R. S.

Ilin and the study of loess and palaeosols

Ian Smalley Giotto Loess Research Group, Geography Department, Leicester University, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK (ijs4@le.ac.uk)

Having no possibility to deepen my study of pedogenesis (as I did not have analytical data at my disposal during my exile), I directed my energy towards the study of general problems of geology. R.S.Ilin

Abstract Rostislav Sergeevich Ilin (1891-1937) was a soil scientist, geologist, geomorphologist who published major works on loess and was a pioneer of the study of palaeopedology. He was influenced by the A.P.Pavlov stream-deluvial theory of loess formation, and particularly concerned with the zonality of the natural world; the continuous displacement of natural zones was a recurring theme of his work. He was executed during the great terror in 1937, and rehabilitated in 1956. A major loess book was published in 1978, and hard work by
1

his son I.R.Ilin has ensured that his contribution to science is not overlooked. He had interesting correspondence with V.I.Vernadsky on matters philosophical, and developed some remarkable ideas based on epigenological principles. His loess work has a significant place in the history of loess investigation. Keywords: R.S.Ilin, A.P.Pavlov, loess formation, deluvial/stream theories of loess formation, early studies in palaeopedology, geographical zones, epigenological principles, V.I.Vernadskii

Introduction L.S.Berg (1964 p103) in his book on Loess as a Product of Weathering and Soil Formation lists seven items by R.S.Ilin. Berg was very efficient and punctilious about providing bibliographies in his various works and this has proved to be of immense benefit to historians of loess research. Attached to the entry for Ilin (1935a) in the 1964 bibliography is a comment by Berg (the other entries do not get comments) to the effect that I was not able to find out, from this article, what relationship [there] may be between natural zones and loess origin.

This intriguing comment forms the basis for this study of Ilin and his writings on loess. It is a peculiar comment in many ways, in particular because in the Berg view of the loess world, heavily influenced by Dokuchaev, the idea of a loess zone would be quite acceptable. Ilin (1935a) and Ilin (1935b) are listed in the bibliography; Sycheva (2007) lists Ilin (1935b), which is a major statement of Ilins view of the natural world, but not Ilin (1935a) which appears to be a(the?) major paper encapsulating loess ideas . What were the loess ideas (and other ideas) of Ilin, which were largely buried and obscured by the detritus of exile and persecution, but effectively rescued by the efforts of his son, Igor Rostislavovich Ilin? They are unusual and eccentric and difficult to access; some attempts at elucidation will be made in this paper. Ilin lived in the extraordinary times so described in the book by Fitzpatrick (1999) which deals with life in the Soviet Union during the Stalin dictatorship. Ilin managed to make significant contributions to loess science, but he did so under very challenging conditions(see Shaw & Oldfield 2008 for some background details). Sycheva (2007) is probably the default account of the work of Ilin; she gives a clear idea of the six major ideas of Ilin; no.5 relates to the synthetic subaerial-stream theory of the origin of loess.

Student and teachers Ilin started his studies at Moscow university in around 19091910, graduated in 1913 and moved to the Moscow Agricultural Institute. Ivanov(2006) and Sycheva (2007) have listed some of his teachers, and indicated areas of influence. He was exposed to the influence of P.Ya. Armashevskii, who contributed thoughts on humus layers in loess, and on ancient soils. Armashevskii has four papers listed by Kriger (1965) and was obviously a significant loess scholar; he may have been killed by the Cheka in 1919, in the first terror. A.P.Pavlov offered opinions on the deluvial or sub-aerial stream theory of loess formation and was a significant influence on the young Ilin: In the year of my graduation from the university (1913) A.P.Pavlov asked me about the soil record of the history of the subsoil. I could not answer this question. R.S.Ilin

