The British geological survey's glaciological expedition to arctic Norway in 1865

Abstract

During the two decades after 1841, the Glacial Theory was, at best, quiescent in Britain. The 1865 expedition arose from a progressive resurgence of interest in glacigenic sediments. The members were three young Geological Survey officers, Archibald and James Geikie and William Whitaker, all with recent drift mapping experience. Their objectives included making 'actualistic' observations of modern glaciers, comparing Norwegian and Scottish glacial features, and better comprehending glacial deposits, both ancient and modern. Field investigations were focused on two areas of Arctic Norway - Holandsfjord (Nordland) and Bergsfjord Peninsula (Tromsø-Finnmark). Their work produced the earliest known detailed glacial geological analysis (including accurate drawings, sketches, maps and cross sections) of any Scandinavian ice-marginal environments. These data permit a comparison of ice marginal and proglacial environmental changes between 1865 and the present day associated with the key Holandsfjord glaciers-Engabreen and Fondalsbreen. The characters of the ice margins in 1865 and 2005 are compared and, in conjunction with other observations, yield one of the most comprehensive records of Neoglaciation anywhere. In the Bergsfjord Peninsula, the 1865 details are more sparse, except for the Jøkulfjord regenerated glacier. The impact of the 1865 work on the Glacial Theory and subsequent careers of the participants was clearly significant.

Full text

Abstract: During the two decades after 1841, the Glacial Theory was, at best, quiescent in Britain.
The 1865 expedition arose from a progressive resurgence of interest in glacigenic sediments. The
members were three young Geological Survey officers, Archibald and James Geikie and William
Whitaker, all with recent drift mapping experience. Their objectives included making ‘actualistic’
observations of modern glaciers, comparing Norwegian and Scottish glacial features, and better
comprehending glacial deposits, both ancient and modern. Field investigations were focused on
two areas of Arctic Norway - Holandsfjord (Nordland) and Bergsfjord Peninsula (Tromsø-
Finnmark). Their work produced the earliest known detailed glacial geological analysis (including
accurate drawings, sketches, maps and cross sections) of any Scandinavian ice-marginal
environments. These data permit a comparison of ice marginal and proglacial environmental
changes between 1865 and the present day associated with the key Holandsfjord glaciers -
Engabreen and Fondalsbreen. The characters of the ice margins in 1865 and 2005 are compared
and, in conjunction with other observations, yield one of the most comprehensive records of
Neoglaciation anywhere. In the Bergsfjord Peninsula, the 1865 details are more sparse, except for
the Jøkulfjord regenerated glacier. The impact of the 1865 work on the Glacial Theory and
subsequent careers of the participants was clearly significant.
The British Geological Survey’s
Glaciological Expedition to Arctic Norway in 1865
Peter Worsley
In the summer of 1865, Archibald (Archie) Geikie
(1835-1924) in the company of his brother James
(Jamie) Murdoch Geikie (1839-1915), and William
Whitaker (1836-1925), undertook a landmark glacio-
logical expedition to northern Norway (Figs 1 and 2).
All three were then junior serving officers of the
Geological Survey of Great Britain. They appear to
have had official encouragement to gain ‘actualistic’
field experience relating to ‘the hot topic of the day’ in
Quaternary geology, namely the debate over the land-
ice v marine-iceberg hypotheses in accounting for
landforms and sediments associated with former
glaciation in Britain and elsewhere.
The expedition formed a key stage in development
of the Glacial Theory in Britain, and had a major
impact on the participants’ subsequent geological
work, but it also provides an opportunity to compare
the glaciers in 1865 with their equivalents of today.
The participants
Archie Geikie was born in Edinburgh in 1835, the
same year that the Geological Survey of Great Britain
was founded. Twenty years later in 1855, he joined the
Survey after a classical high school education and
uncompleted university studies. He progressed rapidly
since, in the 1870s, he concurrently held the
foundation Murchison Chair of Geology and
Mineralogy at Edinburgh University and the
Directorship of the Survey for Scotland. Ultimately, he
rose to become Director General of the whole Survey
and after retirement, President of the Royal Society,
the only geologist ever to attain this prestigious
position (Charles Lyell declined to be nominated in
1863). In the last year of his life he wrote an
autobiography (Geikie 1924) the last achievement in
an extremely prolific record of publication
(Cutter,1974; Oldroyd,1990).
William Whitaker was born in Hatton Garden, City
of London and read chemistry at University College
London before graduating in 1855. After joining the
Survey, his first Survey notebook shows that he
commenced mapping work near Pangbourne, in the
Goring Gap area of Berkshire in May 1857. Thereafter,
for his entire career, he remained based in the southeast
becoming a specialist in both Cretaceous and Tertiary
sequences. He is best known for his seminal work on
the geology of the London Basin and water supply
issues (George 2004). During his career he mapped
glacial deposits of varying ages in greater East Anglia,
including some immediately prior to the expedition
early in 1865.
Jamie Geikie was a younger brother of Archie and
was born in 1839. He became an assistant geologist
with the Survey in 1861 and commenced publishing
during the year after returning from Norway. His epic
book, Great Ice Age, was first published in 1874 and
established him as a world authority on glacial
geology. In 1882, he resigned from the Survey in order
to succeed his elder brother in the Murchison Chair.
This was not an easy decision for him and he would
dearly have liked to have maintained a dual
appointment like that of his elder brother but this was
not approved by the civil service. He occupied his
chair until retirement in 1910.
Glacial Theory before the expedition
Some of the earliest steps in the history of British
glacial theory are recently reviewed in this journal,
(Worsley 2006). One perplexing aftermath of Louis
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4) 263

