Four loess pioneers: Charles Lyell, F.

von Richthofen,
V.A.Obruchev, L.S.Berg

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

Slobodan B. Markovic
Chair of Physical Geography, Faculty of Sciences,
University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, Novi
Sad, Vojvodina 21000, Serbia
(slobodan.markovic.dgt.uns.ac.rs)

Dedicated to the memory of Andrei Dodonov(1945-2008)

The need of reviewing the successive stages of the development of

our knowledge of loess starting from the 1830s does not follow from
an excessive passion for historicism but from a great confusion of
opinions on the problem of loess. S.Z.Rozycki (1991)

On every ground known to me the probability seems overwhelming

that the Loess was in fact caused by a vast outpouring of
subterranean mud. H.H.Howorth (1882)

Abstract
The four loess pioneers were Charles Lyell, Ferdinand von
Richthofen, Vladimir Obruchev and Lev Berg. Their life
spans covered the period 1797-1956. They each
contributed significant thoughts and ideas to the
development of the study of loess deposits. Their loessic
ideas can be related to their life experiences and to their
own particular approaches to their chosen branches of

1
science. Their ideas can also be set in a framework of
scientific development at a time when scientific knowledge
was increasing rapidly and new fields and areas of study
were being demarcated. The directions that they indicated
and the ideas that they implanted still influence loess
research today, and some problems that they touched on
remain unresolved. The basic Lyell idea of lacustrine or
fluvial deposition followed by uplift held sway from about
1830 till around 1880. Richthofen developed his ideas on
aeolian deposition from 1870 and Obruchev developed his
ideas after the Potanin expedition, in 1895. Berg offered
his concept of loess formation by weathering and soil
formation in 1916, and was a keen proponent until his
death in 1950. Many scholars offered ideas and proposals
on the problem of loess deposit formation but the four
chosen individuals appear to predominate, and have
delivered the paradigms that have shaped loess research
since the 1830s. Richthofen has probably acquired a little
too much credit for the aeolian theory, and Obruchev not
enough. Obruchev delivered a fully worked out aeolian
approach which encompassed post-depositional changes
to the loess material. Berg, with his total concentration on
post depositional changes was only considering half a
picture. Some of his ideas were important but his one
eyed view meant that many scholars neglected them.

Keywords: Loess; loess history; Lyell, Richthofen,

Obruchev, Berg; theories of loess formation; aeolian
deposition; loessification.

1. Introduction
Loess was first properly described and defined by Karl
Caesar von Leonhard (1824; see Jovanovic et al 2014). An
acceptable modern definition could follow Pye (1987,
p.199) Loess is defined simply as a terrestrial wind blown
silt deposit. There has been discussion and argument
about the definition of loess largely because of the need
(or otherwise) to include in the definition an indication of
the mode of origin. The definition rigmarole has been

2
discussed by Smalley & Jary (2004), it was, for a long
time tied to the discussions on the origins of loess
deposits. The origin question can be studied via a
consideration of the contributions of the four scholars who
form the basis of this paper. Many views on loess
formation were advanced but the four most influential
scholars were probably Lyell, Richthofen, Obruchev and
Berg, and their contributions are discussed here.

To understand and appreciate the nature and problems of

loess the scholar really needs a facility in geology,
geomorphology, sedimentology, mineralogy, soil science,
soil mechanics and a few more subjects. A knowledge of
the Chinese, Russian, French, German and English
languages would also be very useful. Loess is a complex
material, studied in many locations, and this has led to its
longevity as a topic for discussion and argument. What is
its nature? How is it formed as a material and as a
deposit? How influential on the development of loess
development theories was the background and experience
of the scholars and investigators involved? What have
they left us that still has relevance today?
If there is a background theme to this paper it is that the
linguistic barrier between Russian and English is still (in
2016) in place. The barrier grows more porous and mutual
appreciation is increasing, but mutual ignorance is still
widespread. It is not that long ago that the Soviet Union
enforced separation; it took huge efforts on the part of
the editors of the American Journal of Sciences special
1945 issue on loess to obtain a short contribution from
Obruchev (1945).
The history of loess investigation from 1830 to say 1880
was relatively straightforward in that lacustrine or fluvial
deposition was the essential accepted theory, the
paradigm, and there were no wide-ranging challenges. But
there was discussion going on which needs to be
appreciated. Rozycki (1991) gives what is probably the
only accessible account of the detailed offerings of this
time. Kriger (1965) offered some Russian views of events
in this period. Lyell made no attempts to promote his

3
theory in this time, it simply kept being supported as the
many editions of his Principles of Geology were steadily
published. Producing the successive editions was probably
Lyells main geological activity but he was a central figure
in the geological establishment and there were many
institutional duties.

