WE come now to a much more reasonable hypothesis, and one not without numerous
advocates even to this day, to wit: that the drift-deposits were caused by icebergs
floating down in deep water over the sunken land, loaded with dris from
the Arctic shores, which they shed as they melted in the warmer seas of the south.
This hypothesis explains the carriage of enormous blocks weighing hundreds
of tons from their original site to where they are now found; but it is open to
many unanswerable objections.
In the first place, if the Drift had been deposited under water deep enough
to float icebergs, it would present throughout unquestionable evidences of stratification,
for the reason that the larger masses of stone would fall more rapidly than the
smaller, and would be found at the bottom of the deposit. If, for instance, you
were to go to the top of a shot-tower, filled with water, and let loose at the
same moment a quantity of cannon-balls, musket-balls, pistol-balls, duck-shot,
reed-bird shot, and fine sand, all mixed together, the cannon-balls would reach
the bottom first, and the other missiles in the order of their size; and the deposit
at the bottom would be found to be regularly stratified, with the sand and the
finest shot on top. But nothing of this kind is found in the Drift, especially
in the "till"; clay, sand, gravel, stones, and bowlders are all found mixed together
in the utmost confusion, "higgledy-piggledy, pell-mell."
"Neither can till owe its origin to icebergs. If it had been distributed over
the sea-bottom, it would assuredly have shown some kind of arrangement. When an
iceberg drops its rubbish, it stands to reason that the heavier blocks will reach
the bottom first, then the smaller stones, and lastly the finer ingredients. There
is no such assortment visible, however, in the normal 'till,' but large and small
stones are scattered pretty equally through the clay, which, moreover, is quite
This fact alone disposes of the iceberg theory as an explanation of the Drift.
Again: whenever deposits are dropped in the sea, they fall uniformly and cover
the surface below with a regular sheet, conforming to the inequalities of the
ground, no thicker in one place than another. But in the Drift this is not the
case. The deposit is thicker in the valleys and thinner on the hills, sometimes
absent altogether on the higher elevations.
"The true bowlder-clay is spread out over the region under consideration as
a somewhat widely extended and uniform sheet, yet it may be said to fill up all
small valleys and depressions, and to be thin or absent on ridges or rising grounds."
That is to say, it fell as a snow-storm falls, driven by high winds; or as
a semi-fluid mass might be supposed to fall, draining down from the elevations
and filling up the hollows.
Again: the same difficulty presents itself which we found in the case of "the
waves of transplantation." Where did the material of the Drift come from? On what
sea-shore, in what river-beds, was this incalculable mass of clay, gravel, and
[1. "The Great Ice Age," p. 72.
2. "American Cyclopia," vol. vi, p. 112.]
Again: if we suppose the supply to have existed on the Arctic coasts, the question
Would the icebergs have carried it over the face of the continents?
Mr. Croll has shown very clearly that the
icebergs nowadays usually sail down into the oceans without a scrap of dris
of any kind upon them.
Again: how could the icebergs have made the continuous scratchings or stri
found under the Drift nearly all over the continents of Europe and America? Why,
say the advocates of this theory, the icebergs press upon the bottom of the sea,
and with the stones adhering to their base they make those stri
But two things are necessary to this: First, that there should be a force great
enough to drive the berg over the bottom of the sea when it has once grounded.
We know of no such force. On the contrary, we do know that wherever a berg grounds
it stays until it rocks itself to pieces or melts away. But, suppose there was
such a propelling force, then it is evident that whenever the iceberg floated
clear of the bottom it would cease to make the strive, and would resume them only
when it nearly stranded again. That is to say, when the water was deep enough
for the berg to float clear of the bottom of the sea, there could be no stri
when the water was too shallow, the berg would not float at all, and there would
be no stri The berg would mark the rocks only where it neither floated clear
nor stranded. Hence we would find strionly at a certain elevation, while the
rocks below or above that level would be free from them. But this is not the case
with the drift-markings.
[1. "Climate and Time," p. 282.]
They pass over mountains and down into the deepest valleys; they are
universal within very large areas; they cover the face of continents and disappear
under the waves of the sea.
It is simply impossible that the Drift was caused by icebergs. I repeat, when
they floated clear of the rocks, of course they would not mark them; when the
water was too shallow to permit them to float at all, and so move onward, of course
they could not mark them. The striations would occur only when the water was;
just deep enough to float the berg, and not deep enough to raise the berg clear
of the rocks; and but a small part of the bottom of the sea could fulfill these
Moreover, when the waters were six thousand feet deep in New England, and four
thousand feet deep in Scotland, and over the tops of the Rocky Mountains, where
was the rest of the world, and the life it contained?
Keep this website alive, a Donation will be highly appreciated
Please consider a donation supporting our efforts.
Please report broken links to the
This is a Non-Commercial Web page, © 1998-2011 L.C.Geerts The Netherlands all rights reserved.
It is strictly forbidden to publish or copy anything of my book without permission of the author, permission is granted for the recourses, for personal use only.