Agassiz’s famed visit in 1840, is that after a short
euphoric phase, when senior geologists such as
William Buckland and Charles Lyell declared their
conversion to the land ice hypothesis, very serious
doubts started to reassert themselves. An oft quoted
sentence is that of Buckland in a letter to Agassiz (1885
p309) which reads Lyell has adopted your theory in
toto!! On my showing him a beautiful cluster of
moraines within two miles of his father’s house
[Kinnordy in the Vale of Strathmore], he instantly
accepted it, as solving a host of difficulties that have
all his life embarrassed him. Unfortunately, Lyell was
soon to repudiate the land ice concept to again favour
a marine iceberg theory and the British geological
community at large remained highly sceptical.
Buckland, finding himself almost totally isolated, tried
in vain to adopt a conciliatory compromise position.
An American historian, Hansen (1970), asserted
that before his study, no one had directly addressed the
problem of explaining how or why the glacial theory
was not accepted by the geological community in the
1840s. Lacking the advantage of direct experience of
British superficial geology, it is understandable that he
seemingly missed the principal point in
comprehending this conundrum by not fully
appreciating the influence of two key factors. First, the
common occurrence of now isostatically raised in situ
faunas in sediments originally deposited below sea
level. Secondly, that glacially-derived marine faunas of
existing species were often present in both till and
outwash, on occasion at particularly high elevations
(almost 400m) as at Moel Tryfan in north Wales
(Thompson & Worsley 1966). The geologists of the
day sought to interpret and reconcile the factual
evidence afforded by these well-preserved faunas
while not familiar with basic processes such as glacial
ice rafting and glacio-isostatic loading.
In the introduction to his seminal book on
palaeoglaciation, Ramsay (1860 p2) summed up the
situation succinctly by stating It is now 20 years since
Agassiz and Buckland announced that valleys of the
Highlands and of Wales had once been filled with
glaciers. Few but geologists heard the announcement,
and with rare exceptions, those who cared at all about
it, met the glacial theory of the Drift in general, and
that of extinct glaciers in particular, with incredulity,
and sometimes with derision. We should note that
Charles Darwin was one of these exceptions since at
Cwm Idwal he had identified supraglacial debris
associated with cirque glaciation in north Wales
(Darwin 1842, Worsley 2007). Later, Ramsay (1864
p106) observed men sought to explain the phenomena
of this universal glaciation by every method but the
true one. Indeed, Bailey (1952) notes the irony that in
1845 Ramsay attended a Geological Society of London
meeting and afterwards wrote Jolly night at the
Geological. Buckland’s glaciers smashed. Apparently
he converted to a marine version of the glacial theory
in 1848 following a joint examination of the Llanberis
Pass area of North Wales with Robert Chambers, a
committed glacialist who wished to compare the Welsh
with his native Scottish glacial evidence.
From 1845 onwards, Ramsay’s sway on British
geology grew, since in that year he became Local
Director of the Survey for Great Britain, with
responsibility for a field staff of six. His first public
declaration of his belief in the former existence of
glaciers in Wales came at a discourse held at the Royal
Institution in 1850. He instigated a Survey mapping
programme in Scotland in 1854 and this expansion of
activities led to the appointment of Archie Geikie in
the following year. In his 1860 book, Ramsay
continued (p3) it was necessary for competent
observers to investigate the subject both of existing
glaciers in other regions and of drift-ice in the
northern and southern seas; and, accordingly, I have
considered it needful for the thorough understanding
of ancient British glaciers, that some of the phenomena
now easily seen in Switzerland should in the first place
be noticed. Ramsay had twice visited Switzerland, in
1852 (on his honeymoon) and in 1858 in the company
of John Tyndall who also published on Swiss glaciers
in 1860. The first part of Ramsay’s book (pp5-34) is
mainly devoted to his observations of the Swiss Aar
Figure 1. The three
expedition participants:
left: Archibald Geikie,
centre: James Geikie,
right: William Whitaker
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4)264

Glacier. In the second part (pp35-116), he argues in
favour of a phase of land ice glaciation in North Wales
but also for a subsequent major marine submergence
phase accompanied by ice bergs.
With Ramsay as his line manager, it is not
surprising to find that Archie Geikie recalled (1924
p94) that in the following year I deliberately set myself
to undertake a serious study of them [drifts], with the
view of trying to make out the history of the events of
which they are the record. They were commonly
regarded as various marine sediments, spread over the
country when it was submerged under a sea on which
icebergs and rafts of floating ice transported rock
debris from northern lands. He continued by saying
that after field examination of the till and rock head
surfaces beneath, one became more convinced that the
phenomena could not at all be accounted for by
floating ice, but demanded the former existence of a
great terrestrial ice sheet or sheets, as Agassiz had
insisted, twenty years before. He then devoted his 1862
summer holiday leave to making a traverse across
southern Scotland specifically to obtain a better
understanding of the glacial deposits and allied
features. In the following year he accompanied
Ramsay in making a transect along the East Coast from
Berwick to the Humber, examining the glacial
successions and making stone counts (clast lithological
analysis in modern jargon!). As he comments in his
autobiography my mind was rather obsessed at this
time with glacial questions (Geikie, 1924 p99).
Archie Geikie’s first major glacial paper (1863) was
described as The first attempt to present a connected
view of the sequence of events in the history of
Scotland during what is known as the Glacial Period
or Ice Age. This was a formidable achievement for
someone working on a topic largely in their leisure
hours. The paper is particularly illuminating since
Geikie describes how his own interpretations switched
from a drift ice standpoint to a perspective which
accepted land ice as the main agency in the generation
of glacial landforms and deposits. He did not, however,
totally reject the marine submergence concept and
came to adopt a compromise position whereby a main
phase of land ice glaciation was followed by a
submergence episode. Bailey (1952 p73), observed
Ramsay, Jamieson and [A] Geikie at this date [1863]
retained a great deal more submergence in their
philosophy than is commonly admitted today. Indeed,
Jamie Geikie (1881) later wrote …German geologists
continued to hold the opinion that all drift phenomena
of the low ground were due to the action of icebergs
and marine currents until 1875. Even as late as 1916,
J.E. Marr, one of the leading glacial geologists of the
day, stated (p144) the glacialists were divided in
opinion as to the relative importance of land-ice and
floating sea-ice as agents of glaciation, and for some
areas in Britain the matter cannot be yet ultimately
settled.
Both Geikie and Ramsay were aware that
ultimately they were subject to the approval of Sir
Roderick Murchison, who at the relatively advanced
age of 63, had become Director General of the Survey
in 1855. Murchison’s views were anti Darwin’s
evolutionary model and strongly critical of glacial
theories. As Oldroyd (1990) succinctly put it, Geikie
was an uniformitarian (or quietist) while Murchison
was a catastrophist (or convulsionist). Indeed,
Murchison died in 1871 still an unrepentant neo-
diluvialist. Hence, in the first edition of his North
Wales memoir published in 1866, Ramsay was
requested by his superior to be brief in his
physiographic account that favoured glacial erosional
processes in cirque genesis (Bailey, 1952).
Nevertheless, Ramsay must have given his backing
to the proposed expedition since there was a very close
relationship with both Geikie brothers. This is
exemplified by the dedication of the first edition of
Jamie Geikie’s Great Ice Age to ‘A.C. Ramsay dear
friend and teacher’. Additionally, after his death,
Archie wrote a full sympathetic biography on Ramsay
(Geikie, 1895), saying He was almost my earliest
geological friend, and for many years we were bound
together by the closest ties of scientific work and of
unbroken friendship.
Archie, writing the preface to his just completed
book The Scenery of Scotland immediately prior to
departure on the 1865 expedition, noted that the
principles of denudation were laid down long ago by
Hutton and Playfair but that the question of the origin
of valleys remained a controversial issue, and with
Figure 2. The two main study areas in Norway, within the
counties (fylke) of Nordland and Troms/Finnmark.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4) 265