2.Lyell (1797-1875, fig.1)

Charles Lyell was a geologist. His viewpoint was that of a

geologist, he saw the world as a geologist, in fact he
played a major role in the development and shaping of
modern geology. [But some also consider him to be a
pioneer of anthropology via Lyell (1863, 1914), and
ecology (see Wool 2001)]. His early life, when his ideas
were developing has been recorded by Wilson(1972,
p.366, 390, 405, 420), who described his encounters with
the loess. His early intellectual world was dominated by
the idea of vertical crustal movements. He had become
aware of geology, thanks in part to the efforts of his friend
Poulet Scrope, via observations of volcanic phenomena in
Italy. The Temple of Serapis was the frontispiece of the
Principles and it illustrated, via marine borings half way up
the columns, that the land in the neighbourhood had been
uplifted.
Lyell (1832,1986) initiated the study of loess. This
statement needs some explanation because there is no
doubt that loess was quite widely known before Lyell
encountered it. The very beginnings of loess are placed
with Karl Caesar von Leonhard who gave it scientific
existence and an initial place in the scientific literature
(see Jovanovic et al 2014), but it was Lyell who spread the
word by incorporating a section on loess in volume 3 of
the Principles of Geology. The Principles was Lyells major
work, his major lifetime achievement; the continued
publication and widespread distribution ensured that loess
became widely known, and eventually studied all over the
world (see Smalley et al 2010b, 2014).

4
Lyell quickly decided that loess was a lacustrine deposit.
Material deposited in lakes could be subsequently uplifted
by one of his favoured crustal movements, and become a
dry land deposit. He at first thought that the material had
been delivered into the lake fairly quickly but he soon
changed his mind to envisage a gradual deposition. The
idea of lacustrine or water-deposited loess lasted for fifty
years until it was displaced by the hypothesis of aeolian
deposition.
Lyell was born in an important province of the British
Empire. In 1863 he had conversations with Queen Victoria
on the subject of geology. He died in 1875 and was buried
in Westminster Abbey (seven years before his friend
Charles Darwin). Geology was an important science in
Britain in the second half of the 19th Century; the major
practitioners were close to the establishment, and, thanks
largely to Darwin and Lyell, geological ideas were much
discussed. There is only one reference to loess in The
Origin of Species in which Darwin demonstrated his total
attachment to the idea of fluvial/lacustrine deposition
followed by Lyellian uplift. He used the position of the
loess to demonstrate the validity of the uplift idea.

A theory, therefore, which attempts to account for the

position of the loess cannot be satisfactory unless it be
equally applicable to the basins of the Rhine and Danube.
So far as relates to the source of so much homogeneous
loam, there are many large tributaries of the Danube
which, during the glacial period, may have carried an
ample supply of moraine mud from the Alps to that river;
and in regard to grand oscillations in the level of the land,
it is obvious that the same movements both downward
and upward of the great mountain-chain would be
attended by analogous effects, whether the great rivers
flowed northwards or eastwards. In each case fine loam
would be accumulated during subsidence and removed
during the upheaval of the land. Changes, therefore, of
level analogous to those on which we have been led to
speculate when endeavouring to solve the various
problems presented by the glacial phenomena are equally

5
available to account for the nature and geological
distribution of the loess. (Lyell 1914, p.263)

Lyell was a perceptive observer; he noted several aspects

of the Rhine loess which should have been more fully
appreciated by later scholars:

The loess is found reposing on every rock, from the

granite near Heidelberg, to the gravel of the plains of the
Rhine. It overlies almost all the volcanic products, even
those between Neuwied and Bonn, which have the most
modern aspect; and it has filled up, in part, the crater of
the Roderberg; at the bottom of which a well was sunk, in
1833, through seventy feet of loess. Here, as elsewhere, it
is a yellow loam with calcareous concretions, and has not
the character of a local alluvium.

It is remarkable, indeed, that the loess is scarcely ever

affected by the nature of the rocks which underlie or
immediately surround its site, but wherever it occurs
appears as if derived from one common source.
Lyell (1835, 1986 p.5.)

