved Lysefjordens
munding. Norsk geologiske undersøkelse, 32, 95-98.
Rose, J., Pennington, W. & Catt, J.A., 1977. Quaternary Research
Association Study Course South Norway, August 1976.
Quaternary Newsletter, 21, 1-17.
Rózsa, P., Kázmér, M. & Papp, P., 2003. Activities of volcanist and
neptunist ‘natural philosophers’ and their observations in the
Tokaj Mountains (NE Hungary) in the late 18th century
(Johann Ehrenreich von Frichtel, Robert Townson and Jens
Esmark). Földtani Közlöny, 133, 125-140.
Rudwick, M.J.S., 1969. The glacial theory. History of Science, 8,
136-157.
Rudwick, M.J.S., 2005. Bursting the limits of time. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 708pp.
Rørdam, K., 1890. Jens Esmarch (Esmark). 596-7 in Bricka, C.K.
(ed), Dansk biografisk lexicon, 4.
Sarjeant, W.A.S., 1980. Geologists and the History of Geology : an
international bibliography from the origins to 1978.London:
Macmillan.
Schetelig, J., 1926. Esmark, Jens, 1763-1839. 592-4 in Bull, E &
Jansen, E. (eds), Norsk Biografisk Leksikon. Oslo,
Aschehough, 3.
Schiffuer, C., 1935. Aus dem Leben alter Freiberger
Bergstudenten. E. Mauskisch, xv+375pp.
Secord, J.A., 1991. The discovery of a vocation: Darwin’s early
geology. British Journal History of Science, 24, 133-157.
Sissons, J.B., 1967. The evolution of Scotland’s scenery.
Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 259pp.
Strøm, K., 1936. Land-locked waters. Norsk Videnskapsakademis
Skrifter, 7.
Strøm, K., 1950. Early Discoverers: IV, Esmark on glaciation.
Journal of Glaciology, 1, 388-391.
Peter Worsley
39 St James Close, Pangbourne, RG8 7AP
p.worsley@reading.ac.uk
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (3)172