Murchison in mind, possibly disingenuously wrote the
views to which I have been led, run directly counter to
what are still the prevailing impressions on the subject,
and I am therefore prepared to find them disputed, or
perhaps thrown aside as mere dreaming (Geikie,
1865b p96). Later, in the preface to the second edition
(Geikie, 1887), he recalled the controversy raging in
1865 and how William Whitaker’s ideas on sub-aerial
Wealden denudation had contributed support to his
position.
Earlier glacier observations in Norway
Sensibly, some preparatory desk studies were
undertaken prior to the 1865 expedition and these
included the narrative of the Prussian savant Leopold
von Buch (1774-1853), first published in 1810. In this
von Buch described a prolonged journey during 1806-
8 in which he followed a circular route extending from
Christiania (Oslo) to the North Cape and back with the
objectives of (i) investigating the geology, (ii)
examining the role of latitude in determining the
character of the natural vegetation and (iii) observing
human land use till at last, the noxious influence of
snow and ice is destructive to everything which has
life. The translator of the English edition (von Buch,
1813) was John Black, and in a gloomy preface he
anticipated that country (Norway) will in all
probability soon become the theatre of a bloody war, in
which the British nation are pledged to co-operate.
Incidentally, Charles Darwin took a copy of von
Buch’s volume with him during his voyage on the
Beagle, enabling him to appreciate how snow line
elevations and calving tide water glaciers in the
southern hemisphere lay at latitudes much closer to the
equator than their equivalents in the European Arctic.
Two parts were relevant to the BGS expedition.
Firstly, von Buch’s account of the Arctic Circle coastal
districts made during mid June in 1807 (Fig. 3). He
commented perpetual snow lies here and what is still
more the snow has generated glaciers. Between Lurøy
and Bodø his precise route is unclear since the
geographical names which he uses are no longer in
current use. He reported about 4 or 5 English miles
south from the cape [Kunnon] opposite the trading
station of Haasvär, a glacier descends from the height,
and the ice comes into immediate contact with the sea,
a circumstance perhaps peculiar to this glacier. Even
then, the warmth of the summer had merely driven it a
few steps from the shore, but it would probably regain
its former space in a short time. Here he was referring
to the snout of Engabreen part of the Svartisen ice cap
which, uniquely in Scandinavia for an outlet glacier,
descended to sea level. The description of Haasvär as
being opposite is misleading (probably an artefact of
the translation) since it is a small uninhabited island
just beyond Rødøy, over 30 km west of Engabreen.
Secondly, a description of the Bergsfjord Peninsula
(halvøya) glaciers (these are 450 km northeast of
Svartisen), as viewed from the east above Alteid. He
remarked (p232) They remain pendent in the middle
above the steep and almost perpendicular rocks and in
summer the great masses of ice are incessantly
precipitated from above into the Fiord causing the sea
level to rise by several feet for miles (i.e. mini
tsumanis). With the iceberg hypothesis being so
favoured in 1865, the BGS expedition was naturally
attracted to this iceberg-generating locality. Indeed,
British trawlers operating out of the Humber ports
utilised this free freshwater ice in packing their catches
for many decades. Von Buch did not round the
peninsula because of poor sea conditions (Fig. 14).
Another important source of guidance came from
the pioneer Scottish glaciologist J.D.Forbes relating to
a journey he made in 1853 (Forbes 1854). He had
consulted widely with northern experts in Oslo before
heading north. He included a map in the rear of his
book showing his route and, rather crudely, the
distribution of the main permanent snowfields.
Curiously, he labelled the Svartisen ice caps
collectively as Fondalen. The significance of this will
be apparent later. After calling at Rødø [Rødøy] Forbes
sailed non-stop to Bodø but wrote on the right with
more than common majesty; and over the snowy
summits of Fondalen [Svartisen] ….. clearly
distinguish true glaciers, descending from the hollows
of the mountain towards the level of the sea. He was
understandably frustrated that the coastal configuration
foiled his desire to see the glacier termini. He recalled
that von Buch had stated that these glaciers of Fondal
[Svartisen] fall into the sea (Forbes’s italics). He also
expressed scepticism that von Buch or any other
Figure 3. The Nordland coastal area between Rødøy and
Bodø showing the location of places mentioned in the text.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4)266

traveller who has published his observations had
visited the interior of these fjords. However, the insight
shown by von Buch into the mechanism of annual
frontal variations, whereby summer ablation exceeds
forward movement resulting in frontal retreat, suggests
that either he or an associate had first hand knowledge
of the glacier. Archie Geikie made several pages of
notes in his field note book from Forbes’s account
prior to departure for Norway.
Sources relating to the expedition
Archie Geikie’s paper (1866) is a vivid account of their
activities in Norway, and later a slightly revised
version formed a chapter in his book Geological
Sketches at Home and Abroad (1882a). A short
socially oriented outline is included in his
autobiography written almost 50 years later (Geikie
1924). His unpublished field note book, DD, gives
both logistical and further valuable observational data
and sketches (Geikie, 1865a). This is preserved in the
archives of Haslemere Educational Museum, an
institution that Archie encouraged in the last decade of
his life while living in that town.
Unfortunately Jamie appears to have left little
written material specifically relating to his expedition
experiences. As his biographers wrote Unfortunately
only the barest notes of this visit remain ….and we do
not know what impressions were obtained (Newbigin
& Flett, 1917). Nevertheless, they were able to fill in
some details of the expedition which otherwise would
not be known.
Sadly, no record has been identified concerning
observations made by William Whitaker while in
Norway, other than oblique comments. He appears not
to have published anything specific arising directly
from his experiences (see later). His official
Geological Survey notebooks are in the BGS archive at
Keyworth, but, alas, the volume covering the period
October 1864 to August 1865 has a tantalising gap in
his dated notes extending from June 19 to August 16.
It is probable that he kept a separate field notebook (as
did Archie) specifically devoted to the expedition, but
its location is not known.
Expedition organisation and route
The expedition had originally been planned for the
summer of 1863, consisting solely of Archie Geikie
and his friend and colleague John Young (1835-1902).
They had been school friends and sometimes Archie’s
junior brother Jamie was ‘allowed’ to accompany them
on fossil hunting trips. Young first went into medicine
but then decided that a geological career was
preferable, so as Dr Young, he joined the Scottish
branch of the Survey at the same time as Jamie Geikie
in 1861. Unspecified, ‘unforeseen circumstances’
caused a year’s postponement and during that time
Young withdrew, with his place being filled by both
Jamie and William Whitaker.
The principal objective was the examination of
modern glacial environments as an aid to the
interpretation of landforms and deposits in Scotland
where the ice still remains on the heights and creeps
down the valleys in glaciers, some of which even
descend to the edge of the sea, ….‘there was every
probability that …light would be thrown on [the ice-
age] in Scotland (Geikie, 1924 pp106-7). Although
access logistics played a role, Norway was selected
primarily since its geological character was similar to
western Scotland. It was known that some glacier
margins were close to the sea, something which
Ramsay knew that the Alps could not provide. The
departure date, June 1865, was apparently determined
by when Archie Geikie could finish correcting the
proofs of his book The Scenery of Scotland (1865b).
Just before their departure, Archie learned that he had
been elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London
(later, the other two members were also elected FRS).
Archie Geikie was leader of the expedition and one
wonders on how a small party consisting of two Scots
brothers and a Londoner related to each other.
Certainly in later years there were disputes between
Geikie senior when he was Director General of the
Geological Survey and William Whitaker over
mapping policy. Furthermore, Jamie is said to have
resented his brother’s dictatorial style and reputedly
did not inform him of his forthcoming book The Great
Ice Age until it was published (Harry Wilson, 1985,
pers. comm.) and this rumour gains support from a
total absence of any mention of Archie in the preface.
Similarly Archie makes no mention of Jamie in his
magnum opus (A Geikie 1882b). Despite this, Archie
did fairly acknowledge that his 1866 paper was the
result of their conjoint observations, although joint
authorship would probably have been more
appropriate. The rear pages of Archie’s field note book
record the financial transactions during the expedition
in great detail and there is little doubt that he also acted
as treasurer (Geikie 1865a). Apparently there was a
budget to finance the expedition in the field (possibly
a subvention from the Survey), and his accounts
separate personal items incurred by each participant
from corporate expenses with William Whitaker being
the most frugal personal spender.
Uncertainty surrounds the precise initial outward
route. In his 1866 account, Archie mentions sailing
from Bergen northwards along the coast, whereas in
his autobiography (written 58 years after the event) he
asserted that it was from Hull direct to Trondheim. In
contrast, Newbigin (1917) reveals that Jamie’s notes
indicate a route from Newcastle to Ålesund and then
up to Trondheim. All sources agree that in Trondheim
they transferred to the daily north bound coastal
steamer and disembarked at the island of Rodoy
[Rödö]. The next leg was by a local ship to the island
of Meløy [Melovær] about 30 km north of the Arctic
Circle (Fig.3). There they overnighted at Melöegaard
[farm] with a Mrs Hagen as host and she introduced the
party to a range of Norwegian cheeses. Thereafter, it
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4) 267