Lyell essentially offered a wet origin for loess. What

Richthofen was eventually to offer was a dry origin.

3.Richthofen (1833-1905, fig.2)

Ferdinand von Richthofen[Freiherr = Baron] was a

Silesian; he was born in Bad Carlsruhe (Pokoj, in the
Opole Voivodeship) in 1833 and he went to university in
Silesia, to the University of Breslau (now Wroclaw). He
was born in one of the provinces of the newly united
German empire.

Unbiased observation leads irresistibly to the conclusion,

that the loess of China has been formed on dry land. The
whole of that vast country which was covered by a
continuous sheet of loess, before this had undergone
destruction was one continuous prairie, probably of

6
greater elevation above the sea than the same region is
now. The loess is the residue of all inorganic matter of
numberless generations of plants, that drew new supplies
incessantly from those substances which ascending
moisture and springs carried in solution to the surface
(IS/SM emphasis). This slow accumulation of decayed
matter was assisted by the sand and dust deposited
through infinite ages, by winds. The land shells are
distributed through the whole thickness of the loess, and
their state of preservation is so perfect that they must
have lived on the spot where we now find them. They
certainly admit of no other explanation, than that here
hinted at, of the formation of the soil in which they are
imbedded. The bones of land animals, and chiefly the
roots of plants, which are all preserved in their natural
and original position, give corroborative evidence.
Richthofen (1870 p24).

Some of these early observations are of great interest and

would warrant further study; they are probably best
accessed via his diary, edited by Tiessen (1907).

In 1870 Richthofen saw wind playing a minor, subsidiary

role in the formation of loess deposits. He did not present
a confident, well worked out theory of aeolian deposition.
A well developed theory did emerge later (Richthofen
1882). A reading of this latter work (presented in the form
of a letter) suggests that Richthofen was possibly
prompted to produce it by the need to respond to the
writings of Howorth(1882; fig.3) who was vigorously
propounding a loess origin theory designed to be
compatible with the Noahs Flood version of earth history.
A long extract from the 1882 letter is perhaps justified. It
shows the geographer Richthofen pushing out into the
world of geology, and being rather piqued that his work
had not been noticed:

The first volume of my work [China] which was published

in 1877, has not been sent to the Geological Magazine
because its contents were chiefly geographical and

7
historical. One geological problem only was treated in it at
considerable length; this is, the origin of the Loess and
the mode of growth of the soil of steppes. It appears to
me, therefore, quite natural that the book should have
been taken notice of by only a few geologists. But I might
have expected that a prominent scholar should have at
least glanced at the contents of the book. Such, however,
has evidently not been done by Mr.H.H.Howorth, when he
undertook to discuss the question of the origin of the
Loess in two numbers of the [Geological] Magazine
(January and February 1882), and it appears that my
publications on the subject have completely escaped his
knowledge.

In fact a reading of Howorth (1882) shows that he did pay

considerable attention to the ideas of Richthofen, and that
these are properly discussed. And of course Howorth was
discussing the generality of theories of loess formation; he
credited Richthofen with a dry land approach but did not
discuss the minutiae of Richthofens proposals. He
produced a very fair discussion of loess theories, giving
good exposure to Lyell and Hibbert. The Richthofen
comments seem unfair and irrelevant. They were used as
an excuse for the submission of material to Geological
Magazine; perhaps Richthofen felt unsure of his status as
a geographer and needed an excuse to submit to a
geological journal. By 1882 the aeolian theory was fairly
well worked out, and it certainly influenced Obruchev and
he carried the idea of aeolian deposition with him as he
embarked on the Potanin expedition in 1892.

4.Obruchev (1863-1956, fig.4)

Vladimir Afanasevich Obruchev was born in Klepenino

near Rzhev, in the Tver Oblast of the Russian Empire.
His loess endeavours have been discussed, in particular,
by Alekseev & Dodonov (1989):

8
From the beginning of his creative career to its end
V.A.Obruchev directed his attention to the problem of
loess, always with the idea of an aeolian origin.
Obruchevs earliest work, in which he laid down the basis
of the hypothesis of aeolian origin for the loess of Central
Asia, was written immediately after his return from an
expedition in China and Central Asia and published in
1895 (Alekseyev & Dodonov 1989 p.9).