R.I.Abolin discussed the concept of epigenesis, and problems with bogs and mires and peat; V.V.Dokuchaev talked about zones and zonality in soils and landscapes, and V.R.Williams contributed on the theory of universal soil forming processes. Ilin studied at the Moscow Agricultural Institute until 1917; Sycheva (2007) records him rushing into a young science- soil science- with his first work On the problem of the genesis of humus horizons in loesses of

southern Russia which was published in the journal Russian Soil Scientist [Russkii pochvoved; World List 48330], no.5-6, 1916 (Ilin 1916, listed by Berg 1964, Kriger 1965, Sycheva 2007). This must have been one of the first papers published in the field of palaeopedology. Sycheva described Ilin as tackling a complicated and absolutely undeveloped problem: buried soils in loess. He (she claimed) was the first to prove that buried soils are fossil soils preserved from ancient landscapes. He has a claim to have been a pioneer in the development of the science of palaeopedology; Marsigli and Hardcastle had earlier observations but Ilin helped to develop a science. A. P. Pavlov and his loess theory Pavlov is associated with the deluvial theory of loess formation, which possibly sounds better as the complex subaerial-stream theory of the origin of loess; Berg (1964 p.18) called it the stream/torrential or deluvial theory. Pavlov was very interested in the loess in Central Asia (which he called Turkestan; Pavlov 1903) and his torrential or stream theory is still discussed with respect to the loess deposits of Uzbekistan (see Smalley et al 2006). The Pavlov approach deserves attention (in its own right and because he was close to the young Ilin); Yeliseyev (1973) said that there were five main approaches to the problem of

the formation of the Central European loess: the proluvial, alluvial, soil-eluvial, deluvial and aeolian. The deluvial approach belongs to Pavlov. Its hard to find it clearly described; essentially loess material is carried down mountains and out into the foothill plains, where it forms loess deposits. A clearer idea might be derived from the negative view expressed by Yeliseyev (1973): The origin of the loess soils cannot be explained either as being the result of the action of streams of either rain or meltwater, i.e. deluvial activity, as it is very improbable that such streams could travel from the mountains over a distance of 100-110 km without coalescing into larger rivers. Even if we believe that rain and meltwater streams flowed along the flat surface of the debris cone nearer its apex, this would not explain the origin of loess. (Yeliseyev 1973.)

Pavlov claimed that all the loess in Central Europe was deluvial, which seems like a rather extreme idea- but which actually has some merit. Pavlov could have been describing the early stages in the sequence of events which is currently being proposed to explain the formation of loess deposits in the Danube basin (Smalley et al 2009). Publications

Berg (1964) listed seven Ilin publications, Kriger (1965) has five. Sycheva (2007) in her appreciation of Ilin listed twelve publications and she has performed a valuable service to the loess historian and bibliographer by gathering together data on Ilin: Ilins main work Origin of Loess was published in 1978. This work turned out to be so novel and original that many readers who did not know the authors fate considered it to be a contemporary work. S.A.Sycheva 2007

The 602 page manuscript for this book is dated by Sycheva at 1934. Thanks to Ivanov we know that Ilin planned to put on the front cover of his Origin of Loess book a reproduction of a picture by Fedor Andreevich Bronnikov called Hymn of Pythagoras to the Rising Sun. Perhaps Ilin was philosophically inclined towards Pythagorean ideals. Sycheva (2007), in addition to listing 12 Ilin publications, selected ten which she designated his main publications (with a date range 1928 to 1991), and she displayed these in a table . Ilin (1935a) was a major statement of opinions on loess, and was the paper commented on by Berg. Ilin (1935b) appears to be a major staement of Ilins larger general philosophy of the earth sciences; Sycheva (2007) certainly viewed this as a major contribution.

Ilin was not neglected in the world of loess scholarship; for example Pyaskovskii (1945) in a very influential paper gave two Ilin citations: Ilin (1935a, 1936): The character of loess necessarily shows the effects of local, non-zonal factors, such as relief, to which R. Ilin attributes a unique role (Ilin 1936), and above all the parent stratum. In the opinion of R. Ilin biological factors of the desert and semi-desert- the scanty vegetation and the as yet insufficiently studied micro-organisms- play an important part in the matter of loess formation (Ilin 1935a, pp.8687). Kaluga Oblast Ilin worked on the soils of the Kaluga oblast (Ilin 1927, 1928). The location of Kaluga is shown in fig.3; west of Moscow, near the southern limit of Bergs mixed forest zone. To the south of Kaluga is the forest steppe zone.Ilin (1927) was particularly concerned with the boundaries of the podzolic and forest-steppe zones. Situation There were four great Terrors(episodes of persecution of just about everybody) in the history of the Soviet Union: the Cheka terror 1918-1921, the OGPU terror 1929-1933, the