was a journey of at least 15 km by an open
rowing/sailing boat with four oarsmen to their initial
destination at the head of Holandsfjorden. There were
other passengers on board, one a Lutheran pastor with
whom Archie attempted a conversation. Use of
successively English, French and German failed to
solicit a response but was finally met with success
when he spoke Latin. He commented that this was
aided by him having been taught to speak Latin in
Scottish High School tradition.
Close to the end of the fjord, on the crest of a
morainic terrace on the southern flank, lay the farm of
Fondal Gaard (Fig. 4). There Johan Peter Olsen was
the host and his farm served as their base for the
following week during which they investigated both
Engabreen and Fondalsbreen glaciers and the
immediate surroundings (Engabreen is locally known
as Engenbreen). The two glaciers were of the outlet
type and sourced by the same plateau icefield (Fig. 8).
In 1865 Fondal Gaard consisted of a single farm
building dating from c1670 and Knut Dahl, the
grandson of Johan Peter, still lives (2005) in the
original building (Fig. 5). An adjacent building
(Hovedbygningen) dates from c1873, and after 1900
Knut’s father, Adolf Dahl, used it solely to
accommodate the many tourists who arrived by sea.
Concluding their work, the party returned to Meløy
before embarking on a north bound steamer as far as
Bodø. After a stay of four days, the party sailed further
north, unfortunately in poor weather, via Lofotn and
Tromsø to the island of Skjaervö (Fig. 14). There they
chartered a sailing boat for the not insignificant
journey across Kvænangenfjord and on into its branch
of Jökelfjorden, part of the Bergsfjord Peninsula. At
the head of the inner part of this latter fjord (the
appropriately named Isfjorden) they expected to find a
calving glacier as reported by both von Buch and
Forbes. This proved still to be the case, with the sea
dotted by small icebergs. This glacier is technically a
regenerated glacier being fed by snow and ice
avalanching from a short lobe of the Øksfjordjøkel
plateau icefield. After a night in a fisherman’s hut, they
could not move far because of an adverse wind. As a
consequence, the following night was spent in the boat
as it headed west back to Skjaervö. Two days were
spent recovering before embarking again on a
northbound coastal steamer to the next port of call at
Loppen [Loppa]. From here, another boat was
chartered for a journey initially south up Sørdre
Bergsfjord, to the hamlet of Bergsfjord where they
landed. They climbed up an adjacent valley in order to
observe two outlet glaciers sourced by the
Svartfjelljøkel ice cap. They then sailed northeast
down Nordre Bergsfjord and subsequently eastwards
as far as Nusfjorden where they again landed. After
this they returned to Loppen to join another coastal
steamer, which took them to the most northerly latitude
they attained (over 70˚ N) at Hammerfest.
Here, they then turned south and returned direct by
coastal steamer to Trondheim, staying at the Bellevue
Hotel before continuing along the coast down to
Bergen before crossing the North Sea to Grimsby in a
Dutch steamer. It is most probable that William
Whitaker took leave of his Scots companions in
Grimsby and caught a direct Great Northern Railway
train south to London since his Geological Survey field
note book (p54) shows him mapping close to
Canterbury on August 16. Certainly, the two brothers
first travelled to Hull (via the Humber ferry from New
Holland) and then onto York and finally Edinburgh.
This inconvenient routing was taken, because the
Keadby rail bridge over the River Trent was not
completed until October, 1865.
Figure 4. The inner Holandsfjorden region, showing the
Engabre and Fondalsbre outlet glaciers at three stages –
Neoglacial maximum, 1865 and 1968.
Figure 5. The original Fondal Gaard building dating from
c1660 AD. and where the expedition stayed when based in
Holandsfjord. The current owner, Knut Dahl, still lives there,
and the white building behind is the Hovedbygningen.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4)268