This expedition, a key moment in Obruchevs life, was the

Potanin expedition into Mongolia and the mountains of
Nan Shan and northern China, from 1892 to 1894. It was
led by Grigori Potanin (fig.5) who had founded the first
university in Russian Asia at Tomsk in 1889. The
expedition traversed some of the loess lands and
Obruchev was much affected. He was, of course,
subsequently to end up in a university in Tomsk and from
there generate his key loess paper (Obruchev 1911).

Obruchev(1952) wrote a popular piece on loess for the

literary journal Novi Mir; this is available in English
translation and is perhaps his most accessible statement
on loess nature and origins. He was lucky in the early
days; his major writings on desert loess were published
in Tomsk, in a relatively obscure journal, in Russian of
course, and were probably doomed for oblivion but a
brilliant series of articles by Merzbacher (1913) in a very
important and significant journal (in German) brought
them to wider European attention. The Merzbacher
moment was critical and when Scheidig (1934) was
writing his great book on loess he could reproduce a large
amount of Merzbacher material (see fig.6).

I would like to propose a significant amendment to

Richthofens theory on the origin of loess, based not only
on all my observations in the various parts of Central Asia
and the northern Chinese provinces covered by thick
loess, but also on the fact that I travelled from regions of
loess into southern China where loess no longer exists. I
had to take into consideration all the information available

9
on the climate of Central Asia, including accounts of sand
and dust storms. The new version of the theory is called
the aeolian theory (after aeolus- wind) and goes as
follows.

Sand and dust are products of weathering and wind

erosion. These conditions prevail in the desert regions of
inland Asia. Weathering, dry air, sharp temperature
fluctuations over a twenty-four hour period, produce a
large amount of sand and dust on all the outcrops of
bedrock and sedimentary rock. Frequent strong winds
separate the loose weathered material, which is poorly
protected by the desert and semi-desert vegetation. The
wind does not carry the coarser grains of sand as far and
they accumulate in hillocks and barkhans at the bottom
and outer edges of all the depressions. The finest particles
of sand and dust are lifted high in the air and are carried
away in a dust cloud or dust storm to the outlying areas.
They settle on the dry steppe which borders Central Asia.
The steppe soil is built up under protective plant cover by
the dust and fine particles of sand which even mix with
the soil in the oases, market gardens and fields. This
process continues day after day under the cover of
vegetation and the soil accumulates by 1-2mm per year.
Strata of loess are thus created.

According to the aeolian theory, therefore, in countries

surrounded by desert and semi-desert regions- unique
manufacturers of dust and sand (IS/SM emphasis)-
provided there is a dry climate with only 150-200 mm of
precipitation per year, dust is still being deposited and
loess is still being formed. Such conditions exist in Central
Asia. Loess exists and continues to develop there. In the
Ukraine, however, as Tutkovskii pointed out, loess
developed during the glacial period. The climate then
became more humid and chernozem was produced
instead of loess. Obruchev (1952)

How do Richthofen and Obruchev differ? Alekseev and

Dodonov (1989) have touched on this question:

10
However, the theory presented in Richthofens works on
China combined aeolian and subaqueous factors,
attributing the infilling of the major basins of northern
China with loess to the activity of both wind and streams.
Obruchev gave the name aeolian-proluvial to
Richthofens theory of the origin of loess ..

In fact the differences are not great; Obruchev appears to

be more aware of loess as a material and to give some
consideration to the origin of the particles. The essential
idea of aeolian deposition was common to both
approaches. This was the idea against which Berg
rebelled.

5.Berg (1876-1950, fig.7)

Lev Semenovich Berg was born in Bendery in 1876. At

that time Bendery (or Bender or Tighana; Smalley et al
2010a) was in Bessarabia which was part of Imperial
Russia. Berg was born in one of the more distant
provinces of the Russian empire. He was a truly great
scholar, the term scholar might have been invented to
describe Berg. His output was colossal and his expertise in
the field of ichthyology was amazing. He published 217
works on ichthyology, 30 works on general zoology and
biology, 20 on palaeontology, 32 on zoogeography, 320
articles and monographs on geography, geology and
ethnography, and 290 biographies, obituaries and popular
articles.
It may be that his denial of the importance of aeolian
deposition in the formation of loess deposits has been
overemphasized, a bit like the unfortunate connection
which has grown up between Keilhack and the cosmic
origin of loess material. Keilhack(1920) appended this
brief observation, this aside, at the end of a detailed
discussion on loess origins- to the effect that maybe a
cosmic origin would explain some of the anomalies