NKVD terror 1936-1939 and the late terror 1948-1952. If you were lucky, like L.S.Berg (see Shaw & Oldfield 2008), you survived all four; if you were unlucky, like R.S.Ilin, one of them caught you and you were executed. Ilin was killed in 1937. The Cheka terror almost caught V.I.Vernadsky; he was due to be arrested in late 1917 but escaped to Kiev. He was eventually arrested in 1921 but enough influence was brought to bear, by, amongst others S.Oldenburg, the permanent secretary of the Academy of Sciences, that he was released in July 1921, and went on to be one of the most revered Soviet scientists and scholars. Ilin was arrested in 1916. In 1919-1922 he worked in the Moscow Gubzemotel organization and then in the soil committee at Narkomzem- the Peoples Commissariat for Agriculture, at the same time combining jobs with the Research Institute of Soil Science at Moscow State University as a teacher in the Soil Science department. He was arrested again in 1920, and in 1921, and in 1925 and was imprisoned until 1927. In 1927 he was deported to Siberia, to the Narymsky region, a traditional place of exile, in Tsarist Russia and in the Soviet Union. Palaeopedology pioneer

There has been some discussion, largely driven by D.H.Yaalon, about the invention and the early days of palaeopedology. Ilin certainly deserves a mention in a discussion on the founding events of palaeopedology. Who first noticed and described buried soils? Who first realised that they had climatic significance and could act as indicators of past climates? Tsaskin(1997) and Retallack(1990) have discussed some of these problems. Marsigli has been picked out as the very first person to record a palaeosol(Markovic 2000). He noted the presence of the loess-palaeosol systems in Voyvodina, north Serbia, while on duty safeguarding the borders of the AustroHungarian empire in the eighteenth century(Marsigli 1777). But it was only an observation, and a recording. Hardcastle(1889,1890), at the end of the nineteenth century noticed the variations in the coastal loess deposits at Timaru in the South Island of New Zealand and pointed out that the observed phenomena were due to climatic variations; here is a new science slowly creeping into being. He published in an obscure New Zealand journal and his observations had no contemporary impact, but his work is listed by Retallack(1990). It was Russian scientists at the very end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth who properly connected soils found within loess deposits with past

10

climates and past landscapes and described their findings in a proper pedological setting. Ilin played a part in these Russian initiatives; his 1916 paper alone qualifies him as a significant pioneer (as Sycheva 2007 claimed). Lysenko (1971, p.7) has given some views on the beginnings of palaeopedology. He proposed that a stratigraphic division of the loess strata on the Russian Plain was first attempted by Nabokikh (1911), who singled out in Ukraine one horizon of buried soil and two horizons of loess. He later (Nabokikh 1915) distinguished in the Ukrainian loess two horizons of buried soils and three horizons of loess. He established that the structure of the upper part of the loess stratum was not quite the same in the glacial and in the periglacial regions. In the latter region the upper loess was separated from the middle loess by a buried soil. In the glacial region, the stratigraphic scheme was different: upper loess, fossil soil with boulders, morainic loam, and middle loess. It was proposed that a glacial period must have intervened between the periods of deposition of the middle and the upper loess. Krokos (1916) refined Nabokikhs scheme and distinguished four stages of loess, which were related to four glacial periods. He connected the formation of each stage of loess with a glacial advance. As Krokos was publishing his material about the Ukrainian loess Ilin (1916) was making similar

11

observations about the loess in southern Russia. Ilin and Krokos were both significant palaeopedological pioneers. Both were eliminated in the Great Terror. Zones and zonality The original Dokuchaev concept of soil science contained several precepts; soil as a natural body, the idea of horizonation developing in a soil system, and the idea of soil zones, essentially controlled by climatic variations (zonation developing in horizontal and vertical planes). The zonal idea has been very important in Russian science since the time of Dokuchaev. Lysenko (1971, p.8) wrote that.. The great merit of Dokuchaev was his discovery of the zonal character of the distribution of soils. Zones were important in the Berg concept of geography, the idea of a loess zone is very much a soil science idea, in contrast to the Pavlov approach which looked to loess deposits, and was promoting a geological idea. The Pavlov and Berg approaches were essentially incompatible, in particular because Pavlovs was essentially an event based approach to loess formation and distribution. The zonal idea was very strong with Soviet loess scholars; N.I.Kriger, that most prolific of loess investigators, was very attached to the idea of a zonal index which would control the development of loess (Kriger 1965). The idea carries through; major Russian loess investigators retain a

