Back Aa

Romance of Modern Geology

<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</h2> <h3>THE EARTH'S SHAPE</h3></div> We have compared the earth to a golf ball, and as it spins through space, impelled by a force millions of times greater than the strongest driver ever imparted to the best-made "Haskell," its flight and general appearance are not unlike those of the rubber-cored ball. The earth, for one thing, is not smooth; it has roughnesses and corrugations all over its surface, similar to those of a golf ball, though much less regular, and it spins as it flies. But let us now consider the differences. Suppose the golf ball had a spot of water clinging to it as water clings to a greasy shot. Where would the water lie? The first answer that occurs to one is that the water would be shaken off the ball in the course of its flight; and that is, indeed, very likely. But suppose the water were very sticky, or were very much attracted by the golf ball (which is another way of stating the same supposition), where would it lie then? To that we can only say that there does not seem any very evident reason why it should lie on one part of the flying golf ball more than on any other—if the golf ball were perfectly round. -30- That is, on the whole, a reasonable answer. But apply the same reasoning to the question of where the waters of the earth in the shape of oceans ought to lie as they cling to the spinning globe. They cling to the globe, not because they are sticky, but because of the attraction which we say is due to gravity—the force which makes everything in nature attract every other thing, and which makes everything tend to fall to the earth (and to stay there). They do so because the earth, being so very heavy and bulky in comparison with anything in its neighbourhood, has such an enormous pull. How great that pull is may be dimly gathered from the reflection that though the earth is spinning at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, nothing is ever shaken off. The oceans are not shaken off. They cling. But why is it that they are not equally distributed all over the face of the earth? If a map of the earth be examined, or still better a globe with the oceans and continents correctly drawn on it, it will be found that there is a great mass of land all lying grouped together on one side of the earth, and a great basin of waters on the other. Let the reader imagine himself a thousand miles above the earth, looking down at a point in it about midway between Madeira and the Bermudas. What would he see? He would see the Atlantic Ocean, but all around it would be grouped great masses of land—Europe, Africa, North America, Asia—and if it were his first sight of the earth and he knew nothing of its geography, he would be likely to suppose that the earth was nearly all land, with one comparatively small stretch of unfrozen -31- ocean. But now let the reader move round the earth to a point exactly opposite that at which he took his first observations and look down again. He will now see the Australian continent and the land which covers the South Pole, but except for the pointed tail of South America, and perhaps a glimpse of the blunter point of South Africa, he will be looking down on a globe which seems to be largely covered with water. Why should this be? It must be due to the shape of the earth. The fact is, the earth would make a very bad golf ball. It is by no means of that perfection of symmetry which they say enables a golf ball to fly well and to run true on the putting greens. The earth is, in fact, not perfect as a sphere, either within or without. Its centre is not in the same place as the centre of its weight, and it is not round in shape. Everybody has heard that the earth is slightly flattened at the poles; but its irregularity goes much further than that. If we could strip it of its oceans, which fill up a good many of its imperfections, we should find its shape not that of a neat, round golf ball at all. The earth's actual shape without its oceans, its "geoid," as it is called, is that of a pear. The stalk of the pear is in the southern part of Australia, and contains Australasia and the Antarctic continent. This is surrounded on all sides but one (towards South America) by a sort of belt of depression in which the waters lie. That is the waist of the pear. This again is surrounded on all sides but one (towards the east of Japan) by a belt of elevation. That is the protuberant part of the pear, and here the great continental -32- land areas rise. Finally, we find the nose of the pear in the central Atlantic, between the Madeiras and the Bermudas. Of course, the resemblance to a pear is not a very marked one. Our observer a thousand miles above the earth would not be able to perceive it, nor would the astronomers in the moon, if any astronomers existed there. But the earth is pear-shaped to a small extent nevertheless, and in the case of such an enormous mass a very slight deviation from rotundity will produce very great effects. Most of us have played at such ball games as bowls or billiards; and I have assumed that everybody knows something about golf. What happens in a game at bowls to the bowl which is not evenly weighted all through? It will not run straight. It has a bias. What happens to a billiard ball which is not perfectly round, or has lost its symmetry through age? It wobbles. And what happens to a badly made golf ball? That performs all sorts of exasperating antics. It ducks, it soars, it curls, it takes a slice. It also wobbles. Now that is exactly what the spinning, unevenly shaped globe which we call the earth has been doing for millions of years. It has been wobbling; and as we showed in the last chapter, it has always been trying to right itself. Thus the two poles have not always been in the same position; the oceans have not always been where they are. The waters have sometimes crawled up the land towards the poles and sometimes receded. Regions that have sometimes been frozen and cold have become warmer, and have covered themselves now with oceans, and now with -33- forests, and now with deserts. There is no corner of the whole world which has not undergone changes of climate. These changes are very slow. There is no reason for supposing, in spite of the laments we sometimes hear about the loss of old-fashioned winters and old-fashioned summers, that the climate of England, for example, has changed in the least since Cæsar's legions landed on its shores. The Roman settlers in Britain doubtless experienced sloppy winters and wet summers now and again, just as we do; and King Arthur's knights, no doubt, had their saddening experiences of November fogs. Yet slowly and surely changes of climate do take place, and nothing except the winds influence them more than does the presence of a neighbouring sea or ocean. Most of us reckon the warmth of a locality's climate by the distance it is from the pole. That is, however, a very rough and ready method. Vladivostok is roughly the same distance from the North Pole as Venice; but there is a good deal of difference in the temperature of the two places. In Manchuria when the Russians and Japanese were entrenched before Mukden men died of cold and were frozen at their posts at a time when other people in Mentone and Monte Carlo, at the same distance from the Arctic Circle, were complaining of the heat. So that we see that it must not be assumed that a place like England (where for two thousand years we occasionally have had winters that would kill trees like eucalyptus or fig trees, and where