Chronology of the modern glaciers
Current conventional wisdom accepts that during the
Last Glacial Maximum (c20 ka BP), most, if not all of
northern Norway, was buried beneath part of a single
Fenno-Scandinavian ice sheet which extended towards
the edge of the continental shelf. After this event, a
phase of essentially continuous recession followed,
resulting in many of the outer fjord and skerry areas
being ice-free by c12 ka BP. Further retreat freed
many of the fjords, but during the subsequent Younger
Dryas climatic deterioration a widespread glacier
resurgence was induced and some recently abandoned
cirques were reoccupied. This is the same re-advance
event which led to the construction of the Vassrygg end
moraine in S W Norway (Worsley 2006).
This Younger Dryas readvance is often delineated
by a chain of prominent moraine ridges, especially in
the fjords, with Holandsfjord and the Bergsfjord
Peninsula being no exceptions to this model. Also,
relative sea level in the area lay at around 100 m higher
today’s. This correlates with a significant bench
feature, the Main Shoreline, forming a prominent
component of the modern landscape since it is often
eroded into the bedrock, indicating particularly
effective shoreline processes at that time. Many
Younger Dryas glacier lobes ended in the sea, creating
glacio-aquatic end moraines characterised by a crude
deltaic structure. An excellent example is the terminal
moraine ridge on which Fondal farm is located. In
recent decades glacio-deltaic facies exposed below the
farm in a large aggregate quarry have confirmed its sub
marine origin. A coeval consanguineous feature at the
mouth of the Enga valley is probably present, but here
a combination of Holocene fluvial, glacier and marine
erosional processes has resulted in the removal of the
emerged (above sea level) component. Hence, there is
a very marked contrast in the degree of post
depositional modification by erosion between the
relatively protected north-facing Fondalen and the
exposed high energy environment at the mouth of the
west-facing lower Enga valley at the head of the fjord.
With the advent of rapidly rising temperatures
heralding the Holocene Interglacial, ice recession
recommenced and by the mid-Holocene little glacial
ice, if any, remained, even in the mountains (Andersen,
2000). Following the climatic optimum, in the late
Holocene there was renewed glacier growth heralding
the start of the Neoglacial. Generally, in the eighteenth
century, the Neoglacial maximum ice extent was
attained, i.e. the culmination of the Little Ice Age (Fig.
6). No instance of Neoglacial ice extending beyond the
Younger Dryas ice advance limits has been identified
although the Engabreen Neoglacial limit is almost
coincident with that of the Younger Dryas (see later).
Generally, Little Ice Age maximum advance limits are
expressed by a significant contrast in the vegetation on
either side of an end/lateral moraine’s trim-line system.
In the rarer instances where this limit lies below tree
line, as is the case in Holandsfjorden, its location within
the present day forest is less obvious in the field. In
1865 there was, of course, no knowledge of this glacial
chronology, although it was generally understood that
there had been overall ice recession from an outer
maximum off-shore to the modern glacier margins.
Hence, there was the reasonable assumption, that any
moraine ridges reflected either ice marginal oscillations
or standstills during a single recession.
Neoglaciation at Engabreen and Fondalsbreen
With most glaciers, little is known about pre-
eighteenth century glacier variations, and this is the
case with Fondalsbreen. Uniquely for Scandinavia
however, the ice advance maximum of Engabreen
dates not from the classical Little Ice Age maximum of
the eighteenth century but rather is significantly
earlier, and probably dates from the early 13th century.
This conclusion is supported by a range of evidence,
including stratigraphy and spatial relationships of a
buried soil, comparative development of surface soils
on the crests of a series of moraine ridges, and sandur
geomorphology. Since the lower part of the glacier lies
below the regional tree line, the rates of weathering
and pedogenesis in the deglacierised zone are
enhanced relative to areas above it. A key factor in
dating the glacial variations lies in an ability to unravel
the chronosequence of soil development, specifically
being able to confidently identify where the 1865 AD
Figure 6. The Little Ice Age as represented by the oxygen
isotope signature from a central Greenland ice core in a
record from 1000 to 2000 AD that indicates temperature
variations relative to today’s. Engabreen reached its
maximum extent at c 1300, whereas Fondalsbreen was at its
most extensive in the mid-18th century, as were virtually all
the other Scandinavian glaciers.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4) 269

ice margin was situated. That this is possible is entirely
due to the observations made by the 1865 expedition.
Using this datum, Worsley and Alexander (1976), were
able to map those parts of the distal sandur which ante-
date the classical Little Ice Age and identify the likely
site of the farm Storsteinøren, which was so badly
damaged by the eighteenth century ice advance that it
was deleted from the tax roll.
In 1865 the snout of Engabreen displayed two
distinctive types of ice margin. The more southerly
was a proglacial lake into which the glacier was
calving, yielding a scatter of icebergs. The lake was
impounded by a series of moraine ridges, with a breach
through them controlling the height of the lake.
Through this cut a short river flowed directly into the
fjord. This river still functions, with the controlling
threshold height above sea level appearing to be
unchanged. The feeding lake, Engabrevatn, is now
vastly larger following glacial recession.
To the north of the lake, the ice margin was
characterised by the glacier riding into and over glacial
debris consisting of a loose sandy clay or earth full of
stones. This debris contained a reworked fragmentary
marine molluscan fauna derived from sediments
beneath the glacier bed where the glacier was eroding
pre-existing fjord deposits, possibly that part of the
Younger Dryas end moraine which has survived below
sea level. Archie’s sketch sections (Fig. 8) show two
profiles from the glacier across the proglacial area
through the lake and land-based margins. About a
decade after the expedition, the Norwegian geologist J
Rekstad, commenced a long term programme of
monitoring frontal variations in conjunction with
photography. An early photograph (Fig. 9) was taken
from below the icefall looking to the northwest and
this shows that in 1891 the glacier margin had changed
very little from that prevailing in 1865. It gives a good
impression of the ice proximal terrain when the
expedition was in the field.
From the mid 1880s onward there is a continuous
annual record of the terminal position. A significant
readvance culminated in 1911 but this did not attain the
1865 limits. Thereafter, for the next four decades, a
progressive retreat followed and the marginal
meltwater lake, Engabrevatn, expanded. Surprisingly,
since c1960 the position of the glacier terminus has
Figure 7. The glacier of
Engabreen seen from the same
location at the edge of the
palaeosandur close to Steinar
Johansen’s Svartisen farm,
showing the degree of ice
recession through the 20th
century – from 1909 (above) to
1976 (below). The wooden
building has since collapsed
under heavy snow and no
longer exists.
(Photos: 1909 by J. Rekstad;
1976 by P. Worsley)
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4)270

