Moving on from 1978: A bird’s eye view of loess in Central & Eastern Europe

Ian Smalley, Ken O’Hara-Dhand

Giotto Loess Research Group

Geography Department, Leicester University, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
(ijs4@le.ac.uk)

Studies are underway (to which contributions are invited) to describe the distribution of loess in
Central and Eastern Europe, and to account for its nature and formation processes [see
www.loessletter.co.uk - Danubian section]. The idea is to provide an overall view; in Freeman
Dyson’s terms, a bird view rather than a frog view. In more austere philosophical terms, to
provide a nomothetic view rather than an idiographic view. Nomothetic means related to, or
unified by a theory- so perhaps we are seeking a theory of the loess for Central and Eastern
Europe. Certainly the aim is to link sources of material, transportation routes and mechanisms
and reasons for depositional concentrations. The old P, T, and D factors need to be looked at,
and linked, and many extra aspects need to be explored.
Why 1978?- well, that was the last time a widespread view of the loess in Central and Eastern
Europe was attempted (if one ignores the completed INQUA Loess Map of Europe- which did not
particularly focus on C & E Europe); the Smalley-Leach review of 1978 looked at loess in the
Danube basin and associated regions. It represented a first attempt to link loess studies from
many countries, in many traditions, in many languages, into a proper comprehensive whole. The
authors expected that larger and better reviews would follow- but none have. So the 1978 review
is to be updated.

Many things have changed since 1978- some make the reviewers task easier, some more
difficult. A lot of loess papers have been published in the last 30+ years so the bibliographic pool
is larger and deeper. But most of these papers are in English(Globish) so less linguistic dexterity
is required. The geography has changed, international borders have appeared and moved,
countries that did not have an overt existence in 1978 now definitely exist and thrive, and add
literature to the loess pool. Since 1978 we have entered the eworld and this has to be taken into
account by scholars and reviewers- a useful way forward might include the establishment of a
comprehensive online bibliography, modelled on the Bibliography of Aeolian Research; possibly a
Bibliography of Danubian & East European Loess, ideally based in some important East
European loess centre.

New ideas and new realizations. Smalley & Leach recognised that stratigraphy and engineering
geology and archaeology and soil science were important for an overall, integrated view of loess,
but their focus was definitely on sedimentology (underpinning the above), and the review was
published in a sedimentological journal. They were concerned with sedimentological factors and
variables, very much a focus on material origins, modes of transportation and factors affecting
deposition. With respect to material origins they were very attached to the idea of glacial action as
a provider of loess particles, and they placed far too much emphasis on the ice-sheet affected
‘Northern Band’. Much of the revision required will involve moving the focus away from this
northern band towards the mountainous regions which are the alternative suppliers of loess
particles. Also it would be agreeable if a much wider vision of the loess could be presented. The
loess in Central Europe enfolds the Gravettian (say 20,000-40,000 BP) the period in which
humanity really took on the characteristics of modern man. The Venus of Willendorf , found in the
loess a hundred years ago, represents the beginning of art, and it would be a major achievement
if we could somehow knit together the studies on the nature, formation, properties and history of
loess with the human events that are coeval. The idea that the loess contributes to the nature and
development of humanity is attractive. The idea of loess lands as mammoth environments also
needs more consideration.
Moravian Gate. The Moravian Gate, the geographical region connecting the plains of northern
Europe to the interiors of the Danube basin, was definitely featured in the Smalley Leach review.
They were attracted to the Moravian Gate precisely because it offered a passage for glacial
materials from the glacierized north to pass into the Danubian lands to the south. In the 30+ years
since the Smalley Leach review opinions about the Moravian Gate have oscillated. Once it was
realised that the northern glaciers were perhaps not such great contributors to European loess as
had been thought there was a reaction against the Moravian Gate transit idea. But examination of
recent maps of loess distribution in Europe and an appreciation of the route of the river
Morava/March suggest that maybe Smalley Leach were right. This is a problem needing
discussion. This could well be a region where some geochemistry should be deployed and source
rocks clearly identified. Buggle and collegues have made careful comparisons of loess material
from various sites in Eastern Europe and clearly revealed different (interesting) sources. The
geochemical plan needs loess which could have passed through the Moravian Gate to be
examined. The loess in the gate is certainly receiving intense archaeological examination and
Gravettian data is being produced (see Moravian Gate project www.arch.cam.ac.uk). If loess
material can be carried through the Iron Gates perhaps it can be transported through the
Moravian Gate. [We assume that ’gate’ is used in the Viking sense, as in York or Leicester, to
mean a thoroughfare rather than a door].