12

connection to the idea of zonality: Dokuchaev to Berg to Kriger to Velichko to Makeev. Velichko has written: During the last glacial maximum the following three natural belts formed in the eastern hemisphere under the impact of decreased temperatures and increased aridity The zonal structure of the earth simplified considerably at this time and was replaced by a hyperzone. (Velichko 1987, p.18). The zonal concept invites generalizations (as Velichko demonstrates): the movement of zones- simply a spatial manifestation of climate change. At one reference point the climate is observed to vary- or become warmer or cooler. Zones move relative to this point. The climate is constantly changing, therefore the zones are constantly in motion; and, in fact, the spatial motion is the same as the temporal motion. A zone that moves in space inevitably moves in time. Berg, surely one of the great zone makers, divided the lowlands of the Northern Hemisphere into twelve zones (see fig.2 & Lysenko 1971, p.9): 1, Tundra; 2, forests of temperate climate; 3, forest steppe; 4, steppe; 5, Mediterranean; 6, semi-desert; 7, deserts of the temperate belt; 8, sub-tropical forests; 9, tropical forests; 10, tropical steppes; 11, tropical forest steppe/ savanna; 12, tropical

13

rain forest. Bergs great work on the Geographical Zones of the USSR was at the centre of the Bergist approach to geography, an important aspect of his landscape science . It impressed the concepts of zonality firmly on to Russian geography and landscape studies. Ilin features, in a small way, in the great work: (from the German edition 1958,p.235) Iljin betrachtet die Strukturlehme um Moskau als Ubergangstypen zu den podsolierten Waldsteppenboden mit Nussstruktur des B-Horizontes, er mochte in diesen Bildungen, die er am Nordabfall der Klin-Dmitrower-Hohe beobachtete, Spuren alter Steppen sehan. Bergs zonality was a fairly straightforward latitudinal zonality. The Ilin approach to zonality carried it into much more fanciful regions. It is important to understand just how important the zonal idea was in the early years of pedology and palaeopedology; Boulaine 1989, p156) wrote: A la fin de sa vie, Dokouchaev avait enonce la theorie de la zonalite des sols dans un texte largement diffuse en France et en Allemagne. Cette notion eut un tres grande succes; cetait un moyen dexposition commode des faits et qui avait lavantage de bien montrer loriginalite des sols par rapport aux roches dont Humboldt avait montre lubiquite.

14

Les climatalogues et les biologistes se firent un plaisir de la vulgariser. La zonalite regna donc pendant toute la periode de 1900-1950, elle apparut meme un moment comme la notion centrale de la Pedologie. Nous verrons quil faut, actuellement, la nuancer serieusement. (IS emphasis). Natural bodies Like zones, natural bodies were much discussed by Vernadsky, Berg and Ilin and contemporary scholars. This is another basic Dokuchaev concept and carries with it Dokuchaevs immense influence. He certainly wrote of soil as a natural body. Vernadsky deployed the concept, he wrote: It is the concept of a natural body(Vernadskys italics). We shall name so.. any object logically distinct from its environment; formed as a result of a regular natural process taking place in the biosphere or generally in the Earths crust. Real science is built up through identifying natural bodies, and in scientific work it is important to simultaneously take into consideration both the concepts corresponding to natural bodies and the really existing, scientifically defined natural bodies. V.I.Vernadsky (1997, p.162)

So loess is a natural body; it could be argued that what Von Leonard did early in the nineteenth century by identifying

15

and naming loess was describing a natural body- some part of the biosphere/earths crust that could/should be defined and studied and explained. Epigema(epigenic regions); epigenological principles Here are some more terminological problems; what did Ilin mean by epigema? what were epigenological principles? Abolin (1914) applied an epigenological classification to mires/bogs/peats, and as a teacher of Ilin probably introduced the epigenological idea to his pupil. Abolin proposed some additions to landscape science as started almost simultaneously by Berg in Russia and Passarge in Germany in 1913. He created a hierarchical classification of landscape units- the largest being the epigenema, comprising the whole Earth; this was divided into life zones. One has to speculate that Abolin was very influential in the intellectual development of Ilin. Abolin, like his illustrious pupil, did not survive the Great Terror and was executed in 1939; he was probably killed for being an Latvian. Where did Ilin go on his epigenological journey? Ivanov (2007) has attempted a form of summary of Ilins main ideas and this can be reworked. The small book Space and Time as the Basis of Soil Classification and the Epigenological Principle of Nature (Ilin 2002) contains a distillation of Ilins thought. It is a pocket edition with a