changed very little, and it has shunted by alternately
advancing and retreating over short distances on the
relatively steep bedrock floor above Engabrevatn. This
departure from the global retreat norm is accounted for
by an increase in snow accumulation on the ice cap
which has counter balanced a rise in temperature.
Since the completion of a hydroelectric power scheme
in the 1990s, the main melt water streams have been
tapped sub-glacially, resulting in a greatly reduced
discharge into the lake. This will tend to favour slower
wastage of the glacier tongue.
Fondalsbreen in recent decades has displayed
readily observable frontal changes as the degree of
connectivity of the ice cap margin and a lower
regenerated glacier has varied. During some years
there has been a direct link between the two producing
what is technically an outlet glacier whereas during
others this status has been lost leaving an entirely
regenerated feature. Avalanching of ice blocks from
the plateau ice cap margin down the steep bedrock
backwalls above the regenerated glacier produces a
granular ice mass with a texture not unlike a breccia.
Again, sub-glacial tunnelling has intercepted the melt
Figure 8. Map of the lower Enga valley as drawn by Archie
Geikie, with the two long profiles through the ice margin.
The ice proximal zone has a complex of end moraine ridges
and a sandur extending to the fjord shore.
Figure 9. Engabreen, in 1891, with a glacier marginal
position and ice marginal lake very similar to those in 1865,
when visited by the expedition. (Photo: J. Rekstad)
water and drastically reduced the discharge at the
snout. The contemporary glacier bears no similarity to
that of 1865. In that year the snout of a classical outlet
glacier lay just below an icefall over a bedrock step and
was confined by the bedrock geometry. In sharp
contrast with Engabreen, there was very little glacial
debris at the glacier bed but the bedrock was heavily
striated and smoothed. This is probably the spot where
the expedition members were first able to crawl
beneath an ice margin, being less than a half hour walk
from Johan Peter Olsen’s farm. Here Archie
experienced the revelation which the first sight of a
glacier flashes upon the mind of a geologist and
caught the ice, as it were, in the very act of doing the
work of which I had hitherto only seen the ancient
results (Geikie, 1924 p108). Earlier he had recorded I
crept some yards under the ice, and found the floor of
gneiss on which it rested smoothly polished and
Figure 10. A group of late-19th century investigators at the
snout of Engabreen. Notable visitors at this time included
the German Keiser Wilhelm II and the Prince of Monaco.
Despite the remoteness of Holandsfjord, it was readily
accessible by sea, and numerous cruise liners now visit the
fjord in the summer months.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4) 271

Figure 11. Field sketch
made by Archie Geikie at
Brasetvik on the north
shore of Holandsfjord
(Fig. 4), showing both the
Enga (left) and Fondal
(right) outlet glaciers.
Figure 12. Facsimile of the notebook sketches of
Fondalsbreen drawn by Archie Geikie from a position on the
steep eastern hillside below Midnatsoltind. In 1865 the
glacier had the morphology of a typical outlet glacier, not
unlike that of the modern Engabreen. The long-section
anticipates the presence of a buried rock bar, and
subsequent glacial retreat has shown this to be entirely
correct. From this viewpoint, only the rim of the ice cap at
the top left corner would now be visible.
covered in scorings of all sizes, exactly the same in
every respect as those high on the sides of the valley, in
the fjord below and away on the outer islands and
skerries. Figure 12 is a facsimile sketch from Archie’s
notebook showing the form of the lower part of the
glacier from a vantage point on the mountainside to the
east. Today the Fondalsbreen outlet glacier depicted in
the sketch has almost completely disappeared and the
rim of the Vestisen (western half of Svartisen) plateau
ice field occupies the left hand skyline above a steep
rock wall. It is from this rim that ice avalanching feeds
a small regenerated glacier at the base of the slope.
Neoglaciation in Isfjorden
Neoglaciation of the Bergsford Peninsula, is
principally related to three plateau icefields (Fig. 14).
These have been investigated by Gellatly et al (1989)
in conjunction with an evaluation of the observations
made by earlier investigators. A comparison of the
reports by Hardy (1862) and A. Geikie (1866)
suggested that the separation of the Jøkullsfjord
regenerated glacier from the plateau ice sheet above
may have occurred between 1859 and 1865. They
indicate that the names fall jøkull and Nedrebreen (the
lower glacier) have both been applied to the same
glacier. With this exception, Gellatly et al (1989) make
no other use of the expedition’s observations in the
peninsula, supporting the opinion expressed previously
that the Bergsfjord data are generally ephemeral in
contrast to those from Holandsfjord.
Thus, scientifically, the critical locality visited in
1865 was the head of Isfjorden. In the context of the
time, when the drift ice hypothesis remained in the
ascendancy in British glacial geology, it was important
to examine a location where the presence of a calving
Figure 13. Fondalsbreen in July 1980. The subglacial
meltwater river discharges from beneath the ice cap on the
right at the top of the rockwall and then disappears beneath
the regenerated glacier below.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4)272

actually reaches the sea-level - the only example, so far
as I am aware, of a glacier on the continent of Europe
which attains so low an altitude. As it descends it is
crevassed, and when it comes to the edge of the fjord,
slices from time to time slip off into the water, where
they form fleets of miniature icebergs, with which the
surface of the fjord (f in Fig 138) is covered. This must
be one of the first descriptions by a geologist of this
particular glacial process.
The essence of this behaviour still prevailed in the
early 1970s according to the North Scandinavian
Glacier Atlas (Østrem et al 1973) which stated that
calving was still ongoing. But this was different from
the earlier behaviour (pre-1938), since rather than the
regenerated glacier extending into the sea and
releasing icebergs, some massive ice blocks were
breaking away from the plateau ice cap margin with
sufficient momentum to reach the sea and form bergs
of non-brecciated ice (Brian Whalley, pers.com).
Outcomes from the expedition
Archie Geikie’s accounts of 1866 and 1882 outline the
main expedition discoveries. Paradoxically, neither of
these sources appears to have been referred to in Jamie
Geikie’s subsequent extensive writings despite the
obvious excitement of experiencing a modern glacial
environment for the first time. To a much lesser degree
this omission applies to the works of Archie. This is
strange when it is realised that both brothers
independently wrote several text books, some
specifically for school audiences. Another curious
finding is that in the context of Holandsfjord, no
modern Nordic worker is known to have made
reference to the Geikie papers (e.g. Gjelle et al, 1995),
even though their importance has been highlighted by
Worsley and Alexander (1975, 1976) and discussed by
Worsley (1984). These latter authors have emphasised
Figure 14. The Bergfjord Peninsula, showing the current
plateau ice fields, the Jøkulfjord regenerated glacier and the
route taken by the 1865 expedition.
glacier had already been established by earlier
workers. However, this calving glacier proved not to
be of the normal kind where an outlet valley or ice
shelf glacier directly entered the sea. Rather it was
what Archie termed a re-cemented glacier [regenerated
or reconstituted glacier].
He wrote a vivid description (1885) of its
dynamics: When making the sketch from which Fig.
[15] was made, I observed that the ice from the edge of
the snow-field above slipped off in occasional
avalanches, which sent a roar as of thunder down the
valley, while from the shattered ice, as it rushed down
the precipices, clouds of white snow-dust rose into the
air. The debris thus launched into the defile beneath
accumulates there by mutual pressure into a tolerably
solid mass, which moves downward as a glacier and
Figure 15. The Jøkulfjord regenerated glacier as drawn by
Archie Geikie in 1865, with small ice bergs on the sea
surface. Gellatly et al (1989) comment favourably on the
accuracy of Archie’s field observations.
Figure 16. The Jøkulfjord glacier in 1986, showing the rim
of the plateau ice cap, which is the source of the avalanche
material forming the ice bergs. (Photo: Brian Whalley).
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4) 273