11
observed in loess deposition and formation processes, and
this is the thing that everybody remembers- this joke.
Maybe Berg was provoked; maybe what he should have
said is I dont think that aeolian deposition has a major
role to play in the formation of the loess deposits that we
observe in north-eastern Russia and Ukraine. Of course
thats easy for an English scholar to say, an easy piece of
dissembling but Berg was a Russian in a Russian milieu
and forthright statements were de rigeur. His work was
exposed to a wider non-Russian speaking audience via a
timely paper by Anger & Wittschell (1928). They
performed the same function (and in the same journal) as
Merzbacher (1913) did for Obruchev.

Berg wrote According to the theory which I started

developing in 1916, loess and loess-like rocks formed in-
situ, from the most diverse material, composed of fine
earth, rich in carbonates. As to the aeolian origin of loess,
I flatly deny it. (Berg 1964, p.18). That is the 1947
view, and it is not different from the 1916 view. Actually
one could amend one of his 1947 sentences and produce
a statement which fits nicely into a 2016 vision of loess
deposit formation:
The parent material of European loess was deposited
chiefly in glacial times, when rivers were carrying a great
volume of muddy waters, flooding the present-day divides
(inter-fluvial plateaus). [This material was subject to
aeolian transportation to form open-structured deposits].
But the transformation of such material into loess took
place during dry interglacial periods and in the dry
postglacial. (Berg 1964 p.143).

6.Discussion

Here is the proportionality problem: how much of the

loessness or loessicality of a loess deposit is due to
aeolian deposition of material, and how much is due to
post-depositional actions? How much do we find in the
geology box, and how much in the pedology box? This is
the nature vs. nurture debate in the loess world. A

12
Russian scholar would write about syngenetic and
epigenetic aspects of loess formation. The essential
aspects of a loess deposit- which have to be accounted
for- are the open structure and the collapsibility. The open
structure, the metastability, is due to aeolian deposition,
the collapsibility is due to post-depositional activity.

Howorth (1882, fig.3) deserves to be noted. This is a

paper which displays evidence of considerable thought
and scholarship. It survives in the scholarly consciousness
because of the connection to the Noachian idea of Earth
history, because of the wrongness of the conclusions and
because of it serving as the excuse for Richthofens
(1882) famous letter. Howorth observed that the loess..
dies out in all directions as we leave the masses of the
mountains in Central Europe, where it has its focus. The
focus of the European loess being in Central Europe is an
idea of today when the appreciation of the loess in the
northern Serbian province of Vojvodina is growing and the
critical role of the Danube is noted (Markovic et al 2015).
The focus is where Howorth placed it.
He also observed that.. the cause assigned by Baron
Richthofen would probably merely account for the transfer
of the Loess from Mongolia to China, and not.. the origin
of the Loess itself. (Howorth 1882, p.76).
Here one detects echoes of the idea of the loess material
being produced in one place and then moved, perhaps
stored, and then deposited somewhere else. The problems
of particle production and long distance transportation did
not really feature in the discussions of our four pioneers.
Lyell, Richthofen and Obruchev joined the argument half
way through and Berg turned up at the end.

7.Conclusions

Everybody was right and nobody was right. These were

the best of ideas, these were the worst of ideas. They
need to be set in context relative to the total history of
loess material and loess deposits. Lyell, Richthofen and
Obruchev were essentially describing a deposition phase

13
which resulted in a loess deposit, they offered hypotheses
of loess deposit formation. They were not concerned with
prior events such as the formation of the actual material
and the widespread distribution of the material in the
landscape. Berg took up the story after the initial deposit
was formed, he was concerned to convert material that
was already in place into something that could be defined
as loess. His approach made the actual definition of loess
very difficult- how is the moment to be marked when non-
loess becomes loess?
It is now recognized that the early events were important
in the characterization and formation of loess. The four
pioneers were focussing on some events in the middle,
and end, of a long series of events leading to the
formation of loess deposits. To provide a satisfactory view
or vision of loess it is necessary to consider all the
relevant events, and that includes events which occurred
before the actual particles were produced as well as the
whole range of geomorphological events which delivered
the loess landscapes as observed today.