oranges could never ripen in the open air) was always equally cold. It may have been, -34- in fact we know it must have been, warm enough once to encourage and support what resembled a tropical vegetation. It must also have been at one time as cold as Siberia in the winter. Therefore we should expect to find, if we digged down in the earth, or in any portion of the earth which had undergone these changes, some traces of them. For example, if at one time the sea covered England for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, depositing the remains of millions of animals on the sea's bottom during that period, we should expect to find some traces of these remains—perhaps in the form of chalk, seeing that the bones and shells of fishes dwelling in the sea contain a good deal of lime. Or again, if a forest covered England and grew and decayed there, not merely for a period like that which has elapsed since the Romans first set foot in Britain, but for a hundred times as long, we should expect to find some sort of vegetable deposit, hardened most probably by other layers above it. Do we? Well, coal is a vegetable deposit. If there was a time when ice covered the land we should expect to find traces of that; if a time when the land was desert; or when it was a lake—each and every one of these periods ought to leave some remains, some epitaph of itself. So they do. Let us for a moment consider with Sir Archibald Geikie[1] the subsoil beneath cities that have been inhabited for many centuries. In London, for example, when excavations are made for drainage, building, and other purposes, there are sometimes found, many feet -35- below the level of the present streets, mosaic pavements and foundations, together with earthern vessels, bronze implements, ornaments, coins, and other relics of Roman time. Now if we knew nothing from actual authentic history of the existence of such a people as the Romans these discoveries deep beneath the surface of modern London would prove that long before the present streets were built the site of the city was occupied by a civilised race which employed bronze and iron for the useful purposes of life, had a metal coinage, and showed not a little artistic skill in its pottery, glass, and sculpture. But down beneath the rubbish wherein the Roman remains are embedded lie gravels and sands from which rudely fashioned human implements of flint, arrow-heads, hammers, and the like have been obtained. From that we learn that before the Romans came an earlier race had been there which employed weapons and instruments of roughly chipped flint. <div class="footnote"> [1] Sir Archibald Geikie's Introduction to Geology. </div> We have no doubt that this was the order of the successive peoples occupying the site of London. It is obvious. Why is it? We see that there are, broadly, three layers or deposits. The upper layer is that which encloses the foundations and rubbish of our own era and times. Next below is that which encloses the relics of Roman occupation. At the bottom lies that which encloses the scanty traces of the early flint-folk. The uppermost deposit is necessarily the newest, for it could not be laid down until after the accumulation of those below it; and those below it must be progressively older, as they are traced deeper from the surface. By the mere -36- fact that the layers lie one above the other we are furnished with a simple clue which enables us to determine the order of their formation. We may know nothing whatever as to how old they are, measured by years or centuries. But we can be absolutely certain that the bottom layer came first, and the top layer came last. This kind of observation will enable us to find proofs everywhere that the surface of the land has not always been what it is to-day. In some districts, for example, when the dark layer of soil in which vegetables grow is turned up, there may be found beneath it sand and gravel full of smooth, well-rounded stones. Such materials are to be seen in course of formation where water keeps them moving to and fro, as on the beds of rivers, the margins of lakes, or the shallow shores of the sea. Wherever smooth-rolled pebbles occur they point to the influence of moving water, so that we conclude, even though the site is now dry, that water once moved above it. Again, below the soil in other regions lie layers of oysters and other sea shells. Pits, quarries, and mines that cut down still deeper into the earth and lay it bare bring before our eyes most impressive testimony regarding the ancient changes of the land. Suppose, by way of further illustration, that underneath a bed of sand full of oyster shells there lies a dark brown band of peat. This substance, composed of mosses and other water-loving plants, is formed in boggy places by the growth of marshy vegetation. Below the peat there might occur a layer of soft white marl full of lake shells, such as may be observed on the bottom of -37- many lakes at the present time. These three layers—oyster beds, peat, and marl—would be like a family pedigree showing the history of the place. The bottom layer of white marl would show that there was once a lake. The next layer of peat would show that by the growth of marshy vegetation the lake became choked up and was gradually changed into a swamp and then a morass. The other layer of oyster shells would show that the ground was afterwards submerged by the sea. The present condition of the ground would show that the sea at last retired, and the place passed into dry land as it is to-day. By such a method of examination we may frame for ourselves pictures of the earth's surface long before history began, or before man roamed the earth. It is for this reason that geology has been called the science that investigates the history of the earth. The records in which this history is chronicled are the soils and rocks underneath our feet. It is the task of the geologist so to arrange and interpret these records as to show through what successive changes the globe has passed, and how the dry land came to wear the aspect which it presents at the present time. To do this efficiently the geologist has to learn many things. He has to observe very closely the changes which are going on about him on the world's surface. Only in so far as he makes himself acquainted with these sudden changes can he hope to follow intelligently and successfully the story of earlier phases in the earth's progress. Nor is it sufficient to observe, however closely, inanimate -38- things. If he did not know the peculiarities of fresh-water shells, how would he be able to say the shells in the marl deposit were fresh-water animals (and that therefore a lake once lay there) and not sea shells. If the labour of the geologist were concerned merely with the former changes of the earth's surface—how sea and land have changed places, how rivers have altered their courses, how valleys have been dug out, and how mountains have been carved, how plains have been spread out, and how all these things have been written on the framework of the earth—he would still feel one very great want, the want of living interest. But that also his science gives him, for in these past eras living things dwelt and moved and had their being. And it is one of the most entrancing pursuits of the geologist to trace their lives, their descent and ascent, and the relics of themselves that they left. <hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -39- <div style="break-after:column;"></div>

1 of 2

2 of 2

Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.