16

portrait of the author on the front cover. It contains an abstract sent by the exiled Ilin to the Second International Congress of Soil Science in Moscow 1932. Comments on this abstract were provided by I.A.Krupenikov, and the forward devoted to the literary heritage of Ilin was prepared by his son, I.R.Ilin. Ivanov (2006) has commented on the Krupenikov comments; further comments are added here but the Ilin proposals, surviving translations and commentary, remain obscure and difficult . Ivanov (2006) suggested that the publication of Ilin (2002) 70 years after composition was justified by the power and novelty of Ilins ideas. There are nine statements (here in an extremely abbreviated form): 1. Soil is the central core and a symbol of the epigema. At once a difficult term; Ivanov has epigema denote surface formations; it obviously derives from epigene which means formed, originating, or occurring on or just below the surface of the earth (Greek: epigenes). An epigenological classification would be a classification of the upper portion/ surficial parts of the earth, or a classification based on these upper parts. Maybe the basic claim could be reworked to soil science is the most important part of geomorphology. I.R.Ilin did appear to claim that R.S.Ilin had invented

17

geomorphology but there were probably translation problems related to his statement. 2. Space-time relationships are the basis of the Universe. In reduced form, these categories are manifested on the Earths surface and in soils. 3. The soil profile reflects the quantity and quality of the energy emitted by the Sun in particular time periods (during the geological cycles) and in space (the distances between the Earth and the Sun). Vertical and horizontal soil zones are, in essence, planes shifting in time and space. Modern soil zonality is a result of interaction between the vertical and horizontal planes (these must be the planes which puzzled Berg.) 4. A concept of the analogy between local physiographic and global natural axes was advanced. Thus, local divides are analogues of the Earths poles (local poles), and local bases of erosion are analogues of the equator (local equators). 5. According to Ilin, the geological processes renew nature and create new subsoil.. (this predated the Chesworth(1982) idea that related the worlds good soils to

18

recent geological activity). Local and global axes and focal points are shifted in space and time in relation to the orbital position of the Earth, fluctuations in sea level, and tectonic movements. Ivanov (2006) pointed out that, at that time (in 1932) the only other person developing the ideas of orbital cycles was Milutin Milankovitch. 6. The law of zonality governs the distribution of soils on horizontal and vertical planes. 7. Climate is the major factor of pedogenesis; its action is, however, uneven in space and time. 8. The epigenological principle- according to which the chains of epigemas of different scales have their end in the zero point corresponding to sea level at the equator. He argued that the chain of epigemas is limitless in time and space. 9. Every finite segment of a chain of epigemas can be extended in any direction: from the pole to the equator, from the equator to the pole, and beyond their limits. In one of his letters, Ilin considered the pedosphere as the first and foremost carrier of life; it lives its own life and serves as the source of life for others.

19

For a more substantial discussion of the nine points see Ivanov (2006), or Ilin (2002). Ivanov suggested that these statements by Ilin, along with Ilin (1935b), appear to be the most philosophical and mysterious work in soil science. V.I.Vernadsky Vernadsky taught mineralogy at Moscow University from 1895 to 1911. Ilin was a student at the university from perhaps 1910 to 1913; it seems possible that Vernadsky taught mineralogy to Ilin. Some correspondence with Vernadsky has been published; among the topics discussed was the problem of the origin of loess. Vernadsky was attracted to the idea of natural bodies (as was Dokuchaev). The Vernadsky archive at the Russian Academy of Sciences contains letters from Ilin (see in particular It appears that Vernadsky was influenced by A.P.Pavlov; the idea for which Vernadsky is mostly remembered and honoured is the biosphere and this owes a lot to Pavlovs concept of the anthropogenic era- a concept which has contemporary relevance. Pavlov contrived to influence both Vernadsky and Ilin, both of whom turned out to have speculative and imaginative aspects of their characters.