the value of the maps and sketch sections made by
Archie Geikie and that they antedate the earliest work
undertaken by Scandinavia workers.
Jamie’s momentous book, The Great Ice Age, was
published nine years after the expedition (Geikie, J.,
1874) with the declared objective of explaining the
character of the drifts as a function of the efficiency of
land ice. In his subsequent later editions, in Prehistoric
Europe (1881), and in other of his books such as Earth
Sculpture (1902), there are general descriptions of
fjord scenery clearly based upon his Norwegian
observations. However, he did not make any specific
reference to his observations in 1865 and one wonders
whether he was discouraged by the thought that to do
this would require him crediting his elder brother.
Whitaker had an active interest in earth surface
processes generally and shortly after his return from
Norway he submitted a paper to the Geological Society
of London in which he argued that the morphology of
the chalk escarpments was not the product of marine
erosion as had been argued by Charles Lyell, but rather
the result of sub aerial denudation. He wrote how he
slowly became convinced that the irregularities of the
earth’s surface have chiefly been caused by subaërial
actions, by rain, rivers, frost and springs, forces that
can be seen in action every day (1867 p451), with
understandably no mention of glaciers per se on the
North Downs. However, in arguing for a lesser role for
marine erosion in landscape fashioning he drew
attention to the wonderfully intricate coastline of
Norway …. well known to have been caused by the
sinking of the land and not by the action of the sea ….
so clearly seen to be submerged valleys. He continued
moreover the sea would have little power to act in so
narrow and sheltered place but would be harmless as
in the Norwegian fjords where I have seen the old ice-
scratches run down to (and perhaps below) high-water
mark, unaffected by the waves (pp 451-2).
Unfortunately this paper was officially considered
to be withdrawn by permission of the President. This
was a cosmetic device to cover the unfortunate fact that
it had been rejected by the Geological Society
establishment of the day and only an abstract (with an
error in the title) was published under Society auspices.
He then resubmitted his manuscript to the Geological
Magazine, whose editor took a more enlightened view
of its scientific credentials (Whitaker, 1867). The paper
was published in two parts and significantly included a
statement from Lyell in which he supported Whitaker’s
argument and in effect recanted his earlier views. It
was later highly commended and praised by Charles
Darwin, who was then living at Down House and fully
familiar with the geomorphological character of the
North Downs escarpment (Darwin, 1883). It was
described by Archie Geikie as the excellent paper (A.
Geikie, 1885 p434), and by another Director of the
Geological Survey as a masterly account of the
position by that time reached (Bailey, 1952 p70).
Anomalously, despite these commendations, Chorley
et al in the first volume of their magisterial history of
geomorphology (1964, Part Three: Marine versus sub
aerial erosionists 1846-1875) omit any mention of
Whitaker’s denudational papers. Yet three entries are
included in their Part Three reference list, suggesting a
serious oversight by the authors. His subsequent
official survey work did involve the mapping of glacial
deposits including Last Glaciation sequences in The
Wash area and the heavily weathered and dissected
Anglian glacigenic deposits of southern East Anglia
and the lower Thames. Despite this, Whitaker’s work
is not normally associated with glacial geology per se.
Conclusion
Following c 1860, the pendulum of British opinion
started to swing away from the drift ice hypothesis
towards one in favour of terrestrial glaciation.
Undoubtedly, the return of three enthusiastic young
geologists fired by their first hand knowledge of
modern glacial processes in the Norwegian Arctic,
boosted the crusade initially launched by the visiting
Louis Agassiz over two decades previously. The
momentum behind verifying the land ice concept
through actualistic field work in currently glaciated
areas continued in the summer of 1868, when Archie
Geikie, as the newly appointed Director of the
Geological Survey for Scotland, took three of his staff
(Ben Peach, John Horne, and brother Jamie) to
Grindalwald in Switzerland for a little bit of
mountaineering and a descent of the Unter Aar glacier.
The constraints imposed by the aging Murchison’s
views were soon pushed aside as the books authored
by both Geikie brothers, giving full accounts of basal
terrestrial glacier processes, became standard texts
during the following decade.
Acknowledgements
Johnny Andersen, John Betterton, Geoff Corner, Knut Dahl,
Bill George, Steve Gurney, Steinar Johanson, and particularly
Neil Aitkenhead, Tony Waltham and Brian Whalley are thanked
for their invaluable help in writing this paper.
References
Andersen, B.G. 2000. Ice Age Norway. Oslo, Scandinavian
University Press, 216p.
Bailey, E.[B]. 1952. Geological Survey of Great Britain. London:
Thomas Murby, 278p.
Buch, L. von. 1813. Travels through Norway and Lapland, during
the years 1806, 1807 and 1808; translated from the original
German by John Black with notes and illustrations, chiefly
mineralogical, and some account of the author by Robert
Jameson. London: Henry Colburn, xviii, 460 [6]p.
Chorley, R.J., Dunn, A.J. & Beckinsale, R.P. 1974. The history of
the study of landforms. Volume 1: geomorphology before Davis.
London: Methuen, 678p.
Cutter, E. 1974. Sir Archibald Geikie: a bibliography. The Journal
of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 7, 1-18.
Darwin, C., 1842. Notes on the effects produced by the ancient
glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the boulders transported by
floating ice. The London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical
Magazine and Journal of Science, 3rd Series, 21, 180-188.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4)274

