The development of periglacial geomorphology: 1‐ up to 1965

Abstract

The earliest observations upon cold, non‐glacial processes and phenomena were made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the European explorers of the vast sub‐arctic regions of North America and Eurasia. The initial beginnings of periglacial geomorphology can be traced to Lozinski and the participants of the XI International Geological Congress excursion to Spitzbergen in 1910–11. The real growth in periglacial geomorphology occurred in the two decades after the Second World War. By the mid‐1960s periglacial geomorphology was recognized as a descriptive branch of climatic geomorphology. There were two broad sub‐categories: (i) Pleistocene and Quaternary studies dealing largely with the mid‐latitudes, and (ii) present‐day process studies conducted in the sub‐arctic and arctic regions of North America and Scandinavia. Permafrost studies were being conducted in relative isolation in North America and the Soviet Union, not only to each other, but also to mainstream periglacial geomorphology. The merging of all these interests, and the development of quantitative, process‐oriented studies aimed at understanding periglacial landforms did not come about for several more decades. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Deformation of debris-ice mixtures

“…Although exploration and modest infrastructure development in the Arctic have been ongoing for centuries, efforts began in earnest following World War II, with expanding resource exploitation and military installation in the high Northern latitudes [ Linell and Johnston , ; French , ]. Understanding both the short‐term load‐bearing capacity and the long‐term creep behavior of frozen ground became essential to develop and maintain infrastructure in these cold regions.…”

Geomorphic signatures of glacial activity in the Alba Patera volcanic province: Implications for recent frost accumulation on Mars

“…[13] At the pole-facing slope of the crater wall, a wide network of polygon-shaped features with sharp, crisply delineated, and low center features bounded by thin, wide troughs and boulders plugged at the edges can be very frequently seen [Levy et al, 2009]. These polygons have been termed as thermal contraction crack polygons (TCPs) and morphologically represented and studied in the past while comparing their formation mechanism with that of terrestrial analogue polygonal features [van Gasselt et al, 2005;Levy et al, 2006Levy et al, , 2008aLevy et al, , 2008bLevy et al, , 2009Levy et al, , 2010b. TCPs have been also used extensively in previous studies in the interpretation of climate history, stratigraphy of periglacial and glacial activities, and polar hydrology and in cold desert ecology [Leffingwell, 1915;Lachenbruch, 1962;Washburn, 1973;Marchant et al, 1993Marchant et al, , 2002Doran et al, 2002;French, 2003;Kowalewski et al, 2006;Marchant and Head, 2007;Levy et al, 2008aLevy et al, , 2008bLevy et al, , 2009.…”

From climatic to global change geomorphology: contemporary shifts in periglacial geomorphology

“…In the following years audacious periglacial interpretations were proposed, such as the one of remnants of Pleistocene pingos for rampart-enclosed depressions found throughout the Belgian uplands (Pissart 1956). As stressed by French (2003), the growth of Pleistocene periglacial studies in Europe owes much to Cailleux, the first secretary of the International Geographical Union Periglacial Commission established in 1949, who employed sedimentological techniques and microscopy to study past and present niveo-aeolian deposits. His articles were later expanded in a book entitled Cryopédologie, the first formal periglacial text published in French (Cailleux & Taylor 1954).…”

“…Excellent overviews covering the period have been produced by key actors of the periglacial community (e.g. Barsch 1993;French 2003;French & Thorn 2006). The idea is to deliver an additional and somewhat continental view, characterized by the long-lasting influence of historical geomorphology and the pervasiveness of geological factors as the main control on landform evolution.…”