20

Commentary Berg (1964), that great window on to the history of Russian loess studies, allows several glimpses of the work of Ilin (Berg 1964,p.16,18). R.S.Ilin (1935a, p.80) [has] even called the Richthofen theory by the name of aeolianproluvial or stream-aeolian. Among our [Russian] proponents of the aeolian hypothesis, many attributed some subordinate importance to deluvial processes. The deluvial hypothesis, in some form at least, is supported by Armashevskii (1881, 1883, 1903) by R.S.Ilin (1930, 1935a, 1936). Authorities who propound other theories give nevertheless some greater or lesser attention to deluvial processes also (Berg 1964) The stream-aeolian term used by Ilin to describe the Richthofen theory appears to offer a considerable insight. The origin of loess is still being discussed; Ilin wrote extensively on loess. Ilin was persecuted, imprisoned, exiled and executed. No sensible reason has been found for the persecution, imprisonment, exile or execution, but in the time of the terrors no reason was required; many Soviet earth scientists were arbitrarily eliminated. Recent Russian publications have drawn attention to Ilin and his ideas, in particular Sycheva(2007),

21

Ivanov (2006)

Sergeev(1966) wrote a biographical article

to celebrate the Ilin 75th birthday- but this gave his death as 1944 and has been criticised by I.R.Ilin as spreading KGB propaganda; for some reason the true date of his death had to be concealed. All over the world the top one metre of surficial material is mapped and classified via soil science and soil classification. If, all over the world, there existed a classification of the top ten metres this could be an epigenological classification. One could see the attraction of this idea to Abolin, with respect to peat deposits, and to Ilin, with respect to loess deposits. A classification between soil and geology. A classification which moves loess from being a mere soil, as it might be in a simple zonal classification, to being a special material in a special region, in the epigenic zone, in the epigema. Loess would be a special material in the Pavlov style. Abolin and Pavlov influences come together. References Abolin, R.I. 1914. An attempt at an epigenological classification of bogs. Bolotovedenie [Peatland science; Minsk; World List 8511] 3, 1-55. (in Russian).

22

Armashevskii, P.Ya. 1881. Orography of the Chernigov province in relation to loess distribution. Zapiski Kievskogo Obshchestva Estestvoispytatelei [World List 58307] 6, no.3 (protokol zasedaniya 16 maya 1881) (in Russian). Armashevskii, P.Ya. 1883. Geological outline of Chernigov province. Zapiski Kievskogo Obshchestva Estestvoispytatelei 7, no.1. (in Russian) Armashevskii, P.Ya. 1903. General geological map of Russia: Folio 46: Poltava-Kharkov-Obayan Trudy Geologicheskogo Komiteta [World List 54539] 15,no.1 (about loess pp.222-246) (in Russian). Berg, L.S. 1947. Geographical Zones of the USSR. OGIS Moscow, 3rd.ed. 865p. (in Russian: German edition Die geographischen Zonen der Sowjetunion. Teubner Leipzig 840p. 1958) Berg, L.S. 1964. Loess as a Product of Weathering and Soil Formation. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem 207p. Chesworth, W. 1982. Late Cenozoic geology and the second oldest profession. Geoscience Canada 9, 124-132.

23

Feofilaktov, K.M. 1879. Geological investigations in Lybensk district of Poltavsk province. Kiev 69p. Fitzpatrick, S. 1999. Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. Oxford University Press 310p. Ilin, I.R. 1988. A selection from the correspondence of V.I.Vernadsky and R.S.Ilin. Pochvovedenie, for 1988, no.8, 103-108.(in Russian). Ilin, I.R. 1990. Along a Thorny Path. Shtiintsa Chisinau 112p. (in Russian). Ilin, I.R., Krupenikov, I.A.(eds.) 1978. The Origin of Loess; From a History of Questions. Nauka Moscow 226p. (in Russian). Ilin, R.S. 1916. Genesis of humus horizons of the southern Russian loess. Russkii Pochvoved (Russian Pedologist) no.56, 135-141.(in Russian).

24

Ilin, R.S. 1927. Boundaries of the Podzolic and ForestSteppe zones: soils of the Kaluga oblast. Pochvovedenie, for 1927, no.3, 5-28. (in Russian). Ilin, R.S. 1935a. The origin of loess, in the light of the doctrine about natural zones that shift in space and time. Pochvovedenie, for 1935, no.1. 80-100 (in Russian). Ilin, R.S. 1935b. Recent displacement of zones. Zemlevedenie 37 (2) 113-144 (in Russian). Ilin, R.S. 1936. The fundamental regularity of distribution of upper strata and soils according to relief(age) in sculptured(denudation) plains. Pochvovedenie, for 1936, no.4. 588-599. (in Russian). Ilin, R.S. 1978. Origin of Loesses (Historical Background). Nauka, Moscow 236p (in Russian). Ilin, R.S. 2002. Space and Time as the Bases of Soil Classification and the Epigenological Principle of Nature; ed. I.A.Krupenikov. Litera Tiraspol 26p. (in Russian). Ivanov, I.V. 2006. New books on the scientific work of R.S.Ilin. Eurasian Soil Science 39, 339-341.