8. Afterword

The history of loess involved many scholars and

investigators (Smalley et al 2013b) and many hypotheses
about mechanisms of loess deposit formation were
advanced. The four paradigms discussed represent the
most significant of these hypotheses and they show the
scientific concept of loess slowly advancing. It might be
useful to recognise, alongside these important scientific
advances, that the appreciation of loess also advanced.
Students of loess were inspired to find new deposits and
make new observations and generate an atmosphere in
which loess studies could advance. We nominate Leonard
Horner as the first great loess enthusiast(see Horner
1836); someone who should take their place in the record
of loess history. Our four scholars pushed forward the
science of loess; Horner generated enthusiasm for this
remarkable material.

14
Acknowledgements

The late Rhodes Fairbridge, initiator of the Loess History

project, provided invaluable Richthofen material. The late
N.I.Kriger provided publications relating to studies on
loessification in the Soviet Union. The Loess Letter Archive
acknowledges support from the Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy in developing the Berg collection. The late
A.Ye.Dodonov supported Obruchev studies, provided
Trofimov material and organised the critical INQUA
Carbon + Loess meeting in Moscow in 2002, from which
both authors benefitted. We dedicate this history to the
memory of Andrei Dodonov.

References

Alekseyev, M.N., Dodonov, A.Ye. 1989. The origin of loess

(modern developments of the ideas of V.A.Obruchev).
Izvestiya Akad Nauk SSSR seriya geologicheskaya no.11,
9-19. (in Russian).

Berg, L.S. 1964. Loess as a Product of Weathering and

Soil Formation. Israel Program for Scientific Translations
Jerusalem 207p. [translated by A.Gourevitch. from
Climate & Life vol.3, 1947]

Anger, H., Witschell, L. 1928. Die Loesstheorie von

L.S.Berg. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 74,
257-280.

Horner, L. 1836. On the geology of the environs of Bonn.

Transactions of the Geological Society of London 4, 433-
481.

Howorth, H.H. 1882. Traces of a great post-glacial flood;

I, the evidence of the Loess. Geological Magazine 9, 9-
18, 69-80.

15
Jovanovic, M., Gaudenyi, T., OHara-Dhand, K., Smalley,
I.J. 2014. Karl Caesar von Leonhard (1779-1862) and
the beginnings of loess research in the Rhine valley.
Quaternary International 334/5, 4-9.

Keilhack, K. 1920. Das Ratsel der Lossbildung. Zeitschrift

der Deutscher Geologische Gesellschaft 72, 146-161.
(translation [part] in Smalley 1975).

Kriger, N.I. 1965. Loess, its characteristics and relation to

the geographical environment. Nauka, Moscow 296p. (in
Russian).

Leonhard, K.C.von 1824. Charakteristik der Felsarten.

Joseph Engelmann Heidelberg. v.3 (Trummer-Gesteine;
Lose Gesteine; Kohlen) Sektion 89 Loess pp.722-724.
(reproduced in Loess Letter 67; www.loessletter.msu.edu)

Lyell, C. 1830-1833. Principles of Geology, 3 vols. Loess

in vol.3, 1833. John Murray London.

Lyell, C. 1863. The Geological Evidence of the Antiquity

of Man. John Murray London 577p.

Lyell, C. 1914. The Geological Evidence of the Antiquity

of Man. Dent London [Everymans Library 700] 407p

Lyell, C. 1986. Lyell on Loess. [reprinted from Principles

of Geology 4th ed. Vol.4, pp.44-51, 1835] Loess Letter
Supplement 8, 8p.

Markovic, S.B., Stevens, T., Kukla, G.J., Hambach, U.,

Fitzsimmons, K.E., Gibbard, P., Buggle, B., Zech, M., Guo,
Z., Hao, Q., Wu, H., OHara-Dhand, K., Smalley, I.J.,
Ujvari, G., Sumegi, P., Timar-Gabor, A., Veres, D., Sirocko,
F., Vasiljevic, D.A., Jary, Z., Svensson, A., Jovic, V.,
Kovacs, J., Svircev, Z. 2015. Danube loess stratigraphy-
towards a pan-European loess stratigraphic model. Earth
Science Reviews 148, 228-258; doi:
10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.06.005.

16
Merzbacher, G. 1913. Die Frage der Entstehung des
Loesses. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 59, 16-
18, 69-74, 126-130.