Evans, D.J.A., Rea, B.R., Hansom, J.D. & Whalley, W.B., 2002.
Geomorphology and style of plateau icefield deglaciation in fjord
terrains: the example of Troms-Finnmark, north Norway. Journal
of Quaternary Science. 17, 221-239.
Flett, J.S., 1937. One hundred years of the Geological Survey.
London: H.M.S.O., 280p.
Forbes, J.D., 1853. Norway and its Glaciers visited in 1851; followed
by Journals on Excursions in the High Alps of Dauphiné, Berne,
and Savoy. Edinburgh, 252p.
Geikie, A., 1863. On the phenomena of the glacial drift of Scotland.
Trans. Geological Society of Glasgow, 1, i-viii, 1-190.
Geikie, A., 1865a. Norway. Unpublished field note book DD:
Haselmere Educational Museum.
Geikie, A., 1865b. The scenery of Scotland viewed in connection
with its physical geology. 1st Ed, London: Macmillan, xvi, 360p.
Geikie, A., 1866. Notes for a comparison of the glaciation of the west
of Scotland with that of Arctic Norway. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, Session 1865-66, 530-556.
Geikie, A., 1882a. The old glaciers of Norway and Scotland. In
Geological sketches at home and abroad. London: Macmillan,
127-166.
Geikie, A., 1882b. Text-book of Geology. 1st Edition, London:
Macmillan, xi, 971p.
Geikie, A., 1895. Memoir of Sir Andrew Crombie Ramsay. London:
Macmillan, xii, 397p.
Geikie, A., 1885. Text-book of Geology. 2nd Edition, London:
Macmillan, xvi, 992p.
Geikie, A., 1924. A long life’s work : an autobiography. London:
Macmillan, 426p.
Geikie, A., 1887. The scenery of Scotland viewed in connection with
its physical geology. 2nd Edition, London: Macmillan, 481p.
Geikie, J., 1874. The Great Ice Age and its relation to the antiquity
of man. 1st Edition, London: Isbister, xxiii, 575p.
Geikie, J., 1881. Prehistoric Europe a geological sketch. London:
Edward Stanford, 592p.
Geikie, J., 1902. Earth sculpture. London: John Murray, 320p.
Gellatly, A.F., Whalley, W.B., Gordon, J.E., Hansom, J.D. & Twigg,
D.R., 1989. Recent glacial history and climatic change,
Bergsfjord, Troms-Finnmark, Norway. Norsk Geografisk
Tidsskrift, 43, 19-30.
George, W.H., 2004. William Whitaker (1836-1925) – geologist,
bibliographer and a pioneer of British hydrogeology. Geological
Society of London Special Publication, 225, 51-65.
Gjelle, S., Bergstrøm, B., Gustavson, M., Olsen, L. & Sveian, H.,
[1995]. Landet ved polarsirkelen – geologi og landskapsformer.
Trondheim: Norges Geologiske Undersøkelse, 128 p.
Hansen. B., 1970. The early history of glacial theory in British
geology. Journal of Glaciology, 9, 135-141.
Hardy, J.F., 1862. The Jøkuls Glacier. In, Kennedy, E.S. (Ed.), Peaks,
passes and glaciers. London: Longman, Green, Longman &
Roberts, 429-441.
Hoel, A., 1962. Øksfjordjøkulen. Norsk Polarinstitutt Skrifter, 114,
111-117.
Marr, J.E., 1916. The geology of the Lake District. Cambridge
University Press, 220p.
Newbigin, M.I. & Flett, J.S., 1917. James Geikie: the man and the
geologist. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 227p. [Pt I, Life and
letters, pp3-146 by MIB; Pt II Geological work, pp149-210 by
JSF).
Oldroyd, D.R., 1990. The Highlands controversy. Constructing
geological knowledge through fieldwork in nineteenth-century
Britain. University of Chicago Press, 438p.
Ramsey, A.C., 1860. The old glaciers of Switzerland and North
Wales. London: Longman, Green, Longman & Roberts, 116 p.
Ramsay, A.C., 1864. The Physical geology and Geography of Great
Britain. Six lectures to working men delivered in the Royal School
of Mines in 1863. 2nd Edn. London: Edward Stanford, 199p.
Thompson, D.B. & Worsley, P., 1966. A Late Pleistocene marine
molluscan fauna from the drifts of the Cheshire Plain. Geological
Journal, 5, 197-207.
Tyndall, J., 1860. The glaciers of the Alps: being a narrative of
excursions and ascents, an account of the origin and phenomena
of glaciers, and an exposition of the physical principles to which
they are related. London: John Murray, xx, 444p.
Wilson, H.E., 1985. Down to earth. 150 years of the British
Geological Survey. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 189p.
Whitaker, W., 1865. Field notebook no. 12 (October 1864-August
1865), Geological Survey of Great Britain, unpublished.
Whitaker, W., 1867. On subaerial denudation, and on cliffs and
escarpments of the Tertiary strata. Quarterly Journal of the
Geological Society of London, 23, 265-266.
Whitaker, W., 1867. On subaërial denudation, and on cliffs and
escarpments of the Chalk and Lower Tertiary beds. Geological
Magazine 4, 447-457; 483-493.
Whitaker, W., 1868. Subaerial denudation. Geological Magazine 5,
46-47.
Worsley, P., 1986. Holandsfjorden, N. Norway – a key locality in the
development of glacial geological concepts. Quaternary
Newsletter, 49, 29-30.
Worsley, P., 2006. Jens Esmark, Vassryggen and early British Glacial
Theory. Mercian Geologist, 16, 161-172.
Worsley, P., 2007. Charles Darwin’s visit to Cwm Idwal in 1842.
Quaternary Newsletter, 112 , 22-28.
Worsley, P. & Alexander, M.J., 1975. Neoglacial palaeo-
environmental change at Engabrevatn, Svartisen, Holandsfjord,
north Norway. Norges Geologiske Undersøkelse 321, 37-66.
Worsley, P. & Alexander, M.J., 1976. Glacier and environmental
changes – Neoglacial data from the outermost moraine ridges at
Engabreen, northern Norway, Engabreen. Geografiska Annaler,
58A, 55-69.
Østrem, G., Haakensen, N. & Melander, O. 1973. Atlas over breer i
nord-Skandinavia. Oslo and Stockholm: Norges vassdrags og
elektrisitetsvesen / Stockholms Universitet, 315p.
Peter Worsley
School of Human and Environmental Sciences
University of Reading RG6 2AB
p.worsley@reading.ac.uk
Appendix
Currency units used by Archie Geikie in his accounts
The currency of 1865 is no longer used and most Nordics
would not be familiar with it. The basic unit was the Thaler
or Daler – a silver coin used throughout much of Europe for
almost 400 years. The word dollar is derived from this root.
The Daler was replaced by a Swedish krona (crown) and a
Danish kroner in 1873. When Norway joined the
Scandinavian Monetary Union in 1876, the new Norwegian
kroner had parity with the Swedish and Danish kroner.
Before 1813, 1 Riksdaler/Riksmynt = 4 ort or 6 mark or 96
skilling but after the transfer of Norway from Denmark to
Sweden at the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars, in
Norway from 1816 to 1875, 1 Speciedaler = 5 ort or 120
skilling. i.e. 1 ort = 24 skilling. Hence this was the currency
used by the expedition (in 1876, 1 Speciedaler = 4 Nkr).
Archie’s accounts use the speciedaler, ort and skilling but
unexpectedly also the mark. It is possible that the mark was
being used by the Sami (Lapps) who were the indigenous
people of North Norway since in the mid nineteenth century
they were much more widespread in Nordland than is the
case today. The Tsar approved the Grand Duchy of Finland
using the Finnish Mark from 4th April 1860 with a rate of
0.25 marks to the rouble. It appears that the Sami in 1865
were using the recently introduced mark.
MERCIAN GEOLOGIST 2006 16 (4) 275