25

Kriger, N.I. 1965. Loess, its Characteristics and Relation to the Geographical Environment. Nauka Moscow 296p. (in Russian; bibliography[pp. 255-294] published as Loess Letter Supplement 13, 1986). Krokos, V.I. 1916. Data on the geology of the Tiraspol county in the Kherson province. Geologicheskii Vestnik, vol.2, Kiev (in Russian). Krupenikov, I.A.(ed.) 2004. Correspondence between V.I.Vernadsky and R.S.Ilin. Tilar Tiraspol 86p. (in Russian). Krupenikov, I.A., Ilin, I.R. 1991. The role of R.S.Ilin in the history of soil science (for the 100th birthday). Pochvovedenie, for 1991, no.7, 127-137 (in Russian). Lysenko, M.P. 1971. Loessial Rocks of the European USSR. Israel Program for Scientific Translations Jerusalem 168p. Pavlov, A.P. 1903. Loess in Turkestan and in Europe. Protokoly Godichnykh Zasidanii Moskovogo Obschestva Ispytatelei Prirody, 17, 23-30 (in Russian).

26

Nabokikh, A.I. 1911. Composition and origin of different horizons in certain soils and grounds of southern Russia. Selskoe Khozyaistvo I Lesovodstvo Feb.1911, St.Petersburg [World List 49463](in Russian). Nabokikh, A.I. 1915. Facts and hypotheses about the composition and origin of post-Tertiary sediments of the Chernozem belt in Russia. Materialy po Issledovaniyu Pochv I Gruntov Khersonskoi Gubernii no.5 Odessa (in Russian). Pyaskovskii, B.V. 1946. Loess as a deep soil formation. Pochvovedenie, for 1946, no.11, 686-696. (in Russian, English translation Loess Letter Supplement 3, July 1989). Retallack, G.J. 1990. Soils of the Past: An Introduction to Palaeopedology. Unwin Hyman Boston 520p. Sergeev, L.A. 1966. In memoriam of R.S.Ilin (1891-1944). Pochvovedenie, for 1966, no.4, 163-166. (in Russian). Shaw, D.J.B., Oldfield, J.D. 2008. Totalitarianism and geography: L.S.Berg and the defence of an academic discipline in the age of Stalin. Political Geography 27, 96112.

27

Smalley, I.J., Mavlyanova, N.G., Rakhmatullaev, Kh.L., Shermatov, M.Sh., Machalett, B., OHara-Dhand, K., Jefferson, I.F. 2006. The formation of loess deposits in the Tashkent region and parts of Central Asia; and problems with irrigation, hydrocollapse and soil erosion. Quaternary International 152/153, 59-69. Sycheva, S.A. 2007. Rostislav Sergeevich Ilin: A soil scientist and geologist ahead of his time. Eurasian Soil Science 40, 341-346. Tsatskin, A. 1997. A history of Soviet palaeopedological studies and their relation to soil science and Quaternary geology. In History of Soil Science- International Perspectives ed. D.H.Yaalon, S.Berkowicz, Advances in GeoEcology 29, Catena Verlag Reiskirchen, 277-291. Velichko, A.A. 1987. Relationship of climatic changes in high and low latitudes of the Earth during the Late Pleistocene and Holocene. In Paleogeography and Loess (Studies in Geography in Hungary 21) ed. M.Pecsi, A.A.Velichko, pp.926. Vernadsky, V.I. 1997. Scientific Thought as Planetary Phenomenon. Nongovernmental Ecological V.I.Vernadsky

28

Foundation, Moscow 265p (translation of original 1991 Russian edition). Yeliseyev, V.I. 1973. On the loess soils of Middle Asia and Kazakhstan. Byulleten Komissii po Izucheniya Chetvertichnogo Perioda 40, 52-68 (in Russian).

29