Northern Band. What about the Northern Band? Here is another Smalley Leach concept which
needs considerable thougjht and discussion. Smalley and Leach emphasised the Northern Band
because they were committed to a glacial loess idea- they liked the idea of loess material being
produced by continental ice-sheets; and were not so conmitted to loess material being produced
by mountain glaciers or other mountain phenomena. So there was a subtle downplaying of the
Alpine and to a greater extent the Carpathian loess in the 1978 review. So the Northern Band is
the recipient of glacial loess material and is a major feature of European loess distribution. This
idea even influenced Haase and the INQUA map makers who included a northern band in their
list of loess regions. Smalley and Leach were probably influenced by Charlesworth and his
descriptions of loess distribution in the 1957 Quaternary book. Charlesworth had loess as a
‘periglacial accumulation’ which forces the idea of loess gathering at the limits of the continental
ice sheet. Think of loess as a mountain material and the perspective changes. Consider loess
near Wroclaw, starting point for the 2011 Loess Adventure; this was firmly placed by Smalley
Leach into the Northern Band, but simple cartographical consideration suggests very strongly that
this is Carpathian loess, carried north by the Odra river. If the overbearing northern band is
diminished this is a much more reasonable loess genesis story.

Regions D1-D5. Smalley Leach demarcated five regions within the Danube basin as
concentrations of loess; classic oversimplification- but in fact based directly on the 1930s
Grahmann map of loess distribution in Europe. Region D1 is the north Alpine Foreland- more or
less as mentioned by Haase et al. Region D2 is the Moravian Gate region. Regions D3 and D4
parallel the south flowing Danube in Hungary, and D5 is the loess in Bulgaria and Romania,
adjacent to the Danube. Now we would like to indicate a major confluence region where the rivers
Danube, Drava, Sava and Tisza all contribute material and the great deposits of Voyvodina are
found. This region was mentioned by Smalley Leach and their bibliographical sweep of the area
was quite impressive, but latterday geographical realisations indicate that this is a special loess
area and needs to be earmarked within the generally impressive loess regions of East and
Central Europe. There is an appreciation of the importance of rivers in the location and formation
of loess deposits. The fluvial structure of the Danube basin suggests two regions where loess
should be well developed- related to inputs from the largest tributaries. So there should be a
loess region just downstream of the Inn-Danube confluence, and another in the vicinity of the
Danube-Drava-Sava-Tisza confluence. This latter region is now recognised as a very significant
loess region; here we find sites such as Stari Slankamen, possibly the best loess stratigraphical
sites in Europe.
Geotechnical problems often arise when loess ground is encountered. The classic problem is
one of hydroconsolidation and subsidence; this is a problem directly caused by the special nature
of loess. Loess is a metastable material, and in many cases is a collapsible material. There
seems to be fairly general agreement that the ‘small clay model’ of hydroconsolidation is
applicable. It also appears that the basic collapse mechanism as well as causing subsidence is
also responsible for the early stages of landslide failure in loess ground. A neat link can also be
made between loessification and hydroconsolidation. Two major studies have looked at the
proposal to construct a nuclear waste repository in the deep Danubian loess near the Kozloduy
nuclear power station in north Bulgaria. The idea of placing waste in a repository between the S1
and S2 palaeosols appears to be sensible.