Obruchev, V.A. 1895. The processes of weathering and

deflation in Central Asia. Zapiski Mineralogicheskago
Obshchestva (World List 58291), Ser.22, pt.1, 229-272.
(in Russian).

Obruchev, V.A. 1911. The question of the origin of loess-

in defence of the aeolian hypothesis. Izvestiya Tomskogo
Tekhologicheskogo Instituta 1, 1-38. (in Russian).

Obruchev, V.A. 1945. Loess types and their origin.

American Journal of Science 243, 256-262 (reprinted in
Smalley 1975, 118-262).

Obruchev, V.A. 1952. Loess and its significance. Novi Mir

(in Russian, English translation in Loess Letter
Supplement LLS11 ).

Pye, K. 1987. Aeolian dust and dust deposits. Academic

Press London 334p.

Richthofen, F.von 1870. Letters to the Shanghai Chamber

of Commerce (1869-1872); vol.3 Honan and Shansi.
Shanghai, Shanghai Chamber of Commerce 149p.

Richthofen, F.Von 1882. On the mode of origin of the

loess. Geological Magazine 9, 293-305 (reprinted in part
in Smalley 1975 )

Rozycki, S.Z. 1991. Loess and Loess-like Deposits.

Ossolineum, Wroclaw 187p. (translation of Pylowe utwory
typu lessowego na swiecie, ich wystepowanie I geneza.
Studia Geologica Polonica 85, Warsaw 1986).

17
Scheidig, A. 1934. Der Loess und seine geotechnischen
Eigenschaften. Theodor Steinkopff, Dresden u.Leipzig
233p.

Smalley, I.J.(ed.) 1975. Loess: Lithology and Genesis.

Benchmark Papers in Geology 26. Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross, 430p.

Smalley, I.J., Jary, Z. 2004. A random walk towards a

definition of loess. New Zealand Soil News 52, 142-146.

Smalley, I.J., Markovic, S., OHara-Dhand, K., Wynn, P.

2010a. A man from Bendery: L.S.Berg as geographer and
loess scholar. GeoLogos 16, 109-117.

Smalley, I.J., Markovic, S., OHara-Dhand, K. 2010b.

Charles Lyell from 1832 to 1835: marriage, Principles, 2
trips to Heidelberg, snails and loess. Central European
Journal of GeoSciences 2, 15-18.

Smalley, I.J., OHara-Dhand, K., Kwong, J. 2013a. China:

materials for a loess landscape. Catena 117, 100-107.

Smalley, I.J., Smalley, G., OHara-Dhand, K., Jary, K.,

2013b. The Loess Biobibliographical Project, with some
emphasis on Polish investigators [in memory of Jerzy
Cegla]. Quaternary International 296, 7-14.

Smalley, I.J., Gaudenyi, T., Jovanovic, M. 2014. Charles

Lyell and the loess deposits of the Rhine valley.
Quaternary International
doi.10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.047.

Tiessen, E.(ed.) 1907. Ferdinand von Richthofens

Tagebucher aus China. Bd.1. Dietrich Reimer Berlin 644p.

Wilson, L.G. 1972. Charles Lyell: The years to 1841: The

revolution in geology. Yale University Press New Haven
553p.

18
Wool, D. 2001. Charles Lyell The Father of Geology:as a
forerunner of modern ecology. Oikos 94, 385-391.

Figure Captions

1. Charles Lyell, in 1835, two years after the publication

of volume three of Principles of Geology; picture in the
National Portrait Gallery, London. Volume 3 of PoG is
the critical volume containing the mention of loess in
the Rhine valley.

2. Ferdinand von Richthofen; between 1870 and 1882

he developed the aeolian theory of loess deposit
formation; the persistent paradigm theory of loess
formation.

3. H.H.Howorth; he provided the excuse for Richthofen

to publish his modified and developed theory of aeolian
deposition in the Geological Magazine.

4. V.A.Obruchev: the leading Russian protagonist of the

aeolian theory of loess deposition; exposed to desert
loess during his participation in the Potanin expedition.

5. Grigori Potanin; leader of the 1892-1894 expedition

to north China and associated regions. Founder of the
University of Tomsk.

6. Desert loess phenomena(via Merzbacher (1913),

Scheidig (1934), see Smalley et al (2013a). Obruchev
appears to show the origin of loess material in a totally
desert setting.

7. L.S.Berg: this is an early picture of Berg, while he

was concerned with fishery matters in the Aral Sea region.

19